tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post7064495121518495811..comments2024-03-28T19:14:33.619-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: Hans Reichenbach's Cubical World and Elliott Sober's BeachEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-61330512122414037622013-04-02T09:16:04.989-07:002013-04-02T09:16:04.989-07:00How does Sartre's cogito go again? 'I thin...How does Sartre's cogito go again? 'I think, therefore I *was*' ... I think.(It's sad when you're too lazy to even google.) Anyway, maybe all you need is a stopwatch. The solipsism of the present seems to be obviously incoherent. How hard is it to go from an 'external time' to an external world?Scott Bakkerhttp://rsbakker.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-80488163680172400272013-04-02T08:07:30.579-07:002013-04-02T08:07:30.579-07:00Indeed! Actually, I think that's where solips...Indeed! Actually, I think that's where solipsism breaks: From a solipsistic point of view, it's difficult to justify thinking of such non-conscious regulators of my experience as part of "me". This is my planned next step with Alan Moore, if we get our proof of the external world off the ground.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-35222534424040787982013-04-02T02:42:12.826-07:002013-04-02T02:42:12.826-07:00@ Eric. So a kind of 'other' me? Only some...@ Eric. So a kind of 'other' me? Only somehow more in charge because it seems to 'come before' I do? This seems to get us part way to Berkeley at least! Or better yet, Freud. Neurotic solipsism...Scott Bakkerhttp://rsbakker.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-27504257491019639392013-04-01T09:21:23.494-07:002013-04-01T09:21:23.494-07:00@ Scott: Once one makes the somewhat unnatural ref...@ Scott: Once one makes the somewhat unnatural reflective move of thinking that what I experience is some combination of "me" and "it", then the question arises how much "me" vs. "it" -- and solipsism is the radical answer on the "me" side. One thought that both flows from and enables the shift toward "me" is the possibility that there are many unknown aspects to me (un-"accessed", maybe inaccessible). All this fits, I think, with what you're saying, Scott?Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-56165566608637409872013-03-31T15:05:24.434-07:002013-03-31T15:05:24.434-07:00The thing I always find so interesting about these...The thing I always find so interesting about these kinds of exercises is the original attribution of *activity* to the subject. Solipsism is not a 'natural' assumption, but only comes about as the result of a certain kind of metacognitive deliberation on experience that makes it seem 'natural' subsequently - namely the intuition that everything is somehow a product of 'me.' Why me? Why not 'it'? The skepticism that drives it doesn't actually seem radical at all when you begin asking these kinds of questions. The internal becomes as difficult to 'know' as the external. <br /><br />This is what Arnold's question touches on, the 'access' as opposed to the 'phenomena' side of the equation. Have you ever tried tackling the issue from this general angle? Scott Bakkerhttp://rsbakker.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-63850162661649778192013-03-24T20:34:06.860-07:002013-03-24T20:34:06.860-07:00I agree that once you've found yourself in the...I agree that once you've found yourself in the solipsistic quandary, getting out is better treated as a matter of good scientific judgment rather than as a matter of finding proofs with the force of deductive certainty. I'm not sure whether this makes it "pragmatic", though. Maybe it does, in a sense, but the term has so many different uses.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-3946763647740191532013-03-23T07:12:11.198-07:002013-03-23T07:12:11.198-07:00It seems to me that the opinions of the solipsist ...It seems to me that the opinions of the solipsist can only be discounted on pragmatic grounds, not in terms of the logic of solipsism. Science, not philosophy is decisive. What do you think?Arnold Trehubhttp://people.umass.edu/trehubnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-90796314073924039712013-03-21T15:45:09.861-07:002013-03-21T15:45:09.861-07:00Arnold, I am utterly torn about that question! Fo...Arnold, I am utterly torn about that question! For these arguments, I am only assuming (I think!) that logical inference is justified, on some grounds or other.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-13724270836202932522013-03-21T11:22:02.656-07:002013-03-21T11:22:02.656-07:00In your philosophical argument, Eric, is the invio...In your philosophical argument, Eric, is the inviolability of logical inference taken to be a property of nature, or is it taken to be something apart from nature?Arnold Trehubhttp://people.umass.edu/trehubnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-62121684113772812132013-03-21T08:28:55.505-07:002013-03-21T08:28:55.505-07:00Yep! Alan and I are taking on solipsism specifica...Yep! Alan and I are taking on solipsism specifically, rather than the entirety of skepticism. We have that in common with Reichenbach and Sober. Chalmers has a somewhat different target.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-25062520979166071032013-03-21T06:47:24.212-07:002013-03-21T06:47:24.212-07:00I see from reading your paper that I am taking for...I see from reading your paper that I am taking for granted that my memory is pretty much reliable, that what seems to be logically valid to me really is logically valid, and other aspects of my own person are what I believe them to be.Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15141040566131538098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-49002755649262796842013-03-19T15:44:10.067-07:002013-03-19T15:44:10.067-07:00Thanks for the comment, D! I'm not trying to ...Thanks for the comment, D! I'm not trying to address Chalmers here. I do think there is promise in his approach, but I think it goes too far to think that radical skepticism is thereby refuted. More on this in a future post, I expect!Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-27836347424059111022013-03-19T15:38:49.534-07:002013-03-19T15:38:49.534-07:00The most satisfying answer to this problem to me w...The most satisfying answer to this problem to me was in an essay by David Chalmers. He essentially said, it may be the case that the illusion of the external world is created by subconcious processes in the mind, or an evil demon, or a computer simulation, or what have you. But the complexity of interactions in whatever it is we observe are real, and they're the only basis we have for defining the term "external world" anyway. So whatever the actual nature of the world, it can correctly be referred to as an external world.Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15141040566131538098noreply@blogger.com