Solipsism

[Pattern-chaser]

With respect, I think that is exactly the point: it could be true. That is the only useful lesson (that I am aware of) that such speculations offer. There are some things we simply can't know, and can't be sure of. The world, as we experience it, is uncertain. Much more uncertain than we admit to. I correct myself: this latter is the second useful lesson that we are taught.

Anything could be true. The point is that we all know its just made up ****.

The point is that our philosophy has illuminated something we have difficulty accepting because it's counter-intuitive. Something real. The point is that we have discovered that we only thought it was "just made up". Philosophy is not, in this sense, a game. That which is possible cannot logically be dismissed without good reason, any more than it could be accepted without good reason.

[Terrapin Station]

For the umpteenth time, if we're using "know" to refer to certainty, we're doing something that's pretty misconceived. We can't be certain about any empirical claim whatsoever, so this would suggest that scientific knowledge is impossible, for example.

But there should be something clearly problematic about that stance.

So maybe don't use "know" to denote certainty.

Certainty doesn't matter. It's a red herring to worry about it. Worry instead about good reasons for believing one option over another.

[Pattern-chaser]

We can't be certain about any empirical claim whatsoever, so this would suggest that scientific knowledge is impossible, for example.

Certain scientific knowledge is impossible. [ I ignore those things that are true and known because we define them so. ] That's why scientific knowledge is always offered as our latest best guess, and not as a steel-hard absolute.

Certainty doesn't matter. It's a red herring to worry about it. Worry instead about good reasons for believing one option over another.

Certainty matters, but I'm not really disagreeing with you. It is as unimportant as you observe, but claims to it occur so often, even here in a philosophy forum where we might be expected to know better, that they need addressing. By all means worry about choosing one option over another. But this topic considers something that isn't offered as one of a number of choices. It considers something that cannot be judged in this way. We can choose to [dis]believe it, but we can't justify our choices because there is no justification available. So this isn't about belief, but about what we do when belief is not an option, and neither is disbelief.

[Terrapin Station]

But this topic considers something that isn't offered as one of a number of choices. It considers something that cannot be judged in this way. We can choose to [dis]believe it, but we can't justify our choices because there is no justification available. So this isn't about belief, but about what we do when belief is not an option, and neither is disbelief.

I'm not clear why you see it that way. Believing that P because one feels that there are better reasons to believe that P than there are to believe that not-P never rules out the alternative(s). But that's how belief for almost everything works. We simply pick the reasons that we feel are more plausible/reasonable for one option over its contradictory option.

[Pattern-chaser]

But this topic considers something that isn't offered as one of a number of choices. It considers something that cannot be judged in this way. We can choose to [dis]believe it, but we can't justify our choices because there is no justification available. So this isn't about belief, but about what we do when belief is not an option, and neither is disbelief.

I'm not clear why you see it that way. Believing that P because one feels that there are better reasons to believe that P than there are to believe that not-P never rules out the alternative(s). But that's how belief for almost everything works. We simply pick the reasons that we feel are more plausible/reasonable for one option over its contradictory option.

...and when there are no reasons, none at all?

[Terrapin Station]

I'm not clear why you see it that way. Believing that P because one feels that there are better reasons to believe that P than there are to believe that not-P never rules out the alternative(s). But that's how belief for almost everything works. We simply pick the reasons that we feel are more plausible/reasonable for one option over its contradictory option.

...and when there are no reasons, none at all?

If you felt you had no reasons other than possibility to believe either P or not-P, then you'd not choose.

But for something like solipsism versus its negation, surely people will have reasons to believe one or the other. Normally the only arena where you'd feel there are no reasons suggesting belief of a proposition versus its negation would be something pretty abstract/something fairly removed from everyday experience, especially where it's something you're not really familiar with. So, for example, if we're talking about something like a conjecture in Lie algebra, and one isn't very familiar if at all with advanced mathematics, one probably won't have a belief about a conjecture versus its negation.

[Pattern-chaser]

...and when there are no reasons, none at all?

If you felt you had no reasons other than possibility to believe either P or not-P, then you'd not choose.

That is the answer I would have given, not the answer I expected. I bow to your grasp of the topic.

[Sculptor1]

With respect, I think that is exactly the point: it could be true. That is the only useful lesson (that I am aware of) that such speculations offer. There are some things we simply can't know, and can't be sure of. The world, as we experience it, is uncertain. Much more uncertain than we admit to. I correct myself: this latter is the second useful lesson that we are taught.

Anything could be true. The point is that we all know its just made up ****.

The point is that our philosophy has illuminated something we have difficulty accepting because it's counter-intuitive. Something real. The point is that we have discovered that we only thought it was "just made up". Philosophy is not, in this sense, a game. That which is possible cannot logically be dismissed without good reason, any more than it could be accepted without good reason.

True. Like my invisible friends ratty Norman and Spiky Joe. No one accepts them but me.

[Pattern-chaser]

The point is that our philosophy has illuminated something we have difficulty accepting because it's counter-intuitive. Something real. The point is that we have discovered that we only thought it was "just made up". Philosophy is not, in this sense, a game. That which is possible cannot logically be dismissed without good reason, any more than it could be accepted without good reason.

True. Like my invisible friends ratty Norman and Spiky Joe. No one accepts them but me.

I don't think this involves your friends. The matter under discussion is not the (trivial?) matter of whether Norman exists in our 'real' world. It is about the nature of that which actually is. Therefore it is unjustified speculation, of course.

My point is that our intuition that

the world whose picture our senses show to us ≡ that which actually is

is nothing but speculation. It's as "made up" as the counter-intuitive

"everything is a figment of my imagination" (solipsism).

Both of these explanations - and many others too - are possible, and we have no way to tell which of them, if any, is correct. We cannot even say that one is more likely than another. So we cannot logically accept or dismiss any of them.

[Sculptor1]

True. Like my invisible friends ratty Norman and Spiky Joe. No one accepts them but me.

I don't think this involves your friends. The matter under discussion is not the (trivial?) matter of whether Norman exists in our 'real' world. It is about the nature of that which actually is. Therefore it is unjustified speculation, of course.

My point is that our intuition that

the world whose picture our senses show to us ≡ that which actually is

EXACTLY.
Ratty Norman is right here with me.
He's a bot cross with you. You'd better be careful, because he can exact a painful price. Whatch your back!

is nothing but speculation. It's as "made up" as the counter-intuitive

"everything is a figment of my imagination" (solipsism).

Both of these explanations - and many others too - are possible, and we have no way to tell which of them, if any, is correct. We cannot even say that one is more likely than another. So we cannot logically accept or dismiss any of them.

[Pattern-chaser]

My point is that our intuition that

the world whose picture our senses show to us ≡ that which actually is

EXACTLY.
Ratty Norman is right here with me.
He's a bot cross with you. You'd better be careful, because he can exact a painful price. Watch your back!

is nothing but speculation.

"Exactly" what? You split my



sentence in half, and put your comment in the middle. Here you go, for clarity:

My point is that our intuition that the world whose picture our senses show to us ≡ that which actually is is nothing but speculation.

Is this what you agree with?

[Sculptor1]

EXACTLY.
Ratty Norman is right here with me.
He's a bot cross with you. You'd better be careful, because he can exact a painful price. Watch your back!

"Exactly" what? You split my



sentence in half, and put your comment in the middle. Here you go, for clarity:

My point is that our intuition that the world whose picture our senses show to us ≡ that which actually is is nothing but speculation.

Is this what you agree with?

That does not make all claims of equal value.
My pet unicorn thinks that the brain in a vat thing is beyond practicality.

[Pattern-chaser]

"Exactly" what? You split my



sentence in half, and put your comment in the middle. Here you go, for clarity:

My point is that our intuition that the world whose picture our senses show to us ≡ that which actually is is nothing but speculation.

Is this what you agree with?

That does not make all claims of equal value.

Not of equal value, no, in the sense that "value" represents a subjective value judgement. But I am trying to write down the things we know, or in this case, can't-and-don't know. These claims may not be of equal value, but their probability (of correctness) is unknown and unknowable. Thus we cannot compare any two such possibilities, meaningfully or logically.

My pet unicorn thinks that the brain in a vat thing is beyond practicality.

That may be so, but perhaps that's because your unicorn doesn't know that the brain-in-a-vat example asserts that your experience - and that of your unicorn, of course - is identical in both cases. "Identical" meaning "indistinguishable", in this case. That's also part of the point I'm making. No comparison is logically possible concerning any two possibilities for which there is no evidence, and no data, to evaluate.

[Sculptor1]

That does not make all claims of equal value.

Not of equal value, no, in the sense that "value" represents a subjective value judgement. But I am trying to write down the things we know, or in this case, can't-and-don't know. These claims may not be of equal value, but their probability (of correctness) is unknown and unknowable. Thus we cannot compare any two such possibilities, meaningfully or logically.

What you have said here is an inherent contradiction.
You are trying to preserve one aspect of absurdity by downgrading another.
We can either compare or not. Brains in jars are not comparing anything real, and since what you are saying is just some mad scientist inventing you and your words I can safely ignore you.

My pet unicorn thinks that the brain in a vat thing is beyond practicality.

That may be so, but perhaps that's because your unicorn doesn't know that the brain-in-a-vat example asserts that your experience - and that of your unicorn, of course - is identical in both cases. "Identical" meaning "indistinguishable", in this case. That's also part of the point I'm making. No comparison is logically possible concerning any two possibilities for which there is no evidence, and no data, to evaluate.

THings for which there is no evidence can always be safely ignored.

[Pattern-chaser]

Not of equal value, no, in the sense that "value" represents a subjective value judgement. But I am trying to write down the things we know, or in this case, can't-and-don't know. These claims may not be of equal value, but their probability (of correctness) is unknown and unknowable. Thus we cannot compare any two such possibilities, meaningfully or logically.

What you have said here is an inherent contradiction.
You are trying to preserve one aspect of absurdity by downgrading another.

Where is the contradiction? What is the contradiction?
What is it that you find absurd?

We can either compare or not.

OK. Not. I already explained why:

...their probability (of correctness) is unknown and unknowable. Thus we cannot compare any two such possibilities, meaningfully or logically.

Brains in jars are not comparing anything real...

Comparison involves two things. What do you think we are comparing to a brain in a jar?

No comparison is logically possible concerning any two possibilities for which there is no evidence, and no data, to evaluate.

Things for which there is no evidence can always be safely ignored.

I've seen this said many times on philosophy forums, but I've never found anyone able to explain why this should be so. To ignore something we believe impossible is sensible, although we can still be wrong. But to ignore something because there is no evidence, and to be confident we can do so "safely"? What's the justification for this?