Solipsism -- It's Just You
The Five Most Controversial Ideas in the Study of Consciousness [Part 3]
Hello Curious Humans!
This week, we continue our series on the five most controversial ideas in the study of consciousness with solipsism. Solipsism comes in different flavours — in this article, I’ll focus on the most extreme version — metaphysical solipsism.
This philosophical view is a radical one. It’s a belief that the only thing that exists is you.
It’s just you.
Everything else, from the physical world to other minds, does not exist.
To begin, we will pick up from Part 2, where we explored Descartes and his theory of Substance Dualism. If you haven’t had the chance to read that post, you may want to pause here and read Part 2 before diving into this one.
![The Five Most Controversial Ideas in the Study of Consciousness [Part 2]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F51e3ac2b-66f1-4c15-91be-74c3ed7c5ba5_1536x768.jpeg)
Here’s a little recap from Part 2:
In the Meditations, Descartes doubts all his beliefs except his ability to doubt. Doubting — being an act of thinking — leads him to realise that if he is doubting, he must be thinking, and if he is thinking, he must exist because he can’t think if he doesn’t exist.
After establishing that he exists, Descartes develops his theory of substance dualism, claiming that the world is made of two substances: the non-physical mind and the physical world.
Towards the end of Part 2, I mentioned some ways to avoid the interaction problem that arises in Descartes's theory. One way to reject the dualistic separation between the mind and the body is to claim there’s just one thing. Under this monist view, there are two main options — everything that exists is physical, or everything that exists is mind.
Metaphysical solipsism — is a version that belongs to the latter option.
This week, we’re asking three questions:
Why might someone subscribe to metaphysical solipsism?
What are the consequences of metaphysical solipsism? and
What are the main arguments against metaphysical solipsism?
But first.
We need to briefly review the distinction between epistemological and metaphysical claims because this distinction will be important to our discussion.
Epistemology
Epistemology is the discipline of philosophy interested in what we can know. Epistemological claims, therefore, are claims about what we can know and how we come to know it.
Metaphysics
On the other hand, metaphysics is the discipline of philosophy interested in what exists. Metaphysical claims are claims about what exists and what it is like.
Okay! Let’s dive in.
1. Why might someone subscribe to metaphysical solipsism?
Rene Descartes was a rationalist.
For this article, the main thing you need to know about rationalists is that they believe there is such a thing as undeniable truths that can be known innately — without any prior observation or experience. So, through the process of reasoning alone, certain facts are self-evident. For instance, a rationalist might argue that the concept of 2 + 2 = 4 represents an undeniable truth about the world, a principle that doesn't require empirical evidence to be validated.
The philosophical counterpart to Rationalism is Empiricism. Empiricists believe that all knowledge comes from our senses. They argue that there's no such thing as innate knowledge; rather, everything we know is acquired through observation and experience.
When Descartes set out to write his most famous work, he wanted to find what, if any, undeniable truths might exist. That is, what could be known with absolute certainty — without relying on observation or experience.
To do this, Descartes used his famous method — the Method of Doubt. This rigorous process involved systematically examining his beliefs and asking — can I know this for sure? If he had any doubts about a belief, he set that belief aside.
It's crucial to understand what Descartes was doing here. This is where an understanding of the difference between epistemological and metaphysical claims is relevant.
When Descartes set a belief aside, he wasn't making a metaphysical claim; he was making an epistemological one. For example, when he set aside his belief in the physical world, he wasn’t claiming that the physical world does not exist. Instead, he was questioning what he could be certain about. He made an epistemological claim — that he could not be certain that the physical world existed.
When reading Descartes’s Meditations, solipsists might arrive at a similar position to Descartes — questioning all beliefs except the belief that one is doubting.
But where Descartes eventually adds back his belief in the physical world, metaphysical solipsists never do this. Instead, they adopt an extreme view — denying all information gained from the senses. They completely reject empiricism.
2. What are the consequences of metaphysical solipsism?
Before we delve into the main arguments against metaphysical solipsism, we must fully grasp the profound consequences of a belief in this view.
Embracing metaphysical solipsism means accepting a reality where nothing—absolutely nothing—outside of one's own consciousness exists.
This doesn't simply mean we are alone in the world; it asserts a devoid of anything physical. There are no other minds and no physical world, not even a universe.
If you subscribe to metaphysical solipsism, you can’t truthfully say something like, “Consciousness happens inside my head” because you don’t actually have a head. You can’t even say that you have a consciousness and I have a consciousness. It’s just you. You are consciousness.
What you perceive as the external world and other people are, in fact, just manifestations of you with no basis in reality. All that exists is you as consciousness.
3. What are the main arguments against metaphysical solipsism?
I want to highlight four arguments against metaphysical solipsism.
1. The conflation problem.
Metaphysical solipsism makes the error of conflating uncertainty about what exists with non-existence itself.
Let’s be clear about what metaphysical solipsism is doing here.
The solipsist initially makes a claim about knowledge — I cannot be sure that information I gain through my senses is true — but then from this claim about knowledge, the solipsist makes a claim about what exists — because I am unsure about the information I gain from my senses, the information I gain from my senses is wrong — it doesn’t exist.
Notice how anthropocentric solipsism can be — whether or not something exists is contingent on whether or not you are certain of its existence. Why should existence be determined by your ability to be certain of its existence?
Imagine you want to buy a loaf of bread from your local bakery. But you cannot logically know whether or not your local bakery currently has loaves of bread to sell. If uncertainty means non-existence, then being unsure about whether there are loaves for sale at your local bakery would mean there are no loaves of bread for sale at your local bakery.
People do not act in accordance with this logic. If they did, they would never go to the bakery. Because there is always uncertainty about the availability of bread, someone who subscribes to this logic would always believe the bakery has no bread.
The only way you can know about things like the availability of bread at your local bakery is through empirical knowledge — you can’t use rational thought. To know, you must go into the world — specifically your local bakery in this example — and get information through your senses.
2. The language problem
Language poses a significant challenge for metaphysical solipsism.
Language is fundamentally social. If you are the only existence, what would be the point of language? If it’s just you, there seems to be no need to interact with others — because others aren’t real — they are just manifestations.
Ludwig Wittgenstein — the Austrian philosopher — made similar claims, arguing that having language without shared meanings is impossible. Language requires mutual understanding and interaction; we can’t have language without an understanding that we share the same reality, and we cannot have a shared reality in isolation.
What is the point in saying, “My toe hurts” if existence is just you? It would be meaningless. If there are no other conscious minds to understand what you are saying, you’d be talking to yourself.
And remember, you don’t actually have toes or a voice box.
3. The surprise problem
If metaphysical solipsism were true, and you are the only thing that exists, then does this mean you are the creator of everything you perceive?
One view is — yes. You are God — the creator of all that exists within your consciousness.
But this raises a paradox: If you are God, why are you not omniscient? Why do you not know everything?
We don’t tend to go about acting like we know everything. We experience surprise, learning, and uncertainty, which are experiences that are incompatible with the idea of being a god-like creator.
The contradiction within metaphysical solipsism is highlighted in the following joke from Bertrand Russell:
As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me.
― Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits
If you were truly the architect of all that exists in your consciousness, why are you suprised by a magic trick, guess what’s behind the wrapping paper of a gift, or even reading this article? If you were God, you would have no concept of the unknown; everything would be as you intended or understood it to be.
But you search Google, read books, and ask your loved ones questions. Why? Because you are not God. Sorry.
4. The pain problem
Some versions of solipsism believe that the external world and other people in that world are part of a game that was created and designed by you for your personal amusement. In this scenario, you construct a reality complete with the illusion of others and intentionally limit your knowledge to enhance the game's enjoyment.
If this is true, we might ask, why design a world like this? Why create a world that includes suffering and horror? What purpose do genocide, childhood diseases, and catastrophic natural disasters play?
The Sum Up
While many find metaphysical solipsism too extreme or absurd to take seriously, others claim that solipsism is a rational conclusion to make when holding certain views about the legitimacy of empiricism.
What are your thoughts?
Are there any Solipists out there? Let me know in the comments. Just kidding. Let yourself know in the comments.
Some articles I’ve enjoyed reading this week:
From
From
From
Thanks for the shout out Suzi! I have a question (or perhaps two)
In this thought experiment there is only a collective consciousness (like Yungs collective unconscious) that exists outside of the 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time but interacts with all of it kind of like the Higgs Field
This consciousness is attempting to gather enough information to ascend to a higher plane of existence so it’s main purpose is to gather information to achieve stem compression (space time energy and matter compression). Essentially commanding more energy but needing less matter to do so (ENIAC vs iPhone)
Humans then are simply perspectives of this awareness having a human experience and integrating that information so the being can command more energy using less matter
Would that resolve the questions of omniscience and the pain problem?
(I understand this is full of assumptions so it’s less an argument and more a thought experiment)
Wonderful essay. Again, thank you.
Iain M Banks’ Culture series of SF novels features, intriguingly, a band of solipsists in the novel “Excession”, which you may be familiar with. He had some interesting explorations of cognition and AI in many of these books. A philosophical world builder and a great author in my opinion.