There's an external world that we experience with our brains. A brain that is unique to each person, but approximates the world relatively similarly. Oh no, am I a neuromaniac?

You've got something wrong cause again the whole point is that it's perfectly consistent and rational. Seems like your getting into an is/ought problem. Solypsism is what you can prove the world is. Survival is an ought. Computers aren't illogical because they don't fight you when you go for the off button. You can't disprove Solypsism because you ought to survive. Even the concepts of life/death require a future, past and that your experience has any bearing at all in your existence. If you're desperate for a real cause of such a situation: you could be in a simulation, you could be a boltzman brain, you could have intense psychosis.

[deleted]

I'll have to look into that stuff. But I admit I do have a sort of morbid curiosity to know how someone well educated in these sort of fundamental reality proofs would be able to manage something like psychosis. I imagine these sorts of proofs would help you ground yourself and even make it back to reality, but wow would it be annoying when you have to constantly categorize your perception between internal and external.

The point on my argument is that solipsism is not a position that can be hold rationally and consistently, because holding it implies not being alive, so no one can ever claim to hold that position in a rational and consisten way.

And also, it is not that it has no usefulness, it is that is impossible to hold. It is a fun mind experiment, but not a position that is rational in any way.

Besides being a suicidal position, it is also a position that implies that no discussion makes sense, because if you could believe in solipsism, there is no way that you can discuss anything with anyone else, because you don't believe that there is anyone else.

So, again, fun mind experiment, but if you hold that position, you are being inconsistent and irrational (not saying that you hold it).

It reminds you where the root of your worldly understanding starts. Another comment mentioned psychosis, which would truly suck because per "that leap of faith" you have to take it and if you have psychosis you will be lied to by reality.

Your proof comes from your faith in external senses that have seen death and faith in the existence of a past and future. The whole point of Solypsism is it is the ONLY perfect rational position, requiring no assumptions. That's why it's an intellectual curiosity because it's uniquely invincible.

I agree though that, to your point, remaining doubtful to the point of being solypsist has no usefulness. Nature would be keen to evolve creatures that have faith that their senses are detecting a 'real' external existence. It's a safe leap of faith not only because it costs nothing to move past it, but because (unless you have psychosis) the external world is extremely self consistent.

'Determined by' and 'can be reduced to' are not the same.

Ah yeah, the dreadful Neuromania and Darwinitis. Keep safe kids!

Waste of time. Use your preferred organ to experience sapience, last time I checked there were no rules about organ predilection.

[deleted]

Just the headline of this hurts (I tried to read the article but it wants my email and stuff so no). I’m just wondering what large organ do we use to make sense of our experience?

Wouldn't how we make sense of experience be determined precisely by our brains and biology?? Good vid though

The interview reads like Russell offering up science and math to expound upon Hume's answer to Descartes. I appreciate that it's more detailed, and some of the examples are excellent. It does boil down to basically that, though.

The lesson to me is that Descartes is always going to be valuable because Hume's approach does make people lazy. Russell appears to "school" the interviewer over and over again in exactly that way: actually, no, you're assuming too much, and by assuming less, you may actually get to a better contingent truth even though you still have to accept some shit on faith (or "instinct.")

That's kind of beautiful. If you think about it, it's a great apology for the idea of the devil's advocate. The guy whose position is "actually, no, you can't really know much of anything" keeps you honest, even though you're never going to accept his position, because, well, it sucks and you don't want to starve to death or treat your dad like he's an illusion with no moral significance. But if you let yourself get pushed by it to a point, your own work will benefit.

...how some of us make sense of reality.

There are far too many people that are willfully ignorant, and cling to their false beliefs even in the face of undeniable evidence.

We are ourselves. Why would we not consider ourselves important?

Abstract: Is the mind just a part of the world? Or is the world all in the mind? Neither, argues philosopher, physcian and poet Raymond Tallis as he puts forward his take onhow we make sense of experience. When neuroscience and Darwinism trespass into the humanities, they become, he says, "neuromania" and"Darwinitis" – unhealthy, mad and malign.

This is h by empirically incorrect.

I would argue that solipsism or any philosophy that states that reality is not real can not be hold by living beings while being consistent and rational about it, because this kind of thinking would define air as not existent really, making it absurd to continue breathing, and then dying.

You can repeat that with food or any other requirement for survival.

While this things can be interesting in some context, any discussion that don't accept the pre-conception of an objective reality outside our mind is not sustainable. Of course, this aren't the only ideas that can't be hold with consistency and rationality.

This thread resonates with me. I experienced "psychosis" and my first explanation was Simulation Theory... However I actually reasoned that all I had was faith. I was experiencing, I didn't know if it was "real" but I was experiencing for a reason, so I developed a bottom-up approach looking for points of consistency.

I used three archetypes, The Philosopher, The Doctor and The Engineer to understand reality again and form a more consistent picture.

Russel came up in my investigations, and I found his aversion to "self-reference" (compared to Godell) to be...limiting, (not that I understand it).

what’s the diff?

> I don't think Godel's ontological proof of God makes any sense.

On what basis?

> but a good majority of them don't because many believe in Sartre's motto of "existence precedes essence".

"The idea originates from a speech by F. W. J. Schelling delivered in December 1841.[4] Søren Kierkegaard was present at this occasion and the idea can be found in Kierkegaard's works in the 19th century,"

Both Christians, and theists.

Sartre latter believed in Communism and Maoism. A central idea in many religions is that mankind was given free will by the creator. If you like our essence is a freedom.

You're confusing metaphysical solipsists with Epistemological Solipsists. Also, you're targetting more towards people who fear solipsism out of a mental health concern rather than philosophically consistent and authentic solipsists.

This may not be the sub for you...

If you're interested in understanding solypsism you can look into radical skepticism, Descartes Demon, and the Cogito. In that order is sort of the chronology of the cogito, which was Descartes' answer to radical skepticism.

Solypsism is like the formal conclusion to radical skepticism. There are definitely some pseudo-spiritual types that like to dramatize the idea, but ironically it's about the absolute absence of belief.

I'm sure that this sentence is profound in context, but it's such a nothingburger by itself.