4 ms·

> To seriously hold that all of what you have known was created for your experience I don't think there's a solpsistic component to the idea that we have our o

> To seriously hold that all of what you have known was created for your experience I don't think there's a solpsistic component to the idea that we have our own subjective realities. For one thing, it's about as true as we seem to be able to tell. For another, accepting it doesn't mean we have to be self-centered. Even our experiences of other people aren't objective; someone giving a speech can give very different vibes depending on who's listening. I read what you wrote, but do I really understand what you mean? In this case I have a pretty good idea, but there's no way I can be certain that we're on the same page. Our consciousnesses, our intelligences, are separate. We aren't in some hive mind; we are self-contained agents that interact with each other and gain our own experiences.

svnt 3y ago
You don’t seem to have taken the time to understand my comment. I acknowledged subjective realities earlier in my statement. You are arguing a strawman. The solipsism is the second half of parent’s comment where they state that everything exists only within their reality. Subjectivities are subsets of our existence. Arguing that an entire universe exists for one human awareness is solipsism.
- vacuity 3y ago
  GP and I aren't talking about subjective realities merely on the level of "this is my perspective of this person and that thing". Insofar as you or I could be said to be conscious, to perceive the world and to think about it, that is the extent of our respective subjective realities. It's not that the universe exists for every single human. Rather, as humans, we each perceive the universe, and others, in the ways that we do. We could be in the Matrix right now. The nature of a subjective reality is that, in a sense, there is no difference to us whether we are "real" or in the Matrix. What we perceive is what we perceive. How useful this model is is a different matter, but it's not solipsistic.
  - svnt 3y ago
    I understand the conversation you’re having. Here is the definition of solipsism: Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ ⓘ SOLL-ip-siz-əm; from Latin solus 'alone', and ipse 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      Ah, I guess I didn't have the right definition of solipsism in my head. I was thinking of the psychological meaning and not the epistemological one (which I forgot existed), although in my defense, my view isn't incompatible with your reasoning. I do align with the epistemological definition, but I don't see how that means I can't reason about what appear to be other beings. I can't know their true natures (certainly not their minds), but then, people act on incomplete information all the time.
      - svnt 3y ago
        I don’t understand how you can say you think everything is your own mind and yet you can’t know it. Why not? One reason why not would be for some necessary avoidance of disclosure to you, which would have had to have been architected by something that is not you, otherwise you would have known about the thing you couldn’t disclose. If something exists that is not you, then solipsism fails.
        vacuity 3y ago
        > I don’t understand how you can say you think everything is your own mind and yet you can’t know it. I'm not saying everything is made up in my mind like some sci-fi movie plot. I'm saying that we're confined to the limits of our perception and beliefs in a very real way. Maybe it's all in my mind, but that's somewhat different. How about this: people's memories have been shown to be somewhat malleable. Framing a question with subtly different wording or prompting with an intentional nudge (police officers do this) can warp the witness' perception. There may well be some objective truth about the incident and maybe someone knows it, but for that witness, their world has diverged. In the extreme case, someone who is very deluded can't process the truth that the rest of us can see. But do we really see the truth, or is it that we brand what we each see as the truth? Maybe the deluded person is right. Even assuming you are your own person entirely, I don't seem to be able to connect with your world with absolute clarity. Maybe technology can change that. If you are a figment of my imagination, well, I can't tell.

svnt 3y ago

You don’t seem to have taken the time to understand my comment. I acknowledged subjective realities earlier in my statement. You are arguing a strawman. The solipsism is the second half of parent’s comment where they state that everything exists only within their reality. Subjectivities are subsets of our existence. Arguing that an entire universe exists for one human awareness is solipsism.

vacuity 3y ago
GP and I aren't talking about subjective realities merely on the level of "this is my perspective of this person and that thing". Insofar as you or I could be said to be conscious, to perceive the world and to think about it, that is the extent of our respective subjective realities. It's not that the universe exists for every single human. Rather, as humans, we each perceive the universe, and others, in the ways that we do. We could be in the Matrix right now. The nature of a subjective reality is that, in a sense, there is no difference to us whether we are "real" or in the Matrix. What we perceive is what we perceive. How useful this model is is a different matter, but it's not solipsistic.
- svnt 3y ago
  I understand the conversation you’re having. Here is the definition of solipsism: Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ ⓘ SOLL-ip-siz-əm; from Latin solus 'alone', and ipse 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Ah, I guess I didn't have the right definition of solipsism in my head. I was thinking of the psychological meaning and not the epistemological one (which I forgot existed), although in my defense, my view isn't incompatible with your reasoning. I do align with the epistemological definition, but I don't see how that means I can't reason about what appear to be other beings. I can't know their true natures (certainly not their minds), but then, people act on incomplete information all the time.
    - svnt 3y ago
      I don’t understand how you can say you think everything is your own mind and yet you can’t know it. Why not? One reason why not would be for some necessary avoidance of disclosure to you, which would have had to have been architected by something that is not you, otherwise you would have known about the thing you couldn’t disclose. If something exists that is not you, then solipsism fails.
      - vacuity 3y ago
        > I don’t understand how you can say you think everything is your own mind and yet you can’t know it. I'm not saying everything is made up in my mind like some sci-fi movie plot. I'm saying that we're confined to the limits of our perception and beliefs in a very real way. Maybe it's all in my mind, but that's somewhat different. How about this: people's memories have been shown to be somewhat malleable. Framing a question with subtly different wording or prompting with an intentional nudge (police officers do this) can warp the witness' perception. There may well be some objective truth about the incident and maybe someone knows it, but for that witness, their world has diverged. In the extreme case, someone who is very deluded can't process the truth that the rest of us can see. But do we really see the truth, or is it that we brand what we each see as the truth? Maybe the deluded person is right. Even assuming you are your own person entirely, I don't seem to be able to connect with your world with absolute clarity. Maybe technology can change that. If you are a figment of my imagination, well, I can't tell.