WARNING: Do not read this if you don't want to risk having an existential crisis like me.

WARNING: Again, read previous warning.

What is a decent philosophical method or logical way to discern whether one exists in base reality (as Elon Musk calls it), and this world isn't imaginary as in a coma, simulation, long lucid dream or Purgatory? In other words, how do you debunk this shit known as solipsism?

inb4 "It can't be debunked", "It can't be falsified". GUESS WHAT? Solipsism can be debunked the moment you realize other people say and do stuff against your will and expectations, you can't magically manipulate reality around you and there's a chronological order and logic to everything. If you leave a full cup of tea on the dining table and go to sleep, then forget about it, it's still going to be there exactly how it was the night before.

Solipsism is false because you aren't an omnipotent and omniscient being like God, and Occam's Razor indicates interacting with other people means separate human beings are present around you, because that's the simplest and best explanation.

I'm looking for genuine, well intentioned answers to my first question, thank you.

>If you leave a full cup of tea on the dining table and go to sleep, then forget about it, it's still going to be there exactly how it was the night before.
Actually it evaporates slightly.
Anyway, why does it matter? Even if this existence is fake, you are still experiencing what you believe is real time. Even if you woke up, you'd say "Wow, that really felt like 20/30 years.

>>33376055 (OP)
There is no base reality. It's dreams all the way down.

>>33376055 (OP)
Descartes is a pretty obvious point of reference for the 'what can be positively identified as real' line of thought. I prefer identifying teleological consistencies, but either way you're going to have to think for yourself.

>>33376055 (OP)
>inb4 "It can't be debunked", "It can't be falsified". GUESS WHAT? Solipsism can be debunked the moment you realize other people say and do stuff against your will and expectations, you can't magically manipulate reality around you and there's a chronological order and logic to everything. If you leave a full cup of tea on the dining table and go to sleep, then forget about it, it's still going to be there exactly how it was the night before.

You can counter argue that it's still a part of your mind, but not a "conscious" one or whatever.

My personal belief on why i believe in an external world outside of me, and more so, one that is not imagined by my mind is, what would be the point of anything if solipsism was true? why dive into philosophy at all if the start and end of it all will be you? why make any effort for anything? it would be even worse than nihilism because at least through that kind of worldview you can reach other points of view such as positive absurdism where you can get some enjoyment from yourself by living, having in mind the irrationality of reality. But solipsism? What would be the point of enjoyment anyway either?

It shouldn't even be considered a kind of philosophical view but rather an entirely antiphilosophical one whose the only nuance for any kind of question will be "it's created by my mind anyway"

Touch grass
Or a burning hot stove
Yi long ma

>>33376077
If that's the case (and I don't think it is as that kind of reminds me of something called the Bottomless Pit which isn't meant for human souls, especially the ones who put their trust on Jesus Christ), how could someone ascend to surface reality?

I miss the life I had pre-2012, and "life" feels different since then... Maybe CERN done goof'd. And this is not the movie "Inception".

>>33376294
"People Can't Feel Things Like They Used To": Dapper Chad Edition :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d925iMSuLY
"People Can't Feel Things Like They Used To": Coach Snoyjak Edition :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60fDl0HQQjM
"People Can't Feel Things Like They Used To": Knee Grow Edition :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlubJPJ44c4
"People Can't Feel Things Like They Used To": Ali Baba Edition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzSicoSsn7k
A psyop or plagiarism? AI generated accounts or am I taking crazy pills?
Something strange is going on. Something very, very strange is going on.

>>33376055 (OP)
>What is a decent philosophical method or logical way to discern whether one exists in base reality

Hit your head on something hard. Notice how it's (you) feeling the pain and it's (you) touching the bump on your skull and it's (you) looking at the blood on your fingertips. That's because you are you.

>Coma, simulation, lucid dream, purgatory
You ever been in a coma? If you had, you'd know real waking life isn't the same. Also simulations imply the computational or technological. Those are things man had made. We existed before that. To imply reality is simulation is therefore retarded. Lucid dream? Again, you ever had one? If you did, you'd know it's not the same. Purgatory? That's arbitrary. Even if we are in purgatory, it's just a other name for reality.

Elon Musk has autism. I mean that as a observation not an insult. Autists have a low sense of self, it's part of the disorder. They struggle to know the one who knows things on the inside. They always end up projecting this lack of self identity onto reality (they think reality is whatever is in their head.) It's not. Thoughts don't actually exist. And if you try to know yourself in your own head, you won't know you exist for certain. Because you become a thought, and abstract, something that only exists as a momentary lapse of rumination. Shit way to live.

>>33376055 (OP)
Your logic is badly flawed. Most people who dream do not have absolute conscious control over what they're dreaming: much of your mind (including the generation of dream imagery) is subconscious. Also, it's possible for the outside world to be under someone else's control but not objectively real: there's no way to prove you aren't connected to the Matrix.

There are some things about the way the universe behaves which actually make more sense if we're living in a simulation, notably certain aspects of quantum mechanics: the fact that a quantum particle does not have a well-defined position or momentum until you measure them. If the simulation we're in is designed to save power, then it won't bother to track the exact position or momentum of each particle within the simulation, unless some conscious entity in the simulation needs to know them - and even then the uncertainty principle applies, and the more precisely you know one, the less you know the other.

>>33376055 (OP)
Solipsism: the philosophical theory that one can't be sure that others exist, that the only thing one can be sure of is that the self exists and everything outside of the self is to be met with intense skepticism
If we're all in a simulation, then regardless of whether you subscribe to solipsism or not, solipsism would be nullified since we wouldn't actually be "real", we'd be ones and zeros existing in a binary system of code meant to replicate sentience for those who are written to exist and occupy a simulated reality but it wouldn't actually be anything more than an illusion that we are deceived by. Cows and frogs have sentience. Not the way that humans and potential alien life do, the kind that would be able to make a convincing simulation and are far more advanced than we could ever be, but they also have some sort of brain power and reasoning. Is their reality less real? You're asking how we can know with exact certainty whether we are real or exist in a real reality or in a fake reality. I can't answer that. You could trust that what you're experiencing is real and be fooled or forever be skeptical and not trust that this is real. Maybe it isn't. We think and exist in 3 dimensions. We are able to perceive and think at a higher level than dogs or crows. Who is to say there isn't a level or perception or reasoning beyond our capabilities and limitations?

>>33376055 (OP)
I really can't argue against it. I've felt that same way at times and the only conclusion i can come to is that whether we're all dead, alive, real or fake, it's all the same anyway.

>>33376055 (OP)
I'm satisfied by Dr Johnson's reply, as recorded by Boswell:

“After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus.”

>>33376055 (OP)
>What is a decent philosophical method or logical way to discern whether one exists in base reality (as Elon Musk calls it), and this world isn't imaginary as in a coma, simulation, long lucid dream or Purgatory? In other words, how do you debunk this shit known as solipsism?
You don't but I don't see why you care.
Whatever this world is, just live it.

>I'm looking for genuine, well intentioned answers to my first question, thank you
It's irrelevant. Stop feeling bad for no reason.

>>33376055 (OP)
>Solipsism can be debunked the moment you realize other people say and do stuff against your will and expectations
You expect world to be real
You expect people to oppose your will if word is real
They do
People do exactly what you expect them to do: do something unexpected

>>33376585
There are 4 scenarios regarding knowledge:
- Known-knowns
- Known-unknowns
- Unknown-knowns
-Unknown-unknowns

You can't expect what you don't know you can expect or unexpect. That means you can't recognize what you're not awaiting to find, something still running in the background beyond your knowledge and awareness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_Gorilla
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo&t=45s

>>33376055 (OP)
I won't read threads that start with a lot of dramatic silliness, on an advice board.

>>33376091
Thank you. What exactly do you mean by "teleological consistencies"? Can you please provide one or more examples?

>>33376109
Because solipsism is inhumane, it's incompatible with human nature and psychology. Therefore, I think it's deceitful. Not only that, it's a distorted worldview that even if it was the case (and it isn't), it's not healthy for normal functioning in this world, not even for living as a recluse or hermit in the woods where you still have to do stuff like gather food and bathe for survival. Even actual magicians (not illusionists) rely on spiritual entities (demons) for their praeternatural, pseudo-wonders that still can't surpass God's supernatural powers. Because simply thinking that you can twist and bend reality based on solipsism is crazy, pointless and wrong. It would be pointless. The fact that reality is interactive with consciousness doesn't necessarily mean only the mind exists.

>>33376055 (OP)
>WARNING: Do not read this if you don't want to risk having an existential crisis like me.
Not everyone's as fragile as you are.

>What is a decent philosophical method or logical way to discern whether one exists in base reality (as Elon Musk calls it), and this world isn't imaginary as in a coma, simulation, long lucid dream or Purgatory? In other words, how do you debunk this shit known as solipsism?
By not worrying about it. All we can do is live our best lives in the existence we find ourselves in. You are severely autistic if you're getting an existential crisis from this.

>>33376055 (OP)
>inb4 "It can't be debunked", "It can't be falsified". GUESS WHAT? Solipsism can be debunked the moment you realize other people say and do stuff against your will and expectations, you can't magically manipulate reality around you and there's a chronological order and logic to everything. If you leave a full cup of tea on the dining table and go to sleep, then forget about it, it's still going to be there exactly how it was the night before.
So you think all dreams are lucid dreams? Retard

>>33376304
Maybe this?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon

Or maybe this?: https://web.archive.org/web/20190613160847/https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/highlights-cern-2012

(Article above was supposedly published on the 21st of December, 2012, even though the Wayback Machine has no record of it before 2019).

I think the "smartphones became popular" theory for explaining why people act or feel different today than something like 13 years ago is not satisfactory, and the Chinese Flu jabs did change people's behavior but that was much more recent and it doesn't have to do with reality itself. The whole Plandemic was a black swan event regardless of cause, because they tried implementing this instance of the new world order with the H1N1 virus back in like 2009 and failed, so the world became more receptive somehow.

>>33376055 (OP)
You are profoundly confused. 'Solipsism', properly understood, is simply pointing out that a number of mid-20th Century philosophies were incomplete because they had no way of explaining the core concept of their analysis 'the mind'.
This was exposing a flaw in the epistemology of Popular Philosophy at the time.
In reality the fact that other people exist is a brute fact (in the hilosophical sense of 'whether your epistemology/philosophy can explain it, it remains obviously true'. An example of a brute fact is 'the ocean has tides'. It doesn't matter that you can't explain WHY or HOW, there are still tides) and since the people around you have bodies, use words, and so on just like you so by analogy they have minds.
And the concept of solipsism has nothing, NOTHING, to do with reality being a simulation, etc.

>>33377364
No, I believe false awakenings exist and I worry a lucid dream could lead to one if it goes wrong. But of course this is speculation and this topic must be taken with a big grain of salt.

Calling me "retard" is not providing a philosophical method or reasoning to discern base or surface reality or however you want to call the original reality of one's worldly life, as opposed to something like a dream or a simulation.

>>33377357
>Not everyone's as fragile as you are.
And not everyone is as mentally strong as you are, that's why I included the warning.

Yes, I've already tried not worrying about feeling like I'm not really alive but sometimes the doubt creeps back in. That's why I asked about a philosophical method, reasoning or something along those lines, to be able to psychologically battle that sensation. Maybe I just have to exercise, touch grass and get a job or something.

>>33377396
Just to be clear, I don't identify as a solipsist and I was speaking in general about how to debunk it or prove it wrong or false, but thank you for trying to answer this bothersome post.

>>33376055 (OP)
>What is a decent philosophical method or logical way to discern whether one exists in base reality (as Elon Musk calls it), and this world isn't imaginary as in a coma, simulation, long lucid dream or Purgatory?
What exactly is it about this that worries you?
Say you were to awaken in a hospital bed tomorrow, and everybody around you were aliens - and you'd be an alien, too instead of having the human appearance you knew. These people around you tell you that you were in a coma and your human life was just a dream.
How would you know that what they say is true, and you're now in "base reality", or closer to it, at all? You could even be further from it, and this alien-coma-awakening could be "less real" than your human life here on Earth.
If such a transition from one "reality" to another were possible, I wouldn't worry about whether I am in "base reality" or not. The unsettling fact, if anything, would be that such a transition could happen at all. But I'd say even that is meaningless to worry about.

>>33376055 (OP)
It doesn't matter because "you" are "here" either way

We could be a simulation, a dream, automatons with no free will and it makes not a blind bit of difference. Our experience of it is exactly the same either way

I genuinely can't believe anyone cares about this sort of thing

>>33376055 (OP)
everyones gonna give you their own bullshit philosophies man... just focus on the overall... the basis for all modern philosophy (and science) is this idea of cartesian 'doubt' also called methodological doubt - referring to the cartesian maxim "doubt all that which is not clear and certain"... it is possible to formulate an idea of methodological error along these lines... certainly, there are positive reasons for doubt, when in the course of an investigation one finds contradictory evidence... but when doubting in the absence of a positive reason you encounter hypothetical doubt, which is not real doubt... hypothetical scepticism isn't real scepticism... consequently the cartesian idea of experience, the foundation for all modern thought, has some errors... "i think, therefore i am" - i exist by questioning my existence - this is the cartesian idea that spawned the methodological 'flavor' of all thought since then from hume to kant to whoever else i dont care... well this has errors... this assumes that my access to myself is somehow privileged, but in reality no, your relation to yourself is defined first by your relation to the external world, which you then generalize and project inward... i'm cutting it short but man's consciousness has no static content, no sensation, no impressions, no 'experience' as these are all linguistically constructed... c.s pierce... the mind has no power of intuition, but every cognition is determined logically from previous cognitions... the mind has no power of introspection, for even your relation to yourself comes from the external world... there is no difference between man and his material conditions... this 'pragmatism' bears a resemblance to hegelian idealism (although pierce denied it, dewey affirmed it, whatever) and prefigures marxist dialectical materialism... every other "philosophy" is either anachronistic or impotent, the only proper subject of inquiry are phenomena: social, historical, economic, etc...

>>33376055 (OP)
Yea

>>33376055 (OP)
Nice