That's me. My instagram page is very obscure. I have no followers and follow nobody and I only posted like six pictures all at the same time on one day which I felt represented me and my humor personally and I never touched the app again.
But that assumes twitter isn’t solipsistic, since if it were it would count the other follower as him and then he would be following someone. But twitter clearly is solipsistic in this picture since it counts the guy that is following him as himself.
>The fact that the Greek Gods even exist as a concept means they must be true on some level >The fact that Scientology even exists as a concept means it must be true on some level >The fact that flat Earth even exists as a concept means it must be true on some level.
OP is a classic Hegelian. I don't myself subscribe fully that view of the history of ideas, but I do think it has an aspect of truth in it. It must do, to have had such a hold on the minds of Hegel and his followers.
Solipsism an exceedingly stupid philosophical idea to begin with. With the research available now it's nothing but a curiosity. >only my mind is proven to exist and everything around me might be (or is) completely imaginary
That's solipisism's position in a nutshell, how people understand it.
Now with that understood, most scientific institutions that matter - not only fringe elements but leading researchers and government agencies - have confirmed telepathic phenomena. It's not reliable or even useful but it is proven to exist. Only the """"skeptics"""" that outright dismiss everything they don't like (the essence of skepticism) will shit about it until they have a study. I can find them myself if you don't want to dig through declassified documents.
Now you have evidence that telepathy exists. That is evidence for the existence of "minds," other minds. This conflicts with solpsism for either one or two reasons. You have to change it's definition. >only my mind is proven to exist yet it cannot have positive or negative ascertainment about anything around me at all because a world that may or may not be can and will tamper with my perception on a completely fundamental mental level
or >only minds are proven to exist and everything around us(?) might be (or is) completely imaginary
tl;dr your mind does not exist in an isolated container and solipsism is no better than nihilism or total ignorance
Interesting stuff, I'd love to see the evidence for telepathy if you're down to share it. That being said, evidence for telepathy wouldn't disprove solipsism, since the telepathy itself might be "imagined" for the same reasons as everything else
>the telepathy itself might be "imagined" for the same reasons as everything else
There it is again. I can't make it clearer. >I'm imagining that you're imagining that I'm imagining...
You're not imagining it. Someone else is imagining it. >This conflicts with solpsism >You have to change it's definition
Anyway Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum did the most watertight experiments with telepathy that I've ever found. >1988 creation of experience >"patterns of interhemispheric correlation during human communication"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3654091/
and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243586182_The_Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_in_the_Brain_The_Transferred_Potential
These are old but I don't usually buy the same book over and over. This research doesn't really seem to open up any new tech either.
>You're not imagining it. Someone else is imagining it.
I can't conceive of any observable evidence for telepathy that one couldn't be simply imagining themselves. If it's observable, it can be imagined.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Maybe your conceptions are limited >we put two people in faraday cages far away from each other, and measured both of their brain states with eeg, they changed identically when only one was exposed to stimulus >this only happened with after self-reported "personal connection" >without said connection there was only expected normal activity >this held up repeatedly in double-blind circumstances
1 month ago
Anonymous
If you agree that, say, seeing a tree out of your window doesn't contradict solipsism then I don't understand why seeing a line on an EEG graph does. Suppose I am the only consciousness in the universe: why could I imagine another person speaking and moving about, but not imagine a machine producing a certain output when attached to their head? (I'm not even a solipsist, btw; I just think this telepathy argument is a dead end.)
1 month ago
Anonymous
>factual evidence for how the world works is all just made up >because I made it up >because I'm moronic
This is like someone saying zero doesn't exist because it doesn't. It's functional and helps you grasp what is happening. You can reject it but don't expect to feel smug or wise for doing such.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>we put two people in faraday cages far away from each other,
Two people sitting in the same Faraday cage 50 cm away from each other.
The correlations look pretty weak, anyway. And no explanation is given as to why 'interhemispheric correlation' corresponds to communication. There is brief mention of a control where no communication happened, but how was that enforced?
I don't think this paper shows evidence of any communication.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Maybe someone highly trained could impart more direct evidence, but I'm sure the trouble would be measuring it. Minds can be such delicate instruments, picking up phenomena that electronics can't.
>Someone else is imagining it
Imagine that another mind is imagining something. Does that mean that other mind exists? If you dream of someone, imagining something, does that make them exist?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>I am the only mind that exists but I will imagine another mind exists for the sake of argument
This is absolute nonsense. Unless you're willingly ignorant and confess that "imagining something" isn't on par with confirming it exists. That is necessary to be a shitty bad-faith arguer, but doesn't win you anything.
Habit might make Solipsism seem indefensible from a rhetorical viewpoint but that notion is wrong. Reality is largely but not entirely independent of your misconceptions, and treating that very fine distinction like a motte and bailey is just being moronic.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what this post is trying to say.
To recap, you're saying solipsism has been refuted by telepathy, because telepathy implies other minds exist. I'm saying that telepathy no more confirms the existence of other minds than any other existent, because the entire idea of solipsism is that the universe - including telepathic phenomena, and even including "other minds"- might exist only in your mind.
Note: the solipsist assumes that, a priori, his brain is NOT his mind. Scientific discoveries about brains can never decisively refute the solipsist.
1 month ago
Anonymous
With more research the position becomes more laughingly untenable.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Scientific research can't refute solipsism. What research can?
That's me. My instagram page is very obscure. I have no followers and follow nobody and I only posted like six pictures all at the same time on one day which I felt represented me and my humor personally and I never touched the app again.
Not lit related, don't even pretend it's a meta thread or something. kys homosexual
Suit yourself, I’ve written an essay on its ethical implications
>he has a follower (himself)
>so he is following himself
>But following = 0
This image makes no sense.
he's being followed by his other account, which he doesn't follow back
But that assumes twitter isn’t solipsistic, since if it were it would count the other follower as him and then he would be following someone. But twitter clearly is solipsistic in this picture since it counts the guy that is following him as himself.
We take good care of OP because when he gets b& we all do
Based of off what OP said, what would you call this phenomenon?
>The fact that the Greek Gods even exist as a concept means they must be true on some level
>The fact that Scientology even exists as a concept means it must be true on some level
>The fact that flat Earth even exists as a concept means it must be true on some level.
That's you OP. That's how dumb you sound.
You don't believe in Jesus?
All those statements are true though.
OP is a classic Hegelian. I don't myself subscribe fully that view of the history of ideas, but I do think it has an aspect of truth in it. It must do, to have had such a hold on the minds of Hegel and his followers.
>using greek gods as an example
>not Jesus
Pathetic
Solipsism an exceedingly stupid philosophical idea to begin with. With the research available now it's nothing but a curiosity.
>only my mind is proven to exist and everything around me might be (or is) completely imaginary
That's solipisism's position in a nutshell, how people understand it.
Now with that understood, most scientific institutions that matter - not only fringe elements but leading researchers and government agencies - have confirmed telepathic phenomena. It's not reliable or even useful but it is proven to exist. Only the """"skeptics"""" that outright dismiss everything they don't like (the essence of skepticism) will shit about it until they have a study. I can find them myself if you don't want to dig through declassified documents.
Now you have evidence that telepathy exists. That is evidence for the existence of "minds," other minds. This conflicts with solpsism for either one or two reasons. You have to change it's definition.
>only my mind is proven to exist yet it cannot have positive or negative ascertainment about anything around me at all because a world that may or may not be can and will tamper with my perception on a completely fundamental mental level
or
>only minds are proven to exist and everything around us(?) might be (or is) completely imaginary
tl;dr your mind does not exist in an isolated container and solipsism is no better than nihilism or total ignorance
Interesting stuff, I'd love to see the evidence for telepathy if you're down to share it. That being said, evidence for telepathy wouldn't disprove solipsism, since the telepathy itself might be "imagined" for the same reasons as everything else
>the telepathy itself might be "imagined" for the same reasons as everything else
There it is again. I can't make it clearer.
>I'm imagining that you're imagining that I'm imagining...
You're not imagining it. Someone else is imagining it.
>This conflicts with solpsism
>You have to change it's definition
Anyway Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum did the most watertight experiments with telepathy that I've ever found.
>1988 creation of experience
>"patterns of interhemispheric correlation during human communication"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3654091/
and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243586182_The_Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_in_the_Brain_The_Transferred_Potential
These are old but I don't usually buy the same book over and over. This research doesn't really seem to open up any new tech either.
>You're not imagining it. Someone else is imagining it.
I can't conceive of any observable evidence for telepathy that one couldn't be simply imagining themselves. If it's observable, it can be imagined.
Maybe your conceptions are limited
>we put two people in faraday cages far away from each other, and measured both of their brain states with eeg, they changed identically when only one was exposed to stimulus
>this only happened with after self-reported "personal connection"
>without said connection there was only expected normal activity
>this held up repeatedly in double-blind circumstances
If you agree that, say, seeing a tree out of your window doesn't contradict solipsism then I don't understand why seeing a line on an EEG graph does. Suppose I am the only consciousness in the universe: why could I imagine another person speaking and moving about, but not imagine a machine producing a certain output when attached to their head? (I'm not even a solipsist, btw; I just think this telepathy argument is a dead end.)
>factual evidence for how the world works is all just made up
>because I made it up
>because I'm moronic
This is like someone saying zero doesn't exist because it doesn't. It's functional and helps you grasp what is happening. You can reject it but don't expect to feel smug or wise for doing such.
>we put two people in faraday cages far away from each other,
Two people sitting in the same Faraday cage 50 cm away from each other.
The correlations look pretty weak, anyway. And no explanation is given as to why 'interhemispheric correlation' corresponds to communication. There is brief mention of a control where no communication happened, but how was that enforced?
I don't think this paper shows evidence of any communication.
Maybe someone highly trained could impart more direct evidence, but I'm sure the trouble would be measuring it. Minds can be such delicate instruments, picking up phenomena that electronics can't.
>Someone else is imagining it
Imagine that another mind is imagining something. Does that mean that other mind exists? If you dream of someone, imagining something, does that make them exist?
>I am the only mind that exists but I will imagine another mind exists for the sake of argument
This is absolute nonsense. Unless you're willingly ignorant and confess that "imagining something" isn't on par with confirming it exists. That is necessary to be a shitty bad-faith arguer, but doesn't win you anything.
Habit might make Solipsism seem indefensible from a rhetorical viewpoint but that notion is wrong. Reality is largely but not entirely independent of your misconceptions, and treating that very fine distinction like a motte and bailey is just being moronic.
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what this post is trying to say.
To recap, you're saying solipsism has been refuted by telepathy, because telepathy implies other minds exist. I'm saying that telepathy no more confirms the existence of other minds than any other existent, because the entire idea of solipsism is that the universe - including telepathic phenomena, and even including "other minds"- might exist only in your mind.
Note: the solipsist assumes that, a priori, his brain is NOT his mind. Scientific discoveries about brains can never decisively refute the solipsist.
With more research the position becomes more laughingly untenable.
Scientific research can't refute solipsism. What research can?
So am I the only mind, the only person that really exists? Are you all just NPC’s in my world?
how?
>this is philosophy
>we don't discuss true things or facts here