Topic: Solipsism

[Patback399]

I've been reading about a theory called solipsism, and I'm getting really interested into this. WordNet describes it as "the philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist." Basically, everything you encounter is just, in a simple terms, a dream. It's as if we're all playing some sort of virtual reality game, in which everything is not real and the product of our own minds.

We do not know what other people think, right? So, how do we know they think at all? We don't! As another little teaser, how do I know you see the same colors I see? What I see as blue, you may see what I call "red". There is no way of telling. So, there are many different facets of this theory.

My question is: Is this theory really plausible? There are many responses and opponents of this theory. I myself am not totally certain this is real. But by doubting this is a true theory, I am believing in it. The theory states that nothing can be known but one's own self. So... your opinion?

[IceFox]

For the color thing, there is away of telling.

Is this font color red? Or is it Blue? I see Blue.

As for the rest of theory - it is plausible but not very likely - it's more of an idea that took time to come up with rather than anything that should be looked into over-seriously.

[Patback399]

For the color thing, there is away of telling.

Is this font color red? Or is it Blue? I see Blue.

As for the rest of theory - it is plausible but not very likely - it's more of an idea that took time to come up with rather than anything that should be looked into over-seriously.

In response to the color, my eyes may perceive that color as red. In other words, our eyes interpret things in different ways. You grow up learning that color as blue because your others tell you it's called blue, but you see it a different way as others do. You see it as what they call red. But it doesn't matter to you. You were told it is blue and you believe it, because there is no way of proving or disproving the one who told you it was blue.

It's hard for me to explain.

[carterhawk]

.

[Patback399]

Exactly.

Most people don't understand The Matrix is about solipsism.

[spongehead 32]

About the red/blue thing, I always belived that everyone sees the world in a different spectrum as no two human minds are the same but since we are brought up to react to certain colours in a certain way it makes no difference.

So if someone where to trade that part of the brain with someone else they will find that what they know as blue may apear red or green or anything.

Another idea I got from this is that everyones favourite colour is the same but we are brought up to call it by a different name.

[VulturEMaN]

I already came up with that color theory at a young age (like 6-7) after pondering how animals saw different light arrays than us. I realized that our feeble knowledge of color is absurd.

Sopholism reacts back upon itself in the sense that you came up with the idea of sopholism, or someone else told it to you. Therefore you do not know if it is true or not, because it is not apart of you.

Meh...i think it's a good starting point, but it's quite streched in some areas. I enjoy Kant way more and could never find an error in his reasonings...

[DiE HaRrD PuNk]

I already came up with that color theory at a young age (like 6-7) after pondering how animals saw different light arrays than us. I realized that our feeble knowledge of color is absurd.

Sopholism reacts back upon itself in the sense that you came up with the idea of sopholism, or someone else told it to you. Therefore you do not know if it is true or not, because it is not apart of you.

Meh...i think it's a good starting point, but it's quite streched in some areas. I enjoy Kant way more and could never find an error in his reasonings...

When I was younger, about 6 or 7, I also thought that I may be the only "real" thing or person around. And that everyone else around me was not real, or robots, or not like me. I cannot explain it.

Its weird for someone of such a young age to ponder such things.

[carterhawk]

.

[VulturEMaN]

About the red/blue thing, I always belived that everyone sees the world in a different spectrum as no two human minds are the same but since we are brought up to react to certain colours in a certain way it makes no difference.

So if someone where to trade that part of the brain with someone else they will find that what they know as blue may apear red or green or anything.

Another idea I got from this is that everyones favourite colour is the same but we are brought up to call it by a different name.

Yeah um no. Each type of cell in your eye sees a certain frequency of the EM spectrum. Color isnt defined by names the way you think. color is defined by its wavelength frequency. At most you might get minor variation in the intensity of certain colors under certain conditions, but no one is mixing up blue and green like your thinking.

as far as I know, it's pretty hard to know what someone else is seeing
what if your brain interprets that green EM spectrum frequency to look like my purple? you'd think that it would be green, would be told that it was green, and would think that everyone else saw it as green. But if i could see what your brain is interpreting it as, then i would be like "OMG WTH PURPLE *dies*"

[spongehead 32]

Yeah um no. Each type of cell in your eye sees a certain frequency of the EM spectrum. Color isnt defined by names the way you think. color is defined by its wavelength frequency. At most you might get minor variation in the intensity of certain colors under certain conditions, but no one is mixing up blue and green like your thinking.

So you say the brain has nothing to do with the perception of colour.

And ok, colour is defined by wave length, but how we perceive the colour to look like may be different though it makes no difference as we are brought up to call that colour by that name.

Example, there is a ball on the table, one mind perceives the ball as green and so they describe it as green, the mind teachers younger minds that the ball is green however the young minds perceive the ball as a different colour but since they know no better, they refer to that colour as green and so whatever colour the young minds perceived the ball to be they refer to as green.

Sorry if that example is confusing.

[carterhawk]

.

[VulturEMaN]

About the red/blue thing, I always belived that everyone sees the world in a different spectrum as no two human minds are the same but since we are brought up to react to certain colours in a certain way it makes no difference.

So if someone where to trade that part of the brain with someone else they will find that what they know as blue may apear red or green or anything.

Another idea I got from this is that everyones favourite colour is the same but we are brought up to call it by a different name.

Yeah um no. Each type of cell in your eye sees a certain frequency of the EM spectrum. Color isnt defined by names the way you think. color is defined by its wavelength frequency. At most you might get minor variation in the intensity of certain colors under certain conditions, but no one is mixing up blue and green like your thinking.

as far as I know, it's pretty hard to know what someone else is seeing
what if your brain interprets that green EM spectrum frequency to look like my purple? you'd think that it would be green, would be told that it was green, and would think that everyone else saw it as green. But if i could see what your brain is interpreting it as, then i would be like "OMG WTH PURPLE *dies*"

The thing yoru all looking for is Qualia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia and more specificaly the concept of Inverted Spectrum.

To put it bluntly, the possiblity of such a thing is extremely low simply because humans are built almost all identicaly. Its allowable that some variation in strength of percived colors will exist due to differences between the makeup of each persons eyes. However to allow the possiblity of total inversion invites doubt into the perceptions of every one of our senses. Does my apple pie taste like your spoild milk? The fact is that our senses are all evolved the way they are because of the need to survive. If we didnt all taste bitter the same way then people would be out there eating all kinds of poisonus plants because it tasted sweet.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/

Well said and researched.

But, taste is a whole different ballgame. Our species (and pretty much every other slightly-larger-than-1oz creature) has definently evolved their sense of taste to recognize something bad or good...and this has led to our survival...no doubt.

But sight...ahhh...have we ever needed to spot out a specific wave spectrum and interpret it a certain way soas we will survive? Nope.

Humans are definently built all identically, but when it comes to the mind we all think differently. Our eyes may read the spectrums the same (or not, according to your research), but we do not know what our brains interpet wave patterns as because we cannot record what our brains are thinking. We can see electrical pulses flying all over the place, but that's about the extent of our ability to record what happens 'up there'.

I believe that this theory would be a definite explanation for blue/green colorblindness being hereditary. The visual cortex and thalamus have already been proven to being altered by hereditary features, and this would be no exception.

[Dragon Of Grief]

Things like solipsism and nihilism are considered forms of Psychosis by some doctors and people working in the medical field... people with those types of thought process need help like any schizophrenic or bipolar person.

[Patback399]

Schizophrenics and the insane know more than we ever will.

[VulturEMaN]

They thought that the artist that painted "A Starry Night" had major mental problems. And he did.

But he could see the wind and windcurrents...and yes, that was scientifically proven....

[Shinya]

Schizophrenics and the insane know more than we ever will.

Us maniacs seem to drown ourselves in thoughts normal people wouldn't think. Especially when we find ourselves cornered in many an unorthodox internal quandary.

[AppleNick]

I've been reading about a theory called solipsism, and I'm getting really interested into this. WordNet describes it as "the philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist." Basically, everything you encounter is just, in a simple terms, a dream. It's as if we're all playing some sort of virtual reality game, in which everything is not real and the product of our own minds.

We do not know what other people think, right? So, how do we know they think at all? We don't! As another little teaser, how do I know you see the same colors I see? What I see as blue, you may see what I call "red". There is no way of telling. So, there are many different facets of this theory.

My question is: Is this theory really plausible? There are many responses and opponents of this theory. I myself am not totally certain this is real. But by doubting this is a true theory, I am believing in it. The theory states that nothing can be known but one's own self. So... your opinion?

I always thought of this to be possible. I didn't know it had a name. It sounds impossible to prove or disprove.

[VulturEMaN]

I really wish that philosophy was more popular in high school...

Kids should be forced to read Kant and Plato....

[Thomas]

There is no spoon. 

[VulturEMaN]

Both of my boogers are yummy. But you only get one.

[Thomas]

Both of my boogers are yummy. But you only get one.

 

[aligirl]

I very well understand the thing about how what I see as blue, you may see as something else, but we call it the same thing and think they're the same. But the rest of this whole thing is real confusing...

[spongehead 32]

I very well understand the thing about how what I see as blue, you may see as something else, but we call it the same thing and think they're the same. But the rest of this whole thing is real confusing...

There is a man named Descartes (DAY-CART) who wanted to see if it was possible to doubt the existence of everything, he went about it like this.

Descartes's first wave of doubt

He started with our senses, it is common knowledge that sometimes our senses deceive us, when you put a pencil into water it appears to bend when it actually hasn't changed shape and from a far distance you may see a tower that looks round but up close you find that it is square. From this he stated that since our senses deceive us it is logically possible that the world around us could all be a deception.

However it was pointed out to him that in ideal conditions there is no reason for us to believe that our senses are always wrong so he moved on to his second wave.

Descartes's second wave of doubt

He then thought about the world of dreams and how during a dream it is very hard to tell that it is a dream, from this he said that the world around us may be nothing more than a dream.

However, dreams are like paintings in that they reflect the truth, for example two and two will make four in a dream just as well as they make four in the waking world so with this wave it was impossible to doubt everything, which brought him to his third wave.

Descartes's third wave of doubt

Everything around us is a trick from evil demons (don't laugh). There are demons around us which control everything, when you look at a chair it is the evil demon which makes you think that you are looking at a chair, when you add two and two to make four it is the evil demon tricking your mind into thinking that it makes four when possibly in reality it makes five, when you talk to someone it is the evil demon tricking you into thinking that someone is there to talk to,. It is the evil demon which deceives you into believing there is a world around you when in fact there is nothing around you.

With this idea, Descartes was able to doubt the existence of the world around him and everyone he met, even that he has a body (evil demon tricking him in to believing that he has a body). However, he couldn't doubt the existence of his mind. In order for the evil demon to deceive his mind, there had to be a mind that could be deceived and from this he decided that all he could prove he was, was a mind, a thinking thing. In other words "I think, therefore I am".

[John13]

This could prove very interesting, as every one in this thread could be contained inside my head, a figment of my imagination.

[IceFox]

Solipsism is philosophy. Philosophy is bullshit.

Case closed.

[VulturEMaN]

wow that's a pretty crappy view

[Patback399]

Solipsism is philosophy. Philosophy is bullshit.

Case closed.

Philosophy is art. Some can appreciate it and create beauty and wonder. Some can pass it off as pointless and irrelevant to everything.

[John13]

IceFox just likes to disagree with my.

[IceFox]

IceFox just likes to disagree with my.

Errr, no.


Philosophy is interesting however serves little purposes. All it is is asking infinite questions that do not affect us noticeably in any way. Why would I care to know if I truly have free will or if it's just my my mind playing tricks on me? I don't. If anything, learning (and proving) that I do not have free will would make my life worse. And don't call it education because it isn't. It isn't a solid fact, it isn't something that can be proven (and no, I am not contradicting myself here with the fact that I believe in God) and has no use. I don't see philosophy as art at all, I see it as an unneeded way to use brain power. If people want to study it, go ahead, it's not my problem.

wow that's a pretty crappy view

Elaborate.

[VulturEMaN]

You obviously have very little philosophical teachings to say something along the lines of "it isn't fact and can't be proven".

Most philosophers wrote their books and whatnot based on what facts that they knew that they could trust. An example would be "I think, therefore I am" and they prove that this is true.

I wouldn't say that it's an art, but it definently takes lots of skill to analyse something as closely as some of the 'greats' did.

[IceFox]

You obviously have very little philosophical teachings to say something along the lines of "it isn't fact and can't be proven".

Most philosophers wrote their books and whatnot based on what facts that they knew that they could trust. An example would be "I think, therefore I am" and they prove that this is true.

I wouldn't say that it's an art, but it definently takes lots of skill to analyse something as closely as some of the 'greats' did.

It takes skill to analyze truly in depth but it has no use. And when I mean it can't be proven, I mean that there is no solid proof on any of it. Nothing that would officially constitute as "evidence" or "proof." My last posts were a little harsh, caught me when I was in a bad mood. I understand the thought and knowledge required for philosophy, however my point stands that it is not truly of use to anyone or anything.

[spongehead 32]

You must understand two things before making such claims.

First of all, this topic isn't about all philosophy but just a part of it, this part is known as "meta-physics", so the term "philosophy is bullshit" is quite a foolish generalisation.

Philosophy is about much more than meta-physics, it's also about determining what is truth, what is justice, ethical thought, ways to go about dilemmas and a lot more.

Most of the political methods we have today are based on philosophical teachings around ethics. All justice systems used today would not be if someone hadn't asked the question "What is right and wrong?" and tried to find out.

And to say philosophy has no use to anyone is just a display of ignorance, most, if not all important jobs have some form of philosophy at every turn.

Doctors, for example, make ethical decisions on a daily basis, without some sort of knowledge of ethics, how would it be possible for them to decide what should happen to their patients?

Second of all, before you say "meta-physics is bullshit", consider this, philosophy is the mother of all scientific method. The way scientists try to prove/disprove theories is based on the same way that philosophers tried to figure out the world around us.

Without the question "why?" there would be no pursuit for answers which would result in no technological advancements.

Also, many physicists today are still trying to prove or disprove many of the ideas of existence, be they realist, idealist, phenominalist or solipsist. They do this because to understand how the universe functions they must take into account every idea to see if a definite conclusion can be brought upon, and once this is done, then we can find out how this knowledge can benefit us.

So to say that philosophy has no noticeable effect on the world is terribly incorrect.

[Patback399]

Philosophy is interesting however serves little purposes. All it is is asking infinite questions that do not affect us noticeably in any way. Why would I care to know if I truly have free will or if it's just my my mind playing tricks on me? I don't. If anything, learning (and proving) that I do not have free will would make my life worse. And don't call it education because it isn't. It isn't a solid fact, it isn't something that can be proven (and no, I am not contradicting myself here with the fact that I believe in God) and has no use. I don't see philosophy as art at all, I see it as an unneeded way to use brain power. If people want to study it, go ahead, it's not my problem.

Can't the same thing be said of fiction? Why would I care about something that never happened or never will happen? Why should I care whether the world will become a dystopian nightmare if the year 1984 already occurred? Why should I care who gets a corporate job on a network TV show if the situation isn't even real?

[IceFox]

You must understand two things before making such claims.

First of all, this topic isn't about all philosophy but just a part of it, this part is known as "meta-physics", so the term "philosophy is bullshit" is quite a foolish generalisation.

Philosophy is about much more than meta-physics, it's also about determining what is truth, what is justice, ethical thought, ways to go about dilemmas and a lot more.

Most of the political methods we have today are based on philosophical teachings around ethics. All justice systems used today would not be if someone hadn't asked the question "What is right and wrong?" and tried to find out.

And to say philosophy has no use to anyone is just a display of ignorance, most, if not all important jobs have some form of philosophy at every turn.

Doctors, for example, make ethical decisions on a daily basis, without some sort of knowledge of ethics, how would it be possible for them to decide what should happen to their patients?

Second of all, before you say "meta-physics is bullshit", consider this, philosophy is the mother of all scientific method. The way scientists try to prove/disprove theories is based on the same way that philosophers tried to figure out the world around us.

Without the question "why?" there would be no pursuit for answers which would result in no technological advancements.

Also, many physicists today are still trying to prove or disprove many of the ideas of existence, be they realist, idealist, phenominalist or solipsist. They do this because to understand how the universe functions they must take into account every idea to see if a definite conclusion can be brought upon, and once this is done, then we can find out how this knowledge can benefit us.

So to say that philosophy has no noticeable effect on the world is terribly incorrect.

*drops blue plastic sword*
*admits defeat*

[VulturEMaN]

It's truly an interesting subject, but it does waste our brain power when we could be doing cool stuff like play CS or eat cheese 

zomg when you get to college, take a class of it, but ONLY take it if it has Kant in it, cause Kant is my favorite

[Squiddy]

Idealism is better.

[VulturEMaN]

and how?

[spongehead 32]

Idealism is better.

Only if you believe in god.

[Scilla]

We do not know what other people think, right? So, how do we know they think at all? We don't! As another little teaser, how do I know you see the same colors I see? What I see as blue, you may see what I call "red". There is no way of telling. So, there are many different facets of this theory.

I thought about that in like 5th grade. Its always something I'm not sure of.

About the rest, part of me wants to believe it's all just a dream, but if it were true than how would we get to think these things? In my dreams I never think it's a dream. Does that make sense?

[bub1028]

I started thinking a lot of things related to that.  I mean, this life could all be staged.  I could've been developed to make the choices I do due to the way I've been taught in the past.  And the color thing; I've thought about that too, a while ago. 

I still don't think I believe in it... I'm going to need more proof.

[Squiddy]

Platonic Idealism is the way to go.