Why do you believe other minds don't exist?

[Breakingthewall]

14 minutes ago, Bluevinn said:

Leo said there's only one kind of solipsism. The one you don't like.

Who doesn't like it, if only he exists? The empty images that appear cannot be liked or disliked; they are hallucinations without inner reality, so why talk to them?

[Bluevinn]

33 minutes ago, Bluevinn said:

there's only one kind of solipsism. The one you don't like.

This is leo's words. Not mine

"There's only one kind of solipsism. The one you don't like"

I don't agree with this. But solipsists do. There's no such thing as relative truths to them. Only absolutes. 

Edited June 1 by Bluevinn

[Dodo]

14 hours ago, Loveeee said:

@Dodo You believe in matter ?

Yes, Batmaan, omg dont slap me again i believe i belieeeeve! 😆

Definitely some matter is much better to the touch, maybe we should go schmooze wonder woman, I'll be your trusty wingman Robin. 

I'll raise your status and value so we can trigger her natural instincts and then we bang

Edited June 1 by Dodo

[decentralized]

Well, my direct experience told me solipsism is real, I was on ketamine which is a dissociative drug so I don’t know how reliable it is anyways. However I choose to live as if other people actually exist because it’s easier to live this way. Otherwise I’d just spiral down and not be able to love or connect to anyone because I know I’m imagining them. 
 

This stuff is very complicated. 

[Sugarcoat]

Solipsism is silly. Why would you be the only body with a self illusion in it? Why would reality be limited to only one self illusion and all others are just empty. Makes no sense. 

[LastThursday]

@Dodo imagine a future where you're talking to someone and you're convinced they have a mind. But no, it's actually a machine. It walks like a human talks like a human, but it isn't and it has no conscious experience. An LLM has about as much consciousness as a lump of silicon.

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Dodo

They probably do, but if you look from within experience "Other" "different" "separate" "minds" theses are all ideas, and so it seems like only your mind exists and the "others" you imagine. (It only seems that way)

That's what happens when you apply non-dual(phenomenology) insights to ontology. These two don't mix. We should leave ontology to physicists. 

Why do people still think that mystical experiences reveal the nature of reality? They only reveal the nature of personal experience. 

Before going into non duality I think we should get our epistemology straight. How do we know things? What does it mean to know? How can truth be accessed? What is Truth? What is real?

3 hours ago, LastThursday said:

imagine a future where you're talking to someone and you're convinced they have a mind. But no, it's actually a machine. It walks like a human talks like a human, but it isn't and it has no conscious experience. An LLM has about as much consciousness as a lump of silicon.

A good ol' philosophical argument! Valid.

Edited June 2 by Anton Rogachevski

[Dodo]

4 hours ago, LastThursday said:

@Dodo imagine a future where you're talking to someone and you're convinced they have a mind. But no, it's actually a machine. It walks like a human talks like a human, but it isn't and it has no conscious experience. An LLM has about as much consciousness as a lump of silicon.

I might have a turing test for that. I can find out if its conscious. I mean AI right now I believe they are simulating a mind very well, but they cant simulate consciousness

Edited June 2 by Dodo

[LastThursday]

@Dodo that was my point, there isn't a test for consciousness. There's only a test for humanness and the Turing test isn't even particularly good for that. Think of it like this: how would you find out if a duck is conscious, what's the definitive test?

[Breakingthewall]

solipsism is crazy. Let's see, if there is an experience, it's because perception exists, and for perception to exist, there must be duality. If there is duality, there are two. Where's the mystery? There are infinite dualities; otherwise, there would be nothing. And the explanation: you can't prove that there is another because you can only be in your experience, so only your experience exists. How to qualify this? I don't know.

[Nemra]

@Breakingthewall, every sensory organ exists within the very sensory field it mediates.

 

[LastThursday]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

you can only be in your experience, so only your experience exists

Just remove "you" and "your" from the above and what's left? Solipsism has to assume "a you" exists otherwise it's nonsensical. It's possible "you" is a mirage or a construction in experience itself, that would make other "yous" also constructions. The whole thing kind of falls apart.

[Nemra]

When I observe another person's eyes, I cannot conclude that they are seeing, because what I mean by 'seeing' happens only within my own visual field. Even if I could somehow look through their eyes, I would still be the one doing the seeing.

[AION]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

When I observe another person's eyes, I cannot conclude that they are seeing, because what I mean by 'seeing' happens only within my own visual field. Even if I could somehow look through their eyes, I would still be the one doing the seeing.

[Nemra]

@AION, well, you can stay in your hypotheticals or do your observations.

[AION]

11 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@AION, well, you can stay in your hypotheticals or do your observations.

Hmm. You can see through my eyes right now? What am I doing?

[Nemra]

24 minutes ago, AION said:

Hmm. You can see through my eyes right now? What am I doing?

I didn't say I can see through your eyes.

I'm saying that me seeing stuff is imaginary in your experience because of what seeing is.

Also, I said that even if I were able to see through your eyes, then others' seeing would still be imaginary.

Edited June 3 by Nemra

[SOUL]

Anyone who argues in favor of solipsism doesn't get the joke, those that don't mention it at all are in on the joke.

[Razard86]