Haiti Disaster Relief Donation Links

RationalWiki would like to make it easy for people to donate directly to major relief organizations helping in the Haiti earthquake aftermath. All donation links on this page are direct to the organizations. No money goes through any hands at RationalWiki or its members. Red Cross Relief Doctors Without Borders Haiti Earthquake Response US State Department's page, including the ability to TXT a donation to the Red Cross

From RationalWiki

This essay is an original work by Nate Sullivan. Please comment only on the talk page.

Refuting Solipsism
By its own reasoning, solipsism is self-refuting. The subconscious mind, being the designer of this projected reality for the solipsist, possesses an origin. All hypotheses and the modes used to reach the observations and conclusive statements within these hypotheses are external and outside of the purported design.

Being refuted by common sense as Wittgenstein easily did to the serious philosophical solipsist worldview, solipsism has become largely extinct. It appears only those with serious mental illness actually buy the self-defeating “brain in a vat” analogy, which supposes something external truly exists. Yet, the belief that things which appear external are the elaborate creation of the subconscious mind seems to fit quite well into the broken puzzle at this point, until a moment’s glance.

Some would assume that solipsism is an extreme form of rationalism, despite there being nothing rational about its application. Rather than possessing sincere skepticism, the solipsist abdicates all pursuit of truth and throws out all sensory perception and scientific investigation. It tosses the claimed existence of a god into the same trashcan as the laws of thermodynamics or, even more contrastingly, the theory of evolution.

The brain in the vat itself, and the subconscious mind, as most would concede, possess an origin that must be external. The solipsist does not acknowledge the minds of others, or the real existence of others in whole. But yet, his own mind, the solipsist believes it to be the only thing which he or she can really prove exists. The solipsistic mantra of Descartes, “Cogito, ergo sum”, is the most basic expression of this belief. But where Aristotle’s four causes are purported, we can find the existence of the solipsist’s brain is subject to the question of origin: where did the mind, and the subconscious mind creating this reality, come from? Any explanation includes the recognition of something external. The solipsist cannot proclaim that their mind is self-existing. The solipsist must concede to recognize that their mind has an external origin, and thus reality is not created within their own mind. Perspective can be determined by the mind, but reality is not dependent upon perspective. Henceforth, perspective is not the most accurate measurement of reality. Any hypothesis asserted must include something using more than perspective as a means, and hence the mode to drawing conclusions whether they be correct or incorrect is external as well. In brief explanation, logic is not an inherent creation of the mind. The understanding that comes from logical deduction is, but the mode used to reach understandings is not. Broken down further to modes used to reach logic, and the modes used to reach the conclusion that those modes are accurate, come back to perspective and reality. Perspective is defined as “the choice of a context or a reference (or the result of this choice) from which to sense, categorize, measure or codify experience, cohesively forming a coherent belief, typically for comparing with another.” Without reality (projected or otherwise), perspective is not precedent to it. Hence, reality is the mode, unintentionally, to developing and maintaining a perspective. In a nutshell: if nothing occurred within the universe, no perspective would exist.

Where the solipsist seems to insert his subconscious mind as the architect of reality, he or she is left with a paradox where perspective does not precede reality. Any attempts to argue that the subconscious creates reality fail at this point. The connective aspect is again found in the subconscious mind requiring an origin; this further demonstrates the fallacious nature of the point in that the solipsist’s reasoning argues that the subconscious mind existed prior to the reality created for the conscious mind. If logic is used to reach the solipsists conclusions, then logic cannot be an instrument created by the solipsist’s subconscious mind. The solipsist may refute that his subconscious mind designed logic for the conscious mind, which could be used to uncover the nature of the former’s design. A swift stroke of Ockham’s razor proves this false by a look on three explanations (all variations fall under these three): the inherent illogical order of the reality designed, as witnessed by the solipsist and the rest of us, would show an either extraordinary craftiness on part of the subconscious mind that places the solipsist in the category of ridiculousness, absurdity, and mental illness, that the subconscious mind is not very good at designing realities, or that the subconscious mind did not really design it at all.

The first one is self-explanatory. Should the solipsist answer any objection, claiming the objector and their reasoning to be a phantom of his own subconscious mind for whatever purpose, they have descended into utter ridiculousness and have made their position utterly unfalsifiable.

The second is similar. Having given credit to the subconscious mind for false history, false laws of matter, and false populations, then the creation of a false disorder seems unnecessary. In contrast to the simpler explanation that these things actually occur and do exist, it fails miserably by Ockham’s razor. Furthermore, for the first two explanations, the solipsist cannot and refuses to explain or even investigate the mechanism by which the subconscious mind constructs these things or what the purpose behind their construction may be.
The third seems the only serious answer, where language, logic, and numerous other basic concepts appear to precede the solipsist's whole mind, as would history, scientific law, and nearly all-else by this conclusion. Where serious answers rest in this conclusion and reality-based expression, serious answers are not and cannot be provided in the solipsist’s unsound reasoning (by their own conscious mind to explain the enigma of their subconscious mind) and unreality-based expression.

If the solipsist rejects logic because of its subconscious origin, then they must reject the pseudologic they used to reach the conclusions that they have. If they claim that their conclusions have not been reached using logic, then they are equating their conclusions with being illogical (some solipsists would might actually be fine with this stance). If they accept logic as a valid instrument, then they must follow the logic that would be defeating to their own position, and admit that valid logical conclusions must be outside of their subconscious mind’s design. If they claim that logic is only valid in this projected reality of theirs because of its construction, and that logic might have different rules in a different reality, then they would have to concede that logic would not be designed. But that’s just hosh-posh, since this argument is only a projection of your subconscious mind.

Solipsistic Tendencies in Theism
Human beings are naturally solipsistic (completely different from the natural tendency towards selfishness). Because of this, solipsistic tendencies have an unfair advantage, and fuel irrationality. Wishful thinking, anthropocentrism, and hence, theism, also have an advantage as they are each grounded in solipsism. It should be noted that theism is not synonymous with solipsism and a solipsist is not necessarily a theist. Nearly anything can be solipsism. For example, even atheistic monism and pantheism.

The tendency to be solipsistic is natural in humans. All are guilty of it. In some cases, it can be beneficial, in others, it can be a hindrance. In social situations, the belief that another is feeling the way you perceive them to be is an example of solipsism. Empathy is, to a degree, grounded in solipsism. To be empathetic, you must sincerely believe that they feel as you feel or have felt, while they most likely do not (the attempt to feel empathetic, or relate, is often mistaken as empathy).

While some would call the skepticism of solipsists “extreme rationalism”, this definition fits only by semantics. The irrationality of solipsism shares commonalities with all other irrational positions that make it more akin to theism or absolutist morality than rationalism. In fact, theism is grounded in solipsism as well. While the assertion that a god exists by solipsist logic would conclude that god would simply be a creation of the subconscious mind (though by the definition of “god”, the solipsist’s subconscious mind qualifies). This however is not a direct statement about the existence of god, only a direct statement about knowledge (it is agnosticism: believing you do not know), and it is certainly relative to the solipsist. But explicit solipsism is not the subject. Solipsistic tendencies, natural to humans, are.

The belief in an afterlife is of a solipsistic tendency, as well as wishful thinking. If we are to consider that the qualities of the afterlife are relative to the individual, then something more personal than wishful thinking comes out of its shell: the solipsistic tendency to believe that you deserve something unique post-death, be it heaven, hell, or purgatory. The rambling of theists that without the existence of an afterlife, there would ultimately be no point to their own existence is piffle and based on solipsism as well. Where the real solipsist truly devalues existence by equating it with imagination, the theist does the same and claims existential atheism of devaluing existence. Where the theist has constructed their own relative afterlife, considering scripture is largely ambiguous in this respect, physical existence becomes a continuous test of free will with a great handicap against them. If existence is simply meant to be a test for a relative (and fabricated) eternal afterlife, it would make sense to end one’s life and anticipate passing the test much sooner. After all, most theists subscribe to the belief that this world is merely materialism and physical falsity. But at the same time, suicide is seen as an easy way out and most certainly results in an F on the test of life.

A philosophical questioning as to what would be the point, or purpose, of this existence being merely a test for the afterlife, particularly if it were designed, is subject to theism as it is to solipsism. If life and existence is merely an illusion, what is the purpose of life and existence? If life and existence are merely tests for some afterlife, what is their purpose as well? What would be the point in this design from the subconscious mind or god, respectively? The solipsist is slightly more honest in their response: perhaps it is personal amusement.

The similarities of the solipsist’s subconscious architect and the theist’s god are too straightforward to ignore. Both are the designers of literally everything. To varying degrees, they both devalue existence and limit free will. Most theists will contend, as solipsists will, that their god (or the subconscious mind) maintains the design constantly. Some would even say that god is simply a replacement for the subconscious mind.

And of course, refutation on the creation from the subconscious mind or god are similarly irrefutable due to their inability to be proven and therefore disproven. Plainly, a hypothesis which cannot be tested is not a hypothesis at all – and it is a weak one as well as invalid.
Other attributes that join the theistic position are anthropocentrism and wishful thinking. Take for example witnessing something extraordinary. Every individual who claims to witness something miraculous or something supernatural, like the reincarnation of a friend or the turning of water into wine, must ask themselves this question: which is more likely? That the laws of nature have been suspended in my favor, or that I am actually under a misapprehension?

The solipsistic tendency to believe that reality is not circumstantial, and to give perspective precedence over reality, ultimately draws out wishful thinking and leads to the irrational position of the former. This is the kind of consideration that causes children to believe in Santa Claus and some adults to believe illusionists are really magicians with superhuman powers – somehow reality is not fixed.

The solipsistic tendency to be anthropocentric is quite similar to the position of dominance felt by any solipsist: that because only their mind can be proven to exist, they are superior to all other minds which probably do not exist. Certainly existence is superior to nonexistence, or so goes the reasoning. The same can be said of nonhuman minds, which a majority of humanity already has the tendency to view as inferior by default. The solipsism only heightens the anthropocentric feelings as an additional factor. And anthropocentrism certainly has its role in theism – the scriptural permission to dominate all creatures (except bacteria and viruses, which the authors of religious scripture were apparently ignorant of), the maltreatment and resentment of swine within two of the three major monotheisms, the use of animals for ritual sacrifice, and the prevailing assumption that the creator of this entire universe is interested in their welfare but not the welfare of other species (or, early in some religious scriptures, interested in the welfare of other humans deemed inferior, i.e., those of separate tribes, separate races, separate worship, and women). Bertrand Russell wrote, “Is there not something a trifle absurd in the spectacle of human beings holding a mirror before themselves, and thinking what they behold so excellent as to prove that a Cosmic Purpose must have been aiming at it all along?" (Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961 [1935]), p. 221.)

Addend
1. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cooke_24_1.htm [Bill Cooke, Religion's Anthropocentric Conceit, Council for Secular Humanism]
2. http://www.humantruth.info/solipsism.html [Vexen Crabtree, Solipsism, Human Truth]
3. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=1568
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(cognitive) (vers. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perspective_(cognitive)&oldid=277179080, March 15th, 2009)