Solipsism

[snafupants]

Well, can one be sure that one's doubt is not an illusion? Note that my position is not doubt in itself, and hence it does not create an everlasting chain of doubt.

-Duxwing

The entire thought experiment is circular - by invoking doubt, you're back with the observer, without having proved anything in the interim.

As I've alluded to before, the dream persona is an apt refutation of cogito ergo sum.

Some buffoons have argued that the dream persona veils something - and that inscrutable something entails consciousness - but why couldn't that predicate something be another illusion. I call bluff.

By the definitions of consciousness furnished above, robots might possess self-aware sentience or consciousness. I repudiate that idea.

These are flimsily argued points and an illustration of cartesian rationalism running manically astray from reality.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Well, can one be sure that one's doubt is not an illusion? Note that my position is not doubt in itself, and hence it does not create an everlasting chain of doubt.

-Duxwing

This is rather ambiguous but I would probably say that it is not an illusion. Perhaps the item we are doubting is an illusion but not the actual process of doubting it. Could you explain how the process of doubting could possibly be an illusion? I fail to understand this.

The entire thought experiment is circular - by invoking doubt, you're back with the observer, without having proved anything in the interim.

1) As I've alluded to before, the dream persona is an apt refutation of cogito ergo sum.

Some buffoons have argued that the dream persona veils something - and that inscrutable something entails consciousness - but why couldn't that predicate something be another illusion. I call bluff.

2) By the definitions of consciousness furnished above, robots might possess self-aware sentience or consciousness. I repudiate that idea.

These are flimsily argued points and an illustration of cartesian rationalism running manically astray from reality.

1) Perhaps the reason we still disagree is because we do not agree that the dream persona is the same thing as our waking one, it is still us, our consciousness. During our dreams we are still capable of thinking and of realizing ourselves. I've personally done this several times before even saying cogito ergo sum in my dreams with the full realization that my body was lying in my bed sleeping at the same time.

I don't recall anyone here claiming the dream persona veiled anything inscrutable, as just I mentioned, I think the dream persona is us, one in the same as us, it's still our consciousness just as much as our waking persona is. Sure the dreaming persona can have a different body then us depending on our imagination but that is irrelevant.

Also, if you seriously wish to disagree with cogito ergo sum I'd like a better explanation than you have given me, as unambiguous as you can make it, try to tell me exactly what is wrong with it and in what situations it is wrong and whether you think it is wrong in all situations or only some. I'm not asking you to write an essay but just to explain more clearly what your stance is on this. As of now, all I understand is that you disagree, but not exactly why you disagree.

2) Why can't robots posses consciousness? Sure, robots cannot as of yet, but how about in ten, twenty, a hundred, or a thousand years? Eventually, people will almost certainly figure out how to replicate the functions of the brain to create a robot that is just as conscious as we are if not much more conscious than we are and can ever hope to be. I think we all know what happens after that.

 

[Da Blob]

I'm not sure what kind of vague logic you are using but I know that I am conscious. Therefore I am conscious of the fact that I am conscious. It is nothing like seeing through walls because seeing through walls is something I am incapable of doing without a window or some other assistance but I can be aware of my consciousness while I am awake and while I am dreaming without any such assistance. I believe that both your statement and your analogy are false unless you can figure out a better way of explaining it.

Just in case you are actually referring to being conscious of other people's conciousness then I will agree with you that this is impossible since I can't even prove that other people actually exist much less read their minds or whatever it may entail to be aware of their consciousness.

Yes I am referring to other forms of consciousness, differing from the consciousness of ego, including 'sub'consciousnesses and that of other living beings. Perhaps a better analogy would be that of a conscious observer in a quantum universe(?)


RE: INTP

Yes, although we cannot see around corners, a strategy is to make logical inferences based on past experience and available knowledge in order to predict what is around the corner. Some may interpret this inference as a fact (i.e. there is a table around the corner, because yesterday I walked around the corner and saw a table) Other's especially those inclined to abstract thinking, understand that what they believe to be a table around the corner is nothing more than an idea generated in their mind. Therefore, I cannot be sure a table exists around the corner, I can only be sure that the idea of the table exists.

Yes, a too common error is the fallacy that symbolism has some kind of substance, that the derivative has more value than the equation or that analysis trumps experience.

The fluid has a dynamic, that the static solid lacks...

 

[nanook]

love this thread. i mean, as long as there are other guys wondering about solipsism i don't even have to worry about being alone in this hallucinatory mess that is samsara. i think that would totally suck. (didn't read anything here yet)

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Yes I am referring to other forms of consciousness, differing from the consciousness of ego, including 'sub'consciousnesses and that of other living beings. Perhaps a better analogy would be that of a conscious observer in a quantum universe(?)

I will agree that it is almost certainly not possible to be aware of the consciousness of another person and I will agree that it is not possible to be aware of the subconscious simply because that is the way the word is constructed. I do think however that it may be possible to move bits from the subconscious into the conscious mind through meditation or hypnosis. Personally, I don't much like the idea of separating the conscious and subconscious mind into two different entities. I like to think of the subconscious simply as things one has forgotten or learned to stop paying attention to so they eventually become extremely difficult to access.

love this thread. i mean, as long as there are other guys wondering about solipsism i don't even have to worry about being alone in this hallucinatory mess that is samsara. i think that would totally suck. (didn't read anything here yet)

I don't know if Samsara is such a bad thing. If it was real, it would mean that you would not have to be afraid of death because there is no such thing. Perhaps there is even the chance that eventually one may remember their past lives. It's kind of exciting, really. It sounds better than nirvana because rejoining god in a state where one's mind shuts down sounds very much like nonexistence to me, not very appealing in my opinion. How else could you reach this state of "profound peace" unless you cease to exist? It's very similar to meditation, you must stop your thoughts and cease to pay attention to anything, remove your thoughts and remove your senses. What else does that sound like?

Oh yes, I forgot to mention. You do still have to worry because you don't know if I am simply a figment of your imagination! Ha! I will assure you that I am not but I'm not sure what difference that really makes.

 

[snafupants]

I don't know if Samsara is such a bad thing. Perhaps there is even the chance that eventually one may remember their past lives.

The idea of further redundancy and frivolousness in life makes me crave death even more.

If it was real, it would mean that you would not have to be afraid of death because there is no such thing.

Fear of death? That's funny. Most people are more afraid of life, opprobrium, and rejection.

It's kind of exciting, really.

Please stop. :smiley_emoticons_mr

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

The idea of further redundancy and frivolousness in life makes me crave death even more.

Well, it wouldn't really be seen as a problem, there would simply be a different logical explanation for it. The idea of the omniverse, for example, makes little more sense to me than the existence of a god. Both seemingly never needed a beginning which never satisfies me. Why not throw in reincarnation? Existence doesn't make sense anyway, let's throw in more nonsense to try to make it more consistent...
In this case you won't be able to really die so I guess if you wanted to stop existing you would need to join the rest of the religious people and meditate for hours for all of your life in the hope that you will stop existing when you die; you must also keep in mind that there is no guarantee that this would actually happen in even their belief system, you might have to get reincarnated a million times first because of karma. If I was in this position, it would be much more fun to exploit life for my entertainment instead, it would be like a video game of sorts. The graphics and sound quality are the best, the artificial intelligence is superb, the levels are literally infinite in size, and it's in 3D!

Fear of death? That's funny. Most people are more afraid of life, opprobrium, and rejection.

Most people are idiots.

Please stop. :smiley_emoticons_mr

Naw, this is fun.

 

[Da Blob]

Yes it is possible to 'suspend disbelief' for period of time and experience life from a POV other than the ego. Many have made it a priority of their lives to do so. I am willing to speculate that there is an near infinite range of "Altered States Of Consciousness" than can be explored. Of course, the most commonly explored states of consciousness are drug-induced or lucid dreaming, but there are more that are known of. I think there is an altered state of consciousness which is symbolized by the word, WE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_consciousness

We are not 'hard-wired' into egotistic consciousness, however, it is a habit-forming POV and perhaps is the most practical of all available states of consciousness. I do believe that there are a number of personality types that cling to the ego as reality and become quite defensively protecting that reality, to the exclusion of all others.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Perhaps it's possible to enhance our awareness of the world slightly through good diet, exercise, meditation, nootropics, etc but I wouldn't call this a different consciousness. It would simply be us at our best, healthiest state. No need to be said but I don't believe in that word in a spiritual sense and I'm confused why you would.

 

[snafupants]

We are not 'hard-wired' into egotistic consciousness, however, it is a habit-forming POV

That's a dicey sell. Other mammals, which possess much of the same instinct and physiology as humans, depend upon self-interest and strength to secure mates and food. Self-interest breeds competition, which ultimately streamlines the species. Humans, on the whole, are absolutely hardwired to intuitively strive for betterment of their own station. This behavior is reinforced by the overarching culture and positive results; make no mistake, though, selfish behavior is encoded in DNA and natural. Humans are the chronological composite of ancestry and adaptation.

 

[Da Blob]

Perhaps it's possible to enhance our awareness of the world slightly through good diet, exercise, meditation, nootropics, etc but I wouldn't call this a different consciousness. It would simply be us at our best, healthiest state. No need to be said but I don't believe in that word in a spiritual sense and I'm confused why you would.

I believe that one has to categorize consciousnesses based upon what it is one is conscious of. To rephrase, that which is Observed in a Quantum environment must be a confounded variable to a certain degree, which the means and tools used during the process of Observation, as well perhaps, as a variableness in the Observer, his or her Self.
The most simple of categorizations, IMO, is that of Subject and Object, each which seem to have a distinct type of consciousness associated with them, subjective or objective consciousness. As a thought experiment, I suppose one could even try to make the case that the scales of the MBTI are based upon different types of human consciousness.

I believe in a higher or 'spiritual' consciousness simply because I have experienced such any number of times during my life...

"We are not 'hard-wired' into egotistic consciousness, however, it is a habit-forming POV"

That's a dicey sell. Other mammals, which possess much of the same instinct and physiology as humans, depend upon self-interest and strength to secure mates and food. Self-interest breeds competition, which ultimately streamlines the species.

Humans, on the whole, are absolutely hardwired to intuitively strive for betterment of their own station. This behavior is reinforced by the overarching culture and positive results; make no mistake, though, selfish behavior is encoded in DNA and natural. Humans are the chronological composite of ancestry and adaptation.

Yes, but it is questionable how many other species possess egos, as determined by a sense of self-awareness. Even then, with that evolutionary advantage, the formation of habits, based upon classical conditioning, is still the default setting for adaptation to change, a habit-forming POV is one characterized by the programming of Stimulus-Response.
Again, it is questionable whether the simple creatures of this world are conscious enough to differentiate between the stimulus and the response, the change in the environment that provokes a correlating change in a creature's body. It is more likely that a non-dual consciousness exists, within which a creature 'Is" what it perceives...

 

[snafupants]

Yes, but it is questionable how many other species possess egos, as determined by a sense of self-awareness. Even then, with that evolutionary advantage, the formation of habits, based upon classical conditioning, is still the default setting for adaptation to change, a habit-forming POV is one characterized by the programming of Stimulus-Response.
Again, it is questionable whether the simple creatures of this world are conscious enough to differentiate between the stimulus and the response, the change in the environment that provokes a correlating change in a creature's body. It is more likely that a non-dual consciousness exists, within which a creature 'Is" what it perceives...

@Da Blob

An interesting supposition but I would contend that even cats demarcate the world into their body, or subject, and the exterior, or object; lack of serious feline thought doesn't muddy the philosophical waters to an incoherent degree. Kitties very much have a double standard - picking on others is fine but please do not ruffle the fur. The bias itself reveals egoism and succinctly refutes the non-dual state. Without any doubt, cats understand that the object and subject are two different entities. Or, at any rate, they work under the foregoing (furgoing) assumption. In other words, mammals of all stripes appreciate causality and predicate their actions under the heading of instinct, which is less discerning than intellect but maybe more adaptable than the nuts and bolts calculations of hominid ratiocination. Certainly more time tested. Instinct or Will can't pen Light in August but it may assist in evading that lion or arrow; Will, more than intellect, is the reason humans are brimming over on this planet. Will and animal cunning shouldn't be underestimated.

 

[Da Blob]

Actually, the cats I have known have been completely subjective - little solipsistic gods who rule their universes with an air of regal distain...

 

[snafupants]

Actually, the cats I have known have been completely subjective - little solipsistic gods who rule their universes with an air of regal distain...

@Da Blob

Absolutely except that solipsism and egoism aren't mutually exclusive.

The issue wasn't subjectivism - the issue was cartesian dualism and egoism.

I do not believe, in other words, that cats exist in a non-dual state; in spite of their pretensions and relative lack of ontological awareness, cats realize their bodies and separateness.

Actually, that's a decent encapsulation of cat behavior.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

I believe that one has to categorize consciousnesses based upon what it is one is conscious of. To rephrase, that which is Observed in a Quantum environment must be a confounded variable to a certain degree, which the means and tools used during the process of Observation, as well perhaps, as a variableness in the Observer, his or her Self.
The most simple of categorizations, IMO, is that of Subject and Object, each which seem to have a distinct type of consciousness associated with them, subjective or objective consciousness. As a thought experiment, I suppose one could even try to make the case that the scales of the MBTI are based upon different types of human consciousness.

I believe in a higher or 'spiritual' consciousness simply because I have experienced such any number of times during my life...

I don't really understand how consciousness could be objective. I'll also ask you to be more specific about your "experiences."

 

[Da Blob]

I don't really understand how consciousness could be objective. I'll also ask you to be more specific about your "experiences."

The awareness of objects entertains objective consciousness

The awareness of subject entertains a subjective consciousness

I have seen that, which many claim does not exist, including events from the future, on a number of occasions...

On a mundane level, when I walk the hilltops on clear moonless nights, I do not crawl beneath the stars, but rather I soar amongst them...

sounds grandiose, I know - but is simply a matter of changing consciousness from a conditioned perspective (underneath) to one that is more realistic (amongst)

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Now this is the part where it might get counterproductive to talk about this kind of thing. Did you really soar amongst the stars literally? If so, I'm very interested to hear about your methods assuming that you weren't hallucinating of course. If not, I ask you to not be metaphorical because I have no idea what you are saying. Eh, maybe I have a vague idea of what you are saying but please be more exact, thanks.

Can you be more specific on what you saw? Personally, I've seen a vision of the future one time during my life when I was around the age of six and a half. I dreamed that I was walking to first grade past a dead cat and a lady in a blue coat and when I awoke and actually walked to school I saw the same dead cat and the same lady in a blue coat that I dreamed about. It was pretty freaky I admit. The question is, what exactly does this prove? Must I automatically take whatever explanation I am given and believe it? In this case, should I believe higher consciousness exists just from this experience, or is there another way to prove it to myself?

 

[Da Blob]

I don't know if the experience could be reproduced without an associated altered state consciousness, however, if one is on a hilltop, all that is visible on a moonless night are the stars. A shift in the usual perspective, that is 'the sky is up", can result in a disorientation. It is in the reorientation, that the larger experience can occur, the stars can be down or all around.

Needless to say, most of my experiences in a higher consciousness are beyond words. They are not the kind of thing that can be shared 'objectively', for they rarely involved objects, but dreams and visions for the most part, with the occasional miraculous physical event as the result of a prayer, which doubters would attribute to mere chance.

For example, some time ago I learned that my baby brother was to die 'shortly'. Therefore, I was able to invest as much time as I could with him in the months before he was dismembered in a motorcycle accident... He did not even own a motorcycle...

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

I don't know if the experience could be reproduced without an associated altered state consciousness, however, if one is on a hilltop, all that is visible on a moonless night are the stars. A shift in the usual perspective, that is 'the sky is up", can result in a disorientation. It is in the reorientation, that the larger experience can occur, the stars can be down or all around.

Needless to say, most of my experiences in a higher consciousness are beyond words. They are not the kind of thing that can be shared 'objectively', for they rarely involved objects, but dreams and visions for the most part, with the occasional miraculous physical event as the result of a prayer, which doubters would attribute to mere chance.

For example, some time ago I learned that my baby brother was to die 'shortly'. Therefore, I was able to invest as much time as I could with him in the months before he was dismembered in a motorcycle accident... He did not even own a motorcycle...

How exactly do you alter your state of consciousness? Drugs? If so, which kind?

 

[Da Blob]

How exactly do you alter your state of consciousness? Drugs? If so, which kind?

I haven't experimented with hallucinogens in thirty years, so I would not know about drugs. I have just learned to put my mind in neutral, silence the word-making machine in my brain and sometimes the neatest stuff pops into focus.

It is a state of mind accessible through prayer and meditation, a regression to a pre-egoic identity. If one loses all sense of self-consciousness, orientation to self, then the universe that can be experienced gets larger. As long as consciousness orbits self in a lunar orbit, there is not all that much that can be viewed - besides self, that is...