- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
If we consider solipsism as a scientific hypothesis, it is easy to see that it does not pass the Popper falsifiability test. If you are convinced that nothing but your consciousness exists, it is impossible to refute it: any refutation-from long arguments to a physically tangible slap on the back of the head — you can also call the product of your own imagination. It is productive in this case (if you want to get rid of the confusion of this ideal hypothesis, even if you are convinced that this will be a self-deception) to think about the tragic fate of the only consciousness that, firstly, has been taught an illusory picture of the world since birth, and secondly, can change little in this picture, even admitting that it is illusory. You can't make things that you don't like disappear from your mind. You can't force yourself to see the sky green or grow a third arm. You can't stop feeling pain when you're in pain. You remain a hostage to yourself, thinking on the screen, not remembering your beginning and not knowing whether there will be an end, almost unable to influence what you show yourself. This is a sad situation, especially for the mind, which is used to the fact that things and phenomena have meanings and purposes.
Where there is ISM, there is edification, even in the word atheism, the same thing.
And the conclusion is simple, the edification of the ISM, the consequence of addiction, which controls a person, regardless of his wishlist, or rather they change under the isms that strengthen addiction. This is how the stored value itself and the retaining dependency are formed. Not only in this and in other moments of people's lives.
Maybe in 2016 they didn't know the obvious refutations of solipsism, but it's strange to read the answers.There are no logical arguments against the materiality and reality of the world. An attempt is being made to make “unsubstantiated” statements by solipsists in order to force the opponent to refute the unproven statement. At the same time, the” absence of real material “means that everything is imagined by a certain”solipsist”. We refute this idea-
The idea of solipsism is not an axiom at all, it is not obvious and is not inevitable (like the axiom of the scientific method that “True representations of reality are consistent”! in this formulation, there is no subject for discussion at all, the rejection of the axiom is equal to the rejection of discussion), the idea of solipsism can be discussed! And as soon as the discussion begins, it is necessary to discuss the comparison of imaginary representations with material objective reality. Well, that's all, the very possibility of comparison and the “separate” term about “imaginability, illusory” immediately means that an unimaginable reality is allowed. And then it is precisely the solipsist who needs to refute the existence of objective reality – which is impossible.
Solipsism is inherently contradictory, in any collective or divine form.
The Solipsist cannot remove any source of irritation from perception, which means that there is an unimaginable Material Reality and objective true ideas about it.
After all, the imaginary world can only be in one single instance, and of course in my mind and not in yours. There can only be one solipsist alive!
So if the author of the question implies the possibility of arguments against materialism, then the author does not exist! After all, I exist, which means that the question and the author of the question are imaginary )) And by the way, I can refute it – and I do. And the author can't correct me in any way.
PS-the idea of divine solipsism and a Brahman who sleeps and generates all imaginary things-does not change the essence. The person who told ME about this is clearly illusory and inspired by my higher self )) Therefore, we cross out everything inspired ))
After all, I can only think for myself, so goodbye imaginary solipsists, your arguments are insignificant.
PS-2 Descartes ' argument “I think, therefore I exist” is an ideal reference truth for any observer, and can be verified and repeated at any time by anyone.
This is the only kind of truth that is the same for a Scientific method of cognition with a scientific experiment, and for Philosophical unsubstantiated reasoning. And this truth destroys solipsism in all its forms.
Arguments not against solipsism, but allowing to go beyond its borders are the need for a person to evaluate good and bad, and the absence of unchangeable things. If the world is created by consciousness, why did consciousness create suffering? If the world is created by consciousness, why do we need movement? Why then shouldn't consciousness create some unchanging best state of its own and stay in it forever without suffering or changing? If the answer to this question is that suffering and change are necessary for the existence of the world, then there is a way to stop the existence of the world by fixing consciousness in one position: refusing to suffer when it is necessary to suffer, and refusing to change when it is necessary to change.