Help me argue against solipsism

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

I am having a debate with a solipsist, and I would appreciate if you could give me a hand with his arguments. I can post more of them, but this is basically his standpoint:

I am all that exists. I’m everything, and no one else exists because they can’t prove it to me, since all proof would necessarily rest on my own private point of view. You only “exist” to me because I can perceive you, i.e., you are part of me. For someone else to actually exist, I would have to be that person, and I’m not. All things can only exist from my own point of view. Therefore, I am everything, and only I can confirm it, and I do it every second.

And just to clarify one point:

Denial of materialistic existence, in itself, does not constitute solipsism. Possibly the most controversial feature of the solipsistic worldview is the denial of the existence of other minds. Since qualia, or personal experiences, are private and ineffable, another being's experience can be known only by analogy.

Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Edited March 3, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Grames]

Solipsist is debating himself. He can't lose.

[A is A]

I am having a debate with a solipsist, and I would appreciate if you could give me a hand with his arguments. I can post more of them, but this is basically his standpoint:

And just to clarify one point:

Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Why do you need a hand? Since you don't exist, just comply with him and walk away. Don't debate. You won't get anywhere. Perhaps what you need to do is understand his errors for your own thinking.

[MichaelH]

I am all that exists. I’m everything, and no one else exists because they can’t prove it to me, since all proof would necessarily rest on my own private point of view. You only “exist” to me because I can perceive you, i.e., you are part of me. For someone else to actually exist, I would have to be that person, and I’m not. All things can only exist from my own point of view. Therefore, I am everything, and only I can confirm it, and I do it every second.

I see two ways to address this, I'm sure there are others. "You" in these items refers to the person championing solipism.

1. You live in a world full of the products of other people's minds, most of which you can't fully comprehend or recreate. How do you explain the existence of a technological society? How are you able to learn new facts, read books you've never written, if yours is the only mind in existence?

2. You state that you exist and you have a mind. You have a mind because you are human. You can perceive the existence of other people directly. You can confirm other people are human by inspection. (If they are not human, they are such a good copy as to be indistinguishable.) On what basis do you claim that you, who exist and are human, have a mind, but they, who exist and are human, don't?

Ultimately, the solipist is correct that you (the original poster) can't prove to the solipist that you exist. This is not because your existence is logically unsupported, but because people can believe any arbitrary thing they choose to believe.

[Edited to fix verb tense in #2]

Edited March 3, 2010 by MichaelH

[JMeganSnow]

Ultimately, the solipist is correct that you (the original poster) can't prove to the solipist that you exist. This is not because your existence is logically unsupported, but because people can believe any arbitrary thing they choose to believe.

That, and the very concept of proof presupposes the axioms of Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. You can't PROVE that other people exist (or that anything exists), only validate it. It is the material of proof, which is presupposed by any process of proof.

Ask him to prove that HE exists.

[Black Wolf]

Ask him that if he ever planned an act of terrorism, would he just put a gun to his own head?

It's not really a rebuttal, I just want to know if he would

Edited March 3, 2010 by Black Wolf

[2046]

I don't know if it helps, but there's that line from AS:

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

[Neologian]

They only way a true solopsist can hope to be taken seriously is to withold all comment, all argument, all attempts at validation of their so-called philosophy. For if what the solopsist suggests is true, then all conversation, all argument, all dialogue is being had with nobody but him or herself.

The moment the Solopsist opens their mouth to argue or make a point they are implicitly affirming their acceptance of the existence of other minds (which they are trying to convince) as well as existence dependent concepts like evidence and proof.

Any solopsist who so much as speaks is attempting dethrone the very principles their action of speaking implicitly affirms.

[Hairnet]

Solipsism just reduces to indirect realism (normal subjectivism) if you think it through.

As stated above there are plenty of things that the solipsist can't account for. Of course this person would claim that this is his subconcious. The subconcious also happens to contain rules he can't break, pains he doesn't want, and things he doens't understand or things that suprise him. So his subconcious ends up being reality and he is back to being a kantian. Now that you are at this point you can start questioning the existence of the subconcious altogether.

[oso]

All other humans have the same physiological structures as us and act in similar ways to us. All evidence points towards other people having minds in just the same way we do.

[thenelli01]

This reminds me of when I was younger. I used to think that I was the only real person and everyone else was a robot that lived to serve me.

Only I can confirm my own existence. This does not mean that I can't prove to you my existence, it all depends on what type of proof you are willing to accept.

[Nicky]

If all else fails, point out how stupid solipsism sounds.

[Neologian]

By virtue of their attempt to convince others of solopsism, solopsists reveal an implicit acceptance of the existence of other minds and an external objective reality. When a solopsist makes any attempt to convince or confront a critic they marshal facts, employ logic, and use reason in the explanation/debate. Each of these actions reveals an implicit affirmation of a common frame of reference to an external objective external reality and the existince of other minds which are to make use of it in understanding the argument. In the very act of arguing for Solopsism, the solopsist affirms and upholds the very principle he seeks to dethrone. Reductio ad Absurdum.

[Spiral Architect]

I hope he likes his hand. Evidently it is the only romantic option that exhists.

[Devil's Advocate]

Solipsism is essentially an argument for lucid dreaming. Pour a glass of water over his head, and if he asks why say, "You are trying to wake yourself up."