Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Pat Harrington · Guest

danny_purvis@hotmail.com (Danny Purvis) wrote in message news:<9a2dfd4d.0309260917.4881c733@posting.google.com>...
[quote]Lester and Danny,
Hello! I was just curious if either and/or both of you realised
that it is mathematically possible, given current understanding of our
3-spatial-one temporal space-time existing in a 26-dimensional space
governed by the symmetries of octonion algebra, for the solipsist to
be correct? It would still be impossible to prove absolutely but,
with a bit more work in understanding the effects of resonance in
tubulin electrons, we might gain a greater insight and, possibly,
logically deduce an answer.
Cheers,
Pat

Pat!

Good one! Very amusing joke, but of course entirely impossible. A
solipsist believes that she is the only experiencer. But I have
experience, so the solipsist cannot be correct, unless I am the
solipsist. But I am not a solipsist. So there are no correct
solipsists.

Danny Purvis
[/quote]
Danny,
I thought you might respond like you did. ***I am not for a
moment saying that it is the case but that it is possible that the
solipsist>s view could be more accurate.*** If, for the sake of
argument, we assume that, in one of the various dimensions of this
26-dimensional space-time, all quanta of energy had the same
coordinate or value, the result, logically, would be that all energy
is tied together. This means that there would only really be one
object and the universe we know and love is an interplay of many of
Its parts (the "It" being the 26-dimensional space-time). That would
imply that any consciousness that is felt is the consciousness of that
one object. "You" perceive only the consciousness that is "yours" and
have a tendency to perceive that consciousness experienced in other
parts of "It" is somehow different than "you". This is probably a
good (life-affirming) thing considering the aggressive nature of
energy in certain neighbourhoods. But, if there is only one object,
all thoughts are owned by that object. You are that object. I am
that object. "I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all
together" or something of the sort. In this scenario, which IS
mathematically possible, there exists one object. This object is made
up of energy and energy behaves in many ways. We don>t know them all
and we probably aren>t even really very close. This object would own
all the thoughts and would therefore be omniscient, which is knowing
everything that is knowable. It wouldn>t know what a rock thinks
because rocks don>t share in this consciousness aspect of energy--they
don>t think. That>s not to say they don>t exist. You don>t get "I
don>t think therefore I am not". This object would be everywhere,
therefore omnipresent and, since it is the only thing that exists it
is the only thing able to do anything. That makes it omnipotent, as
it is able to do everything that can be done. So, to cut a long story
short, you can be the cake and eat it too!! As I said above, there is
absolutely no way at present to prove or disprove such a unique
coordinate in a part of space-time we don>t have access too. It isn>t
here (in physical space). But it is mathematically possible and this
lends credence to the possibility that things are not as we perceive
them to be. Humans are notorious for misperception but we mustn>t let
that stand in the way of logic. Their (solipsist>s) stance is
supportable by one of several permutations of values in non-physical
space using perfectly accepted mathematical physics. Right or wrong,
it>s possible.
Cheers,
Pat

Lester Zick · Guest

On 26 Sep 2003 10:10:53 -0700, danny_purvis@hotmail.com (Danny Purvis)
in sci.cognitive wrote:

[quote]lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote

I don>t understand what you are referring to as the two meanings of
the subjective. The only meaning I>ve referred to for analytical
purposes is the idea that the subjective and objective are
necessarily
different whatever else they may mean.

These are in no way special definitions. That>s what the terms mean
and have always meant in analtyical terms. What you>re suggesting for
the definition of the subjective as only occurring in the solipsist>s
mind takes us right back to the in-here versus out-there issue. The
subjective as only occurring in the solipsist>s mind is a redundant
contradiction at least in solipsist terms since there is no other
mind
to consider.

This is why my analytical definitions do not take location into
account. Wherever these subjective and objective things occur they
mean whatever they do and have the implications they do not because
of
where they may be located but simply because they are subjective or
objective in nature.

How would you answer the solipsist if he said the following?

I say that I am the only experiencer. I realize that it is logically
possible that there are other experiencers, but I don>t think that
there are. So, according to my theory, there are only me and this
flow of experience that I experience. Given my theory, I think it is
appropriate to label my world as "subjective_1". (I>m using the
postfix to differentiate between another word I will introduce in a
few minutes.) What I mean by subjective_1 is that I am the only
experiencer. The world is subjective_1 rather than objective_1. If
the world were objective_1, that would mean, according to my
terminology, that there was at least one other experiencer. But my
theory is that the world is not objective_1, because I believe that I
am the only experiencer. So I say that the world is subjective_1.
[/quote]
Well, Danny, the problem here is that you>re giving an incorrect
definition for solipsism, at least as I understand the doctrine. You
define subjective1 as meaning that you are the only experiencer but
that logically there could be others. It is only your belief that you
are the only one.

We>re not here to explore beliefs. We>re supposedly doing science.
Solipsism is the idea that only the self exists at all - not that
there might possibly be others. For if that were the case there would
be no way to know whether any of those figments were like us or not.
What you would have then is just a religious belief and not a doctrine
subject to proof or disproof. The solopsist maintains that his
doctrine cannot be disproven but not that it is not subject to proof
or disproof.

Beyond this I think in using the terminology subjectiveN/objectiveN
you are trying to maintain the idea of the subjective/objective while
defining it in unrelated ways. Why not call the idea experience1
instead of subjective1 if that>s all you think solipsism amounts to.

Experience1 then just becomes an axiomatic rule having certain
supposedly solitary characteristics. But subjective/objective can only
be defined in terms of each other. In other words in the absence of
objective1 there can be no subjective1 whether you like it or not.

It>s not up to you. It>s up to all those who use the terms to mean the
opposite of each other. I can accept the hypothesis of experience1
with its attendant solitary rule but not the implication of
subjective1 without the implicit necessity of objective1.

[quote]
Now, I have a rather enjoyable time of it. My flow of experience is
very complex and highly patterned. There are persistent patterns of
my experience that I find especially interesting. I call these
especially interesting patterns "people". Now various factors
associated with "people" would cause me, if I were naive, to associate
these "people" with fellow experiencers. In other words, if I were
naive, the inclusion of these persistent patterns of experience called
"people" in my flow of experience would induce me to believe that the
world is objective_1 rather than subjective_1. Fortunately, I am not
naive.
[/quote]
Whatever. Under your assumption of subjective1 I>m not sure you could
be anything at all much less naive or sophisticated. Basically you
haven>t shown any property of subjective1 that allows you to
experience anything in the absence of objective1. If you>re just wool
gathering and spinning yarn, by all means go ahead.

But if you intend to show where knowledge of figments in subjective1
comes in, you>re going to have to show how that is possible and what
property of subjective1 makes that possible in the absence of
objective1.

[quote]
No, my theory is that these "people" are not experiencers. They are
zombies. Well, actually, they are not even that. They are merely
patterns of my experience. But, to help me better delineate the
grammar of my experience, I am going to say that "people" are apparent
experiencers. They are not real experiencers like me, but they are
apparent experiencers in that I could be fooled by them if I were
naive. "People" "run" from "black bears". "They" are "attracted" by
"sushi", and the like.
[/quote]
Well unfortunately words like grammar etc. are merely figments of
subjective1 in the absence of objective1.
[quote]
Okay, to further delineate the grammar of my experience, I will now
introduce two new terms. I say that my flow of experience has two
types of patterns, and to distinguish between these two types I will
use the terms "subjective_2" and "objective_2". These terms have
absolutely nothing to do with the terms I introduced earlier,
"subjective_1" and "objective_1", by the way. Here are my new
definitions. Any pattern of my experience which these "people", these
apparent experiencers are "capable" of apparently responding to, I
call "objective_2". Any pattern of my experience which these
"people", these apparent experiencers, are not "capable" of apparently
responding to, I call "subjective_2".
[/quote]
These aren>t theories. Theories explain how one thing is caused by
another. You>re just advancing speculative hypotheses that assume
various objective things could be explained in subjective terms if we
aren>t too finicky about what all these things mean.
[quote]
Certain patterns of my flow of experience, patterns I call my
"wishes", my "dreams", my "thoughts", and so forth, these "people",
these apparent experiencers, don>t respond to. They have no clue.
(To be perfectly technical I should say, "'They' 'have' no 'clue'",
since these "people" are only patterns of my experience.) So, my
"wishes", "dreams", and "thoughts" are subjective_2. "Black bears"
and "sushi", on the other hand, are objective_2.

So that is my most basic ontology. The world is subjective_1, not
objective_1, because there is only me and my flow of experience.
Concerning my flow of experience, I say that there are patterns which
are subjective_2 and patterns which are objective_2.
[/quote]
Yes, well, this doctrine is not new. It is called subjectivism even in
the guise of solipsism. The only difficulty is that neither you nor
anyone else can explain how objective2 is possible in the absence of
objective1. Basically a subjectivist just wishes away what can>t be
explained. And the fact is that the subjective cannot be explained in
the absence of the objective.
[quote]
Now, a certain persistent pattern of my experience, one of the
"people" I mentioned, is a pattern I call "Lester". "Lester" seems to
"insist" that, because I distinguish between subjective_2 patterns of
my experience and objective_2 patterns of my experience, it follows
that the world must be objective_1 after all. Is that not ridiculous?
It is as if "Lester" is saying that because I recognize apparent
experiencers, there must then be real experiencers. How naive! If
"Lester" were a real experiencer I would say to him, "Lester! You are
being confused by words! The only commonality between apparent
experiencers and real experiencers is the word 'experiencer'! Don>t
be confused by words, Lester! A 'word' is only a 'sound', a 'puff' of
'air'!" (Sometimes I wish these apparent experiencers were real
experiencers. I would make mincemeat of them in argumentation.)
[/quote]
Yeah. Right. I>m being confused with words not by words. The reason
you want words to be puffs of air is that you>re just blowing smoke.
You use objective concepts to define subjective1 and deny objective1
by calling those concepts puffs of air. So you>ll have to excuse me if
I>m a little confused by all the shadow boxing.

Perhaps one day you>ll show me how the trick is done. Maybe if you use
enough meaningless words to say nothing people will forget that you
used very meaningful words to say what you wanted.

[quote]
"Lester" also "babbles" on about inside and outside. "He" "seems" to
"think" that my term "subjective_1" implies, absurdly, that everything
is inside. I would say to him, "Lester, 'subjective_1' has nothing to
do with inside or outside. The words 'inside' and 'outside' only
apply to various patterns of my experience. When I say, 'The world is
subjective_1,' I simply mean that I am the only experiencer. I don>t
mean that I am experiencing 'inside' my 'mind'. I just mean that I am
the only experiencer, that me and my flow of experience are all there
is. Lester, the fact that 'you' apparently cannot 'understand' this
point really gives me psychological comfort. Surely a real
experiencer would be more percipient!" Yes, my flow of experience is
highly amusing in many ways.

More word salad and hand waving. Hey Presto Chango Abracadabra. This[/quote]
isn>t even naive. It>s childish.

Why do you think I panned the original thread. It isn>t that solipsism
isn>t worth discussing as an academic exercise in trivial analytical
terms. It>s that the terms it was being discussed in on the original
thread weren>t even relevant. They were facile and superficial in the
extreme.

Regards - Lester

Danny Purvis · Guest

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote

[snip]

Thanks, Lester. I don>t think we are making any progress towards
understanding one another. You seem to think I am writing nonsense,
and I have the same opinion about you. I think it>s time for us to
quit trying. I would like to leave you with a general observation,
and would very much like to hear your reaction. My general
observation follows, but let me say now that I have enjoyed our
discussion.

My impression is that you invest too much magic in the word
"analytical". You seem to think that there is an "analytical" method
that ensures correctness, that you have been "analytical", that you
have found the "analytical" answer. I think you misread the history
of analytic philosophy. In the middle part of the previous century
some British and American philosophers started a project to build up a
body of philosophical knowledge by applying the rigor of mathematics
and subdividing, subdividing, subdividing. They failed. Today there
is no body of "analytical" knowledge, only a set of very keen general
purpose guys called analytic philosophers. If you want twenty
different ways to look at a minute "philosophical" problem, or if you
want all of the implications and all of the possible weaknesses of one
particular way of looking at a particular minute "philosophical"
problem, or if you want to see an unsound "philosophical" argument
vaporized, ask an analytic philosopher. But don>t look for a body of
knowledege and, especially, don>t expect to learn a magic method for
solving problems. Analytic philosophers are just highly proficient,
rigorous reasoners well-experienced in delving into questions of a
certain sort.

I don>t know anything about your background, Lester, but I would
venture to guess that you are not one of those guys. Neither am I; in
fact I am an ignoramus and not very bright to boot. But even if you
and I were professonal analytic philosophers, the only resource we
would have to draw on in discussing aspects of solipsism would be what
any other analytic philosopher has as method: very clear thinking.

We would laugh at a person who based a correctness claim in
mathematics or chemistry on the fact that he had been, respectively,
"mathematical" or "chemical". Mathematicians and chemists often make
mistakes. So what I am saying, Lester, is that we need to be humble
and try very hard to be clear and correct. I suspect you are not
trying hard enough, that you are, instead, placing too much reliance
upon a magic that does not exist. That being said, I still admire
your ambition to do some work in the field of philosophy.

Danny Purvis

Danny Purvis · Guest

PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat Harrington) wrote

[snip]

Pat,

I think you should definitely take it on the road. Alan Sokal does
not have a thing on you. Very good work. What an imagination you
have! I will definitely re-examine all of my beliefs as a result of
reading your very stimulating and provocative text.

Danny Purvis

Lester Zick · Guest

On 29 Sep 2003 11:13:27 -0700, danny_purvis@hotmail.com (Danny Purvis)
in sci.cognitive wrote:

[quote]lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote

[snip]

Thanks, Lester. I don>t think we are making any progress towards
understanding one another. You seem to think I am writing nonsense,
and I have the same opinion about you. I think it>s time for us to
quit trying. I would like to leave you with a general observation,
and would very much like to hear your reaction. My general
observation follows, but let me say now that I have enjoyed our
discussion.
[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]
My impression is that you invest too much magic in the word
"analytical". You seem to think that there is an "analytical" method
that ensures correctness, that you have been "analytical", that you
have found the "analytical" answer. I think you misread the history
of analytic philosophy. In the middle part of the previous century
some British and American philosophers started a project to build up a
body of philosophical knowledge by applying the rigor of mathematics
and subdividing, subdividing, subdividing. They failed. Today there
is no body of "analytical" knowledge, only a set of very keen general
purpose guys called analytic philosophers. If you want twenty
different ways to look at a minute "philosophical" problem, or if you
want all of the implications and all of the possible weaknesses of one
particular way of looking at a particular minute "philosophical"
problem, or if you want to see an unsound "philosophical" argument
vaporized, ask an analytic philosopher. But don>t look for a body of
knowledege and, especially, don>t expect to learn a magic method for
solving problems. Analytic philosophers are just highly proficient,
rigorous reasoners well-experienced in delving into questions of a
certain sort.

I don>t know anything about your background, Lester, but I would
venture to guess that you are not one of those guys. Neither am I; in
fact I am an ignoramus and not very bright to boot. But even if you
and I were professonal analytic philosophers, the only resource we
would have to draw on in discussing aspects of solipsism would be what
any other analytic philosopher has as method: very clear thinking.

We would laugh at a person who based a correctness claim in
mathematics or chemistry on the fact that he had been, respectively,
"mathematical" or "chemical". Mathematicians and chemists often make
mistakes. So what I am saying, Lester, is that we need to be humble
and try very hard to be clear and correct. I suspect you are not
trying hard enough, that you are, instead, placing too much reliance
upon a magic that does not exist. That being said, I still admire
your ambition to do some work in the field of philosophy.

Well, Danny, I think that whereas you won>t find any claims to[/quote]
correctness based on being mathematical or chemical you>ll find many
claims to incorrectness based on being non mathematical or non
chemical.

Of course people make mistakes. Including those who reason correctly
but base their claims to knowledge on fallacious assumptions or
definitions. That>s not the issue. The issue is how to judge a given
problem or situation correctly given in whatever terms and definitions
are used. And how to judge the use of fallacious assumptions or
definitions for the terms employed.

I don>t have any use for for the various fields of philosophy. The
field is called soft science because any kind of rationalization is
perfectly acceptable. In fact apart from historical observations and
the single exception of Aristotle>s exposition of syllogistic
inference I don>t know of a single thing said by any philosopher that
is demonstrably correct. Not probably or plausibly true but actually
correct. (And by the way the term is metaphysicist not metaphysician
because it derives from the term meaning after the physics applied to
Aristotle>s original treatment of the subject.)

Many people have expressed interest in trying to develope essential
philosophical concepts based on historical considerations. I don>t do
this because as far as I know they>re all wrong.

All anyone can point to in the history of philosophy is a mound of
intellectual detritus. Why do you think serious students of the
subject argue so much? It isn>t because they know whereof they speak.
They don>t know what they>re talking about because they are actually
arguing over basic definitions. In other words beliefs. They are just
arguing in a vacuum.

There is no way to resolve disagreements with respect to fundamental
beliefs in the absence of any analytical framework. People can be the
most reasonable and rational in the world without being able to
resolve disagreements in basic definitions because there is nothing to
argue with and no intellectual framework to argue in the context of.

Arguments are only useful to bridge the gap between definitions and
problems to be resolved in terms of those definitions. They>re more
than just disputatious disagreements in this respect. An argument
shows how one analyzes some problem in terms of definitions applied to
the terms under discussion. It isn>t of any use in arriving at basic
definitions in the absence of more basic considerations.

I see this all the time in philosophical disputation. It>s called an
extraneous appeal. Anybody can do it at any time and everyone does.
The problem is that definitions are arbitrary. They>re simply assumed
axiomatically for whatever intellectual considerations and personal
reasons apply. People don>t discuss problems in terms of definitions.
If they disagree they just define some other consideration as being
present in the problem and continue to maintain their opinion on the
subject. They just argue their way around the obstacle.

This isn>t what definitions are for. They aren>t arbitrary and aren>t
intended to justify ones beliefs and opinions. Unfortunately this is
the only way the idea is used. It represents nothing more than a mere
excuse for believing whatever one wants. In other words wishful
thinking.

Why bother? Why not just avow certain beliefs and let it go at that?
What>s the point of all the rationalization? The point is to lend
superficial credibility to the idea that one is analytically sound in
his opinions. It>s simply an ad hoc after the fact appeal to an
extraneous meretricious justification.

Unless definitions are based on more elementary justifications they
have no merit whatsoever. But what about elementary definitions? Here
definitions have to be self defining in order to be analytically
sufficient.

If I say that the subjective means A, B, and C and that the objective
means C, D, and F the definitions may or may not be correct. There is
simply no way to tell unless these terms have some definitive meaning
in common. But if I say that the subjective and objective both have
objective definitions in terms of the differences between them, I am
maintaining something that can be judged analytically in terms of
itself as to whether it is true or false.

This is what I mean by analytical sufficiency and not any definitional
assumptions made by analytical philosophers or anyone else. Truly
elementary definitions cannot be defined in terms of anything else.
Nor can they be assumed to be true even if of apparent universal
plausibility. They have to provide evidence of their own analytical
validity and necessity by means of themselves.

I>m going into all this not to revisit the previous discussion but to
suggest to those who have not made up their minds on the subject of
definitions and axiomatic assumptions that argumentation is not a
matter of arbitrary assumptions and definitions whatever apparent
plausibility may apply. If the terms of the problem are truly
fundamental, the definitions of the those terms have to be truly
fundamental as well and have to give evidence of their fundamental
character as part of their definitions.

Regards - Lester

Pat Harrington · Guest

danny_purvis@hotmail.com (Danny Purvis) wrote in message news:<9a2dfd4d.0309291139.8e12ef7@posting.google.com>...
[quote]PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat Harrington) wrote

[snip]

Pat,

I think you should definitely take it on the road. Alan Sokal does
not have a thing on you. Very good work. What an imagination you
have! I will definitely re-examine all of my beliefs as a result of
reading your very stimulating and provocative text.

Danny Purvis
[/quote]
Danny,
Thank you very much. It>s always nice to rock a steadfast cynic
with a lateral thought. There>s a lot of flesh that would need to be
added to that to "take to the road". The main other key that, dare I
tweak your brain again, lends credence to this sort of system and
makes it, in my mind at least, likely is that it seems to resolve the
problem of the EPR effect in quantum mechanics which states that:
1) Two correlated particles are still one despite their distance of
separation.
And
2) Knowledge of one has an instantaneous influence on the other,
without the transmission of information resulting in any physical
action.

The fact that our universe began with a Big Bang means that all
particles originate from pair creation. If such a reference point
existed, it would most likely exist in internal symmetry space, a
four-dimensional chunk of the 26-dimensional space-time. This point
would stand as the reference point between all correlated particles
because it correlates all particles. This single point in internal
symmetry space would be the means to solving the conundrum of why the
EPR effect exists and how it works.
For a further tweak to your thought processes, it may be possible
that consciousness is a result of a resonating interface between this
space-time and internal symmetry space, where everything is
tied-together. The interface would work on the resonance of tubulin
electrons in neurons, which are believed to be able to exhibit quantum
coherence (Penrose-Hammeroff).
So, if this is the case, then perhaps brain chemistry affects
this resonating field of consciousness and causes us to experience
emotions or affects the way we interpret information. After all,
anger is usually an emotional response to the behaviour of certain
conglomerations of energy—even if that conglomeration is oneself. And
we all know that when we are "of a certain mind" we tend to interpret
data differently.
Perhaps there is a very good quantum reason for emotions and that
very religious "feeling of connectedness". More work needs to be done
but where would one begin?
Cheers,
Pat

Richard F Hall · Guest

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:18:40 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) wrote:

[quote]
Solipsism Again and Again and Again

The idea of solipsism is undoubtedly old and pretty thoroughly
discussed. But rehashing the topic has failed to convince anyone in
exhaustive terms as far as I can tell simply because the terms of the
discussion are invariably irrelevant to the issues.
[/quote]
Yes, to my mind there seems to be a lot of vague references that make
clear analytical thinking difficult. If solipsism held any truth we
would be relegated to a world of our own design. However, the origin
of the surprises and mysteries of experience are typically of
continual concern to us. It can even be a matter of self
preservation, defeat, or deterioration.

Since this origin is not inside, it must be from outside us. The
only conclusion is that an outside is vibrant, existent, and ever
present.

Richard F Hall
Realistic Idealism
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
Philosophy based on evidence from the outside, analyzed by the inside.

Lester Zick · Guest

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 13:46:32 GMT, realistic@seanet.com (Richard F
Hall) in sci.philosophy.meta wrote:

[quote]On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:18:40 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) wrote:

Solipsism Again and Again and Again

The idea of solipsism is undoubtedly old and pretty thoroughly
discussed. But rehashing the topic has failed to convince anyone in
exhaustive terms as far as I can tell simply because the terms of the
discussion are invariably irrelevant to the issues.

Yes, to my mind there seems to be a lot of vague references that make
clear analytical thinking difficult. If solipsism held any truth we
would be relegated to a world of our own design. However, the origin
of the surprises and mysteries of experience are typically of
continual concern to us. It can even be a matter of self
preservation, defeat, or deterioration.

Since this origin is not inside, it must be from outside us. The
only conclusion is that an outside is vibrant, existent, and ever
present.

Hi Rich,[/quote]

I certainly agree with your assessment except in one respect regarding
where the origin lies. In point of fact we have no way to decide the
where exactly and often the origin can and does lie within as in cases
of hallucinatory and psychological problems.

This is the reason I concentrate on the objective as the defining
barrier between the solipsist vision and the realistic interpretation
of reality in which both the subjective and objective are present. An
objective definition of the objective as the non subjective gives us
exactly what we need to vitiate the solipsist view in universal terms.

It>s certainly true that the origin of most non subjective
circumstances lies outside us. But that>s really only because the bulk
of objectively definable circumstances do and not because the
objective definition of the objective requires such a thing of
necessity.

The objective definition of the objective does require that there be
an outside but not that all non subjective circumstances reside there
in terms of physical location. Technically what all objective
circumstances reside outside of is simply control of the subjective -
whatever that may imply with respect to the inside or outside of the
brain/mind complex.

I realize this may seem like a rather fine distinction. However it>s
important to realize that this is where we actually get our notions of
inside and outside. It>s also a point that has been completely
misunderstood throughout intellectual and psychological history and
has led to all kinds of pernicious conflicts and misinterpretations.

The inside and outside do not refer to physical locale in terms of the
brain/mind complex. These terms simply refer to the control or lack of
control of the objective by the subjective. That and nothing more. The
subjective lies within control of the subjective. But the objective
lies outside control of the subjective to the extent it has and can
have an objective and non subjective definition.

And all our inferences in regard to where things lie depend first and
foremost on that distinction. We infer objective things lie outside us
if we cannot control them. And we discover that the vast bulk of all
things we cannot control in subjective terms also lie outside the
individual brain/mind complex. Thus we discover that the subjective is
constrained primarily to within the brain/mind complex. But that does
not necessarily imply that all objective circumstances do.

To the extent we can exclude subjective circumstances from outside the
brain/mind complex by giving them an objective explanation, we thereby
confine the subjective to within the brain/mind complex. However this
represents an ongoing process of discovery and objective definition.
But insofar as the limitation of subjective and objective phenomena
are concerned we really only have the objective definition of one in
terms of the other to work with and not some presumed idea of
location.

Regards - Lester

Rick Leeland · Guest

Good topic! I have been following this tread for a few days. Have we
reached a consensus yet? For those who firmly believe in Solipsism,
please send all your life-savings to me to prove your faith. I am with
you all the way -- believe me, it won>t cost you a thing since
everything you see is merely a subjective illusion.

-- Rick

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3f678ae1.36613700@netnews.att.net>...
[quote]Solipsism Again and Again and Again

The idea of solipsism is undoubtedly old and pretty thoroughly
discussed. But rehashing the topic has failed to convince anyone in
exhaustive terms as far as I can tell simply because the terms of the
discussion are invariably irrelevant to the issues.

There are three primary variants in the subjective/objective debate
concerning reality in general: conventional realism - emphasizing
some combination of subjective and objective aspects to reality -
solipsism with its conclusive emphasis on purely subjective aspects of
reality - and materialism with its conclusive emphasis on purely
objective aspects of reality.

But the whole debate really boils down to the nature of the subjective
in general and the nature of the objective in general. And no one that
I can see discusses solipsism in such simple terms. For if the
objective has an objective definition - that is if the non subjective
has a non subjective definition - then the whole idea and possibility
of solipsism disappears.

In other words we aren>t really interested in whether it>s all in here
or all out there or whether there is some mix of the two. The terms of
analysis themselves show what>s in here and what>s out there. In
actuality the subjective is in here for strictly mechanical reasons
and the objective is out there for strictly mechanical reasons. And
that>s really all such ideas as in here versus out there can mean.

So if the appropriate analytical terms are applied to the concepts of
the subjective and objective we can see in very elementary terms the
why>s and wherefore>s of solipsism and even those of materialism for
that matter.

The whole idea of an objective definition for the objective shows
exactly why solipsism and materialism are both nonsense and does so in
rigorous analytical terms. If by the objective we mean the non
subjective then an objective definition for the objective proves and
validates the objective as a non subjective analytical category with
no subjective component. Otherwise not. It>s just that simple.

It doesn>t matter who>s out there or who>s in here. Or whether we all
exist in the eye of god. Whether or not any such things are or could
be true in any sense is completely irrelevant to whether the objective
can be objectively defined in non subjective terms. If so the
definition itself is objective and proves that there are non
subjective aspects to reality in general. And if and to the extent
that the objective means the non subjective, it has that objective
definition.

Regards - Lester[/quote]

Rick Leeland · Guest

(fixed a typo)

Good topic! I have been following this thread for a few days. Have we
reached a consensus yet? For those who firmly believe in Solipsism,
please send all your life-savings to me to prove your faith. I am with
you all the way -- believe me, it won>t cost you a thing since
everything you see is merely a subjective illusion.

-- Rick

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3f678ae1.36613700@netnews.att.net>...
[quote]Solipsism Again and Again and Again

The idea of solipsism is undoubtedly old and pretty thoroughly
discussed. But rehashing the topic has failed to convince anyone in
exhaustive terms as far as I can tell simply because the terms of the
discussion are invariably irrelevant to the issues.

There are three primary variants in the subjective/objective debate
concerning reality in general: conventional realism - emphasizing
some combination of subjective and objective aspects to reality -
solipsism with its conclusive emphasis on purely subjective aspects of
reality - and materialism with its conclusive emphasis on purely
objective aspects of reality.

But the whole debate really boils down to the nature of the subjective
in general and the nature of the objective in general. And no one that
I can see discusses solipsism in such simple terms. For if the
objective has an objective definition - that is if the non subjective
has a non subjective definition - then the whole idea and possibility
of solipsism disappears.

In other words we aren>t really interested in whether it>s all in here
or all out there or whether there is some mix of the two. The terms of
analysis themselves show what>s in here and what>s out there. In
actuality the subjective is in here for strictly mechanical reasons
and the objective is out there for strictly mechanical reasons. And
that>s really all such ideas as in here versus out there can mean.

So if the appropriate analytical terms are applied to the concepts of
the subjective and objective we can see in very elementary terms the
why>s and wherefore>s of solipsism and even those of materialism for
that matter.

The whole idea of an objective definition for the objective shows
exactly why solipsism and materialism are both nonsense and does so in
rigorous analytical terms. If by the objective we mean the non
subjective then an objective definition for the objective proves and
validates the objective as a non subjective analytical category with
no subjective component. Otherwise not. It>s just that simple.

It doesn>t matter who>s out there or who>s in here. Or whether we all
exist in the eye of god. Whether or not any such things are or could
be true in any sense is completely irrelevant to whether the objective
can be objectively defined in non subjective terms. If so the
definition itself is objective and proves that there are non
subjective aspects to reality in general. And if and to the extent
that the objective means the non subjective, it has that objective
definition.

Regards - Lester[/quote]

Richard F Hall · Guest

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 16:04:55 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) wrote:

Rich concluded:
[quote]Since this origin is not inside, it must be from outside us. The
only conclusion is that an outside is vibrant, existent, and ever
present.

The responses to Les>s post are not necessarily oppositional, but are[/quote]
on occassion additional to his thoughts.
[quote]Hi Rich,

I certainly agree with your assessment except in one respect regarding
where the origin lies. In point of fact we have no way to decide the
where exactly and often the origin can and does lie within as in cases
of hallucinatory and psychological problems.
Yes, but these psychological phenomenon are determined by 1) someone[/quote]
"out there" who then changes your life, either on a voluntary basis,
due to their authority, or involuntarily, due to your respect for
their authority, or 2) one>s own comparison with what has been
perceived to be true "out there", or 3) solipstically, comparison with
what one has thought to be true in the past subjectively.
Incidentally, number three is exceedingly traumatic, even extending
far beyond hallucinatory and psychological problems, and can be
life-altering where one questions the very essence of their
operating/behavioral precepts. Contemplating this was an eye-opener
for me. But, enough of that, on to your next paragraph.

[quote]This is the reason I concentrate on the objective as the defining
barrier between the solipsist vision and the realistic interpretation
of reality in which both the subjective and objective are present. An
objective definition of the objective as the non subjective gives us
exactly what we need to vitiate the solipsist view in universal terms.
Of course! Though, in the final analysis, everything is subjective.[/quote]
So, don>t expect to totally vitiate the solipist view. But, that>s
beside our point. The point is the "solipstic question". To add to
what you are saying, it is this question which must be addressed and
then answered to truly recognize objectivity and emerge into a
realistic, non-subjective world. If someone sarcastically encourages
you to send them your money to prove that "they" existence too, they
simply don>t comprehend the significance of this question. To answer
this question one must begin to define who one is and establish a
personally acceptable line between the subjective and the
non-subjective, as you are pointing out. This is not a silly
past-time, this can be a mind altering exercise that clears one>s
vision. An eye-opener.

[quote]It>s certainly true that the origin of most non subjective
circumstances lies outside us. But that>s really only because the bulk
of objectively definable circumstances do and not because the
objective definition of the objective requires such a thing of
necessity.
Oh, but it does. This is where the "trinity of realistic observation"[/quote]
comes into play: repeatability, reliability, and consistency. And
this interpretation necessitates a media of interaction and sharing
among numerous mind/brains. I would use the word "science", but I>d
rather the reader guess this. I see your point, the proof of the
pudding is still subjective, in the final analysis. But, where one
draws the analytical line between the two is still another question.
Unless one considers this seriously, one may not even realize that
this line is in question.

[quote]The objective definition of the objective does require that there be
an outside but not that all non subjective circumstances reside there
in terms of physical location. Technically what all objective
circumstances reside outside of is simply control of the subjective -
whatever that may imply with respect to the inside or outside of the
brain/mind complex.
From my understanding, solipsism is the theory that nothing other than[/quote]
that which is inside one>s self can be "proven" to oneself. It
doesn>t preclude that there is something… outside. It does cast doubt
on it though.

[quote]I realize this may seem like a rather fine distinction. However it>s
important to realize that this is where we actually get our notions of
inside and outside. It>s also a point that has been completely
misunderstood throughout intellectual and psychological history and
has led to all kinds of pernicious conflicts and misinterpretations.
I understand totally.. and, in personal respect for those who are[/quote]
presently unknowingly imbued in misconceived notions of "inside and
outside", and might be traumatized without recourse, and thus become
unfocused on this important question, we shouldn>t give examples,
here, of analysis requiring proof based on non-subjective criteria.
As long as these analytical misunderstandings are apparently required
for the human condition, the pernicious conflicts and
misinterpretations are, unfortunately, bound to continue.

[quote]The inside and outside do not refer to physical locale in terms of the
brain/mind complex. These terms simply refer to the control or lack of
control of the objective by the subjective. That and nothing more. The
subjective lies within control of the subjective. But the objective
lies outside control of the subjective to the extent it has and can
have an objective and non subjective definition.
Here, you are right to the point. In the days of solipstic[/quote]
theorizing, one has to remember, this was not so evident. To question
the solipstic theory, one has to castigate the demons and face the
hard questions that will precipitate the truth from the inherent murky
depths of our mind/brain. Yes, to hell with tableau rosa.

[quote]And all our inferences in regard to where things lie depend first and
foremost on that distinction. We infer objective things lie outside us
if we cannot control them. And we discover that the vast bulk of all
things we cannot control in subjective terms also lie outside the
individual brain/mind complex. Thus we discover that the subjective is
constrained primarily to within the brain/mind complex. But that does
not necessarily imply that all objective circumstances do.
And there are things within the brain/mind complex that are seemingly[/quote]
objective that we can>t control as mentioned in your first paragraph.
This also includes such topics as deterioration (age and disease) and
addiction, for instance.

[quote]To the extent we can exclude subjective circumstances from outside the
brain/mind complex by giving them an objective explanation, we thereby
confine the subjective to within the brain/mind complex. However this
represents an ongoing process of discovery and objective definition.
But insofar as the limitation of subjective and objective phenomena
are concerned we really only have the objective definition of one in
terms of the other to work with and not some presumed idea of
location.
It is only after the analytical line is individually established,[/quote]
albeit changing as one matures and grows intellectually, that one can
function at one>s maximum proficiency.

Richard F Hall
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/chpt1.html
Realistic Idealism
A good place to start searching for your analytical line is "the
levels of thought" at the above URL

Thanks, Les
I>m a bit better for this, I think. IMO :)

Lester Zick · Guest

On 8 Oct 2003 18:29:42 -0700, rickleeland@yahoo.com (Rick Leeland) in
sci.cognitive wrote:

[quote](fixed a typo)

Good topic! I have been following this thread for a few days. Have we
reached a consensus yet? For those who firmly believe in Solipsism,
please send all your life-savings to me to prove your faith. I am with
you all the way -- believe me, it won>t cost you a thing since
everything you see is merely a subjective illusion.

-- Rick
[/quote]
Oh, well, I rather doubt we>ll ever reach a consensus in terms of non
critical thinkers and non critical thinking. They>ll just go along
thinking whatever they want just because they can think whatever they
want and see no special reason to change their opinions on this or any
other topic on which they hold strong beliefs. At least I have never
known anyone to change opinions or strongly held beliefs.

For critical thinkers on the other hand I think we may have broken
some new ground with respect to the actual meaning and significance of
the objective. The interesting thing about solipsism and the reason it
continues to hang around and continues to be discussed and taught is
that it actually represents one limiting extreme in intellectual
terms.

The other extreme is materialism. Thus solipsism in simple analytical
terms represents pure subjectivism whereas materialism represents pure
objectivism. They are just opposing exclusive views of the mind and
the nature of reality in general. Solipsism represents reality in
purely subjective terms and materialism represents reality in purely
objective terms. And the question then becomes where the truth lies
and why.

Of course no one actually tries to live in solipsist terms any more
than a materialist tries to act in materialist terms. Each comes to
terms with the nature of reality on a daily basis. However a great
many are led to think and believe one way or the other because they do
not understand how to synthesize reality in realistic terms.

The materialist claims to have science on his side because a great
many intellectual frontiers have been successfully addressed and
conquered in such terms. Whereas the solipsist has on his side the
very practical observation and fact that we all think in subjective
terms to begin with.

The difference is that neither can explain how we get from subjective
thought to objective cognition or vice versa. The solipsist sees the
nature of reality exclusively in terms of subjective thought. The
materialist sees reality exclusively in terms of objective cognitive
circumstances without respect to where these circumstances originate
and how they come to be. And all the intellectual and philosophical
wars - and some of the real wars - of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries have been fought in such terms.
[quote]
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3f678ae1.36613700@netnews.att.net>...
Solipsism Again and Again and Again

The idea of solipsism is undoubtedly old and pretty thoroughly
discussed. But rehashing the topic has failed to convince anyone in
exhaustive terms as far as I can tell simply because the terms of the
discussion are invariably irrelevant to the issues.

There are three primary variants in the subjective/objective debate
concerning reality in general: conventional realism - emphasizing
some combination of subjective and objective aspects to reality -
solipsism with its conclusive emphasis on purely subjective aspects of
reality - and materialism with its conclusive emphasis on purely
objective aspects of reality.

But the whole debate really boils down to the nature of the subjective
in general and the nature of the objective in general. And no one that
I can see discusses solipsism in such simple terms. For if the
objective has an objective definition - that is if the non subjective
has a non subjective definition - then the whole idea and possibility
of solipsism disappears.

In other words we aren>t really interested in whether it>s all in here
or all out there or whether there is some mix of the two. The terms of
analysis themselves show what>s in here and what>s out there. In
actuality the subjective is in here for strictly mechanical reasons
and the objective is out there for strictly mechanical reasons. And
that>s really all such ideas as in here versus out there can mean.

So if the appropriate analytical terms are applied to the concepts of
the subjective and objective we can see in very elementary terms the
why>s and wherefore>s of solipsism and even those of materialism for
that matter.

The whole idea of an objective definition for the objective shows
exactly why solipsism and materialism are both nonsense and does so in
rigorous analytical terms. If by the objective we mean the non
subjective then an objective definition for the objective proves and
validates the objective as a non subjective analytical category with
no subjective component. Otherwise not. It>s just that simple.

It doesn>t matter who>s out there or who>s in here. Or whether we all
exist in the eye of god. Whether or not any such things are or could
be true in any sense is completely irrelevant to whether the objective
can be objectively defined in non subjective terms. If so the
definition itself is objective and proves that there are non
subjective aspects to reality in general. And if and to the extent
that the objective means the non subjective, it has that objective
definition.

Regards - Lester
[/quote]

Regards - Lester

Lester Zick · Guest

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 15:55:35 GMT, realistic@seanet.com (Richard F
Hall) in sci.philosophy.meta wrote:

[quote]On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 16:04:55 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) wrote:

Rich concluded:
Since this origin is not inside, it must be from outside us. The
only conclusion is that an outside is vibrant, existent, and ever
present.

The responses to Les>s post are not necessarily oppositional, but are
on occassion additional to his thoughts.
Hi Rich,

I certainly agree with your assessment except in one respect regarding
where the origin lies. In point of fact we have no way to decide the
where exactly and often the origin can and does lie within as in cases
of hallucinatory and psychological problems.
Yes, but these psychological phenomenon are determined by 1) someone
"out there" who then changes your life, either on a voluntary basis,
due to their authority, or involuntarily, due to your respect for
their authority, or 2) one>s own comparison with what has been
perceived to be true "out there", or 3) solipstically, comparison with
what one has thought to be true in the past subjectively.
Incidentally, number three is exceedingly traumatic, even extending
far beyond hallucinatory and psychological problems, and can be
life-altering where one questions the very essence of their
operating/behavioral precepts. Contemplating this was an eye-opener
for me. But, enough of that, on to your next paragraph.
[/quote]
You can hardly overstress the importance of #3 because it directly
impacts what we thought we understood of ourselves.

However I would also like to add such conditions as autism where the
problem exists objectively within the mind but not due to ones own
acceptance or rejection.
[quote]
This is the reason I concentrate on the objective as the defining
barrier between the solipsist vision and the realistic interpretation
of reality in which both the subjective and objective are present. An
objective definition of the objective as the non subjective gives us
exactly what we need to vitiate the solipsist view in universal terms.
Of course! Though, in the final analysis, everything is subjective.
[/quote]
Well, everything originates in the mind subjectively but then changes
character to become objective despites its subjective origin.

[quote]So, don>t expect to totally vitiate the solipist view. But, that>s
beside our point. The point is the "solipstic question". To add to
what you are saying, it is this question which must be addressed and
then answered to truly recognize objectivity and emerge into a
realistic, non-subjective world. If someone sarcastically encourages
you to send them your money to prove that "they" existence too, they
simply don>t comprehend the significance of this question. To answer
this question one must begin to define who one is and establish a
personally acceptable line between the subjective and the
non-subjective, as you are pointing out. This is not a silly
past-time, this can be a mind altering exercise that clears one>s
vision. An eye-opener.
[/quote]
Sure. Drawing a line in the mind between the subjective and objective
is probably the only really critical thing we do. But the line exists
wherever we learn to recognize and draw it in individual cases.
[quote]
It>s certainly true that the origin of most non subjective
circumstances lies outside us. But that>s really only because the bulk
of objectively definable circumstances do and not because the
objective definition of the objective requires such a thing of
necessity.
Oh, but it does. This is where the "trinity of realistic observation"
comes into play: repeatability, reliability, and consistency. And
this interpretation necessitates a media of interaction and sharing
among numerous mind/brains. I would use the word "science", but I>d
rather the reader guess this. I see your point, the proof of the
pudding is still subjective, in the final analysis. But, where one
draws the analytical line between the two is still another question.
Unless one considers this seriously, one may not even realize that
this line is in question.
[/quote]
Good point. You might care to check out some observations I made in
comparable but unrelated terms in reply to "the brain" thread on this
group.
[quote]
The objective definition of the objective does require that there be
an outside but not that all non subjective circumstances reside there
in terms of physical location. Technically what all objective
circumstances reside outside of is simply control of the subjective -
whatever that may imply with respect to the inside or outside of the
brain/mind complex.
From my understanding, solipsism is the theory that nothing other than
that which is inside one>s self can be "proven" to oneself. It
doesn>t preclude that there is something… outside. It does cast doubt
on it though.
[/quote]
Yeah. I think the formal definition for solipsism - whatever that
might be - has to adopt the idea that everything conceivable is
subjective in nature and is within or inside control of the subjective
mind to that extent. So whereas we might reasonably infer some outside
of subjective control from the use of inside control, I don>t think
the solipsist would recognize this implication as necessary. Solipsism
is just basically pure subjectivism.
[quote]
I realize this may seem like a rather fine distinction. However it>s
important to realize that this is where we actually get our notions of
inside and outside. It>s also a point that has been completely
misunderstood throughout intellectual and psychological history and
has led to all kinds of pernicious conflicts and misinterpretations.
I understand totally.. and, in personal respect for those who are
presently unknowingly imbued in misconceived notions of "inside and
outside", and might be traumatized without recourse, and thus become
unfocused on this important question, we shouldn>t give examples,
here, of analysis requiring proof based on non-subjective criteria.
As long as these analytical misunderstandings are apparently required
for the human condition, the pernicious conflicts and
misinterpretations are, unfortunately, bound to continue.
[/quote]
Life is probably just a series of traumatic discoveries regarding
limits to our subjective control and wish fulfillment. The best we can
do is to discover what there is and has to be of necessity so as to
smooth the path of discovery as much as possible in ourselves and
others.
[quote]
The inside and outside do not refer to physical locale in terms of the
brain/mind complex. These terms simply refer to the control or lack of
control of the objective by the subjective. That and nothing more. The
subjective lies within control of the subjective. But the objective
lies outside control of the subjective to the extent it has and can
have an objective and non subjective definition.
Here, you are right to the point. In the days of solipstic
theorizing, one has to remember, this was not so evident. To question
the solipstic theory, one has to castigate the demons and face the
hard questions that will precipitate the truth from the inherent murky
depths of our mind/brain. Yes, to hell with tableau rosa.
[/quote]
True. Let>s just hope we get it right this time.
[quote]
And all our inferences in regard to where things lie depend first and
foremost on that distinction. We infer objective things lie outside us
if we cannot control them. And we discover that the vast bulk of all
things we cannot control in subjective terms also lie outside the
individual brain/mind complex. Thus we discover that the subjective is
constrained primarily to within the brain/mind complex. But that does
not necessarily imply that all objective circumstances do.
And there are things within the brain/mind complex that are seemingly
objective that we can>t control as mentioned in your first paragraph.
This also includes such topics as deterioration (age and disease) and
addiction, for instance.
[/quote]
Absolutely.
[quote]
To the extent we can exclude subjective circumstances from outside the
brain/mind complex by giving them an objective explanation, we thereby
confine the subjective to within the brain/mind complex. However this
represents an ongoing process of discovery and objective definition.
But insofar as the limitation of subjective and objective phenomena
are concerned we really only have the objective definition of one in
terms of the other to work with and not some presumed idea of
location.
It is only after the analytical line is individually established,
albeit changing as one matures and grows intellectually, that one can
function at one>s maximum proficiency.
[/quote]
Agreed. As long as critical thinkers do not strew the path with
impediments to intellectual growth and maturation.
[quote]
Richard F Hall
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/chpt1.html
Realistic Idealism
A good place to start searching for your analytical line is "the
levels of thought" at the above URL

Thanks, Les
I>m a bit better for this, I think. IMO :)
[/quote]
You>re quite welcome, Rich. It seems like the more we ponder the
better we come to understand. A few years ago - even a few weeks ago -
I had no real appreciation for the significance of solipsism. And now
I begin to see how monumental an issue it turns out to be especially
as a limiting alternative to materialism. Thanks for the help.
[quote]
[/quote]

Regards - Lester

Danny Purvis · Guest

rickleeland@yahoo.com (Rick Leeland) wrote in message news:<ae2f70cb.0310081729.168c37c1@posting.google.com>...
[quote](fixed a typo)

Good topic! I have been following this thread for a few days. Have we
reached a consensus yet? For those who firmly believe in Solipsism,
please send all your life-savings to me to prove your faith. I am with
you all the way -- believe me, it won>t cost you a thing since
everything you see is merely a subjective illusion.

-- Rick
[/quote]
Your gambit perhaps has allure by some very valid definition of
solipsism. I am gradually flashing on the fact that my conception of
solipsism might be, well, solipsistic. I can remember the exact
moment I first encountered the word "solipsism". I was reading a
Nabokov novel in the summer of 1971. A quick visit to the dictionary
- an indispensible tool for reading Nabokov (and the bigger the
better) - and I thought I had the notion entire. My confidence sprang
from the fact that as a hospitalized child I had fallen into
solipsistic speculations for a few hours - solipsistic by my
definition of "solipsism". That early philosophical adventure, the
questionable fruit of a summer of sickness for a seven-year-old child,
is still a vivid memory for me to this day; especially vivid is the
beautiful smile which dissolved the whole queasy enterprise, the
beautiful smile of my hard pressed mom when she returned to my
hospital room after an absence. So, eons later, one glance at the
dictionary was enough for me; here was an old friend, as familiar to
me as my fingernails.

My conception of solipsism - and I now readily admit there are others
- is as follows. The solipsist is a fellow who has made the radical
and irresponsible decision to believe that he is the only experiencer
and that his experience is the only experience. Everything else is
mere construct. Protons and neutrons are mere constructs. A thrown
knuckleball is mere construct. The solipsist>s pet dog is mere
construct. Friends and neighbors are mere constructs. The
solipsist>s very body, his brain itself, are mere constructs. The
solipsist sees himself and his experience - and he might conflate the
two - as the only real reality, the only things that "really" exist.

This type of solipsism is extremely simple: too simple for the words
"subjective" and "objective" to apply to. Further, this type of
solipsism does not turn the solipsist into a New Ager. He does not
interpret his experience as illusion. Far from it. His experience is
the only reality. He does not see his experence as deriving from
himself, as being inside himself, as being the product of his
imagination, as being subjective, as being under his control. Facts
are facts. Experience is all too capable of being unruly,
intractable, shocking, unpleasant, horrible, whether that experience
is the only reality or whether that experience springs from a reality
shared with others.

Danny Purvis

Richard F Hall · Guest

I am here proposing a game.
The following paragraphs are an edited mixture of the writings of
Lester Zick and myself. The entire thinking of this piece was begun
by Lester and you will find his writing spliced into the fabric of
this post. In some sentences, from the original post, the words have
been rearranged to illuminate and clarify the ideas. I have the
feeling that there is more to be said and I am inviting anyone,
especially Lester, to build, or detract, on this basis.

Solipsism, the forgotten Art.

We will progress from here with the idea that degrading the soliptic
position, expanding one>s mind, by exploring the solipstic question is
a positive step in a persons intellectual maturation. From my
understanding, solipsism is the theory that nothing other than that
which is inside one>s self can be "proven" to oneself. It doesn>t
preclude that there is something… outside. If one is new to this
question, it does cast doubt on it though. This proof is the
solipstic question.

An important aspect of the solipstic question is the individual>s
assessment of the nature and origin of every one of their
operating/behavioral precepts. These psychological phenomenon of
assessment and alteration are determined by
1) someone "out there" who then changes your life, either on an
involuntary basis, due to their authority, or a voluntarily, due to
your respect for their authority, or
2) one>s own understanding and acceptance of what has been perceived
to be true "out there", or
3) solipstically, the determination and comparison of one>s present
precepts with what one has thought to be true in the past, though not
based on objective criterion.

In point of fact, in #3, we often have no immediate way to decide
where, exactly, the origins can and do lie, how important they are to
us, and what recourse do we have if we delete them. This effort
described in #3 can be exceedingly traumatic and life altering.

To start this process we can refer to an objective definition of the
objective as the "non-subjective". This will be necessary to vitiate
the solipsist view in universal terms. The great barrier here is that
in the final analysis, everything is subjective. So, we can>t expect
to totally vitiate the solipist view and emerge into a realistic,
non-subjective world. For, to answer this question one must begin to
define who and what one is and establish a personally acceptable line
between the subjective and the non-subjective. This is not a silly
past-time, this can be a mind altering exercise that clears one>s
vision.

It>s certainly true that the origin of most non-subjective
circumstances lie outside us. But that>s really only because the bulk
of objectively definable circumstances do, and not because the
non-subjective definition of the objective requires, or precludes,
such a thing of necessity. Since the introduction of the scientific
method with its "trinity of realistic observation": repeatability,
reliability, and consistency, and its media of interaction and sharing
among numerous mind/brains, we can be lulled


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com