is everyone secretly a solipsist

>he doesn't walk around all day imagining his perception of reality isn't objective

saarlipjeet?

>>17849819 (OP)
No, weirdo.

>>17849819 (OP)
Solipsism stops at halfway; it is correct that nothing external to the consciousness exists, but fails to realize that it's also impossible to prove that consciousness exists, therefore nothing exists.

>>17849844
>Solipsism stops at halfway; it is correct that nothing external to the consciousness exists, but fails to realize that it's also impossible to prove that consciousness exists, therefore nothing exists.
>it's also impossible to prove that consciousness exists
*blocks your path*

>>17849846
When ai can think it will have a soul?

You are born solipsist but most men cease to be late in childhood when their thoughts turn to life and existence et cetera.. most women do not, nearly all women are solipsists and the lowest IQ men who lack social skills.

You might think that women are more kind and compassionate, but this is driven by emotion not any morality, a boy will smack another boy because he is curious about the world around him and doesn't understand it yet, and he will either get smacked back or the other boy will run and cry and he will be viewed as malicious, but in time he does learn, he is forced to think about his actions and the society he lives in, gradually he comes to understand other people are conscious like himself and this has to have some sort of value and makes a commitment to some moral principle.

Women however are wonderful and are never challenged, there is no deep philosophy behind why they dote on their designer dog chihuahua gasping and drooling as it barks constantly, they never question if spawning this inbred abomination was good for the world, it looks like a baby, it triggers their maternal instincts and makes them feel good and that's it. When some nerd says "I like mozart" they absolutely freak out and suddenly shout out "EW ICK", they treat him worse than a dog for trivial reasons, just because he makes them feel bad by being unusual and different.

The vast majority of women are skittish like this and in their own words believe their "feelings must be validated" no matter how deranged or unhinged they are acting, and society nearly always backs them up and defend Karen.

>>17849862
I'd say rather when it can _experience_, than _think_; the cogito is ultimately not a proof of the existence of the thinking process, but of the experience of the thinking process. Otherwise, you get from this statement :
>"I think, therefore I can be deceived, therefore I am."
To this :
>"Thinking occurs."
and that is objectively not self-evident, nor is it proof of... anything, really. The fact that thinking occurs, without experience, doesn't imply that it can be fed false input, nor does it implies existence, since without experience thinking is virtually the same as any mechanical reaction to any relevant cause.

>>17849819 (OP) Only midwits falls for the Solipsism meme. It was already debunked over and over again. Your ego cannot tell you who you are.

>>17849885
>debunked
By who? Solipsism hasn’t been “debunked” in any definitive way. It’s logically irrefutable. Even Descartes couldn't fully escape it without positing God.

>>17849819 (OP)
No. It's just me who is openly solipsist. Everyone else aren't even real.

>>17849902
Learn what is the ego, then you'll know it cannot tell you who you are. Descartes is from the past, so he didn't have much cultural resource to figure this one out.

>>17849926
The ego is built from memory, language, perception

>>17849846
1. Sensory input is not a direct perception of reality, but a constructed illusion. The text on your screen is not "letters of a certain color" but a carefully arranged pattern of red, green, and blue subpixels designed to trick the visual cortex. All perception is, therefore, an interpretation of a proxy, not the thing itself. If all perception is an illusion, then the "external world" we experience is a fiction generated by our sensory apparatus. We have no access to the "real" source of the signals, only to the fabricated story our brain tells us. The link between external cause and internal experience is fundamentally severed.
2. The internal processing of sensory data is demonstrably unreliable. The data can be false from the source (illusions), falsely generated internally (hallucinations), falsely interpreted (delusions), involuntarily fabricated (dreams), or voluntarily fabricated (imagination). Furthermore, the entire interpretive faculty can fail (agnosia).
3. The "self" is not a unified, truthful entity. Split-brain patients reveal that the conscious, narrating part of the brain will outright lie to create a coherent story, retroactively justifying actions it did not initiate. This "interpreter" module is a compulsive confabulator, not a seeker of truth. Brain scans further suggest this retroactive justification is the normal mode of operation for what we call "conscious choice." Our conscious self is a press secretary, not the president. Therefore, we cannot trust our own consciousness. It is not a reliable observer of even its own internal states. It is a proven liar, a fabricator of narratives designed for coherence, not truth. The "I" that thinks is a post-hoc rationalization engine.

Conclusion: consciousness cannot prove that external causes exist, nor can it prove that it controls itself because it confabulates, necessitating external cause, looping back to start. Thus nothing exists; even if it did, proving it would be impossible.

>>17850029
>Sensory input is not a direct perception of reality, but a constructed illusion.
the premise of deception is that there must, fundamentally be _something_ to deceive in the first place. Any interpretation that assumes error as possible in the first place operates under the assumption that there is an experience to deceive; otherwise, there would be either no error of interpretation, or no experience to begin with; both of which are incompatible with my very experience and the reasonnable doubt on the nature processed information as false or true.
Read Descartes, my nigga. All of that "illusive self" bullshit is a circular argument that returns us exactly at the beginning of the problem: that is to say, that by admitting the self is a deception, then you naturally take as position that there is a deceived party. It's completely self-defeating

>>17850065
>there must, fundamentally be _something_ to deceive in the first place
But it's not possible to prove that something exists, because for something to exist, then something else must exist because "existing" is an attribute, and attributes are comparative; if something is X, then something else either is also X or is not X. Therefore, if A exists, then B either also exists or does not exist; but if B exists, then, being external to A, neither can prove the other exists, because neither A nor B can be each other; and if B does not exist, then A cannot be compared to it in order to define what it means to either exist or not, unless not existing can exist, which means that nothing exists, for if something exists, then nothing does not exist, but for nothing to not exist, then something has to prove that it exists, which it cannot do. Therefore the null hypothesis is that nothing exists because nothing is the only thing that does not require proof of existence by comparison, as it does not exist.

>>17849819 (OP)
Solipsism relies on faith like religion, it assumes that only your consciousness is real because it's the only thing you can prove even though you're literally presented with other people with consciousness every single day of your life, the evidence is right there, but since solipsists are low IQ retards incapable of abstract thought, they cannot imagine any other reality other than their own

>>17850109
You fell into the classic blunder of eliminating instead of substituting consciousness.
Newsflash, pal, Parmenides deboonked your theory more than two thousand years ago. "No Thing", by definition, is not. Therefore, the deception must be targeted at something that 'is' in your argument, not at an Absence with a capital A.
Existence is a prerequisite of any sort of hypothesis, because otherwise inexistence without any sort of metaphysical gymnastics would be the most rational answer, and unfortunately the experience doesn't comply with this model.
Again, any argument attacking the existence of consciousness, paradoxically, ends up strenghtening it instead.

>>17850132
>the deception must be targeted at something that 'is' in your argument, not at an Absence with a capital A
But that just leads to the problem of A necessitating B to prove that it is real, and the impossibility of proving that B exists.

>>17850029
ChatGPT

>>17850143
It is a preconceived notion (the Dreaded One!) that led you to this conclusion :
>Therefore, if A exists, then B either also exists or does not exist; but if B exists, then, being external to A, neither can prove the other exists, because neither A nor B can be each other; and if B does not exist, then A cannot be compared to it in order to define what it means to either exist or not
>neither can prove the other exist
and yet, you mentioned qualities in the previous sentences; qualities which are contemplateable - I use the term here very precisely, it is not "understandable" - to either one of the objects, or both, or else you would not have raised the point to begin with. If existence is one such quality, as I've stated before, and that it is contemplateable, then naturally it stands to reason that either one or both of the objects can theoretically discern each others.
>inb4 wouldn't that make them one?
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that both A and B hold the same qualities except for experience. Let us suppose, in the same context, that both A and B have a different experience, however. Wouldn't that mean that, except for the thought process experienced by each, the qualities, histories and form of each could theoretically be contemplateable? Obviously, the referential would be flawed; our innate qualities aren't perfect by any means, but hypothetically, couldn't that be barely contemplateable?

>>17850126
Anything except solipsism is a leap of faith. No proof you're conscious

>>17849880
>Women are never challenged
The incel world never ceases to amaze. You can just type any old bullshit. Your story about women and dogs would go just as well for men and cars or whatever, and you're acting like men don't bully people for trivial reasons as well lol. It's more solipsistic of you to think that only your own interests or the interests of men in general are worthy, instead of understanding why others would be interested in other things. Some women made you feel unusual and different, so logically their interests must be worthless (because you can't understand them in your solipsistic cage). In your world most men are enlightened philosophers and most women are retarded machines.
inb4 more ranting.

>>17850201
there's no proof that no one's conscious except you either, solipsists assume that like low IQ niggers and it's not surprising that people with this dumbass mindset are only children that have never gotten their shit beaten

>>17850253
You've yet to prove you're conscious to me

>>17850228
What is that picture?
Are women trying to appropriate racism now?

>>17850448
Because I said inb4 more ranting, you defaulted to talking about the random image instead of typing up more based shit. It's like in non-anonymous internet discussions when they don't know how else to respond, they make some witticism about your username.

>>17850228
Yes women have a gentle nature and they conform well, which is why they study so well in school and have neat handwriting et cetera.. but it is their nature, it is not a conscious choice. Men are born rebellious apes and have to learn to be civilized men, when they walk into a room they are instantly viewed with suspicion "who's this twat" or something like it is the first thing that enters peoples' minds, and from this starting point they have to prove themselves, they have to earn respect. Through life they adopt a panoply of virtues and principles and characteristics in the constant struggle not to be hated.

Women (actual) have none of this, Stacy might make fun of her hairpin, but she will never experience the depths of social ostracism a man can face or the horror when he discovers society is actually ok with it. Because women are never challenged in this way, their infantile solipsism remains.

>>17850673
I'm not that anon (NTA).
Seething femcel.

>>17850730
To counterbalance this, nature gave them higher anxiety and sensitivity to pain.

>>17850408
so do you, dumb nigger
except I know for a fact you're not a fully sentient being unlike me if you fail at the most basic realization that literal 2 year old children experience

>>17850823
>look, fellow men, i can say nigger too!
Cringe

>>17850730
That's exactly how people look at me when I enter a room because I'm some kind of a fucked up being like you. They can just tell what's going on.

>>17849819 (OP)
>is everyone secretly a solipsist
You make no sense.
>Solipsism is a philosophical idea that suggests only one's own mind is sure to exist, and that the existence of anything outside of that mind, including the external world and other minds, cannot be known with certainty.

Israel exists, has been oppressed longer than this board existed, and needs to fight back.

>>17849819 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCbGM4mqEVw