Solipsism - Do other people really exist?

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
autisticdragonkin

autisticdragonkin

Eric Borsheim
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Solipsism is the position that other people do not really exist. In it others are merely @Philosophical Zombies this means that if you poke them with a stick they will react in the same way that you do but they will feel nothing because they have no subjective experience as well as the entire world being something that is limited to you.

There are a few variations on solipsism with metaphysical solipsism outright denying that there exists anything outside of your mind and epistemological solipsism simply saying that it cannot be known whether there is anything else, and methodological solpisism which simply is the position that proper philosophical inquiry must begin at the self with nothing more in play

I am a methodological solipsist. I am highly skeptical of the idea that other have subjective experience but considering that I think there is nothing that could resolve that problem and either answer won't change the way I act I tend to ignore that issue.

What do other kiwis think about this issue (or I guess say that they think about this issue if I am the only person with subjective experience)
 
  • Autistic
  • Feels
Reactions: CK Official, AnOminous, Marvin and 2 others
Jon-Kacho said:
It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis that wouldn't change anything so I don't see the point in even considering it.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the hypothesis that others do exist or the one that they do not exist. I think that the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion that others have subjective experience. That being said there is really no relevance to which one is true because it shouldn't change the way one behaves
 
Solipsism isn't real. Other people can be proven to exist if they can be demonstrated to have organs, feelings and motivations just like you. Solipsism would mean denying almost all of human history. If all other people are just illusions, what caused said illusions to form, much less 7 billion+ of them? It takes only an application of Occam's razor to destroy the whole concept.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mesh Gear Fox
autisticdragonkin said:
I agree for metaphysical solipsism but do you extend that to epistemological and methodological solipsism
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by the last, but while it's an insoluble epistemological issue, i.e. you can't bootstrap your sensory impressions of the phenomenological universe into some kind of "proof" of the existence of anything other than those impressions, in actuality, everyone acts as if it exists. So it's not a very interesting question to me, since it is not going to impact any actual decisions I make.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
AnOminous said:
Not sure what you mean by the last, but while it's an insoluble epistemological issue, i.e. you can't bootstrap your sensory impressions of the phenomenological universe into some kind of "proof" of the existence of anything other than those impressions, in actuality, everyone acts as if it exists. So it's not a very interesting question to me, since it is not going to impact any actual decisions I make.
Click to expand...
There are implications in ethics. If one is a utilitarian then one needs to argue against solipsism for it to make sense and the burden of proof lies on the utilitarian to argue that others have utility
 
autisticdragonkin said:
There are implications in ethics. If one is a utilitarian then one needs to argue against solipsism for it to make sense and the burden of proof lies on the utilitarian to argue that others have utility
Click to expand...

No I don't. Utilitarianism merely requires starting assumptions. Nobody has to analyze whether the universe actually exists to accept science or utility if one just takes the existence of objective reality as a given and sensory perception as a (flawed) representation of it, and then devises measurement tools to improve upon pure perception. Utility itself is ultimately subjective, too, as it relies on concepts like "pleasure" and "preferences." One only knows if preferences have been satisfied based on the perceptions of others, generally self-reported.

There's no point mucking around trying to prove what can't be proven anyway.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The 25th Cyberman and Marvin
autisticdragonkin said:
Solipsism is the position that other people do not really exist. In it others are merely @Philosophical Zombies this means that if you poke them with a stick they will react in the same way that you do but they will feel nothing because they have no subjective experience as well as the entire world being something that is limited to you.

There are a few variations on solipsism with metaphysical solipsism outright denying that there exists anything outside of your mind and epistemological solipsism simply saying that it cannot be known whether there is anything else, and methodological solpisism which simply is the position that proper philosophical inquiry must begin at the self with nothing more in play

I am a methodological solipsist. I am highly skeptical of the idea that other have subjective experience but considering that I think there is nothing that could resolve that problem and either answer won't change the way I act I tend to ignore that issue.

What do other kiwis think about this issue (or I guess say that they think about this issue if I am the only person with subjective experience)
Click to expand...

I have to agree with the general consensus on this one, that it seems like a question not worth pondering. Indeed, if you are the only person with subjective experiences, what is the purpose of even asking us this question? To test the potentially illusory nature of other consciousnesses? The "implications in ethics?"

Indeed, I may be the only person with any subjective experiences, and you may be the highly complex object. If we both adopt that position in respect to each other, the only "implication" would be a society of unmitigated sociopaths constantly testing the boundaries of their own human perceptions to no avail, likely damaging others in the process. If you are wrong, the ethical implications are extremely dire. If are you right, the implications are irrelevant, because everyone will be exactly the same anyway. If you say as you did that you believe this and yet "it has not changed anything" I question its merit as a premise for all other beliefs and information that you process.

It strikes me as a very dangerous way to think, but an interesting hypothetical for a few seconds.
 
Gym Leader Elesa said:
I have to agree with the general consensus on this one, that it seems like a question not worth pondering. Indeed, if you are the only person with subjective experiences, what is the purpose of even asking us this question? To test the potentially illusory nature of other consciousnesses? The "implications in ethics?"

Indeed, I may be the only person with any subjective experiences, and you may be the highly complex object. If we both adopt that position in respect to each other, the only "implication" would be a society of unmitigated sociopaths constantly testing the boundaries of their own human perceptions to no avail, likely damaging others in the process. If you are wrong, the ethical implications are extremely dire. If are you right, the implications are irrelevant, because everyone will be exactly the same anyway. If you say as you did that you believe this and yet "it has not changed anything" I question its merit as a premise for all other beliefs and information that you process.

It strikes me as a very dangerous way to think, but an interesting hypothetical for a few seconds.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that it affects other ethical systems but it still likely affects utilitarianism. That is more an argument against utilitarianism though
 
So I'm wondering: If we ever create robots that act identical to humans, would solipsists be against giving them human rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back