A solopsist question

[a2thae]

Here something to ponder:: How can it be determined that my experience of consciousness is the same as anyone else's experience of consciousness?

I'm don't think that question is purely solopsist but i think it fits loosely. My answer to that question is insufficient in my eyes. I think of consciousness as abstract, and use the "color" theory if you've ever heard of it. For example

Imagine your blue. My "red" could be your blue, but we would still both call it blue because thats how we are accustomed to seeing it and calling it.

And also since i am currently too drunk to elaborate on any of this I got another question. If you try to fail, and you succeed, then which would you have done? Failed or Succeeded?

[exial]

neither, you havent failed or succeeded. Technically you have failed at not failing that which you aimed at, but you have succeeded at failing. The two cancel each other out. Ying yang..

[LNT-5265F]

Here something to ponder:: How can it be determined that my experience of consciousness is the same as anyone else's experience of consciousness?

I'm don't think that question is purely solopsist but i think it fits loosely. My answer to that question is insufficient in my eyes. I think of consciousness as abstract, and use the "color" theory if you've ever heard of it. For example

Imagine your blue. My "red" could be your blue, but we would still both call it blue because thats how we are accustomed to seeing it and calling it.

And also since i am currently too drunk to elaborate on any of this I got another question. If you try to fail, and you succeed, then which would you have done? Failed or Succeeded?

cuddles and i wrote half a book on this exact topic

[freetibet]

well everyone sees the color wheel the same right?

I mean if people saw purple as pink it wouldn't work with the color wheel

edit*
That does make sense in other areas though. Some people think certain foods taste bad, others think those same foods taste good. So people have different perceptions of the 'reality' of how good it is.

[LNT-5265F]

actually you're wrong. it would take a bit to explain, and im late for work - but who says i see the same thing you see? we just both see something, and we call it the same thing...

[a2thae]

but who says i see the same thing you see? we just both see something, and we call it the same thing...

half a book? holy hell..

But yeah, that's exactly what I'm trying to get at.

[Cuddles]

half a book? holy hell..

But yeah, that's exactly what I'm trying to get at.

half a fucking BIG book......

[freetibet]

why did you stop halfway?

[Cuddles]

why did you stop halfway?

multiple reasons.

[a2thae]

multiple reasons.

among those reasons is there booze/drugs involved? hehe

[Cuddles]

among those reasons is there booze/drugs involved? hehe

ha, no, drugs and booze were a big part of the driving force behind david's side of the book, even he admits that

we'll probably finish it eventually, but it needs a lot of revision work, that neither of us really felt like doing, and i still dont really feel like doing...mostly just because im really really fucking tired....

[freetibet]

I'd offer to help, but my input likely wouldn't be something you're looking for lol

[Cuddles]

I'd offer to help, but my input likely wouldn't be something you're looking for lol

oh we're open to all sorts of ideas, but the writing process really requires the both of us actively working on it, which has happened a lot less lately...and on top of that, it's more of a us discussing things, and writing out our ideas afterwards, so it doesnt really work to bring in third parties (even when we just tried to have other people edit it, we didnt really get much done when a third person was involved)

[itismesaj]

Believe you me, I absolutely ADORE philosophy. But, that said, this question is ultimately pointless.

I make that claim because there are two different viewpoints (those two viewpoints being the exact opposite of each other). The empiricalists: Hobbes, Locke, More, etc., believe that your senses provide adequate proof that your surroundings are really there; the solipsits: Aristotle, Descartes, etc., believe that only through logic and reason can you ASSUME that your surroundings are really there, without ever fully knowing if they exist.

So, really, this topic can never be resolved. You must simply take a side.

[freetibet]

Believe you me, I absolutely ADORE philosophy. But, that said, this question is ultimately pointless.

I make that claim because there are two different viewpoints (those two viewpoints being the exact opposite of each other). The empiricalists: Hobbes, Locke, More, etc., believe that your senses provide adequate proof that your surroundings are really there; the solipsits: Aristotle, Descartes, etc., believe that only through logic and reason can you ASSUME that your surroundings are really there, without ever fully knowing if they exist.

So, really, this topic can never be resolved. You must simply take a side.

And which side do you fall on?

I would consider myself a solipsist, but not to the point of thinking some people see green as blue or whatever.

[itismesaj]

I agree with the empiricalists, because it assumes less (Occam's Razor).

[freetibet]

in most cases i go with occam's razor, but i find solipsism more fun to think about :D

[itismesaj]

Very true, very true. It is quite fun to think about things that you can't possibly find the answer to. Why do you think we have so many religious debates, when it is impossible to prove or disprove religion?

[freetibet]

well you can prove religion on a personal level, not so much with solipsism

[itismesaj]

Ah you mean you can make yourself BELIEVE that religion exists... even though you cannot prove it to yourself. That's why it's called "faith."

[freetibet]

Ah you mean you can make yourself BELIEVE that religion exists... even though you cannot prove it to yourself. That's why it's called "faith."

Religion obviously exists, I think you meant to say God.

and I know that you can prove, at least to yourself, that God exists.

[ramalamafafafa]

Religion obviously exists, I think you meant to say God.

and I know that you can prove, at least to yourself, that God exists.

I do not belive in a god. Although, for a second, lets say there is: Maybe he/she doesn't want to be bothered by humans, y'know

-HUMAN: "Dear God..."
-GOD: "Aww, For Fucks Sake **Lights Cigarette**"


Hmmm, looking at that post, i'd say the god within it resembles me a bit too much.....

[deathlord888]

Here something to ponder:: How can it be determined that my experience of consciousness is the same as anyone else's experience of consciousness?

I'm don't think that question is purely solopsist but i think it fits loosely. My answer to that question is insufficient in my eyes. I think of consciousness as abstract, and use the "color" theory if you've ever heard of it. For example

Imagine your blue. My "red" could be your blue, but we would still both call it blue because thats how we are accustomed to seeing it and calling it.

And also since i am currently too drunk to elaborate on any of this I got another question. If you try to fail, and you succeed, then which would you have done? Failed or Succeeded?

lol we can look at how are eyes perceive colors and we have established that everyone sees the same. since different colors are different light wavelengths and frequencies

[Cuddles]

lol we can look at how are eyes perceive colors and we have established that everyone sees the same. since different colors are different light wavelengths and frequencies

but that's not to say that everyone experiences them the same way. i know that green is green, but my green may look in my mind like your purple, and your purple like my green, but we both look at something green and go "that's green", because, to both of us, green is green, it's just, to one of us, green looks like the others' purple.

basically, ...hmm...an easier way of explaining it, that's not as confusing....

lets say, you and a friend go to see a football game, on different sides of the stadium, and someone scores a touchdown. you both saw a touchdown, but you saw it from one side, and he saw it from the other, each of you seeing the same thing, but perceiving it in a different manner. still the same, you still would both describe it as a touchdown, the very same touchdown in fact, but you see it differently. just like you may think about a math question in a different manner (he sees 2x2 is 2+2, whereas you see it as 2+(2x(2-1))), but still come up with the same answer (4), they're fundamentally the same, both are 2+2, both equal 4, but you both arrived at that 4 in a different way.

the human mind is capable of visualizing things in many different ways, so, lets say that a particular wavelength of light ALWAYS looks the same way to you, as it does to everyone else who looks at it--it ALWAYS looks like that particular wavelength, no matter who's looking at it. now, that wavelength, is what we call red. we all call it red, every one of us (except those with deficiencies in their eyes/brain damage), it is always red, even in other languages, it will translate to red. HOWEVER! there are multiple paths for your brain to take in order to reach the conclusion that something is red--one person may go through a process in their mind that leads from visual input to something that goes "hey, that's a little bit darker than a pink", then to "hey, that's red, preeeettty, redddddd"....whereas, another person may go through a process more similar to visual input --> "hey, that's a bit darker than pink, that's red!", only, for them, a bit darker than pink actually looks like a greenish-yellow would to you.

understand?

entiendes?

comprende?

probably not...but eh, concepts like that arent easily explained in words, you have to have an UNDERSTANDING of what's meant..although, that's kind of what most knowledge is--you cannot just know something as fact, you have to understand that fact, to truly know

[nullnvoid]

Perception is only the views of ones enviorments, thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. It is not something that can be defined because no one knows what true perception of reality is. The color scheme idea is sound , but it is flawed, i ask allof you would theat idea apply to all senses , touch for example some people interpret pain as danger some people actually enjoy it . I guess the point im trying to prove is that ones view of the world is a product of their surroundings.