You don't exist.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 30 Mar 2007 01:04

Prove it.

jay7 · Post by **jay7** » 30 Mar 2007 03:19

I think it is impossible to prove that you don't exist, because if you infact didn't exist, it would be impossible to perceive that you had to answer this question at all.

Guest_1 · Post by **Guest_1** » 30 Mar 2007 05:48

I think he's looking for SS#'s

Iron Clad Ben · Post by **Iron Clad Ben** » 30 Mar 2007 06:47

professor · Post by **professor** » 30 Mar 2007 08:02

i - the 9th letter in the English alphabet
t - the 20th letter in the English alphabet

it - used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context

I think that's sufficient enough to prove it.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 30 Mar 2007 10:22

Haha sorry guys, drunken post. Wow, I can't believe people responded. Eh, existentialism is a healthy debate though. Anyway, feel free to call me lame and retarded. Peace.

professor · Post by **professor** » 30 Mar 2007 10:56

This is just one more example of why you should never drink and post.

It is a serious epidemic on this forum and if something is not done to stop it, someone's internet life can and will be lost.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Mar 2007 15:07

Solipsism is a ridiculous way of thinking. In science there are many things that cannot be conclusively proven, however when all the evidence points in one direction and there is no evidence that suggests any other alternative, it seems very foolish to choose any of the alternatives.

All the evidence we see suggests that we exist. In fact I would define "existing" as being part of the context of our perceptions and I would say that it doesn't matter if this plane of reality is the only plane or if we're in caves dreaming of this reality; for all intents and purposes this reality is the only one that exists and matters for us.

How can people even suggest that we don't exist. "You can't prove that we exist, therefore we must not exist?" That's woeful logic. Personally I can't prove that solipsists don't have a large penis growing out of their heads, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that they do. I have just as much evidence to believe that this is the case as I have to believe we don't exist.

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 01 Apr 2007 10:22

I think it was Bertrand Russel that said "Solipsism is impossible to refute, and also very boring."

or something.

man, can you believe i logged in for the first time in four or five months just to post that?

Good thing you're all actually figments of my imagination.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 02 Apr 2007 21:21

Solipsism has alot to offer. To find it boring you'd either need to find the philosophical inquiry itself boring, or define solipsim more narrowly than its true nature would justify.
Soplipsism does not necessirly suggest that we don't exist. It suggests that the only thing we can be sure of is the exsitence and the contents of our mind. This starting point can and has been taken to a wide range of different places.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 03 Apr 2007 04:41

But what evidence is there for such a claim?

Coming up with theories without evidence to back them up does not offer anything.

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 03 Apr 2007 08:44

dyalander wrote:It suggests that the only thing we can be sure of is the exsitence and the contents of our mind. This starting point can and has been taken to a wide range of different places.

What? no it hasn't. Who took it where?

The problem is that it does not in fact lead anywhere. No complex system of philosophy can be based on solipsism because it is impossible to prove that you are a thinking being. You have to start with the premise that other beings can have self-conciousness to get anywhere. Of course, this is an assumption that can't be validated, but if you don't make it, you can't get anywhere.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 03 Apr 2007 08:55

That's unfathomable. How can you experience everything you do experience, but not exist?

The only way I can think of to prove that I exist is... When I look at this computer screen... I see that computer screen, and experience it's existence...

>.>
<.<

That didn't make sense, did it?

mc · Post by mc » 03 Apr 2007 09:30

hm, chris... seems the rest of us exist... maybe it's just you...

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 03 Apr 2007 14:28

Switch Kicker wrote:The only way I can think of to prove that I exist is... When I look at this computer screen... I see that computer screen, and experience it's existence...

>.>
<.<

That didn't make sense, did it?

Unfortunately it made perfect sense: "I think, therefore I am" - that's as far as we've gotten. Until we come up with a way to objectively measure thought (some combination of neuroscience, cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence projects perhaps?) we're pretty much stuck.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 03 Apr 2007 15:13

junkyardjew wrote:
Switch Kicker wrote:The only way I can think of to prove that I exist is... When I look at this computer screen... I see that computer screen, and experience it's existence...

>.>
<.<

That didn't make sense, did it?
Unfortunately it made perfect sense: "I think, therefore I am" - that's as far as we've gotten. Until we come up with a way to objectively measure thought (some combination of neuroscience, cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence projects perhaps?) we're pretty much stuck.

Oh riighht.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 03 Apr 2007 19:01

What? no it hasn't. Who took it where?

I'm sure a simple google search of "solipsism" or a trip to your library will answer this question.
Off the top of my head I remember reading something by a dude called David Deutsch, I think he's from Oxford, he collapses the notions of realism and solipsim.
I have found some aspects of solipsism useful in constructing a theory of film for my Phd.
Many literary theorists such a DeMan, Barthes, Derrida, utalise elements of solipsism in their work.
None of these works represent a truly solipsistic attitude as they all assume that their respective subjects, film, literature, the world, do actually exist, but they readily acknoledge that this is a theoretical assumption and go on to study the boundaries of knowledge and assumption in order to understand the nature of existence better.

A solipsist would probably argue that given the power of our imagination and the fact that we are totally reliant on our perceptions for everything that we "know", and further, given that our perceptions are limited and and subjective, there is no more evidence for materialism than there is for solipsism. Solipsism does not necessarily demand that the individual act as if nothing around him/her exists. It maybe simply demand that the individual seek to understand as much as possible about the nature of perception before making any assumptions about the world seemingly around them.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 04 Apr 2007 05:32

Bullshit, all the scientific evidence from people like Dr Steven Pinker, Dr Daniel Dennett, Dr Susan Blackmore etc, explain how we perceive things through entirely material explanations. There is an enormous wealth of evidence that corresponds with materialistic theories, while there is no evidence that suggests or corresponds with solipsistic theories.

Maybe solipsism is useful for literature, but as an explanation of reality or how we think, it is less believable than the tooth fairy. It's a theory put forward by amature philosophers who smoke too much weed and it's a good demonstration of why issues that were once philosophical issues are now being answered by science.

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 04 Apr 2007 06:53

Many literary theorists... utalise elements of solipsism in their work. None of these works represent a truly solipsistic attitude as they all assume that their respective subjects, film, literature, the world, do actually exist, but they readily acknoledge that this is a theoretical assumption and go on to study the boundaries of knowledge and assumption in order to understand the nature of existence better.

So what you're saying is that they acknowledge the existence of solipsism, then ignore it because they can't prove it and it's boring

. I'm glad we agree.

As far al lit-crit goes, this essay is totally worth reading. Its about a computer scientists journey to understand 'deconstruction'. I agree with nearly all of his conclusions, and he's funny to boot.

Bullshit, all the scientific evidence from people like Dr Steven Pinker, Dr Daniel Dennett, Dr Susan Blackmore etc, explain how we perceive things through entirely material explanations. There is an enormous wealth of evidence that corresponds with materialistic theories, while there is no evidence that suggests or corresponds with solipsistic theories.

It's interesting that you say that Jeremy, because you'll notice that the majority of the evidence for that science is, as you said, about perception, not about processing. Film cameras and tape players can record things, but not necessarily "process" them. The science of thought it still truly beyond us. Right now we're left with mainly pseudo-scientific theories of the brain like Chomsky's "language organ" and the like.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 04 Apr 2007 16:16

A solipsist argues that the way we measure all things is fallable - all our senses - i.e those senses we rely upon to make scientific observations. I'm not so quick to disregard all of the work done surrounding it. The scepticism it demands can be quite useful, as is the way in which necessitates a rigorous exploration of our assumptions and the nature of observation and belief.

No the people I mentioned don't ignore solipsism. They all come to terms with it, which is very different.
I read the article, it has its moments. There have actually been serious "postmodern crit" hoaxes including at least one person who submitted a bogus thesis and revealed it only after having been awarded a phd, there have also been plenty of bogus deconstruction books and articles all starkly illustrating how far lit theory has its head up its arse. This dude explains that humanaties academics don't engage with the real world - the reality extends well beyond this. In some ways, academics must actively section themselves off from the real world in order to define themselves as experts in their fields. If they don't they are no different from anyone else. His step by step analysis of how to deconstruct something is funny but a misinterpretation of a small part of deconstruction and a confusion of other lit crit approaches to "textual analysis". However, he does point to the area in which solipsism comes in - ie, the bit where he mentions that "popular notions of truth and value depend to a high degree on the readers credulity..." This "important and interesting" part of deconstruction is actually its crux.