Reality vs. Solipsism

What does it mean to be “real”?Isn’t it obvious? I’m real, you’re real –
Or are we?
How do you know I’m real?

Solipsism
I know I’m real. I exist. I have the capacity to ask the question. “Me” is the only portal to awareness I’ve ever experienced. Besides, I never go away.

I’m always here. Morning, noon, and night. I never, ever, go away. Oh, I may encounter periods of deep sleep or anesthesia of which I have no recollection, but if I didn’t experience the passage of that particular slice of time than how can I assume it to have occurred? Because the clock says so?

Can I trust the clock? Is it real? How can I know? Can I experience awareness as the clock? Sometimes there’s a clock in my “dreams”. Is it real?

Speaking of “dreaming”, when I’m asleep my dreams seem just as “real”, (albeit a different “real”), as my waking life does when I’m awake. Is there a difference? Both the “awake” state and the “dreaming” state contain only one consistent factor – Me.

Rather it’s the sun in my eyes or the five-alarm chili in my belly, both states can best be described as “responses to sensory input”. Of course, “sensory input” may not be real either. No, let’s face it, all I really know is

I Think, Therefore I Am.

This approach to “what is real?” is called Solipsism. It doesn’t allow for any progression of thought and can’t be taken beyond the above concept. A Solipsist cannot differentiate your existence form the existence of a “dream clock” – or anything else. He’s too dependent on his own self-awareness, and his interpretation of reality is completely subjective.

Some “Liberal” Solipsist try to get around the basic uselessness of the philosophy by excepting the veracity of “some reality “ outside themselves. That reality consist of their sensory input, leading to the equally ego-centric conclusion,

I Know Only What I Experience.

Other than expanding the Solipsist’s world beyond the confines of his skull,this modification has little practical value, because the under laying assumption remains the same:

Reality is in the Eye of the Beholder

... and the solipsist has the only eye that can be “proven“ to exist.
This is a completely subjective view of existence that doesn’t allow for you and your point of view.

Aside from these obvious weaknesses, Solipsism and similar views of reality can be laid to rest with logic thusly:

The concept of self-awareness requires something that is not the self and with which one does not share awareness in order to define it. My inability to experience awareness as the clock confirms rather than denies the objective existence of `the clock.

And the objective existence of you, too.

 

Its essentially making the arbitrary and baseless jump from "all that I can be sure of is my own existence" to "all that I SHOULD consider to exist is myself". But the trouble inherent is actually trying to live a coherent life within social contexts without treating some things as objective and intersubjective and without the basic assumption that external reality and other people exists absolutely, independent of them. The solipsist loves to claim that we can never be completely certain, but complete certainty isnt necessary for a positive belief, obviously, as the solipsist has to assume that ideas, knowledge and the subconsciously fabricated reality are possible without something external to perceive and derive it from. It certainly seems that external reality exists and there is no good explanation as to the origin the ideas and knowledge that the solipsistic reality is fabricated from other than a magical one. I think that the solipsist makes the more unreasonable assumption, if not that "I am all that exists" then "I am right in acting as though I'm the totality of existence". It all reduces to wishful thinking based in the desire to be a god.

 

Since we are a part of the universe and since the it is filled with repeating patterns. It is only logical that the function of our own existence is repeated outside ourselves. Therefore why not look within to determine the most complete picture of what happens outside? Thoughts lead to images, action and outward creation.

 

What do you mean by "repeating patterns", "function of our own existence", and "outward creation"? Im interested to try and understand what youre saying but the manner in which you say it is highly esoteric.

 

Since the universe comes from the same source and everything is governed by the same laws and made up of the same substance we can look deep into space and see similar patterns. For example spirals in snails and galaxies. Isn't it only logical to assume that the way we create where thoughts lead to actions would be repeated on different scales. Of course scientific instruments can't measure thoughts, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

I have no idea what youre trying to say. Could you turn it into a syllogism of some sort?

 

If I want to build a piece of furniture for example I start with an image in my mind and then use action until it is created in real life. Our actions lead from thoughts. This is the way things work inside ourselves. Since we are part of the universe is it so outlandish to consider this as a possible way that the universe works on a larger scale where matter and energy are created from an intelligence?

 

Syllogism please.

 

Universe is consistent with repeated patterns
Humans use thoughts to create.
Universe uses thoughts to create.

 

Okay I give up.

 

I found these two quotes that I found interesting.

"...materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself."

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God"

 

Of course they can.

Thoughts are synaptic responses to electrical impulses that are themselves instigated as responses to exterior stimuli.

Analogy: Although I do not speak binary, I can take a light bulb and two wires and measure the intensity of activity in the primitive artificial brain we call a computer.

The image in your thoughts is a programmed response just as the picture on your monitor is.

 

Very poetic, but inaccurate.

You've skipped the creation of "thought" (see my last post), which begs the question:

What stimuli gives the Universe "thoughts"?

 

Okay I think I sort of understand. You say that because humans use thought to "create" and humans are part of the "universe" and "patterns" in the universe can be seen in other parts of the universe. then the universe uses thoughts to create and thus, an intelligence created things?

A few points

1.You used the analogy of building a piece of furniture. You say that thoughts turn into actions and actions create the furniture. However this isnt the same kind of creation with regards to the "creation of the universe". Thoughts become actions which can act upon existing matter to ALTER it and CREATE something new. This is a different kind of "creation" than an intelligent being creating matter itself.

2. Humans are only "part of the universe" in a conceptual sense. Much like Jimmy Page is "part of" Led Zeppelin, humans are part of the universe. But the entities you and I are not part of the universe in a physical manner, as we are not connected to anything else by any observable medium. Thus, what can be said about a human can not have any bearing on the rest of the universe.

3. "Universe" reduces to "everything". Everything in existence is the universe. Your third point reduces to "Everything uses thoughts to create (some additional parts of everything". The universe itself is not an entity and can not be compared with an intelligent creator or a god, as you're trying to make it. For it to be a single entity, everything would have to have an observable connection. How else can we say that there is a connection?

4. It doesnt follow that what can be observed in one thing MUST also be reflected by anything else. "Patterns" can not be demonstrated to be necessarily repeated. Each is its own separate occurrence and similarities cannot be proven to be more than coincidence.

Also your quotes: First one is a baseless statement. The second one is a non sequitur. Why can't we trust our thoughts if they're material?

 

This concept reminds me of the concept that underlines Hindu philosophy.

Another way to say it is that since we are made up of the laws of the universe then we share the same qualities of that universe. In other words, we are the sum total of laws of the universe come alive - The laws that govern the universe govern our body, but that those laws give way to a different complexity.

The only way that can be false is if the laws of the universe are not universal, but many scientists claim that they are.

We are a part of the universe as words are a part of a book, not a member of a band is a part of Led Zeppelin. Everything will remain whatever it is and there will be parts of that everything. There is nothing conceptual about it.

 

Are you suggesting there is no volition only reflection?

Actually, binary is the language we speak and any measuring of intensity we undertake is the jibberish of sliding scale. Our capacity is to distinguish one thing from another, we name the animals. We don"t measure the degree of lightning bug.

Image is not programed, it is developed through association.

 

No, wrong. We are not made up of the laws of the universe. We are made up of matter, each different matter than anything else, matter not connected to anything else in any physical way that can be observed, and the laws of the universe are energy acting upon matter. Everything is "part of the universe" in a conceptual sense. The argument (althought it's flawed in many other ways) relies on an observable and physical (because physical is all that can be demonstrated to exist) connection between me the entity and every entity within spacetime.

Also this is a classic fallacy of composition. The universe is comprised of everything in spacetime. Saying that what is true of one part of a thing (especially if that thing is only part of it in a conceptual sense) is true of the whole thing without explaining the nature of the correlation is insufficient for an argument. But there are so many other flaws with this argument, plus the problem of non-specification. I cant believe anybody in good faith uses this as an argument for the existence of their god.

 

Was the most progressive sociology the one concerned about medicine, OR is the evolving environmental situation so without Sociology, and so bad... that engineers are Gods of material particularity?

______________________________________________

Discovering evolution IS evolution.

 

Famewalk, please in the future limit yourself to 5 hits max. I'm worried about you.

 

Our brains are like huge recording devices. The exterior stimuli is information that our brain collects. To put it in simple terms the brain's neurons fire like musical instruments and the music are thoughts. The notes are particles vibrating at different frequencies. Our memory is like sheet music.