Solipsism

[butplug4849]

that relationship that you discribed is quite true

[TheTruthhhhhh]

What the heck is this guy talking about ??

[Jimmison007]

If a tree falls over in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise?

[koda215]

mate, listen ive watched some of your videos and i can answer anything you want to know in a very simple way which = the correct way!! your wasting your time and energy on trying to complicate things and spend hours and hours of wasting your life in such a way i feel abit sorry for you!! It cant be easy mentally torturing yourself with millions of complicated questions that you cannot seem to answer. your mssin out on your youth and enjoying life by doing this!! the answer CHARLES DARWIN!!

[FantomL0rd]

@koda215 Maybe he enjoys thinking about the deep pointless unanswerable questions because he likes that weird feeling it gives you.

[carpnter2000]

OK,, I am trying to wrap my head around solipsism. If every thing around you is basically only there as a figment of your mind. All the people you run into and the situations that are dealt with on a daily basic. If while you are interacting with something that you basically created and lets say, having a conversation about boats. You are having this exchange about sails and out of the blue this other person says "fucking hot dogs!!" Where does the blame lay for the insanity if not on you?

[1ApertureRealist]

@carpnter2000

Solipsism states that individuals that we seem to interact with, are actually mere components of the subconscious.

Sort of like Inception, in a way. Except no one is real.

[WorshipInTruth]

While I think that only a diluted ego-centrist would subscribe to solipsism, the idea of it is of interest to me. I feel like it also ties into the idea of "self fulfilled prophecy" as many solipsists feel that reality (or rather the perception we know as reality) can be changed by our mind (although not consciously but through the the subconscious).

[goglesux]

you wana look quite smart, but question is why do you record a dumb video then while you are driving?

[alliant]

@goglesux

who cares what he's doing lol

[OdeToNecrophilia]

solipsism is a disease. the philosophy of it is nothing compared the the disease (solipsism chooses you, you dont chose it). i went through it and its nothing happy.

[TheRandomCrapSection]

I think, therefore I am. This is how I know of my existence. This is actually the first I've heard of this philosophy, and I actually have thought this before. I guess it's amazing what human minds separated by zero communication, vast distances, and centuries at a time can come up with. It is interesting, to say the least.

Oh, btw...DEATH NOTE!!! XD

[xEllex10]

@TheRandomCrapSection  DEATH NOTE !!! XDDD

[GranFury440]

You are all that is, every other entity is all that is, we are one. It's like different angles of the one consciousness that we all are. No one is a piece of the one, they are the whole one and yet so is every other entity. That's what it means for entities to be ALL that is. To understand is to experience it, get glimpses. there's no way for the human consciousness to be able to hold all understanding.

[Gorgechild]

@GranFury440 Yep. That's pretty much what I've found myself believing more than anything else.

[iamegrant]

true

[deductivist]

So.... why is it that you are completely unaware of creating via (active) perception of the world? The creative process is typically 'subconscious'. What qualitative difference is there between the view that there is a world to be received by our senses, and the view that there are subconscious systems generating a 'world' to be received by our awareness?

[XxSSJ5GogetaxX]

I can change the world. I am. At first all major criminals will die of heart attacks then the less criminal people but would still cause problems for others will slowly die of disease and accidental death. And I will become God of this NEW WORLD. LOL

[adam91094]

@XxSSJ5GogetaxX lol death note

[xEllex10]

@XxSSJ5GogetaxX LOL, Light Yagami xD

[jagg1951]

But who are these "others" you share a language with except a "perception" of some kind of input that you have no real awareness of other than an electrical signal sent to your conciousness. A dream you have sends the exact same signal even though that dream is not an actual reflection of a physical occurrence

[cagwa]

You're very wise for such a youngin'

[deadkip]

"the truth is unknowable":p

[paimail21]

What?

[VitoPossilipo]

I think, one should firt clerify, what "is" means as in "There is an objective word." What do we understand by "is" or "there is"? What or where is "there". My definition: "There" is the world that is opposite to myself, what is the only thing I am able to understand by "here". So "here" is the consciousness and "there" is, what my conciousness is confrontated by. So, that I can never be confrontated to an objective word means, that there is none.

Replies please.

[citricsystemz]

@VitoPossilipo I actually like this video because he does mention the idea that the agent is a vessel for the reality the agent creates.

[VitoPossilipo]

Thank you for your reply.

But I do not understand what "agent" means here.

[citricsystemz]

the agent just refers to the solipsist.

[PXR05]

Kudos for coming out with this stuff, and still keeping your eyes on the road.

....I know people who can`t even talk about who did what to whom on Eastenders last night without veering off the road (literally)....

[maatu1]

if we are the only concius ones among all other people, then why do people in our own nervous system interact without us being there?

[OrangeFuzz123]

Same person - I think that's it. And if that was the case, it still doesn't deserve the solipsistic slur, because if he point of 'the game' was to find a way to be at peace with 'all' , to enable your 'own' peace of mind, then it would serve both ways - if you know what I mean :(

Great vid by the way, glad I found it.

[r3fr1g3r4t0r]

the language argument is explained sometimes as a way of keeping the solipsist entertained. another possible reason is that the language acts like a diary to...this is extremely hard to explain sorry...a way of storing information, a way of communicating with the solipsist's self at a later date or way of communicating to yourself during a cognitive process.

i'm sorry if i was vague or hard to understand. we all know how hard of a thought this is to grasp.

[AlaskanSky]

My interpretation of solipsism is that every individual is a complete world unto him / herself. You can never truly know what it's like to be another person, since it's impossible to swap your brain with someone else's.

[VitoPossilipo]

But than there would be the question, what makes you (or me) special. Why do we feel as "I". My is our basicconciousness in our character, of all characters?

If everyone has a conciousness, it makes me wonder, why I feel as I and why there is no collective consciousness.

Now, many people would say: "Because everybody has a different consciousness."

Well, but if there are 6 billions of different consciousnesses and if there had been billions of people in the past and if there will be

[VitoPossilipo]

many billions more in the future, there would be the question for me: Why is world experieneced by me, who I am only man conciousness amanong billions over billions others.

I hope, you have an idea what I mean. It is very hard to articulate for me.

[icesamurai8]

inlighting

[toecutterr6]

The answer is in YOUR VOICE.What I hear,(when I talk), is certainly not what you are hearing,(listening to my voice).

[ibbyr]

Piggy backing on to toecutterr6's comment, Language seems to be a half assed attempt at communicating, so much is lossed from personal thought to words. Concrete symbols representing completely abstract and chaotic thought. However, Things like music, and body language that are abstract but more subjective lose a lot as well but not nearly as much as spoken word. In this right, solipsism becomes very attractive, because the most intimate of all distractions is oneself but once that is shed,

[ibbyr]

Then a oneness with existence can be reached (again), and the idea of a 'personal perception' is replaced with the openness of 'Universal/Infinite Perception'. Maybe.

[fcknBru]

i disagree a little, because i see language kinda helping thought. like sure thoughts exist first, then words are invented, but the language helps new thoughts to form. in a way, your quality of thought is dependent on the quality of your language, and vice versa. i see language and thought like a yin-yang

[1000101er]

The distinction seems to be semantic. Unless you're suggesting that we could not be conscious if we lived in isolation from other people, which would be a truly novel assertion, there is nothing in the fact that external cultural factors can influence our cognitive experience which cannot be accommodated by representationalism.

[DarkApple47]

It's a waste of time to prove these theories. Even if your conciousness was the only thing in existance, what difference would it make? I have tried to spectulate on these theories but I decided it was not worth doing, because why try to decipher existance, rather then just live it?

[AlaskanSky]

DarkApple, I agree 100%. Couldn't have said it better myself. (Maybe we're the same person?)

[DarkApple47]

Haha maybe =)

[RhinoStompin]

My ultimate perception which is my unspoken wordless "Selfthought" is nothing more than a perception of what I percieve to be true existance. Therefore I'm not even willing to admit that I even "have" a central nervous system inside of a "body".

But in an effort to show myself that this is false i must remind myself of this...

See next comment

[RhinoStompin]

(continued)

What this is truly a result of is the seperation of mankind from Nature as we become more and more dependent on ourselves using Nature only as a foundation of our existence. We don't deal with it hands on day by day anymore so our appreciation and connection to a physical existance diminishes

[ieodksnw787]

As a cognitive neuroscience major, I can tell you that science can't even begin to even know where to start to touch the phenomenon of "consciousness".

[viktornolsson]

No, but creationism gives a satisfactory explanation: God did it.

[ieodksnw787]

yes it does. Still, I can't bring myself to believe in contemporary theism (Christian or Muslim) simply b/c the "Gods" are too capricious in their wrath. So I live by the "Golden Rule" and hope that when I die, it is not "THE END".

[skittledemon666]

I am writing my English final on the topic of solipsism, and I came across this video. That was sure a mouthful, and it was a lot to think about in a short amount of time. It helped to clarify things. Thanks

[fnog9]

"If all that we experience is a state of our own nervous system..."  I can't believe so many people can make statements like this without realizing, and by default asking, "who is the 'we' that experiences nervous system?"

[PHANTOMZ0NE]

It's a damn good thing I imagined all of this.

[viktornolsson]

yes, I sure am inventive

[bigdaddydylan]

This is not even an argument against solipsism. This is only an explanation of your own theoretical approach. You really have not addressed a single idea of solipsism. Better luck in the future working out intelligent thoughts.

[transversed]

in his defense, he's driving

[booker1959]

In general, "solipsism" or "solipsistic" should really only be used in Philosphy 101 classes or in term papers by first-year junior college colleges who can get flushed with the pride of using a new big word; I've never seen it used in any other context without reeking of embarrassing pretentiousness--"self-centere­d", "self-absorbed", "narrow-minded" are still perfectly acceptable, and have the advantage of not making the speaker sound like a goon.

[hiphopisntacrime]

solipsism has nothing to do with being self-centered or self-absorbed. it's simply based on the fact that you can't prove the external world exists...

[0ThouArtThat0]

"it's simply based on the fact that you can't prove the external world exists..."

yeah, exactly. and this includes whether other people exist. Hence, it is self-centered.

[jhecker123]

@0ThouArtThat0 Perhaps it is fundamentally self centered, but not necessarily on the grounds of thinking oneself to be above others or thinking oneself to be the only being of importance in this undefined reality that solipsists believe in. Therefore its not self centered in any type of negligent, belligerent, or arrogant way.

[cosmanthony21]

"Is what gives rise to the world that you think is objective." Great. "perception is a creative process" no separation, cocreation. Good video Matt.

[SOIDOG45]

Why do I see so little understanding of Kantian philosophy on Utube? What you are talking about my friend is essentially Kant's 'categories of understanding' and yet few seem to give his philosophy credit despite Kant being the peak of European rationalism.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Yeah all phenomenology pretty much started with Kant. I've given him props for in in some other videos.

[GuitarRocker2008]

@0ThouArtThat0 I Thought solipcism came from decartes ontological method seen as he could not prove anythign in his world except for that which he experiences in his senses.

[otonanoC]

Wooot!!

Someone fighting the good fight for Embodied Cognition. Haha!

I wish there were like 10 of us on youtube instead of like 2.

Perception is action - it the action of seeing! Yes Yes!

[cosmanthony21]

Yes, but who is it that Does the Seeing? Do you consciously control what your eyes see? Eyes just see, thats what they do. What are we?

[otonanoC]

***eyes just see***

That is so far from the truth. You are still thinking of the world in medieval terms.

We now know that data processing takes place right on the retina. For an organism to SEE then requires the actions of entire visual cortical regions. And what good is all this data if not coupled with touch and smell?? Seeing is action. That is the conclusion.

[cosmanthony21]

I do agree that seeing is an action and creative process, one that is interdependent on the seer and that which is seen. But I ask you, I wish to avoid confusion..My eyes are in the process of seeing, that is what my eyes do, that is their function. When I open my lids, do I say to my eyes, "Eyes Begin to Function and See." No. They simply see regardless of my conscious will.

[otonanoC]

None of that visual data is useful unless you had coupled it with common sense as a child. You don't see raw data coming in, you see interpreted data. You have a library of preknowledge about the objects you see. This library was obtained through your ACTION with the world, not through disembodied pondering.

[cosmanthony21]

Coupled with common sense as a child. Before the coupling of common sense occurred, how did we see the world?

[otonanoC]

Okay. This needs to be taken up in private messages. We are straying from the content of the video here.

[cosmanthony21]

We can do that, but I dont think Matt nor anyone interested in existence would mind the conversation/debate we've involved ourselves in.

[becky586]

"the map is not the territory"

yeah dude what's with endangering children on buses? btw, happy birthday!

becky

[0ThouArtThat0]

thanks becky.

[AOEGuy]

so rational cognition is saying consciousness resides in the brain while irrational says it is our entire body? i just wanted to make sure i got the right "perception" (lol) from your video.

[0ThouArtThat0]

basically,yeah. But I'd say it is non-rational, not irrational.

[0ThouArtThat0]

saying consciousness is more than computations in the brain isn't irrational, it just changes what we mean by rationality. Instead of thought being looked at as a logical picturing of the world, it becomes more of a holistic pattern matching process that makes use of logic, but also emotion, intuition, language, metaphor, etc.

[riverran67]

''The trip is real'' ''Typical sophomoric solipism.'' ''Nah, the tripper isn't real, the trip is.'' - a dialouge in some thing.

[ContraWagner]

I would like to hear whether if there is physical world in your enactive approach. If you say it is there, can you literally change the physical world with your will, while representative approach would outrightly reject this view.

[0ThouArtThat0]

there is a physical world, but its form is indeterminate until a biological creature evolves to experience it in a particular way. It had nothing to do with will (this is not about that law of attraction crap).

[0ThouArtThat0]

it has nothing to do*

Enactivism sees the physical world as something brought forth through the transaction between organism and environment. In the case of the human organism, language also plays a role in giving the otherwise formless world definite shape. But keep in mind that this is a social activity, an individual cannot decide to invent their own language and interpret the world through it. Language is a thoroughly social activity.

[TMP3z]

Videotaping yourself in a car, while driving. God. I hope you die in a car accident due to your negligence along with a school bus filled with nuns and orphans in a fiery explosion. At least just to teach youtube a lesson. Jesus.

[2bsirius]

I'm still a bit confused! Then where IS the world in this model? From what you have said, the world seems to be a shared experience that takes form and substance in the world...Is it then an internal experience also.? Obviously I couldn't find Thompson's book, but I do have it on order. I'll be happy when it comes. Maybe after reading it, I understand a bit better.

[0ThouArtThat0]

The world is not what it seems. It is not "out there" waiting for us to find it. The world is something which arises out of the dance between our biological structure, our language, and the noise or chaos of the physical world (which has no features in and of itself until our bodies/words enact them).

Internal/external, subject/object... these terms are misleading in the enactive context. You are the world and the world is you.

[HaleyMary]

Wouldn't it always be hard to know what the world actually is because no-one can really step outside themselves to know for sure?