Why exist when there is no purpose if everything we do? If everything we see is a lie and has no real bearing, save for our fake world, why should we do anything?
"Why" is a human construct. The universe doesn't need it.
Indeed. "Free will" is also a human construct, and, at its core, a nonsensical one.
A poor escape. I also choose not to "follow" it. ;^)
I want to make that clear, the theory at its heart is bonkers. Oh yes we can fully argue that we are nothing more than brains stuck in vats waiting for Keanu Reeves to come and Kung-fu our way to freedom and that the world we see is just an illusion. This creates so many problems in our day to day existence that we end up doing nothing, or acting as we want doing what we want when we want for the sole reason that the world we see around us is not real.
This sort of solipsism is indeed pointless at best, dangerous at worst. Hence, I take a more pragmatic approach. Don't presume that people who ascribe to Solipsism live down in the rabbit hole: the ones that do are usually delusional for their own reasons.
My argument to escape from solipsism is through logic and rational arguments.
Such as?
In the spirit of pragmatic solipsism, I can summarize my beliefs thereof simply. You can assume an unstated "Accepting the inherent solipsistic limitations of all reason and understanding, ..." prefacing any statement I ever make.
I pragmatically explore and believe in the world with which I am presented. Even within the fundamental framework of solipsism, I am able to distinguish, say, between dreams and reality, for from my own (admittedly solipsistic) perspective, the former are less consistent, while the latter present a continuous and rational chain of causality. It is pragmatic to believe that the latter is "reality" even though I fundamentally understand that there is one possible flaw in this argument.
Pragmatic solipsism means accepting reality as real, as you have no alternative reality to explore that is as consistent and persistent. It means you skip the fundamental flaw in all human reasoning by admitting that it's a flaw, admitting that every statement you make from that point forward has a possible inherent flaw that, for all intents and purposes, is meaningless.
I test reality every day. Coffee tastes mostly the same. Places are where I remember them. People continue to appear with their own persistent memories. Dreams are trivially realized as such in comparison. As a solipsistic being, I have no choice but to interact with that which I am presented, or else to reject all experience.
In this way, reality is like a black box. I interact with it, and it responds to my actions. Over time, I come to understand, recognize, and even predict how it will react. It never fails to act in a consistent manner, and so I have a very high confidence in its cohesiveness. I accept that everything I experience and believe is based on the filter of my own personal perspective, from which I have no obvious means of escape.
You have an escape from "true" (read: pointless) solipsism, but not from pragmatic solipsism. I cannot as yet find one.
So, there is a theory that states that while humans don't have free will, we are not entirely deterministic. When studying brain function and the recollection of memories, a group of scientists discovered that a person couldn't remember a name for a long time. And then, a single neuron fired, and the person could then remember the name. This brought up two things:
1. A single name might be stored in a single place in the brain, and if that neuron is damaged, it is gone. Not everything about that thing, but that area is the key to that set of memories. We've all had the "wait, I'll get it....." feeling, and when you remember, you remember everything about the person or topic in an instant.
2. If you get to the level of a single neuron and a single synapse, the amount of electrical energy to fire the neuron is minuscule. Maybe the firing is subject to quantum uncertainty. As in, we know it will fire, but we can't predict the moment. With a large enough signal, the certainty approaches 1, like the larger a particle becomes, the tighter in its envelope of uncertainty. But if the signal is small enough, like single electrons passing through the two slits, we can only be classed as probabilistic rather than deterministic entities.
Maybe the firing is subject to quantum uncertainty.
One possible escape (there is another thread somewhere where I really went into this) is just this: that there is a source of true randomness in the universe, OR that there is a causal chain whose origins extend beyond our threshold of measurement.
It is possible that there are multiple causal chains stemming from "quantum uncertainties" driving individual people, and that the "master causality" is not predictable due do the fact that these chains themselves cannot be traced. It's an interesting idea, and I expect we'll get surprising answers from ongoing quantum research.
Even if there is a source of true randomness, that's not enough to get actual free will. It's only enough to create an illusion of free will. Free will requires a brand new cause to spring into existence.
that there is a source of true randomness in the universe
From our point of view, there already IS a source of randomness. The very idea that "God rolls dice" was the biggest complaint Einstein had with every theory of quantum physics. One point about Schrodinger's cat is that there is no way to know if the cat is alive or not. And when I mean "No way" I'm not saying we don't have a way to drill a hole in the box yet, but given our understanding of quantum physics there is just no way. It is truly random.
My point is that the same things we find with double slit experiments when we fire single electrons (that we can't predict where it will fall because there are NO OTHER PARTICLES for it to interact with to control where it falls) might be happening in our brains somewhere, in a way that makes it impossible to predict what someone will say, even given perfect knowledge and a perfect simulation running exactly the same routine.
We can't consciously decide which way to go, as I'm not saying this is free will, but humans might be, in the quantum sense, non-classically-deterministic.
Free will requires a brand new cause to spring into existence.
This can theoretically occur in a causal chain if an independent chain "collides" with it, at the moment of collision. It is possible to model such an event as though a new causal chain sprang into existence via the merging of two unrelated ones. Neither origin chain could predict (cause) the new chain, and both effectively become the new causal chain.
Edit: Hmm... Much like certain waveparticle interactions...
My point is that the same things we find with double slit experiments when we fire single electrons (that we can't predict where it will fall because there are NO OTHER PARTICLES for it to interact with to control where it falls) might be happening in our brains somewhere, in a way that makes it impossible to predict what someone will say, even given perfect knowledge and a perfect simulation running exactly the same routine.
But quantum unpredictability is itself predictable. There is no evidence that we have anything on our hands now beyond a simple lack of the technology to measure smaller quantities more precisely. We've discovered more than we know what to make of in just the last few decades. Hell, we didn't even prove that all of the quarks we'd predicted existed until some 15 years ago.
This can theoretically occur in a causal chain if an independent chain "collides" with it, at the moment of collision. It is possible to model such an event as though a new causal chain sprang into existence via the merging of two unrelated ones. Neither origin chain could predict (cause) the new chain, and both effectivelybecomethe new causal chain.
Yes, any new cause that comes to exist immediately crashes into a zillion other causes. Let's theoretically say that a creature suddenly springs into existence in the middle of outer space, many light years away from anything. It has free will and willfully chooses to go in a particular direction, and it has a rocket pack. Suddenly that will crashes into all the gravitational forces exerted by all matter and energy in the universe, and the resulting effects will be a combination of that new cause and all those previously existing. If I move even one inch to the left, it will change the forces exerted on this new creature in some way, making all my causes all his causes as well.
There is no evidence that we have anything on our hands now beyond a simple lack of the technology to measure smaller quantities more precisely.
Actually, there is.
Bell's Theorem is what you want to read up on. There is rather strong experimental evidence against local hidden variable theories of quantum mechanics.
There is no evidence that we have anything on our hands now beyond a simple lack of the technology to measure smaller quantities more precisely.
Actually, there is.
I said "Given our current understanding" not "given our current technology." Finding a way to drill into the box containing Schrodinger's Cat isn't going to help.
Every bit of evidence so far says that extra technology WON'T let us measure smaller quantities more precisely, and, in fact, better technology will allow use to use this uncertainty on ever larger and larger particles, for things like quantum computing. But even with a quantum computer, you have to repeat the test a few times because you only get a single probable answer, rather than the only possible answer as you would from a classical computer.
If you've got any information disputing this, get it published, and you could conceivably win a Nobel Prize, as you'd be overturning more than a hundred years of physics.
But quantum unpredictability is itself predictable.
Then you are not after randomness but after unpredictability. True unpredictability, by which I mean some process for which there is provably no way to construct a theory of the outcome, is a weird concept from a scientists point of view, and would constitute something akin to actual magic.
Hmm. I want to see a good definition of "true unpredictability" before continuing this discussion. I'm not entirely clear on what Timo means by "provably no way to construct a theory of the outcome".
My universities Philosophy department is very critical of most science, or what we call science nowadays. One thing I remember one professor saying is: "Trying to discover free will by looking at brain activity is similar to trying to tighten a screw with a tennis racquet."
While you obviously can't "disprove" solipsism there are quite a few reasons it doesn't make much sense. This article seems to boil it down in a funny way.
@Rym; Glad that we can both agree on the flaws that 'True Solipsism' has.That sounds more like rationalism, just under a different name. As you showed with your argument. That is more of a rational approach to the matter, coupled with an under pinning of doubt. Also why can't I chose not to do lots of things. I chose not to put on pants today, chose not to feed the seagull, I can make lots of choices.
@Thewhaleshark; Really? I would strongly disagree. We are continually told why we exist, from a verity of sources, their validity however is rather questionable.
On a slight tangent how do people deal with moral problems?
My universities Philosophy department is very critical of most science, or what we call science nowadays.
They also have Philosophy degrees. Modern science saves lives, more live than have been saved previously. Your department can go suck it. And you can tell them I said so.
If you can legitimately criticize a study, go for it. If you're just masturbating your ego questioning methodology, step aside and let the real philosophers take over.
My universities Philosophy department is very critical of most science, or what we call science nowadays.
They also have Philosophy degrees. Modern science saves lives, more live than have been saved previously. Your department can go suck it. And you can tell them I said so.
If you can legitimately criticize a study, go for it. If you're just masturbating your ego questioning methodology, step aside and let the real philosophers take over.
On a slight tangent how do people deal with moral problems?
The same way you make any decision. You identify possible outcomes and weigh them against one another.
Except that it's very subjective.
That's why you have to make every attempt to think rationally in the face of a moral problem, rather than allowing yourself to be driven solely by emotion.
My universities Philosophy department is very critical of most science, or what we call science nowadays.
They also have Philosophy degrees. Modern science saves lives, more live than have been saved previously. Your department can go suck it. And you can tell them I said so.
If you can legitimately criticize a study, go for it. If you're just masturbating your ego questioning methodology, step aside and let the real philosophers take over.
I think their stance is more that we should be very careful with what we call knowledge and how we treat the facts we know, less masturbating their own egos.
What do you define as will when you say "free will"?
On a slight tangent how do people deal with moral problems?
The same way you make any decision. You identify possible outcomes and weigh them against one another.
Except that it's very subjective.
That's why you have to make every attempt to think rationally in the face of a moral problem, rather than allowing yourself to be driven solely by emotion.
But morality is subjective. What's moral to one person can be immoral to another. Not everyone is operating on the same rule set.
Comments
In the spirit of pragmatic solipsism, I can summarize my beliefs thereof simply. You can assume an unstated "Accepting the inherent solipsistic limitations of all reason and understanding, ..." prefacing any statement I ever make.
I pragmatically explore and believe in the world with which I am presented. Even within the fundamental framework of solipsism, I am able to distinguish, say, between dreams and reality, for from my own (admittedly solipsistic) perspective, the former are less consistent, while the latter present a continuous and rational chain of causality. It is pragmatic to believe that the latter is "reality" even though I fundamentally understand that there is one possible flaw in this argument.
Pragmatic solipsism means accepting reality as real, as you have no alternative reality to explore that is as consistent and persistent. It means you skip the fundamental flaw in all human reasoning by admitting that it's a flaw, admitting that every statement you make from that point forward has a possible inherent flaw that, for all intents and purposes, is meaningless.
I test reality every day. Coffee tastes mostly the same. Places are where I remember them. People continue to appear with their own persistent memories. Dreams are trivially realized as such in comparison. As a solipsistic being, I have no choice but to interact with that which I am presented, or else to reject all experience.
In this way, reality is like a black box. I interact with it, and it responds to my actions. Over time, I come to understand, recognize, and even predict how it will react. It never fails to act in a consistent manner, and so I have a very high confidence in its cohesiveness. I accept that everything I experience and believe is based on the filter of my own personal perspective, from which I have no obvious means of escape.
You have an escape from "true" (read: pointless) solipsism, but not from pragmatic solipsism. I cannot as yet find one.
1. A single name might be stored in a single place in the brain, and if that neuron is damaged, it is gone. Not everything about that thing, but that area is the key to that set of memories. We've all had the "wait, I'll get it....." feeling, and when you remember, you remember everything about the person or topic in an instant.
2. If you get to the level of a single neuron and a single synapse, the amount of electrical energy to fire the neuron is minuscule. Maybe the firing is subject to quantum uncertainty. As in, we know it will fire, but we can't predict the moment. With a large enough signal, the certainty approaches 1, like the larger a particle becomes, the tighter in its envelope of uncertainty. But if the signal is small enough, like single electrons passing through the two slits, we can only be classed as probabilistic rather than deterministic entities.
It is possible that there are multiple causal chains stemming from "quantum uncertainties" driving individual people, and that the "master causality" is not predictable due do the fact that these chains themselves cannot be traced. It's an interesting idea, and I expect we'll get surprising answers from ongoing quantum research.
My point is that the same things we find with double slit experiments when we fire single electrons (that we can't predict where it will fall because there are NO OTHER PARTICLES for it to interact with to control where it falls) might be happening in our brains somewhere, in a way that makes it impossible to predict what someone will say, even given perfect knowledge and a perfect simulation running exactly the same routine.
We can't consciously decide which way to go, as I'm not saying this is free will, but humans might be, in the quantum sense, non-classically-deterministic.
Edit: Hmm... Much like certain waveparticle interactions...
Every bit of evidence so far says that extra technology WON'T let us measure smaller quantities more precisely, and, in fact, better technology will allow use to use this uncertainty on ever larger and larger particles, for things like quantum computing. But even with a quantum computer, you have to repeat the test a few times because you only get a single probable answer, rather than the only possible answer as you would from a classical computer.
If you've got any information disputing this, get it published, and you could conceivably win a Nobel Prize, as you'd be overturning more than a hundred years of physics.
I'm not entirely clear on what Timo means by "provably no way to construct a theory of the outcome".
While you obviously can't "disprove" solipsism there are quite a few reasons it doesn't make much sense. This article seems to boil it down in a funny way.
@Apreche; So your a robot now......
@Thewhaleshark; Really? I would strongly disagree. We are continually told why we exist, from a verity of sources, their validity however is rather questionable.
On a slight tangent how do people deal with moral problems?
It's a penis.
If you can legitimately criticize a study, go for it. If you're just masturbating your ego questioning methodology, step aside and let the real philosophers take over.
What do you define as will when you say "free will"?