NationStates Jolt Archive

Rather than hijack Holy Fro's thread I've decided to start a little spin-off to answer a question of my own. How is solipsism necessarily unintelligent?

what's solpsism?

what's solpsism?

The rejection of truth or the idea that nothing can truly be known.

That's pretty unintelligent (or just plain subborn) to not accept what is proven.

The rejection of truth or the idea that nothing can truly be known.

This is sounding very familiar from yesterday. I personally can't decide between a straight "yes or no" answer, as I don't think of knowledge as a requisite for truth.

I don't think that solpsism means unintelligence. You can believe what you want to believe, or not believe what you don't want to believe, in this case. Ahh! Frustrating! :headbang:

This is sounding very familiar from yesterday. I personally can't decide between a straight "yes or no" answer, as I don't think of knowledge as a requisite for truth.
yeah, but since it's not on page 1 anymore...

That's pretty unintelligent (or just plain subborn) to not accept what is proven.

But what is really proven? Surely different people have different requirements which must be met before they will believe something, so what may seem to be a proven fact to one person may be nothing more than speculation in the mind of another. Solipsism is merely an extremification of this idea setting that the burden of proof so high that it cannot be attained, even by the senses.

yeah, but since it's not on page 1 anymore...

yeah, I know. I may duck this one out.

not unintelligent, perhaps just ignorant?

people can believe or disbelieve what they want

this sounds like what some super religious people do. now im religious so dont think im bias. but humans have an inate desire to seek the truth. curiosity and imagination is what sets us apart from the other animals. mainly the imagination part. imagination is a purely human trait. and imagination is a tool for problem solving. there are some in my grandmas church who are that way. if you told them the sky was blue but the bible told them it was red, they would believe the bible even when staring at the blue sky. so i think ignorance is bad. people can believe what they want, but if they are wrong and refuse to accept the truth they are inferior.

But what is really proven? Surely different people have different requirements which must be met before they will believe something, so what may seem to be a proven fact to one person may be nothing more than speculation in the mind of another. Solipsism is merely an extremification of this idea setting that the burden of proof so high that it cannot be attained, even by the senses.
Intelligence need a foundation of truths. You can't be intelligent just by questioning everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING.

Intelligence need a foundation of truths. You can't be intelligent just by questioning everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING.


*clap*

this sounds like what some super religious people do. now im religious so dont think im bias. but humans have an inate desire to seek the truth. curiosity and imagination is what sets us apart from the other animals. mainly the imagination part. imagination is a purely human trait. and imagination is a tool for problem solving. there are some in my grandmas church who are that way. if you told them the sky was blue but the bible told them it was red, they would believe the bible even when staring at the blue sky. so i think ignorance is bad. people can believe what they want, but if they are wrong and refuse to accept the truth they are inferior.

Can you demonstrate to my satisfaction that you exist, or that there is a sky at all? If I choose to set my standard of proof beyond the reach of any argument or demonstration you could make then what is to prevent me from simply saying, "I am all that exists, everything else is simply in my head." and being entirely reasonable, if a little silly from a common perspective?

Intelligence need a foundation of truths. You can't be intelligent just by questioning everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING.

There does seem to be one unquestionable truth. There is being. Something exists. Aside from that most everything else can be questioned within a consistent, logical framework. Intelligence does not require any base of facts, it is the ability to manipulate what facts one comes by.

Can you demonstrate to my satisfaction that you exist, or that there is a sky at all? If I choose to set my standard of proof beyond the reach of any argument or demonstration you could make then what is to prevent me from simply saying, "I am all that exists, everything else is simply in my head." and being entirely reasonable, if a little silly from a common perspective?
Because of the absurdities you think of. You only think of stuff you know (and you combine them for creativity). So either you know everything and you are the only thing that exists, or you're not and there are truths out there you do not (choose to) know about.

There does seem to be one unquestionable truth. There is being. Something exists. Aside from that most everything else can be questioned within a consistent, logical framework. Intelligence does not require any base of facts, it is the ability to manipulate what facts one comes by.
Contradiction

Contradiction

Not actually. Intelligence does not require a base of facts, it is the ability to manipulate facts when one gets them. One can be intelligent without any knowledge at all, but it's not meaningful until one comes to know things on which to use one's intelligence.

Not actually. Intelligence does not require a base of facts, it is the ability to manipulate facts when one gets them. One can be intelligent without any knowledge at all, but it's not meaningful until one comes to know things on which to use one's intelligence.
Without facts there is no ability to manipulate them.

Because of the absurdities you think of. You only think of stuff you know (and you combine them for creativity). So either you know everything and you are the only thing that exists, or you're not and there are truths out there you do not (choose to) know about.

The second sentence seems reasonable, but I still don't understand what makes it impossible for me to have imagined the universe.

1+1 does not equal 4 no matter how you think

The second sentence seems reasonable, but I still don't understand what makes it impossible for me to have imagined the universe.
Why in God's name would you invent a 19 year old student, who is too lazy to go to class, but rather discusses stuff on the NS forum?

Without facts there is no ability to manipulate them.

I'm having a little bit of trouble putting this into words...

No specific knowledge (facts) is required for a person to be intelligent, though intelligence does work on facts. Intelligence can exist without any facts, but it does not do anything until it has facts to manipuate. I have the ability to lift weights, but I don't have any weights. My ability is not conditioned on the existence of the thing I am manipulating except in an immediate physical sense. This brings us to the question "Is a dancer still a dancer even when they aren't dancing, and is a plumber still a plumber when they aren't fixing your sink?" Essential being is a really annoying idea, and whether it is valid or not it's nearly, maybe entirely, impossible to have this conversation without bring it into the fold.

1+1 does not equal 4 no matter how you think

Well, since "1" "+" "=" and "4" are all symbols and not inherent in the fabric of the universe we can say that "1+1=4" if we choose to define the symbols that way.

Why in God's name would you invent a 19 year old student, who is too lazy to go to class, but rather discusses stuff on the NS forum?

I was looking into my future when I did it. :)

I'm having a little bit of trouble putting this into words...

No specific knowledge (facts) is required for a person to be intelligent, though intelligence does work on facts. Intelligence can exist without any facts, but it does not do anything until it has facts to manipuate. I have the ability to lift weights, but I don't have any weights. My ability is not conditioned on the existence of the thing I am manipulating except in an immediate physical sense. This brings us to the question "Is a dancer still a dancer even when they aren't dancing, and is a plumber still a plumber when they aren't fixing your sink?" Essential being is a really annoying idea, and whether it is valid or not it's nearly, maybe entirely, impossible to have this conversation without bring it into the fold.
If you'd have the ability to lift weights, but there are none ever around (weighs do not exist, have never existed and will never exist), would you still have the ability to lift weights? NO!

I believe ignorance is bliss and im not wrong your just not proving it enough

isnt it kinda pointless to debate with someone that admits that in the face of overwhelming truth they will think what they want to?

isnt it kinda pointless to debate with someone that admits that in the face of overwhelming truth they will think what they want to?
except that he/she is not

If you'd have the ability to lift weights, but there are none ever around (weighs do not exist, have never existed and will never exist), would you still have the ability to lift weights? NO!

If there were no weights but I had the ability to lift theoretical weights, and then one appeared, then I would have the ability to lift them. Also, intelligence is the ability to manipulate known facts, or subjective, individual facts, not objective universal facts (necessarily, though they can overlap), so intelligence can be used to manipulate facts within an entire fictitious universe.

Just a little disclaimer: I'm not a solipsist, I just think it's interesting to discuss it and I like taking the unpopular position.

that is true but it is human nature to teach or destroy

Just a little disclaimer: I'm not a solipsist, I just think it's interesting to discuss it and I like taking the unpopular position.
SO AM I!! *shake hands*

I used to do it in class, when people were debating. I'd get on the side no one took and ask tough questions. I love that.

its always easier to destroy than teach you cant write a book in 6 months or a lifetimes achievement but you can destroy it in 6 minitues

I want to create a posse of people who do that and join threads where everyone is just agreeing and stroking each other's egos and fight them.

If there were no weights but I had the ability to lift theoretical weights, and then one appeared, then I would have the ability to lift them. Also, intelligence is the ability to manipulate known facts, or subjective, individual facts, not objective universal facts (necessarily, though they can overlap), so intelligence can be used to manipulate facts within an entire fictitious universe.
yeah, BUT it would still be facts (you'll simply think of them as facts) you would be manipulating. Hence the "tought experiments"

PS you've just said that you're ability to lift weight DOES depend on the existence of weights.

yeah, BUT it would still be facts (you'll simply think of them as facts) you would be manipulating. Hence the "tought experiments"

PS you've just said that you're ability to lift weight DOES depend on the existence of weights.

Sweet mother semantics...

If I had the ability to lift theoretical weights and an actual weight appeared I would then be able to lift that actual weight. The distiction between theoretical and actual is not meaningful when we are discussing abilities, and is particularly unimportant with respect to knowledge and intelligence because nothing is known, only believed, so all intelligence is manipulating believed facts, not objective facts.

Nah everyone its easier to sit on the sideline and agree on whatever you find to be a good point and then trash the next thing that person might say if you dont agree but no flaming

Sweet mother semantics...

If I had the ability to lift theoretical weights and an actual weight appeared I would then be able to lift that actual weight. The distiction between theoretical and actual is not meaningful when we are discussing abilities, and is particularly unimportant with respect to knowledge and intelligence because nothing is known, only believed, so all intelligence is manipulating believed facts, not objective facts.
I think you mean the "the theoretical ability to lift actual weights"

It is important... (having trouble putting it into words)... here goes:
John can lift weights (1).
There are no weights (2).
(1)+(2): John can NOT lift a weight
Conclusion: If there are no weights, John does not have the ability to lift weigts.

I think you mean the "the theoretical ability to lift actual weights"

It is important... (having trouble putting it into words)... here goes:
John can lift weights (1).
There are no weights (2).
(1)+(2): John can NOT lift a weight
Conclusion: If there are no weights, John does not have the ability to lift weigts.

let's put some descriptors and conditions in there...

John can actually lift actual weights (1)
John can theoretically lift actual weights (2)
There are no actual weights (3)

(1)+(3): John cannot life actual weights
(2)+(3); John's theoretical ability is not tested by (3) and holds true
(1)+(2)+(3); John cannot lift actual weights, but his theoretical ability remains untested

If John was the only being in the universe and he had the ability to create and then lift weights (I suppose I've had to adapt here to say create first, then lift) then he essentially has the ability to lift weights if he chooses to, though it would not be a single step operation.

let's put some descriptors and conditions in there...

John can actually lift actual weights (1)
John can theoretically lift actual weights (2)
There are no actual weights (3)

(1)+(3): John cannot life actual weights
(2)+(3); John's theoretical ability is not tested by (3) and holds true
(1)+(2)+(3); John cannot lift actual weights, but his theoretical ability remains untested

(1)+(2)+(3): John can not lift weights.
Untested does not equal true. It is as false as it is true, so there's no saying he could or could not lift weights IF they existed. Truth is that they do not exist, so even if he'd have the ability there would be no way to find out, except for finding a weight and letting him actually lift it.

(1)+(2)+(3): John can not lift weights.
Untested does not equal true. It is as false as it is true, so there's no saying he could or could not lift weights IF they existed. Truth is that they do not exist, so even if he'd have the ability there would be no way to find out, except for finding a weight and letting him actually lift it.

There is saying that he could lift weights if they existed, that's what "John can theoretically lift actual weights" means, that he could lift them if they existed. Because we take his theoretical ability to be true we can say that if a weight comes into existence he will be able to lift it. If we did not take that ability as true, but only as speculation, then it remains to be seen until a weight is found for him to try to lift. The same is true of intelligence, it cannot be proven without knowledge to manipulate, but that does not mean that it does not exist even without that knowledge. Things are not necessarily untrue if they are untestable.

There is saying that he could lift weights if they existed, that's what "John can theoretically lift actual weights" means, that he could lift them if they existed. Because we take his theoretical ability to be true we can say that if a weight comes into existence he will be able to lift it. If we did not take that ability as true, but only as speculation, then it remains to be seen until a weight is found for him to try to lift. The same is true of intelligence, it cannot be proven without knowledge to manipulate, but that does not mean that it does not exist even without that knowledge. Things are not necessarily untrue if they are untestable.
Don't take it for true.
In your view you've just proved "John can theoretically lift weights" by taking "John can theoretically lift weights" true

"does not mean that it does not exist even without that knowledge"
but it does not mean mean either it DOES.

Don't take it for true.
In your view you've just proved "John can theoretically lift weights" by taking "John can theoretically lift weights" true

"does not mean that it does not exist even without that knowledge"
but it does not mean mean either it DOES.

Right, it is indeterminant. Everything that is not is unknowable. Hence, we cannot prove a negative. A weightlifter is only called a weightlifter because we know they have lifted weights in the past and expect them to do so again in the future, but we cannot know for sure. The surity with which humans approach experience is an illusion created to ease the passage of uncomplex minds through a complex world.

Right, it is indeterminant. Everything that is not is unknowable. Hence, we cannot prove a negative. A weightlifter is only called a weightlifter because we know they have lifted weights in the past and expect them to do so again in the future, but we cannot know for sure. The surity with which humans approach experience is an illusion created to ease the passage of uncomplex minds through a complex world.
WTF? I don't understand shit of this post...

Anyway back to intelligence and the original debate:
If there are no facts (solipsist view), one can be intelligent or not, but there is no way of telling.
If there are facts (normal peoples view), one is intelligent if one can manipulate them.

So there is no way of telling one is an intelligent solipsist, because intelligence does not exist in solipsism, because facts do not exist in solipsism.

WTF? I don't understand shit of this post...

Anyway back to intelligence and the original debate:
If there are no facts (solipsist view), one can be intelligent or not, but there is no way of telling.
If there are facts (normal peoples view), one is intelligent if one can manipulate them.

So there is no way of telling one is an intelligent solipsist, because intelligence does not exist in solipsism, because facts do not exist in solipsism.

Sorry, it's late and I'm really tired. If you didn't understand what I said it probably didn't make any sense.

So the resolution is that solipsism is not necessarily unintelligent, but intelligence cannot be measured from a solipsistic viewpoint.

It's also interesting to note that there is another school of solipist thought that says that while there may be objectivity it is unattainable because of the necessary limitation in the human sensory apparatus. I think that that idea is much more reasonable than the more extreme, "no facts" solipsism and creates much of the same uncertainty without the same hopelessness.

Sorry, it's late and I'm really tired. If you didn't understand what I said it probably didn't make any sense.

So the resolution is that solipsism is not necessarily unintelligent, but intelligence cannot be measured from a solipsistic viewpoint.

It's also interesting to note that there is another school of solipist thought that says that while there may be objectivity it is unattainable because of the necessary limitation in the human sensory apparatus. I think that that idea is much more reasonable than the more extreme, "no facts" solipsism and creates much of the same uncertainty without the same hopelessness.
Those are the ones who are saying: "you can't measure beyond (I think) 10^-65, so there is only an estimate of +/-0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 and no certainty"?

Those are the ones who are saying: "you can't measure beyond (I think) 10^-65, so there is only an estimate of +/-0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 and no certainty"?

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of, "the eyes can be decieved." Think of a person with psychotic dilusions, they are essentially living in their own imagined world, one which we believe is not representitive of the objective universe but a perversion thereof while our own universal models are accurate.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of, "the eyes can be decieved." Think of a person with psychotic dilusions, they are essentially living in their own imagined world, one which we believe is not representitive of the objective universe but a perversion thereof while our own universal models are accurate.
So all solipsist are dillusional?

So all solipsist are dillusional?

No, all solipsists acknowledge that what we percieve as the world around us may be an dillusion.

No, all solipsists acknowledge that what we percieve as the world around us may be an dillusion.
is solipsism a hype since the Matrix?

is solipsism a hype since the Matrix?

I don't know. I think it was between the release of the first one and the second one, but not as much after the release of the second and third movies because they turned everyone off to the story and its ideas even though they were not faulty in their ideas but in their execution.

I don't know. I think it was between the release of the first one and the second one, but not as much after the release of the second and third movies because they turned everyone off to the story and its ideas even though they were not faulty in their ideas but in their execution.
they should naver have made sequals to the matrix

they should naver have made sequals to the matrix

The second, and particularly the third movies were much better than people thought, the problem was that there was so much anticipation that they could not help but fall short. The story was carried to its conclusion well and with many fine aspects along the way, but the inovation from the first movie was not matched by further inovation in the following movies. If you watch with a careful eye for detail and look for the philosophy of balanced opposites the movies are actually very interesting.

The second, and particularly the third movies were much better than people thought, the problem was that there was so much anticipation that they could not help but fall short. The story was carried to its conclusion well and with many fine aspects along the way, but the inovation from the first movie was not matched by further inovation in the following movies. If you watch with a careful eye for detail and look for the philosophy of balanced opposites the movies are actually very interesting.
It's just like LOTR. By the time of the third movie all they did was fight and fight and fight some more.