| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lester Zick
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 3:18 am Post subject: Solipsism Again and Again and Again |
 |
|
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 |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Gyll
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 2:46 pm Post subject: Re: Solipsism Again and Again and Again |
|
|
Lester, you are trying (an succeeding) to make an analysis here, but the
analysis is, again, not focused on the real issue you>re atrying to address.
Thing is, do we accept <sensation> as an irreducible category or not. Will
you accept you have <feelings> that can not be described in any other way
whatsoever, except being feelings? If so, <feelings> is a root for the <i>
and <the rest> categories, and this is why you can neither accpet, nor
dismiss, the three attempts to group these two (everything in the <i>,
everything in <the rest>, and finally everything in the <<i> and <the
rest>>). What i>m saying is, if we accept <feelings> as a basic category,
the solipsism issue (and related) cannot be solved simply because it is a
false problem, an attempt to categorise (i.e. reduce) an irreducible
concept.
To wrap it up, this is not about *defining*, it>s about <feeling> as an
irreducible category.
Lester Zick <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> 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] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lester Zick
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: Solipsism Again and Again and Again |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:46:06 +0300, "Gyll" <@> wrote:
[quote]Lester, you are trying (an succeeding) to make an analysis here, but the
analysis is, again, not focused on the real issue you>re atrying to address.
Thing is, do we accept <sensation> as an irreducible category or not. Will
you accept you have <feelings> that can not be described in any other way
whatsoever, except being feelings? If so, <feelings> is a root for the <i
and <the rest> categories, and this is why you can neither accpet, nor
dismiss, the three attempts to group these two (everything in the <i>,
everything in <the rest>, and finally everything in the <<i> and <the
rest>>). What i>m saying is, if we accept <feelings> as a basic category,
the solipsism issue (and related) cannot be solved simply because it is a
false problem, an attempt to categorise (i.e. reduce) an irreducible
concept.
To wrap it up, this is not about *defining*, it>s about <feeling> as an
irreducible category.
[/quote]
Well there are really two aspects to the consideration of feelings as
an irreducible category: whether isolated feelings in particular are
explainable and whether the nature of feelings in general is
explainable. The former is not explainable in exhaustive terms but I>m
fairly confident that the general category itself in explainable in
exhaustive mechanical terms.
Now what this implies with respect to solipsism is clear. It means
that there are objective definitions for the objective and that the
idea that there can be any purely subjective reality without objective
implications is necessarily false.
Even your own definition of feelings as an irreducible category
implies this. It may not be true and I don>t think it is in general
analytical terms but the definition of feelings as an irreducible
category means there is some idea or definition of what it means to be
irreducible that applies unambiguously to things in a non subjective
way.
[quote]
Lester Zick <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> 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 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Danny Purvis
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 10:49 am Post subject: Re: Solipsism Again and Again and Again |
|
|
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Lester,
If you are the only person and all the rest of us are solipsistic
illusions, then the word "objective" only refers to certain aspects of
your entirely subjective world. Your entire world is subjective,
because you are the only true person. The rest of us look like you,
talk like you, and act like you, but only from your perspective,
because there is no other perspective. You are the only experiencer.
"Objective" in that case only refers to things that the rest of us
appear to recognize. We don>t really recognize them because we don>t
recognize anything. Moreover, we don>t even exist, except as patterns
of your experience. So I don>t think you have solved the problem at
all.
Danny Purvis |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lester Zick
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 9:01 pm Post subject: Re: Solipsism Again and Again and Again |
|
|
On 23 Sep 2003 22:49:47 -0700, danny_purvis@hotmail.com (Danny Purvis)
in sci.cognitive wrote:
[quote]lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote
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.
Lester,
If you are the only person and all the rest of us are solipsistic
illusions, then the word "objective" only refers to certain aspects of
your entirely subjective world. Your entire world is subjective,
because you are the only true person. The rest of us look like you,
talk like you, and act like you, but only from your perspective,
because there is no other perspective. You are the only experiencer.
"Objective" in that case only refers to things that the rest of us
appear to recognize. We don>t really recognize them because we don>t
recognize anything. Moreover, we don>t even exist, except as patterns
of your experience. So I don>t think you have solved the problem at
all.
Danny,[/quote]
Your comments summarize the case for solipsism pretty effectively.
The problem is one of perspective. The term subjective doesn>t refer
to the idea of being in here versus out there, in ones mind as opposed
to outside ones mind. It refers to a non self validating character of
inherently ambiguous nature and origin. The term objective refers to
just the opposite in the sense of being of an inherently unambiguous
nature and origin.
We could all be in ones mind and still be objective in this respect.
In fact we all do exist in anyones mind because whatever gives us
knowledge of anything and everything only exists in each of us as
minds. So the issue of solipsism rests not on where we exist but how.
And that how depends on the properties exhibited in reference to one
another that also exist within our minds.
And if those properties exhibit objective characteristics for
objective reasons in our minds then the inherently subjective
character implicit in solipsist thinking is irrelevant and impossible.
Not because things exist in our minds but because the things that do
exist in our minds exhibit objective properties in our minds.
In other words everything that exists does so only in our minds. If
you actually went out there - that is outside of your mind - you would
find only a welter of sensation. It>s in the mind that things appear
because that>s where the things - as opposed to undifferented
sensation - exist.
But that doesn>t mean that the things that exist in your mind or
anyone else>s are only subjective in nature or that your mind is the
only mind that can and does exist for similar things. This depends on
the objective or subjective character of the properties that your mind
assigns to those things.
Now this doesn>t imply that all minds think alike or think alike with
respect to specific subjects. But it does mean that the idea of a
purely subjective reality is inherently illusory if there are
objective elements possible to any mind and if the objective has an
unambiguous and objective definition. And this it does to the extent
that the objective means and must necessarily mean the non subjective.
Thus to every mind capable of thinking in objective terms the
objective - whatever else it may imply - must mean at least this one
and the same thing in the denial of the subjective. Thus the objective
has a uniform definition to this extent.
So what if everything exists in our minds. (I don>t say solely in our
minds because we have no way to know that.) The idea is that
everything that exists in our minds exhibits properties because that
is what is interpreted by the mind. And we interpret how things exist
according to those properties and the properties of those properties.
And if there are things in our individual minds which exhibit
objective properties they do so for non subjective reasons which means
they can also exist in the same form in other minds of similar
capability. That>s all the objective refers to: some necessary
limitation on the subjective nature of what we know. And given that
limitation the general idea of comprehensive solipsism is impossible.
The only qualification concerns the nature and implications of the
objective in particular instances and not whether the category itself
exists and must necessarily exist in opposition to subjectivism in
every mind capable of objective thought. We can certainly make
mistakes in the interpretation of what is objective and what is only a
figment of the imagination.
In other words if you can conceive of the objective you can only do so
in fundamental terms in opposition to the subjective. And this
necessarily means that the same objective thing can exist in the same
form in other minds capable of recognizing objective things. This is
what the objective means. And if you can recognize the objective
character of anything in your mind you have ipso facto denied the
possibility of solipsism as a fundamental principle of nature.
Of course you can certainly maintain that you are the only mind that
does exist. But you cannot maintain as a general principle that you
are the only mind that can exist. The answer to such an idea is to
ascertain whether there are minds that appear to your mind to be
objective and to exhibit objective properties - as by conversing with
them in words and combinations of words of mutual, reciprocal
understanding. If so then obviously you cannot maintain that you are
even the only objective mind in particular.
The particular example you cite of objective properties only existing
in ones isolated subjective mind indicates the source of the general
misunderstanding. Whether the objective properties actually do exist
as properties of objective phenomena or ultimately subjective
phenomena isn>t really the issue. The question is not do they but can
they? And you answer your own observation by calling them objective
properties.
That means they can be recognized by any mind capable of objective
thought in the same form they appear to you whether or not those
objective properties are attached to some subjective figment of your
own imagination.
Regards - Lester |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Danny Purvis
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 6:33 pm Post subject: Re: Solipsism Again and Again and Again |
|
|
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote
[quote]The problem is one of perspective. The term subjective doesn>t refer
to the idea of being in here versus out there, in ones mind as opposed
to outside ones mind. It refers to a non self validating character of
inherently ambiguous nature and origin. The term objective refers to
just the opposite in the sense of being of an inherently unambiguous
nature and origin.
We could all be in ones mind and still be objective in this respect.
In fact we all do exist in anyones mind because whatever gives us
knowledge of anything and everything only exists in each of us as
minds. [...]
[/quote]
Lester,
When you swagger into the saloon, when you suavely tell the solipsist
card shark, "Sure I will play with you, and I>m happy to use that deck
you just took out of your vest pocket", and then, when he pushes the
cards to you and says, "Deal," you suddenly rise from the table and
walk away, I have no objection whatsoever. I would even be willing to
call your mimery the Zen refutation of solipsism. But don>t come
strolling down to the courthouse and start bragging to us lounging
attorneys-at-law about how you just won all the solipsist>s money.
Lenny, a solipsist is a hyperrational lunatic who does not believe in
"us" or in our "minds". When you begin to talk that way you have
walked away from the game.
Danny Purvis |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lester Zick
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 7:44 pm Post subject: Re: Solipsism Again and Again and Again |
|
|
On 25 Sep 2003 06:33:03 -0700, danny_purvis@hotmail.com (Danny Purvis)
in sci.philosophy.meta wrote:
[quote]lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote
The problem is one of perspective. The term subjective doesn>t refer
to the idea of being in here versus out there, in ones mind as opposed
to outside ones mind. It refers to a non self validating character of
inherently ambiguous nature and origin. The term objective refers to
just the opposite in the sense of being of an inherently unambiguous
nature and origin.
We could all be in ones mind and still be objective in this respect.
In fact we all do exist in anyones mind because whatever gives us
knowledge of anything and everything only exists in each of us as
minds. [...]
Lester,
When you swagger into the saloon, when you suavely tell the solipsist
card shark, "Sure I will play with you, and I>m happy to use that deck
you just took out of your vest pocket", and then, when he pushes the
cards to you and says, "Deal," you suddenly rise from the table and
walk away, I have no objection whatsoever. I would even be willing to
call your mimery the Zen refutation of solipsism. But don>t come
strolling down to the courthouse and start bragging to us lounging
attorneys-at-law about how you just won all the solipsist>s money.
Lenny, a solipsist is a hyperrational lunatic who does not believe in
"us" or in our "minds". When you begin to talk that way you have
walked away from the game.
Well, Danny, I can>t tell what your analogy intends to convey. That>s[/quote]
the problem with analogy when you have no convincing explanation to
accompany it. It looks as if you prefer regression of the analysis of
solipsism to ad hominem castigation. Your choice.
Your line of reasoning so far has been a lucid description of
solipsism without any lucid explanation for the terms you use to
describe it in reference to one another. That>s what analysis means.
You don>t like my analysis. So what?
In a collateral thread you refer to yourself as a metaphysician. The
analytical arguments you>ve advanced so far hardly justify such a
grandiose self serving description. As a matter of fact you haven>t
advanced any analytical arguments at all so far. But you do so in very
civil terms. However it takes more than polite wishful thinking on
fundamental topics to make one a fundamental thinker.
Regards - Lester |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Danny Purvis
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 2:18 am Post subject: Re: Solipsism Again and Again and Again |
|
|
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote
[quote]Well, Danny, I can>t tell what your analogy intends to convey. That>s
the problem with analogy when you have no convincing explanation to
accompany it. It looks as if you prefer regression of the analysis of
solipsism to ad hominem castigation. Your choice.
Your line of reasoning so far has been a lucid description of
solipsism without any lucid explanation for the terms you use to
describe it in reference to one another. That>s what analysis means.
You don>t like my analysis. So what?
In a collateral thread you refer to yourself as a metaphysician. The
analytical arguments you>ve advanced so far hardly justify such a
grandiose self serving description. As a matter of fact you haven>t
advanced any analytical arguments at all so far. But you do so in very
civil terms. However it takes more than polite wishful thinking on
fundamental topics to make one a fundamental thinker.
[/quote]
Lester,
First, forgive me for my typo in my previous post in which I called
you by the wrong name. I am plagued by that sort of error, and I
think Nabokov was talking about me - in several places I think, but I
don>t remember where - when spoke of the cretin being punished by that
sort of affliction. Second, I am embarrassed that you did not realize
my intended levity when I called myself a metaphysician. Once again,
my comic timing must have been off.
Okay, so let me respond to your earlier post in more detail. I much
prefer brief, crisp exchanges, but you leave me no choice. I will
also try to explain my analogy (ruined, alas, with Nabokovian justice,
by my execrable typo) in the process. Thanks for your time, and
please do not be angry for me for not immediately agreeing with your
position.
[quote]Your comments summarize the case for solipsism pretty effectively.
[/quote]
Great. At least we are on the same page.
[quote]The problem is one of perspective. The term subjective doesn>t refer
to the idea of being in here versus out there, in ones mind as
opposed
to outside ones mind. It refers to a non self validating character of
inherently ambiguous nature and origin. The term objective refers to
just the opposite in the sense of being of an inherently unambiguous
nature and origin.
[/quote]
Well, okay, you have special definitions for "subjective" and
"objective. Let>s proceed.
(But let me say, your phrase "unambiguous nature and origin" is very
troublesome. It is exactly the origin of various experiences that is
up for grabs. You are already very close to assuming what you want to
prove.)
[quote]We could all be in ones mind and still be objective in this respect.
In fact we all do exist in anyones mind because whatever gives us
knowledge of anything and everything only exists in each of us as
minds. So the issue of solipsism rests not on where we exist but how.
And that how depends on the properties exhibited in reference to one
another that also exist within our minds.
[/quote]
Here I already have big problems. You say "We could all be in one>s
mind". You say "In fact we all do exist in anyone>s mind". My
problem here is that the solipsist does not recognize "us" or "we".
So it looks to me like you are trying to be analytical and nail down
all of your terms, but in doing so you are already straying hard into
assumptions completely antithetical to solipsism. As a Christian
fundamentalist once told me, if you assume things at the beginning,
those assumptions will show up at the end.
So, I think you have already gone wrong. I think you need to present
arguments that do not assume the legitimacy of "we", "us" and "our
minds".
You say, "So the issue of solipsism rests not on where we exist but
how." I disagree. The issue for the solipsist is whether "we" exist
at all.
[quote]And if those properties exhibit objective characteristics for
objective reasons in our minds then the inherently subjective
character implicit in solipsist thinking is irrelevant and
impossible.
Not because things exist in our minds but because the things that do
exist in our minds exhibit objective properties in our minds.
[/quote]
Again, when you say "our minds" you are thumbing your nose at the
solipsist. That>s what I meant by getting up and walking away from
the table. You are refusing to play the solipsist>s game. The
solipsist does not believe in "our minds". "We" are just patterns of
his experience. "We" don>t have "minds" according to him.
[quote]In other words everything that exists does so only in our minds. If
you actually went out there - that is outside of your mind - you
would
find only a welter of sensation. It>s in the mind that things appear
because that>s where the things - as opposed to undifferented
sensation - exist.
[/quote]
I hate to sound like a broken record, but the solipsist does not
believe in "our minds". He would probably also object to your
statement "If you actually went out there - that is outside your mind
- you would find only a welter of sensation." To a solipsist, all
there is is himself and his experiences. From that point of view,
what does it mean to go outside one>s mind? Actually, I>m not sure
that phrase has any meaning to me even from my nonsolipsistic
perspective.
[quote]But that doesn>t mean that the things that exist in your mind or
anyone else>s are only subjective in nature or that your mind is the
only mind that can and does exist for similar things. This depends on
the objective or subjective character of the properties that your
mind
assigns to those things.
[/quote]
You criticized me for being insufficiently analytical, but you are
herding in all sorts of unanalyzed assumptions. All this talk of
things existing in the mind, all this talk of the mind assigning
properties, it sounds pretty speculative to me. Define "mind".
[quote]Now this doesn>t imply that all minds think alike or think alike with
respect to specific subjects. But it does mean that the idea of a
purely subjective reality is inherently illusory if there are
objective elements possible to any mind and if the objective has an
unambiguous and objective definition. And this it does to the extent
that the objective means and must necessarily mean the non
subjective.[/quote]
Again, you are saying "all minds" and "any mind". The solipsist does
not believe in either concept.
[quote]Thus to every mind capable of thinking in objective terms the
objective - whatever else it may imply - must mean at least this one
and the same thing in the denial of the subjective. Thus the
objective
has a uniform definition to this extent.
[/quote]
According to the solipsist, there are no other minds. And the fact
that certain of the solipsist>s experiences are more stable or more
"unambiguous" or more "objective" is not impressive to him. That fact
does not lead him to believe that there are other minds or an
objective world. That fact just leads him to believe that his
experience is patterned in a certain way, has a certain grammar.
[quote]So what if everything exists in our minds. (I don>t say solely in our
minds because we have no way to know that.) The idea is that
everything that exists in our minds exhibits properties because that
is what is interpreted by the mind. And we interpret how things exist
according to those properties and the properties of those properties.
[/quote]
The solipsist disagrees that "everything" "exists" in "our" "minds".
He disagrees with "we" and "things". If you are simply going to
assume that the solipsist is wrong, why couch your assertion in the
form of an argument? Just say, "You>re wrong." But don>t claim to
have proved that he is wrong. (Don>t brag that you beat the solipsist
at his own game, as in my analogy.)
[quote]And if there are things in our individual minds which exhibit
objective properties they do so for non subjective reasons which
means
they can also exist in the same form in other minds of similar
capability. That>s all the objective refers to: some necessary
limitation on the subjective nature of what we know. And given that
limitation the general idea of comprehensive solipsism is impossible.
[/quote]
There are no "individual minds" according to the solipsist. There are
no "things". The solipsist sees no reason to conclude that there is
any limitation on the "subjective nature" of what he knows.
You are confusing your special definition of "subjective" with the
definition which subsumes the solipsist>s orientation. Your special
definition has "subjective" meaning something like "ambiguous". The
definition of "subjective" which subsumes the solipsist>s orientation
simply means "only experienced by the solipsist". The two meanings
are entirely different. It is extremely naive of you to mix them up.
[quote]The only qualification concerns the nature and implications of the
objective in particular instances and not whether the category itself
exists and must necessarily exist in opposition to subjectivism in
every mind capable of objective thought. We can certainly make
mistakes in the interpretation of what is objective and what is only
a
figment of the imagination.
[/quote]
Your equivocation of the two meanings of "subjective" makes this
paragraph invalid. The fact that some of the solipsist>s experience
is not subjective in your special sense has nothing to do with whether
it is subjective in the second sense. The solipsist sees no reason to
believe that there are any other experiencers, even though some of his
experience is more and some less ambiguous. You could avoid making
this type of error if you coined words for your special definitions.
When you make a special definition and give it the same name as an old
definition, you always run the risk of forgetting what you are doing
and substituting one for the other.
[quote]In other words if you can conceive of the objective you can only do
so
in fundamental terms in opposition to the subjective. And this
necessarily means that the same objective thing can exist in the same
form in other minds capable of recognizing objective things. This is
what the objective means. And if you can recognize the objective
character of anything in your mind you have ipso facto denied the
possibility of solipsism as a fundamental principle of nature.
[/quote]
I hope by now you you can see that you are following a blind alley.
You have a false equivocation on two meanings of the word
"subjective". You have also made a host of assumptions antithetical
to solipsism.
[quote]Of course you can certainly maintain that you are the only mind that
does exist. But you cannot maintain as a general principle that you
are the only mind that can exist. The answer to such an idea is to
ascertain whether there are minds that appear to your mind to be
objective and to exhibit objective properties - as by conversing with
them in words and combinations of words of mutual, reciprocal
understanding. If so then obviously you cannot maintain that you are
even the only objective mind in particular.
[/quote]
Again, the fact that the solipsist has unambiguous experiences does
not mean that there are other experiencers. You have simply confused
your special definition of "subjective" with the definition that would
subsume solipsism. You probably were lead into this error because you
made so many assumptions that the solipsist would never agree to,
making your error seem natural to you.
[quote]The particular example you cite of objective properties only existing
in ones isolated subjective mind indicates the source of the general
misunderstanding. Whether the objective properties actually do exist
as properties of objective phenomena or ultimately subjective
phenomena isn>t really the issue. The question is not do they but can
they? And you answer your own observation by calling them objective
properties.
[/quote]
Your mistaken approach has lead you far astray. Otherwise, you would
never say, "The question is not do they but can they?" How
ridiculous! The question is whether or not there actually are other
minds. The solipsist has a very coherent picture of the world. He
just happens to be wrong. There are actually other minds. But that
is what we cannot convince him of. He knows all about nonsolipsistic
interpretation. He knows what logically "can be". But he says, "No,
it>s not that way." You are misunderstanding the solipsist>s
position.
Again, in your last sentence, you falsely equivocate. I was never
using your special definition of "objective".
[quote]That means they can be recognized by any mind capable of objective
thought in the same form they appear to you whether or not those
objective properties are attached to some subjective figment of your
own imagination.
[/quote]
I hope you see now that you have not proved anything. I think you are
trying for too much certainty. We all know that the solipsist is
wrong and that we would be wrong if we were solipsists. We don>t need
a proof. But even if we did, that need would not mean that a proof is
available.
Danny Purvis |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lester Zick
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 7:14 am Post subject: Re: Solipsism Again and Again and Again |
|
|
On 25 Sep 2003 14:18:31 -0700, danny_purvis@hotmail.com (Danny Purvis)
in sci.cognitive wrote:
[quote]lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote
Well, Danny, I can>t tell what your analogy intends to convey. That>s
the problem with analogy when you have no convincing explanation to
accompany it. It looks as if you prefer regression of the analysis of
solipsism to ad hominem castigation. Your choice.
Your line of reasoning so far has been a lucid description of
solipsism without any lucid explanation for the terms you use to
describe it in reference to one another. That>s what analysis means.
You don>t like my analysis. So what?
In a collateral thread you refer to yourself as a metaphysician. The
analytical arguments you>ve advanced so far hardly justify such a
grandiose self serving description. As a matter of fact you haven>t
advanced any analytical arguments at all so far. But you do so in very
civil terms. However it takes more than polite wishful thinking on
fundamental topics to make one a fundamental thinker.
Lester,
First, forgive me for my typo in my previous post in which I called
you by the wrong name. I am plagued by that sort of error, and I
think Nabokov was talking about me - in several places I think, but I
don>t remember where - when spoke of the cretin being punished by that
sort of affliction. Second, I am embarrassed that you did not realize
my intended levity when I called myself a metaphysician. Once again,
my comic timing must have been off.
Okay, so let me respond to your earlier post in more detail. I much
prefer brief, crisp exchanges, but you leave me no choice. I will
also try to explain my analogy (ruined, alas, with Nabokovian justice,
by my execrable typo) in the process. Thanks for your time, and
please do not be angry for me for not immediately agreeing with your
position.
Your comments summarize the case for solipsism pretty effectively.
Great. At least we are on the same page.
The problem is one of perspective. The term subjective doesn>t refer
to the idea of being in here versus out there, in ones mind as
opposed
to outside ones mind. It refers to a non self validating character of
inherently ambiguous nature and origin. The term objective refers to
just the opposite in the sense of being of an inherently unambiguous
nature and origin.
Well, okay, you have special definitions for "subjective" and
"objective. Let>s proceed.
[/quote]
I>m not sure why you consider them special definitions. Whatever else
they may mean, they have to mean the opposite of each other.
[quote]
(But let me say, your phrase "unambiguous nature and origin" is very
troublesome. It is exactly the origin of various experiences that is
up for grabs. You are already very close to assuming what you want to
prove.)
[/quote]
Well unambiguous in the sense that subjective refers to the inherently
ambiguous.
[quote]
We could all be in ones mind and still be objective in this respect.
In fact we all do exist in anyones mind because whatever gives us
knowledge of anything and everything only exists in each of us as
minds. So the issue of solipsism rests not on where we exist but how.
And that how depends on the properties exhibited in reference to one
another that also exist within our minds.
Here I already have big problems. You say "We could all be in one>s
mind". You say "In fact we all do exist in anyone>s mind". My
problem here is that the solipsist does not recognize "us" or "we".
[/quote]
Your previous reference was to the solipsist idea that if others were
present they were supposedly figments of ones own imagination in some
sense.
[quote]So it looks to me like you are trying to be analytical and nail down
all of your terms, but in doing so you are already straying hard into
assumptions completely antithetical to solipsism. As a Christian
fundamentalist once told me, if you assume things at the beginning,
those assumptions will show up at the end.
So, I think you have already gone wrong. I think you need to present
arguments that do not assume the legitimacy of "we", "us" and "our
minds".
[/quote]
My arguments re solipsism don>t rest on we or us or our. They only
rest on the terms subjective and objective and their meaning in
relation to one another. If the solipsist doesn>t recognize the term
objective of course there is nothing to analyze.
[quote]
You say, "So the issue of solipsism rests not on where we exist but
how." I disagree. The issue for the solipsist is whether "we" exist
at all.
[/quote]
Well sure. But the conventional approach to the idea of solipsism does
imply the in-here versus the out-there. However that is meaningless
whether we>re talking solipsism or anything else in the cognitive
realm.
Now if the solipsist position is defined in terms of the subjective
and objective, that is the only issue. And we or us can only exist to
the extent that these terms have meaning in terms of one another and
necessary implications for we or us or other things not implied in
terms of the subjective alone.
On the other hand if the solipsist position is not defined in terms of
the subjective and objective, it would be unclear what definition
solipsism could have. If one were to reply that solipsism only
maintains that everything exists solely in what? ones imagination?
then we would seem to be back to the same old in here versus out there
definition.
[quote]
And if those properties exhibit objective characteristics for
objective reasons in our minds then the inherently subjective
character implicit in solipsist thinking is irrelevant and
impossible.
Not because things exist in our minds but because the things that do
exist in our minds exhibit objective properties in our minds.
Again, when you say "our minds" you are thumbing your nose at the
solipsist. That>s what I meant by getting up and walking away from
the table. You are refusing to play the solipsist>s game. The
solipsist does not believe in "our minds". "We" are just patterns of
his experience. "We" don>t have "minds" according to him.
[/quote]
Of course I>m thumbing my nose at the solipsist. The position is
trivial and silly in terms of its own definition. And why should one
argue from the solipsist position anyway? The solipsist game is to
make assumptions based on what he would like to believe about his mind
without being able to analyze the implications of terms like
subjective and objective in reference to one another or to his own
mind.
But that doesn>t mean we are bound by the same restrictions. I>m not
interested in arguing with solipsists except with respect to the
meaning and implications of the terms subjective and objective in
reference to one another. And those are terms that both adherents and
denigrators of solipsism use and have equal right to interpret.
The solipsist has no special exclusive claim to their interpretation
according to his own lights unless he prefers to rely solely on the
idea of the subjective, in which case there is nothing and no one to
argue with. But if he wishes to claim that the objective is and can
only be part of his own mind he is simply mistaken whatever he thinks.
I don>t care what the solipsist believes in or doesn>t. My arguments
don>t rest on the idea of our minds or their minds. It only rests on
the analysis of subjective and objective in reference to one another.
And I believe these are terms you yourself use to describe the basic
idea of solipsism.
[quote]
In other words everything that exists does so only in our minds. If
you actually went out there - that is outside of your mind - you
would
find only a welter of sensation. It>s in the mind that things appear
because that>s where the things - as opposed to undifferented
sensation - exist.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but the solipsist does not
believe in "our minds". He would probably also object to your
statement "If you actually went out there - that is outside your mind
- you would find only a welter of sensation." To a solipsist, all
there is is himself and his experiences. From that point of view,
what does it mean to go outside one>s mind? Actually, I>m not sure
that phrase has any meaning to me even from my nonsolipsistic
perspective.
[/quote]
Well I>m not sure what your own non solipsist perspective is. However
at the risk of sounding like a broken record myself I have no
analytical interest in phrases like our mind or us or others and
certainly no interest in convincing a committed solipsist one way or
the other.
These are only terminological conveniences used to explain the issues
of subjective and objective in conventional terms. I>m not trying to
convince the solipsist but I expect him to understand the necessary
implications of the objective in terms of the subjective whether he
agrees or not if he chooses to use both terms.
[quote]
But that doesn>t mean that the things that exist in your mind or
anyone else>s are only subjective in nature or that your mind is the
only mind that can and does exist for similar things. This depends on
the objective or subjective character of the properties that your
mind
assigns to those things.
You criticized me for being insufficiently analytical, but you are
herding in all sorts of unanalyzed assumptions. All this talk of
things existing in the mind, all this talk of the mind assigning
properties, it sounds pretty speculative to me. Define "mind".
[/quote]
Well I don>t mind saying that these observations are made without
further analytical foundation. I don>t mind going into detail but at
this stage they>re really only descriptive in nature and speculative
in that sense. But they can be defined more exactly.
I believe I criticized you more for not being analytical at all rather
than not being sufficiently analytical. This is said without trying to
be deliberately antagonistic. The critical path with reference to the
analysis of solipsism lies just in the analysis and interpretation of
the subjective and objective in reference to one another and whether
the solipsist acknowledges both in describing his reality.
[quote]
Now this doesn>t imply that all minds think alike or think alike with
respect to specific subjects. But it does mean that the idea of a
purely subjective reality is inherently illusory if there are
objective elements possible to any mind and if the objective has an
unambiguous and objective definition. And this it does to the extent
that the objective means and must necessarily mean the non
subjective.
Again, you are saying "all minds" and "any mind". The solipsist does
not believe in either concept.
[/quote]
Just descriptive ploys for conversational purposes. The term mind
would suffice for analytical purposes.
[quote]
Thus to every mind capable of thinking in objective terms the
objective - whatever else it may imply - must mean at least this one
and the same thing in the denial of the subjective. Thus the
objective
has a uniform definition to this extent.
According to the solipsist, there are no other minds. And the fact
that certain of the solipsist>s experiences are more stable or more
"unambiguous" or more "objective" is not impressive to him. That fact
does not lead him to believe that there are other minds or an
objective world. That fact just leads him to believe that his
experience is patterned in a certain way, has a certain grammar.
[/quote]
Well his experience could have all kinds of things and still
misinterpret the implications of the objective in reference to his
mind. In fact technically I don>t see that the committed solipsist
could even have a phrase like his mind in his lexicon. It would
undoubtedly be the mind instead, which at least couches his
contentions in universal terms whether intended or not.
[quote]
So what if everything exists in our minds. (I don>t say solely in our
minds because we have no way to know that.) The idea is that
everything that exists in our minds exhibits properties because that
is what is interpreted by the mind. And we interpret how things exist
according to those properties and the properties of those properties.
The solipsist disagrees that "everything" "exists" in "our" "minds".
He disagrees with "we" and "things". If you are simply going to
assume that the solipsist is wrong, why couch your assertion in the
form of an argument? Just say, "You>re wrong." But don>t claim to
have proved that he is wrong. (Don>t brag that you beat the solipsist
at his own game, as in my analogy.)
[/quote]
It>s immaterial whether the solipsist agrees or disagrees with terms
like we and things if he characterizes any aspect of whatever he knows
as objective. That>s all I analyzed and explained in context of the
subjective. I don>t need to agree or disagree with solipsism because
his position only depends on the meaning and implications of the
objective versus the subjective in analytical terms and not whether I
agree or disagree with him or solipsism.
[quote]
And if there are things in our individual minds which exhibit
objective properties they do so for non subjective reasons which
means
they can also exist in the same form in other minds of similar
capability. That>s all the objective refers to: some necessary
limitation on the subjective nature of what we know. And given that
limitation the general idea of comprehensive solipsism is impossible.
There are no "individual minds" according to the solipsist. There are
no "things". The solipsist sees no reason to conclude that there is
any limitation on the "subjective nature" of what he knows.
[/quote]
Well you referred to the objective character of certain things in the
solipsist mind. I>m not sure what that means insofar as the
solipsist>s mind is concerned but I am sure what it means in reference
to the subjective in the solipsist>s or anyone else>s mind.
[quote]
You are confusing your special definition of "subjective" with the
definition which subsumes the solipsist>s orientation. Your special
definition has "subjective" meaning something like "ambiguous". The
definition of "subjective" which subsumes the solipsist>s orientation
simply means "only experienced by the solipsist". The two meanings
are entirely different. It is extremely naive of you to mix them up.
[/quote]
The only analytical definition of the subjective I>ve given is the non
objective and vice versa. There is nothing special about this
definition. And everything else said has just been descriptive of the
implications of this basic definition.
The foremost aspect of the analytical definition of objective and
subjective is that the two are different. And to the extent that the
solipsist mind is characterized as having some objective aspects,
those objective aspects are not subjective aspects of the solipsist>s
mind.
The definition you give of the subjective as only experienced by the
mind of the solipsist doesn>t explain the objective. Nor does it
explain the implications of the objective in the solipsist>s mind.
[quote]
The only qualification concerns the nature and implications of the
objective in particular instances and not whether the category itself
exists and must necessarily exist in opposition to subjectivism in
every mind capable of objective thought. We can certainly make
mistakes in the interpretation of what is objective and what is only
a
figment of the imagination.
Your equivocation of the two meanings of "subjective" makes this
paragraph invalid. The fact that some of the solipsist>s experience
is not subjective in your special sense has nothing to do with whether
it is subjective in the second sense. The solipsist sees no reason to
believe that there are any other experiencers, even though some of his
experience is more and some less ambiguous. You could avoid making
this type of error if you coined words for your special definitions.
When you make a special definition and give it the same name as an old
definition, you always run the risk of forgetting what you are doing
and substituting one for the other.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]
In other words if you can conceive of the objective you can only do
so
in fundamental terms in opposition to the subjective. And this
necessarily means that the same objective thing can exist in the same
form in other minds capable of recognizing objective things. This is
what the objective means. And if you can recognize the objective
character of anything in your mind you have ipso facto denied the
possibility of solipsism as a fundamental principle of nature.
I hope by now you you can see that you are following a blind alley.
You have a false equivocation on two meanings of the word
"subjective". You have also made a host of assumptions antithetical
to solipsism.
Of course you can certainly maintain that you are the only mind that
does exist. But you cannot maintain as a general principle that you
are the only mind that can exist. The answer to such an idea is to
ascertain whether there are minds that appear to your mind to be
objective and to exhibit objective properties - as by conversing with
them in words and combinations of words of mutual, reciprocal
understanding. If so then obviously you cannot maintain that you are
even the only objective mind in particular.
Again, the fact that the solipsist has unambiguous experiences does
not mean that there are other experiencers. You have simply confused
your special definition of "subjective" with the definition that would
subsume solipsism. You probably were lead into this error because you
made so many assumptions that the solipsist would never agree to,
making your error seem natural to you.
[/quote]
Nothing of the kind. I made no assumption that there are other
experiencers. In fact I drew attention to this point specifically. I
simply said the definition of the objective in the context of the
subjective implied the possibility of other minds of necessity. And of
course that the holding of conversations implied the actual existence
of other comparable objective minds as well.
[quote]
The particular example you cite of objective properties only existing
in ones isolated subjective mind indicates the source of the general
misunderstanding. Whether the objective properties actually do exist
as properties of objective phenomena or ultimately subjective
phenomena isn>t really the issue. The question is not do they but can
they? And you answer your own observation by calling them objective
properties.
Your mistaken approach has lead you far astray. Otherwise, you would
never say, "The question is not do they but can they?" How
ridiculous! The question is whether or not there actually are other
minds. The solipsist has a very coherent picture of the world. He
just happens to be wrong. There are actually other minds. But that
is what we cannot convince him of. He knows all about nonsolipsistic
interpretation. He knows what logically "can be". But he says, "No,
it>s not that way." You are misunderstanding the solipsist>s
position.
Again, in your last sentence, you falsely equivocate. I was never
using your special definition of "objective".
That means they can be recognized by any mind capable of objective
thought in the same form they appear to you whether or not those
objective properties are attached to some subjective figment of your
own imagination.
I hope you see now that you have not proved anything. I think you are
trying for too much certainty. We all know that the solipsist is
wrong and that we would be wrong if we were solipsists. We don>t need
a proof. But even if we did, that need would not mean that a proof is
available.
Your beliefs that solipsism is incorrect - the solipsist>s belief that[/quote]
solipsism is right. These are beliefs. They have nothing to do with
the terms in which the argument is cast. Analysis deals with those
terms and their meaning and implications with respect to one another.
Everything may be in the solipsist>s mind. Nothing you or the
solipsist have said shows whether that>s true or false of necessity.
There may be other minds. But nothing you or the solipsist have said
sheds any light on whether that>s true or false. The two of you are
just discussing collateral considerations related to your respective
contentions.
If one chooses to acknowledge and use the terms subjective and
objective to describe solipsism, you can>t very well use them to
describe what>s in or not in the mind of a solipsist because they
don>t specify location in their most basic form.
Regards - Lester |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Pat Harrington
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 2:59 pm Post subject: Re: Solipsism Again and Again and Again |
|
|
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
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3f737985.64314999@netnews.att.net>...
[quote]On 25 Sep 2003 14:18:31 -0700, danny_purvis@hotmail.com (Danny Purvis)
in sci.cognitive wrote:
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote
Well, Danny, I can>t tell what your analogy intends to convey. That>s
the problem with analogy when you have no convincing explanation to
accompany it. It looks as if you prefer regression of the analysis of
solipsism to ad hominem castigation. Your choice.
Your line of reasoning so far has been a lucid description of
solipsism without any lucid explanation for the terms you use to
describe it in reference to one another. That>s what analysis means.
You don>t like my analysis. So what?
In a collateral thread you refer to yourself as a metaphysician. The
analytical arguments you>ve advanced so far hardly justify such a
grandiose self serving description. As a matter of fact you haven>t
advanced any analytical arguments at all so far. But you do so in very
civil terms. However it takes more than polite wishful thinking on
fundamental topics to make one a fundamental thinker.
Lester,
First, forgive me for my typo in my previous post in which I called
you by the wrong name. I am plagued by that sort of error, and I
think Nabokov was talking about me - in several places I think, but I
don>t remember where - when spoke of the cretin being punished by that
sort of affliction. Second, I am embarrassed that you did not realize
my intended levity when I called myself a metaphysician. Once again,
my comic timing must have been off.
Okay, so let me respond to your earlier post in more detail. I much
prefer brief, crisp exchanges, but you leave me no choice. I will
also try to explain my analogy (ruined, alas, with Nabokovian justice,
by my execrable typo) in the process. Thanks for your time, and
please do not be angry for me for not immediately agreeing with your
position.
Your comments summarize the case for solipsism pretty effectively.
Great. At least we are on the same page.
The problem is one of perspective. The term subjective doesn>t refer
to the idea of being in here versus out there, in ones mind as
opposed
to outside ones mind. It refers to a non self validating character of
inherently ambiguous nature and origin. The term objective refers to
just the opposite in the sense of being of an inherently unambiguous
nature and origin.
Well, okay, you have special definitions for "subjective" and
"objective. Let>s proceed.
I>m not sure why you consider them special definitions. Whatever else
they may mean, they have to mean the opposite of each other.
(But let me say, your phrase "unambiguous nature and origin" is very
troublesome. It is exactly the origin of various experiences that is
up for grabs. You are already very close to assuming what you want to
prove.)
Well unambiguous in the sense that subjective refers to the inherently
ambiguous.
We could all be in ones mind and still be objective in this respect.
In fact we all do exist in anyones mind because whatever gives us
knowledge of anything and everything only exists in each of us as
minds. So the issue of solipsism rests not on where we exist but how.
And that how depends on the properties exhibited in reference to one
another that also exist within our minds.
Here I already have big problems. You say "We could all be in one>s
mind". You say "In fact we all do exist in anyone>s mind". My
problem here is that the solipsist does not recognize "us" or "we".
Your previous reference was to the solipsist idea that if others were
present they were supposedly figments of ones own imagination in some
sense.
So it looks to me like you are trying to be analytical and nail down
all of your terms, but in doing so you are already straying hard into
assumptions completely antithetical to solipsism. As a Christian
fundamentalist once told me, if you assume things at the beginning,
those assumptions will show up at the end.
So, I think you have already gone wrong. I think you need to present
arguments that do not assume the legitimacy of "we", "us" and "our
minds".
My arguments re solipsism don>t rest on we or us or our. They only
rest on the terms subjective and objective and their meaning in
relation to one another. If the solipsist doesn>t recognize the term
objective of course there is nothing to analyze.
You say, "So the issue of solipsism rests not on where we exist but
how." I disagree. The issue for the solipsist is whether "we" exist
at all.
Well sure. But the conventional approach to the idea of solipsism does
imply the in-here versus the out-there. However that is meaningless
whether we>re talking solipsism or anything else in the cognitive
realm.
Now if the solipsist position is defined in terms of the subjective
and objective, that is the only issue. And we or us can only exist to
the extent that these terms have meaning in terms of one another and
necessary implications for we or us or other things not implied in
terms of the subjective alone.
On the other hand if the solipsist position is not defined in terms of
the subjective and objective, it would be unclear what definition
solipsism could have. If one were to reply that solipsism only
maintains that everything exists solely in what? ones imagination?
then we would seem to be back to the same old in here versus out there
definition.
And if those properties exhibit objective characteristics for
objective reasons in our minds then the inherently subjective
character implicit in solipsist thinking is irrelevant and
impossible.
Not because things exist in our minds but because the things that do
exist in our minds exhibit objective properties in our minds.
Again, when you say "our minds" you are thumbing your nose at the
solipsist. That>s what I meant by getting up and walking away from
the table. You are refusing to play the solipsist>s game. The
solipsist does not believe in "our minds". "We" are just patterns of
his experience. "We" don>t have "minds" according to him.
Of course I>m thumbing my nose at the solipsist. The position is
trivial and silly in terms of its own definition. And why should one
argue from the solipsist position anyway? The solipsist game is to
make assumptions based on what he would like to believe about his mind
without being able to analyze the implications of terms like
subjective and objective in reference to one another or to his own
mind.
But that doesn>t mean we are bound by the same restrictions. I>m not
interested in arguing with solipsists except with respect to the
meaning and implications of the terms subjective and objective in
reference to one another. And those are terms that both adherents and
denigrators of solipsism use and have equal right to interpret.
The solipsist has no special exclusive claim to their interpretation
according to his own lights unless he prefers to rely solely on the
idea of the subjective, in which case there is nothing and no one to
argue with. But if he wishes to claim that the objective is and can
only be part of his own mind he is simply mistaken whatever he thinks.
I don>t care what the solipsist believes in or doesn>t. My arguments
don>t rest on the idea of our minds or their minds. It only rests on
the analysis of subjective and objective in reference to one another.
And I believe these are terms you yourself use to describe the basic
idea of solipsism.
In other words everything that exists does so only in our minds. If
you actually went out there - that is outside of your mind - you
would
find only a welter of sensation. It>s in the mind that things appear
because that>s where the things - as opposed to undifferented
sensation - exist.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but the solipsist does not
believe in "our minds". He would probably also object to your
statement "If you actually went out there - that is outside your mind
- you would find only a welter of sensation." To a solipsist, all
there is is himself and his experiences. From that point of view,
what does it mean to go outside one>s mind? Actually, I>m not sure
that phrase has any meaning to me even from my nonsolipsistic
perspective.
Well I>m not sure what your own non solipsist perspective is. However
at the risk of sounding like a broken record myself I have no
analytical interest in phrases like our mind or us or others and
certainly no interest in convincing a committed solipsist one way or
the other.
These are only terminological conveniences used to explain the issues
of subjective and objective in conventional terms. I>m not trying to
convince the solipsist but I expect him to understand the necessary
implications of the objective in terms of the subjective whether he
agrees or not if he chooses to use both terms.
But that doesn>t mean that the things that exist in your mind or
anyone else>s are only subjective in nature or that your mind is the
only mind that can and does exist for similar things. This depends on
the objective or subjective character of the properties that your
mind
assigns to those things.
You criticized me for being insufficiently analytical, but you are
herding in all sorts of unanalyzed assumptions. All this talk of
things existing in the mind, all this talk of the mind assigning
properties, it sounds pretty speculative to me. Define "mind".
Well I don>t mind saying that these observations are made without
further analytical foundation. I don>t mind going into detail but at
this stage they>re really only descriptive in nature and speculative
in that sense. But they can be defined more exactly.
I believe I criticized you more for not being analytical at all rather
than not being sufficiently analytical. This is said without trying to
be deliberately antagonistic. The critical path with reference to the
analysis of solipsism lies just in the analysis and interpretation of
the subjective and objective in reference to one another and whether
the solipsist acknowledges both in describing his reality.
Now this doesn>t imply that all minds think alike or think alike with
respect to specific subjects. But it does mean that the idea of a
purely subjective reality is inherently illusory if there are
objective elements possible to any mind and if the objective has an
unambiguous and objective definition. And this it does to the extent
that the objective means and must necessarily mean the non
subjective.
Again, you are saying "all minds" and "any mind". The solipsist does
not believe in either concept.
Just descriptive ploys for conversational purposes. The term mind
would suffice for analytical purposes.
Thus to every mind capable of thinking in objective terms the
objective - whatever else it may imply - must mean at least this one
and the same thing in the denial of the subjective. Thus the
objective
has a uniform definition to this extent.
According to the solipsist, there are no other minds. And the fact
that certain of the solipsist>s experiences are more stable or more
"unambiguous" or more "objective" is not impressive to him. That fact
does not lead him to believe that there are other minds or an
objective world. That fact just leads him to believe that his
experience is patterned in a certain way, has a certain grammar.
Well his experience could have all kinds of things and still
misinterpret the implications of the objective in reference to his
mind. In fact technically I don>t see that the committed solipsist
could even have a phrase like his mind in his lexicon. It would
undoubtedly be the mind instead, which at least couches his
contentions in universal terms whether intended or not.
So what if everything exists in our minds. (I don>t say solely in our
minds because we have no way to know that.) The idea is that
everything that exists in our minds exhibits properties because that
is what is interpreted by the mind. And we interpret how things exist
according to those properties and the properties of those properties.
The solipsist disagrees that "everything" "exists" in "our" "minds".
He disagrees with "we" and "things". If you are simply going to
assume that the solipsist is wrong, why couch your assertion in the
form of an argument? Just say, "You>re wrong." But don>t claim to
have proved that he is wrong. (Don>t brag that you beat the solipsist
at his own game, as in my analogy.)
It>s immaterial whether the solipsist agrees or disagrees with terms
like we and things if he characterizes any aspect of whatever he knows
as objective. That>s all I analyzed and explained in context of the
subjective. I don>t need to agree or disagree with solipsism because
his position only depends on the meaning and implications of the
objective versus the subjective in analytical terms and not whether I
agree or disagree with him or solipsism.
And if there are things in our individual minds which exhibit
objective properties they do so for non subjective reasons which
means
they can also exist in the same form in other minds of similar
capability. That>s all the objective refers to: some necessary
limitation on the subjective nature of what we know. And given that
limitation the general idea of comprehensive solipsism is impossible.
There are no "individual minds" according to the solipsist. There are
no "things". The solipsist sees no reason to conclude that there is
any limitation on the "subjective nature" of what he knows.
Well you referred to the objective character of certain things in the
solipsist mind. I>m not sure what that means insofar as the
solipsist>s mind is concerned but I am sure what it means in reference
to the subjective in the solipsist>s or anyone else>s mind.
You are confusing your special definition of "subjective" with the
definition which subsumes the solipsist>s orientation. Your special
definition has "subjective" meaning something like "ambiguous". The
definition of "subjective" which subsumes the solipsist>s orientation
simply means "only experienced by the solipsist". The two meanings
are entirely different. It is extremely naive of you to mix them up.
The only analytical definition of the subjective I>ve given is the non
objective and vice versa. There is nothing special about this
definition. And everything else said has just been descriptive of the
implications of this basic definition.
The foremost aspect of the analytical definition of objective and
subjective is that the two are different. And to the extent that the
solipsist mind is characterized as having some objective aspects,
those objective aspects are not subjective aspects of the solipsist>s
mind.
The definition you give of the subjective as only experienced by the
mind of the solipsist doesn>t explain the objective. Nor does it
explain the implications of the objective in the solipsist>s mind.
The only qualification concerns the nature and implications of the
objective in particular instances and not whether the category itself
exists and must necessarily exist in opposition to subjectivism in
every mind capable of objective thought. We can certainly make
mistakes in the interpretation of what is objective and what is only
a
figment of the imagination.
Your equivocation of the two meanings of "subjective" makes this
paragraph invalid. The fact that some of the solipsist>s experience
is not subjective in your special sense has nothing to do with whether
it is subjective in the second sense. The solipsist sees no reason to
believe that there are any other experiencers, even though some of his
experience is more and some less ambiguous. You could avoid making
this type of error if you coined words for your special definitions.
When you make a special definition and give it the same name as an old
definition, you always run the risk of forgetting what you are doing
and substituting one for the other.
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.
In other words if you can conceive of the objective you can only do
so
in fundamental terms in opposition to the subjective. And this
necessarily means that the same objective thing can exist in the same
form in other minds capable of recognizing objective things. This is
what the objective means. And if you can recognize the objective
character of anything in your mind you have ipso facto denied the
possibility of solipsism as a fundamental principle of nature.
I hope by now you you can see that you are following a blind alley.
You have a false equivocation on two meanings of the word
"subjective". You have also made a host of assumptions antithetical
to solipsism.
Of course you can certainly maintain that you are the only mind that
does exist. But you cannot maintain as a general principle that you
are the only mind that can exist. The answer to such an idea is to
ascertain whether there are minds that appear to your mind to be
objective and to exhibit objective properties - as by conversing with
them in words and combinations of words of mutual, reciprocal
understanding. If so then obvi | |
