Talk:Metaphysical solipsism

Notes & Queries

Jon Awbrey 03:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

no independent existence?

It seams to me that the "representations of that self having no independent existence" deserves a bit of explanation. :)

so metaphysical solipsism basically means each person who edited this article, the people who originally thought of metaphysical solepsism, and the references on this website don't exist, and the only thing that DOES exist is me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmrepoli (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, and that everything is a figment of your imagination. Other conscious persons don't exist. That's what solipsists claim.--Orthologist 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So are you all just a figment of my imagination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.81.198 (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In a dream, you are everything. It is your mind's creation, therefore everything in the dream is you. Not only the other persons, but even objects and the entire environment.

Merrily, merrily, merrily...life is but a dream.

And, to the point of why a solipsist would bother to communicate with others, what else is One to do? Talk to One's Self?  ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosaj27 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The first spontaneous argument that came to my mind was "if this is the case, then why does my body stop when it comes in contact with a solid object. I thought about it more and came upon an analogy that I think is decent. If you can imagine your mind as a video game (the actual hardware and software and programming except far more advanced) then everything, including your body, is a "coded" object in a video game. So while it may seem like this makes no sense, it does make sense if you think hard enough about it in terms of a sort of virtual reality, an extremely advanced virtual reality. Your senses are fabricated and the mind is just following along with what is coded to happen whenever you "sense" something. That is as best as I can put this analogy without sounding strange.

As I think further now, more questions arise: what is the mind? Is it somehow a brain in the "body" (it can't be, otherwise it doesn't exist. If we could open our bodies and remain alive, we would find the brain, which places it in the virtual reality. We could then destroy it. Since the programming of the reality shows that the destruction of the brain means death in any given individual, then what should happen next? Either the game shifts to the "afterlife" level or we're stuck in a void of consciousness without senses). Is it some kind of other entity floating in some kind of outside dimension? Is it a dimension itself? Does this theory assume a "spiritual" mind (not dependant on a brain) or a physical mind (dependent on a brain or other "hardware" since the true existence of a brain is now in question)?

I could be going about this all wrong, but this is how I interpreted the article. 68.193.113.198 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head, as a solipsist, you created the physics of the world, every phrase within it is a creation of your mind, even insanity and sanity, which are rules of this world you have created along with physics to limit yourself from just having constant hallucinations. These thoughts are the basis of the world a solipsist created for himself. It is logically sound because it is impossible to disprove, you can't prove your own existence to another person. The previous person summed it up the same way hood rats some it up. Life's a game, I'm a player. Your character is ultimately tied to the game, to his own subjective reality, but he has to conform to the rules set up by his gaming system. It is a logically acceptable possibility, but to accept it is an extreme form of narcissism. It's insanity, which is why people blow it of as even being possible. we form attachments to this world. To think people, pets, and things are around just because you want them to be, because you subconsciously force them to be, is insane. Why set up pain for oneself? You'll drive yourself crazy thinking about being creator of the universe, lol. I think their are true solipsists in the world, they just believe they have self control, and the ones who are sane enough to believe it and stay sane while still expressing it simply have that ability because they have self hatred and they want to destroy the program they created. Like a built in computer virus in a game or a bug in a game or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.61.74 (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm I think you are confusing valid and sound. Solipsism is a valid argument, yes. But it is not a SOUND argument because the premises are not true. Soundness has nothing to do with it being impossible to disprove, it has to do with the premises being true. By solipsism's own premises it cannot validate itself and therefor collapses in on itself. It doubts evidence itself. Of course this doesn't make it wrong, but that doesn't make it right either. It's sort of stuck in those "you'll never find out" limbo.104.186.77.29 (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Which of the following premise of solipsism is not true?

• Person's mental states are the only things they have access to.
• One cannot conclude the existence of anything outside of their mental states.

What "evidence" has solipsism wrongfully doubted? Tejasvi S Tomar (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

It really seems strange to see a wikipedia article stating "this is logically sound and cannot be refuted with logic". And there is no further elaboration on why this is considered a fact. It seems logical to me that the world can exist. The world can either exist or not exist, you can't really prove or refute either. 68.193.113.198 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a fact. It is simply a logically valid argument. WillMall (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the tag. there are arguments for and against on the page. The article can be expanded though. WillMall (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Solipsism?

I see no distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.159.22 (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Solipsism exists in alternative forms such as epistemological solipsism and methodological solipsism which are arguably watered-down versions of metaphysical solipsism. Tejasvi S Tomar (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Arguments Against Solipsism section doesn't have any

I'm thinking of deleting the "arguments against solipsism" section, since no actual logical arguments are presented. That is, a solipsist being "insincere" doesn't make his position wrong. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a better heading would be "Criticism of metaphysical solipsism" which seems broader than arguments, but the whole thing needs better citations. Jonathunder (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added a blurb linking to appeal to the stone fallacy to indicate the absence of any argument in the criticism section. Tejasvi S Tomar (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Mistaken About Dreams

The last segment about dreams is mistaken. The only way you know you are in a dream is because you woke up from it,in the same way one can only know a reality was "fake" from the outside of it rather than the inside of it. Also the dream world is nothing like the real world, it's far less predictable, it has no continuity, and unlike the real world we can do whatever we want and even other things are not the same. Granted this doesn't prove the "existence" of the "real world" but it does show that our dreams, while sharing similarities, are nothing like reality. Plus where does one get the information to create the dream. If it was already there then could the same not be said about external reality then? And even if I granted that part about spiritual awakening it still suffers the same problem as a dream doesn't really comprehend what solipsism is.

Waking up confirms only the previous reality was a dream, but it doesn't mean the current one isn't. Even if you did wake up spiritually it wouldn't prove the new reality to be more real than the last one. The problem is essentially turtles all the way down.

I still think Metaphysical Solipsism makes the mistake in saying nothing else exists because then it would have to prove it. Being unable to verify anything doesn't mean it doesn't exist, because you couldn't verify it doesn't exist. In fact you couldn't even verify that you are dreaming while in the dream and the same thing for Solipsism (by it's very tenets).2600:1700:1C80:5190:647C:6959:F54F:16C0 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Also the dream world is nothing like the real world, it's far less predictable, it has no continuity"

How you know the real world does not feel the same in the dream world?

"Being unable to verify anything doesn't mean it doesn't exist"

If you are unable to detect it by any means, it does not exist. Tejasvi S Tomar (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Lucid dreaming is when a person realizes while sleeping that they are dreaming, and can then influence their dream state, such as deciding to fly or walk through walls. When they awaken, they are unable to recreate that state of mind.161.97.246.51 (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Metaphysical solipsism - Terminology

Metaphysical solipsism is an already established term.

Ledger Wood, "Solipsism," in Runes (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Company, 1962, 295). https://www.ditext.com/runes/s.html#:~:text=(b)-,Metaphysical,-%3A%20Subvariety%20of

Peter A. Angeles, Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy (New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 1992), 284.https://archive.org/details/harpercollinsdic0000ange/page/284/mode/2up

Metaphysical solipsism was recently moved to Ontological solipsism by @SirNonlop and reverted later. Tejasvi S Tomar (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)