I just solved the problem of solipsism

[vanillaicecream]

Ok, read this carefully and you'll understand

1 there are things my mind doesn't know

2 in order for these things to come into the scope of my mind they need to have been invented or articulated somehow

3 my mind didn't invent or articulate them because it can't understand them, they are too articulate and specific to arise from a single brain fart without prior understanding

4 my mind has the experience of other minds inventing, articulating and understanding these things that my mind can't

5 therefore it is infinitely more plausible that these minds and things actually exist externally to my mind than my mind randomly coming up with articulate things it can't even understand


Damn, I'm a genius, not even the greatest philosophers thought of this, I'm very close to thinking all thoughts

 

[spyspy]

is it? Maybe those incomprehensible things weren't meant to be comprehended, there're just pure chaos and nonsense like dreams, and understanding them 'later' is just you filling the gaps in that nonsense.
Back to step1!

 

[spyspy]

But it's still a well thought-out answer to solipsism

 

[Klasik616]

Ok, read this carefully and you'll understand

1 there are things my mind doesn't know

2 in order for these things to come into the scope of my mind they need to have been invented or articulated somehow

3 my mind didn't invent or articulate them because it can't understand them, they are too articulate and specific to arise from a single brain fart without prior understanding

4 my mind has the experience of other minds inventing, articulating and understanding these things that my mind can't

5 therefore it is infinitely more plausible that these minds and things actually exist externally to my mind than my mind randomly coming up with articulate things it can't even understand


Damn, I'm a genius, not even the greatest philosophers thought of this, I'm very close to thinking all thoughts

If your mind can't, other minds can't.
Things are not created or discovered, they're being thought by a human. Meaning nothing you think about an object is necessarily related to the object of thought.

Aka knowledge is not about discovering essences or shit. There's no actual law of mind that is preventing you thinking anything about an object.

Simply because objects of thought are not language, your idea of something is a description made by human language. When I talk about the chair, the chair is not talking to me. Realism doesn't exist.

There's no actual certain knowledge and what I said is not a description of something, meaning that it could be different. Which debunks and proves my argument at the same time lol

 

[vanillaicecream]

is it? Maybe those incomprehensible things weren't meant to be comprehended, there're just pure chaos and nonsense like dreams, and understanding them 'later' is just you filling the gaps in that nonsense.
Back to step1!

Ok, glad you mentioned dreams, here's another argument about it to debunk solipsism

When I am awake, the world I experience consistently and without fail follows the laws of physics, even if I don't fully understand all the laws of physics

When I am asleep and have dreams, the world I experience does not consistently and without fail follow the laws of physics. Dreams are erratic, irrational, and do not consistently follow any laws.

Does the external world (the universe/laws of physics) ever make a mistake? No, never.

Do our human minds ever make mistakes? Yes, constantly.

Therefore there is a clear and distinct difference between the external/objective world, and the mental/subjective world which strongly indicates that there is an external world independent of our minds.

 

[vanillaicecream]

If your mind can't, other minds can't.

But they can. The point is about concepts and ideas my mind can't understand while other minds can (my mind can't understand quantum physics while i have the subjective experience of other minds being able to understand it to a certain extent), therefore it's more plausible that these ideas were engaged with and learned by these minds that exist independently of me

 

[Klasik616]

But they can. The point is about concepts and ideas my mind can't understand while other minds can (my mind can't understand quantum physics while other minds can to a certain extent), therefore it's more plausible that they were engaged with and learned by these minds that exist independently of me

I mean you will never know.
In philosophy you cannot suppose things like: Quantum physics exist but I don't know them, meaning that for you "Quantum physics" mean nothing so they don't exist actually.

For them to be comprehended you need to learn a lot of books from physics and even that doesn't guarantee all question are gonna be solved which supports my argument that no object can ever be understood completely.

The worst thing about knowledge is that it cannot be shared directly, meaning it's a personal journey. Solipsism

@HarrierDuBois thoughts?

 

[vanillaicecream]

I mean you will never know
In philosophy you cannot suppose things like: Quantum physics exist but I don't know them, meaning that for you "Quantum physics" mean nothing so they don't exist actually. For them to be comprehended you need to learn a lot of books from physics and even that doesn't guarantee all question are gonna be solved which supports my argument that no object can ever be understood completely.

I think you're missing the point about solipsism, the purpose is to just establish the existence of things external to my own mind. We don't need to fully comprehend anything, but the fact that certain things enter the scope of my mind while it can't even understand them suggests that they were thought of by sources external to my mind. That's it. Solispism at first glance would suggest my mind is like the mind of a god that can come up with an entire universe with an infinite number of things and ideas while not even being able to understand them which is self refuting.

 

[Klasik616]

I think you're missing the point about solipsism, the purpose is to just establish the existence of things external to my own mind. We don't need to fully comprehend anything, but the fact that certain things enter the scope of my mind while it can't even understand them suggests that they were thought of by sources external to my mind. That's it. Solispism at first glance would suggest my mind is like the mind of a god that can come up with an entire universe with an infinite number of things and ideas while not even being able to understand them which is self refuting.

I mean you have a point but I don't follow that idea of solipsism. You don't have to pretend that the principle of knowledge meaning "You or the self" is a God cappable of understanding infinite number of things, the realist argument.

Solipsism is also an existencialism. Is not "I am the only one living on this planet" what I mean is that I'm the only one cappable of judging what's true or false because knowledge is always on my memory, I cannot get knowledge from other people like an USB card.

The existence of the other is as normal as supposing many cups of tea exists, many people exist. But is not logical to suppose those people know different things than me because that's breaking the limit of my own comprehension and journey. In fact when someone talks, in reality I'm talking with me (I'm just hearing what they say) challenging my beliefs, it doesn't have to be a human it could also be an AI.

When I die everything dies, my body is the limit of all knowledge possible. We would only surpass solipsism when 2 minds can become one.