Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Imagination as Evidence for the External Worl

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 1:49:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*World

A lot of people say solipsism can't be refuted. I think there is evidence against solipsism and it comes from the imagination itself. This is an idea I formed myself. It stems off of David Hume's theory of impressions.

We can only form physical ideas of things by what we have experienced, for the most part at least. We cannot form images of things if we haven't experienced some idea of the physical conceptions in that image. A pink flying unicorn for example, comes from our previous knowledge of a horse, horns, pink and wings. We combine ideas to make new ideas. If we never see color, we can't imagine it. If we never experienced anything, we couldn't make mental images of physical things. According to solipsism, there is no experience, only imagination. But we cannot imagine what we have not seen. The mind needs experience before it can imagine things. My whole life cannot be my own imagination because I couldn't imagine anything if my mind had nothing to imagine with. Solipsism is logically implausible because the mind just cannot be capable of its incredible imagination without having actually experienced anything. While I disagree with Locke and other empiricists that our mind is, at the beginning, like a blank sheet, it can't be full of ideas before there's been anything to give it those ideas.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 2:31:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That unduly presupposes the empiricist philosophy of mind. Why must all our thoughts be derived from sense impressions?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 3:12:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/16/2013 2:31:02 PM, Noumena wrote:
That unduly presupposes the empiricist philosophy of mind. Why must all our thoughts be derived from sense impressions?

I was hoping I wouldn't give off that impression. No, not all thoughts, and I'm not at all an empiricist. But more like mental images of physical things, for the most part. Whether you can do so partially without experience, our ability to imagine is far above what someone could do without experience. You can see my disclaimer at the end.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 3:20:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Doesn't your argument assume that the laws of our world are true? I can make a computer game and have people walk through walls because it makes sense in that universe.

You can't refute solipsism because it can always go outside of the logic of our world.

The best argument against BELIEVING (there is a difference) in solipsism is that you have no reason to believe in it.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 3:29:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The thing is, your argument is based upon evidence that already assumes the external world exists -i.e., it's circular.

The only reason we think things which are imaginary are vague and undetailed relative to things we actually experience is that we can make the comparison between things which are real and things which are imaginary - but then, you've already assumed solipsism is false at that point.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 3:29:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/16/2013 3:20:21 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Doesn't your argument assume that the laws of our world are true? I can make a computer game and have people walk through walls because it makes sense in that universe.

You can't refute solipsism because it can always go outside of the logic of our world.

The best argument against BELIEVING (there is a difference) in solipsism is that you have no reason to believe in it.


Occam's razor?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 3:30:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem is you are presupposing a model of cognition that implies the existence of an external world, essentially begging the question.

Here is the model:

External world -> external stimulus (world reacts with body) -> processing (stimulus reaches brain) -> processing -> cognition & response

Then you're saying that eliminating the external world is nonsensical, as there would be nothing which we would be cognizant of or could response to.

Certainly. That's almost tautological. But, if the external world doesn't exist and yet we have awareness of something, then is clear that another model is in place. You'd have to show that the above is the only model possible or reasonable.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 5:28:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your argument is based on logic, which is cognitive. Thus, your argument does not hold true.

Solipsism falls into the trap of supposing a system then saying its supposition is wrong. If you start saying "suppose this is true", then your conclusion is "therefore the supposition is wrong", you can't suppose the supposition anymore. Or, to make that simpler, you can't say logic exists, therefore it doesn't exist, then proceed as if it does to disprove other things.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 5:29:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm pretty sure solipsism is the only philosophical idea that refutes itself with no added help. It's like nihilism for people too scared to be nihilists.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 5:57:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/16/2013 5:29:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I'm pretty sure solipsism is the only philosophical idea that refutes itself with no added help. It's like nihilism for people too scared to be nihilists.

What are you taking about? I didn't see any refutation of solipsism in your previous post.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 6:15:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The difference between consciousness in waking and dream sleep and be compared to the difference in conscoiusness between dream sleep and deep sleep without dreams. We would not consider a shift from the second to third state to be evidence of a different universe, so why is the shift from the first to second such a thing?

I bring this up specifically because Hindus liken our waking, dream, and deep sleep states to part of the same illusion, and thus being awake or in a dream does not signify one is outside of an illusion.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 11:22:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your OP also relies a bit too much on induction (even if we ignore the point a few others brought up, like presupposing external reality). In the past external stimuli give rise to impressions, therefore impressions must mean external stimuli. Besides the circularity point you're still relying on induction which is sort of ironic since you got the idea from reading Hume.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 11:25:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Haven't I refuted it myself already?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 11:40:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/16/2013 11:25:36 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Haven't I refuted it myself already?

Second post I've seen in the last 20 minutes where you opt to say you already refuted an argument, rather than actually refuting it.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 11:52:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/16/2013 11:40:20 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/16/2013 11:25:36 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Haven't I refuted it myself already?

Second post I've seen in the last 20 minutes where you opt to say you already refuted an argument, rather than actually refuting it.

I don't need to refute it again if I already have: [http://www.debate.org...]
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)