3 ms·

How is it technically incorrect to say that solipsism discards or devalues the perspectives of everyone else? You think your mind is capable of containing billi

by svnt 3y ago

How is it technically incorrect to say that solipsism discards or devalues the perspectives of everyone else? You think your mind is capable of containing billions of identical sole-minds? Discarding is discarding. If that triggers affect for you or you read affect from me that’s down to your comprehension. How do you explain forms of socially facilitated learning if your mind is the only thing that exists?

mistermann 3y ago
> How is it technically incorrect to say that solipsism discards or devalues the perspectives of everyone else? The burden of proof is yours, not mine. > How do you explain forms of socially facilitated learning if your mind is the only thing that exists? I don't because I'm not a solipsist, but I see no reason why that couldn't be imagined. If anything, most people have a problem with not imagining reality.
- svnt 3y ago
  > The burden of proof is yours , not mine. That’s not how this works — you have to say that before you say it’s incorrect otherwise it becomes your burden. But I’ll answer anyway. If I am the one mind, then how could anyone make an argument that any other mind (which must only be an apparent mind, created in some way to serve my experience) could be my equivalent? The truth of my statement is inherent in the structure of solipsism.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    You made a claim of fact, thus inheriting a burden of proof (or so "they" say). > The truth of my statement is inherent in the structure of solipsism. For efficiency: are you describing map or territory?
    - svnt 3y ago
      I don’t think I get a map and territory with solipsism. It is all my mind, or it isn’t. If I introduce map and territory with any integrity to the terms now there must be an ontological truth that I can’t access but must have an idea of. If I have an idea of it then it means I am assessing something else. But we are talking about a monolithic reality. The map is the territory in solipsism.

by svnt 3y ago

mistermann 3y ago

> How is it technically incorrect to say that solipsism discards or devalues the perspectives of everyone else? The burden of proof is yours, not mine. > How do you explain forms of socially facilitated learning if your mind is the only thing that exists? I don't because I'm not a solipsist, but I see no reason why that couldn't be imagined. If anything, most people have a problem with not imagining reality.

svnt 3y ago
> The burden of proof is yours , not mine. That’s not how this works — you have to say that before you say it’s incorrect otherwise it becomes your burden. But I’ll answer anyway. If I am the one mind, then how could anyone make an argument that any other mind (which must only be an apparent mind, created in some way to serve my experience) could be my equivalent? The truth of my statement is inherent in the structure of solipsism.
- mistermann 3y ago
  You made a claim of fact, thus inheriting a burden of proof (or so "they" say). > The truth of my statement is inherent in the structure of solipsism. For efficiency: are you describing map or territory?
  - svnt 3y ago
    I don’t think I get a map and territory with solipsism. It is all my mind, or it isn’t. If I introduce map and territory with any integrity to the terms now there must be an ontological truth that I can’t access but must have an idea of. If I have an idea of it then it means I am assessing something else. But we are talking about a monolithic reality. The map is the territory in solipsism.