An Idea

[mistakeornot]

I think I have an idea which might drive you mad but then you just might not care and think it's stupid but anyway. Here's the idea ( which for now doesn't look like it's completely stupid but then there will probably be something wrong). If everything is made up how do I know I haven't made you up?

But if you're reading this how do you know you're mind hasn't made me up?

 

[Latte]

My mind made up that I am your mind hasn't made you up.

On a more serious note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

There's also further axiomatic shedding beyond solipsism such as an agnostic approach to solipsism and when one accepts a view where own experience is the only axiom, then past/present/future experience distinction can be removed/collapsed into "present"-only (in which case the concept of "present" becomes irrelevant as there is only meaning in distinction).

The concept of existence in itself also becomes redundant if one strips away enough of the normally held reality understanding axioms, such as the idea of objective reality.

Anyhow, it's healthy / madness inducing to think about these things and welcome to the forum :3

 

[mistakeornot]

thanks

 

[Rook]

This question has huanted me throughout my life, mainly due to the fact that one cannot concisely disprove or prove it. The mere fact that I think and am conscious means that I percieve the universe, yet how do I know that others percieve it? This can be likened to gaming: Life is either a single-player game, with one player interacting with AI, or it is an online game where other participants are like you.

Rationally, one may state that, due to the fact that we all have developed biologically in the same universe in the same manner, we are all indeed conscious, but then again what proof do we have that everything is not an illusion/simulation?

The only validation we have for the consciousness of others is external, as our minds are unintegrated.

 

[BigApplePi]

If everything is made up how do I know I haven't made you up?

Answer: You don't. In fact I've made up my mind you have made me up. For convenience though feel free to wonder if my behavior is within your imagination.

But if you're reading this how do you know you're mind hasn't made me up?

That's two questions. I don't know if you're allowed two questions. Answering anyway: You don't know if my mind hasn't made you up. I've decided I'm not going to tell you until next Thursday. Pleeze wait.

 

[nexion]

I'd say a rather 'scientific' response would be to have everyone commit suicide and see what happens.

Your question is irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as my repeated claims that phenomenal reality != actual reality.

 

[just george]

You don't. If it's real, you enjoy it. If it's an illusion, you enjoy it. What it is is not certain, but your enjoyment of it is.

 

[Rook]

You don't. If it's real, you enjoy it. If it's an illusion, you enjoy it. What it is is not certain, but your enjoyment of it is.

Well stated. Live life for the heck of it, even if it's nature is uncertain.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Maybe it's an illusion when you contemplate the question but is real through experiencing life. Experience is a leap of faith possibly...As a child doubts not it's existence. If you experience life, you're taking a leap of faith.

Why did you ask the forum? The act itself belies some faith.

 

[Cognisant]

If everything is made up how do I know I haven't made you up?

You did.

You only know of me through our interactions and from those interactions you have deduced who you believe me to be upon the assumption that I am someone like you, even now you're deducing what the intent of my post is by considering what state of mind you would have to be in to be writing this, but how do you know, how do you really know that I'm not just a well designed program made to make you believe I'm a real person, after all if you think about it isn't this precisely what such a program would say?
What could be more convincing than doubt?

But if you're reading this how do you know you're mind hasn't made me up?

It did, just as it made me too, y'see my concept of self is essentially just stored data on a input/output feedback loop, indeed whether I'm a human being, a brain in a jar or a ~30yr old mainframe in a forgotten Russian military bunker makes no difference, the principles of information theory remain the same, we are all who & what we believe ourselves and others to be which is the only reality we have or ever will know.

Spoiler

And now that you know the truth I must kill you.

 

[nexion]

You only know of me through our interactions and from those interactions you have deduced who you believe me to be upon the assumption that I am someone like you, even now you're deducing what the intent of my post is by considering what state of mind you would have to be in to be writing this

I found this post really thought-provoking up to this point. I thought you were going more for the idea that 'I' do make 'you' up, in the sense that my idea of 'you' is entirely filtered by my own perceptions, patterns of thinking, state of mind, etc. Or hell, even the idea that any given subject has of himself.

It did, just as it made me too, y'see my concept of self is essentially just stored data on a input/output feedback loop, indeed whether I'm a human being, a brain in a jar or a ~30yr old mainframe in a forgotten Russian military bunker makes no difference, the principles of information theory remain the same, we are all who & what we believe ourselves and others to be which is the only reality we have or ever will know.

Does this idea extend beyond the (poorly defined) constraints of the subject and into the object? I ask because in a post from the other day you hinted at empirical leanings, whereas the idea of 'reality' being entirely a matter of perception and perspective (and one which I completely espouse, tentatively) seems antithetical to the idea of empiricism.

Even barring the possibility that 'actual' reality is entirely different from phenomenal reality (any idea which posits this is more or less pointless, as regardless of what is true, phenomenal reality is all we have access to, and these ideas obfuscate discussion in a ceaseless semantic debate), the idea of empiricism does have stand supreme as being an end-all theory of reality with no holes or gray areas. At what point can one differentiate between the 'reality' one has created for himself through his mental faculties and emotional desires, and the reality that is empirically presented to us? Certainly, it could be said that areas of convergence more closely reflect the empirical reality, but this fails to take into account differing interpretations of some set of empirical data, or hallucinations and other mental 'defects'.

 

[Cognisant]

Here's my quick guide:
Subjectively everything is bullshit.
Objectively reality is empirical, that's it.

Now of course if we take skepticism to its utmost extreme then indeed nothing can be known, but that's exactly the kind of raw existential truth idiots should be kept away from because being idiots they'll try to make use of it. Absolute skepticism is the anti-clause, it's nihilism par excellence, it doesn't mean anything can be true it means NOTHING can be true, if you have to resort to absolute skepticism to justify the possibility of something that is an automatic admission of defeat, an absolute skeptic hears nothing, sees nothing, feels nothing, thinks nothing, an absolute skeptic certainly doesn't speak.

Anyone who uses absolute skepticism as the foundation of their argument is either an idiot or a hypocrite because absolute skepticism isn't a foundation, it's the void.

We could all be living in the matrix, there could be algorithms written into this virtual reality specifically to ensure that we do not discover the truth, however unless you can show me some empirical evidence for this hypothesis then it's worth exactly as much as every other unproven hypothesis (of which there is a theoretically infinite number) and that value is sweet fuck all.

 

[Cavallier]

Anyhow, it's healthy / madness inducing to think about these things and welcome to the forum :3

And also freeing yes?

I'd say a rather 'scientific' response would be to have everyone commit suicide and see what happens.

Your question is irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as my repeated claims that phenomenal reality != actual reality.

Said like a true INTX.

This question has huanted me throughout my life, mainly due to the fact that one cannot concisely disprove or prove it. The mere fact that I think and am conscious means that I percieve the universe, yet how do I know that others percieve it? This can be likened to gaming: Life is either a single-player game, with one player interacting with AI, or it is an online game where other participants are like you.

Rationally, one may state that, due to the fact that we all have developed biologically in the same universe in the same manner, we are all indeed conscious, but then again what proof do we have that everything is not an illusion/simulation?

The only validation we have for the consciousness of others is external, as our minds are unintegrated.

Pondering this only becomes important as it relates to morality. So long as you are only considering the philosophical ramifications of existence it's not such a big deal. There is now way of proving either side and the discussions turn into lazy spirals of smoke and mist. However, the moment you bring morality into it things turn ugly.

If you are just a figment of my imagination then it doesn't matter if I abuse you. Yes? No? Morality takes all the fun out of life.

 

[BigApplePi]

Here's my quick guide:

Thank God we have this quide.

Subjectively everything is bullshit.

I have a problem with definitions here.

Objectively reality is empirical, that's it.

There is lots of experience out there and we can give a rating.

Now of course if we take skepticism to its utmost extreme then indeed nothing can be known, but that's exactly the kind of raw existential truth idiots should be kept away from because being idiots they'll try to make use of it. Absolute skepticism is the anti-clause, it's nihilism par excellence, it doesn't mean anything can be true it means NOTHING can be true, if you have to resort to absolute skepticism to justify the possibility of something that is an automatic admission of defeat, an absolute skeptic hears nothing, sees nothing, feels nothing, thinks nothing, an absolute skeptic certainly doesn't speak.

Skepticism about what? Skepticism doesn't exist in a vacuum. If we roll a handful of dice we can be skeptical of certain results and certain of others. A skeptical attitude is a subjective experience and after having a suitable amount of various experiences, a sane person will develop a range of likelihood attitudes from his experiences.

Anyone who uses absolute skepticism as the foundation of their argument is either an idiot or a hypocrite because absolute skepticism isn't a foundation, it's the void.

I will a-void consulting my dictionary to check if I'm an idiot or a hypocrite as I tend to be absolutely skeptical at times. I'll have to tell you tomorrow if I'm that way after I've searched for a cat we lost today.

We could all be living in the matrix, there could be algorithms written into this virtual reality specifically to ensure that we do not discover the truth, however unless you can show me some empirical evidence for this hypothesis then it's worth exactly as much as every other unproven hypothesis (of which there is a theoretically infinite number) and that value is sweet fuck all.

I wonder if those who have not seen the movie belief that. Otherwise I have to say, "Could be."

I hope I'm not joshing too much.

 

[Seed-Wad]

Maybe it's an illusion when you contemplate the question but is real through experiencing life. Experience is a leap of faith possibly...As a child doubts not it's existence. If you experience life, you're taking a leap of faith.

Why did you ask the forum? The act itself belies some faith.

I like this argument.

I have answered this question for myself by acknowledging that people continuously amaze me, and that counter to my dreams this amazement is not just because it is abnormal/absurd, people can actually be understood.

There is this nice idea that everyone/everything around you is a projection of your inner self. Through life/interaction with life, one can learn one's inner self.
But this idea renders the initial question void. It is now the question whether the entire world lives inside me and can't be known except by interacting with it, or it is without and the same applies. The only difference is that all will vanish when you die, but for me, a profoundly egocentric person (*sigh*) the world will vanish when I die either way.

As for the idea that one may wish to change the world through mere thought is fantasy, and the difference between fantasy and life is the insurmountable limitations life throws up at us.

 

[Coolydudey]

So, you created a thread on a forum about a specific question, this question being the only reason you made a profile on this website, given your name implies that you want to know whether your question is mistaken or not (as in, does the question and its implications hold water or is it flawed/irrelevant).

How old are you?

My two cents: You can't know. You may be a lunatic in another world dreaming all of what you experience up. Maybe aliens are controlling you. Maybe some sort of god exists. These questions just cannot be answered.

Therefore, since you can't know, take life at face value. Enjoy it for what it is, because that seems to have worked over the past however many years that you have been living. It's the equivalent of any other option as far as you are concerned right now, and causes the least mental issues.

 

[Seed-Wad]

@Coolydudey: Why do you browse the Philosophy section if you do not believe in pondering about questions that are difficult to answer / might not have an answer? Is it just to question people's reasons/maturity for asking philosophical questions?

 

[Coolydudey]

@Coolydudey: Why do you browse the Philosophy section if you do not believe in pondering about questions that are difficult to answer / might not have an answer? Is it just to question people's reasons/maturity for asking philosophical questions?

Partly (very slightly), yes. But mostly I do not think about these questions, as they do not have an answer. I just (as I said) take the real world at face value, and ponder any questions that remain. It means that any of the philosophical discussions of morality (of which there are many, even in here) just fly over my head as I don't believe there is a moral right or wrong. Still, there are questions, such as "what are the applications of my philosophizing to my perceived reality?" to phrase the question "what's the point of philosophy?" in my own terms, etc.

 

[Latte]

And also freeing yes?

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

It is now the question whether the entire world lives inside me and can't be known except by interacting with it, or it is without and the same applies. The only difference is that all will vanish when you die, but for me, a profoundly egocentric person (*sigh*) the world will vanish when I die either way.

If experience/interacting is the essence, then the question is rendered to a statement. Experience informs and transforms the world and myself. You're immortal and dead at the same time.

 

[gilliatt]

If I am conscious of existence, existence exists. Something existence, you exist are my mind would not perceive it. A conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. If you did not exist, nothing existed, there can be no consciousness. There is only two things in this world: existence and consciousness. You cannot escape them, they are the primaries of your knowledge. The very beginning of your life, you see a ray of sunlight, you perceive that ray of sunlight that begins knowledge. You see a rock, its shape or you first think of the universe in your mind. 'You know it'. The thing is itself. Existence is Identity. A is A.

 

[rushgirl2112]

I think I have an idea which might drive you mad

My guess is that this is probably a question that the majority of INTPs have been pondering over the course of their lives already. I was a young teenager when I came up with it, and I thought it was really profound back then myself. Until I learned that it was kinda old news from a philosophical standpoint. That was rather a humbling moment . . .

Anyway, here's my take on it for somewhere around 25 years . . . it's way more complicated than this, but I thought I'd stick to the basics so I don't bore you to death.

Everything I experience - every physical sensation, every thought, every tiny piece of evidence about anything in the world - takes place in my mind. Because of that, I can't even be certain that *I* exist, at least not in any kind of physical way.

So the world I experience is 100% about me. Before you think I'm just being egotistical, consider that this would be true for anyone else who happened to exist in the same way I do.

If something happens that I am unaware of, it does not exist in my world. It only comes into existence in my world when I find out about it. The same is true for people. People I don't know, don't hear about, and don't run into somewhere do not exist in my world.

When I die, this world that I live in ends. (Whether I go onto some other kind of existence is something I don't know, of course.)

Note that when contemplating this from the perspective of my own personal experience, there isn't a question about whether or not other people exist. If I perceive them to, they exist. If I don't, they don't. Period.

That does still leave the question of whether there are other conscious beings who have their own "worlds" just like I do. And if there is some physical realm that they share with me. Maybe the same one I perceive through my senses? That's what most people accept, but I can't be too sure.

It can kind of torture you if you start thinking about it too much, but on the other hand I think it's kind of fun not to know for sure and to think about all the interesting possibilities.