🤣 Just remember, with great power comes great responsibility... I request that you imagine universal healthcare, education for everyone, abundant resources, and a clean environment! And coffee that’s always perfectly brewed, calorie-free cake that tastes like calorie-full cake, instant travel, socks that never get lost in the laundry, unlimited vacation days, traffic lights that sync to my schedule, hoverboards that actually hover…
One omniporesent, omnipowerful man creating entire worlds inside his consciousness, and yet, you ask for impossible things! Universal healthcare and world peace, sure. But tasty calorie-free cake? What is this, Narnia?!
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)
If in this thought experiment we are all just minds, as perspectives of awareness -- I think that might sneak in physical properties? A perspective that is different from other perspectives, seems to imply a separation. And separation is a property of physical things.
Once we include physics, then it seems like we're not talking about metaphysical solipsism anymore -- we're now talking about a form of dualism perhaps, or maybe panpsychism? Or maybe I misunderstood something about your thought experiment?
No I agree I think it’s erring on the side of a kind of dualism. I tend to think of consciousness as an emergent phenomenon rather than an inherent part of all things (panpsychism). Just an idea I’ve been kicking around for a while and wanted to get your take on it
Suzi writes, "Embracing metaphysical solipsism means accepting a reality where nothing—absolutely nothing—outside of one's own consciousness exists."
As you explored, the issue here may be the "who am I?" question. Am I Phil? Am I God? What does "me" refer to? If I am Phil, reality exists beyond me. If I am God, perhaps not.
It's perhaps helpful to recall that both "Phil" and "God" are nouns, a conceptual device intended to distinguish one separate thing from other separate things. So, in the realm of nouns "Phil" is one thing, and "Suzi" is another.
But let us remember, nouns are just a conceptual device. Just because it appears to us that separation and division exists doesn't automatically make it so in the real world beyond concepts.
What if separation and division is not a property of reality, but rather a property of thought, the tool being used to observe and analyze reality? As example, if I were wearing tinted sunglasses then all of reality in every direction would appear to be tinted. But the tint I perceive in this case would be a property of the observer, and not of that which is being observed.
Sometimes concepts and nouns are a useful method of referencing the human experience, while at the same time not accurately describing the reality being observed. As example, we still say "the sun rises" even though we know that not to be the case, it just convincingly appears to be the case from our limited perspective standing on the Earth.
Perhaps solipsism can be validated if we accept that the division between apparent "things" that we perceive is not real, but instead just a perception generated by a limited perspective, and a profound bias for division being introduced by the nature of thought, the tool being used to make the observation.
If true, then "me" and "things", division and separation, are just concepts, and not something real.
John Lennon said, in a manner far more artful than I can manage...
Thank you so much for a great comment. I will need to think about this a bit more. But my initial thought is that separation seems like a physical property. I'm not sure how to conceptualise separation and division as a property without invoking physics.
You've given me a lot to think about -- 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.
Thanks for the book series recommendation. I was unfamiliar with this series, but a quick Google search tells me I'm going to enjoy this one. So, thank you.
I think the only way out of solipsism is making the leap of faith that the physical world that appears to us phenomenally is, in fact, the real deal. Descartes was right that the only fact we can *know* 100% is our own existence.
The objections have reasonable replies. Conflation? Surprise? Just making the world I imagine more interesting for myself. And sometimes I (possibly deliberately) forget things for the same reason. Language? Just my inner voice, my own thoughts being expressed. Pain? Joy without suffering is empty. A full life demands both.
I do think that a life filled with learning new things seems a strong argument against solipsism, but maybe (self-)discovery is just how a disembodied mind works. Born (somehow) in infancy and weaves a world as it goes. Perhaps we don't imagine things until we encounter them and then have to make them up. Does my made-up bakery have made-up bread? I dunno, I'll make it up when I get there. Surprise! Life would be dull without it.
The existence of other people, other minds, always seemed an even stronger argument. A solipsist needs to believe they imagine all those *different* non-player characters, those figments of their (incredibly vivid) imagination. The most surprising of the world's surprises. The leap of faith of accepting that those other minds have parity with yours -- the theory of other minds -- seems pretty easy to take.
Speaking of vivid, another strong argument I think is the richness and detail of the reality I presumably made up. I know I have a good imagination, but how impressive to have imagined *everything* from quarks to quasars!
I like your idea of made-up bread. But if I can make up bread, why can't I make up bread that tastes like salted caramel buttercream cupcakes with warm, homemade caramel sauce that has zero calories? Wouldn't that be better than boring bread that is often served stale, sliced too thinly, and has the texture of a kitchen sponge? 🤣
I don't know, the idea that all of you are merely figments of my imagination is actually quite appealing to me.
That's the kind of ultimate power I can get behind! *cue evil laughter*
Thanks for another great explanation, Suzi.
🤣 Just remember, with great power comes great responsibility... I request that you imagine universal healthcare, education for everyone, abundant resources, and a clean environment! And coffee that’s always perfectly brewed, calorie-free cake that tastes like calorie-full cake, instant travel, socks that never get lost in the laundry, unlimited vacation days, traffic lights that sync to my schedule, hoverboards that actually hover…
Wait, so much pressure! I am but one man.
One omniporesent, omnipowerful man creating entire worlds inside his consciousness, and yet, you ask for impossible things! Universal healthcare and world peace, sure. But tasty calorie-free cake? What is this, Narnia?!
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)
That's an interesting thought experiment.
If in this thought experiment we are all just minds, as perspectives of awareness -- I think that might sneak in physical properties? A perspective that is different from other perspectives, seems to imply a separation. And separation is a property of physical things.
Once we include physics, then it seems like we're not talking about metaphysical solipsism anymore -- we're now talking about a form of dualism perhaps, or maybe panpsychism? Or maybe I misunderstood something about your thought experiment?
No I agree I think it’s erring on the side of a kind of dualism. I tend to think of consciousness as an emergent phenomenon rather than an inherent part of all things (panpsychism). Just an idea I’ve been kicking around for a while and wanted to get your take on it
It's tricky this consciousness thing. But it's fun to think about, isn't it!
One of the stickiest intellectual problems left!
Suzi writes, "Embracing metaphysical solipsism means accepting a reality where nothing—absolutely nothing—outside of one's own consciousness exists."
As you explored, the issue here may be the "who am I?" question. Am I Phil? Am I God? What does "me" refer to? If I am Phil, reality exists beyond me. If I am God, perhaps not.
It's perhaps helpful to recall that both "Phil" and "God" are nouns, a conceptual device intended to distinguish one separate thing from other separate things. So, in the realm of nouns "Phil" is one thing, and "Suzi" is another.
But let us remember, nouns are just a conceptual device. Just because it appears to us that separation and division exists doesn't automatically make it so in the real world beyond concepts.
What if separation and division is not a property of reality, but rather a property of thought, the tool being used to observe and analyze reality? As example, if I were wearing tinted sunglasses then all of reality in every direction would appear to be tinted. But the tint I perceive in this case would be a property of the observer, and not of that which is being observed.
Sometimes concepts and nouns are a useful method of referencing the human experience, while at the same time not accurately describing the reality being observed. As example, we still say "the sun rises" even though we know that not to be the case, it just convincingly appears to be the case from our limited perspective standing on the Earth.
Perhaps solipsism can be validated if we accept that the division between apparent "things" that we perceive is not real, but instead just a perception generated by a limited perspective, and a profound bias for division being introduced by the nature of thought, the tool being used to make the observation.
If true, then "me" and "things", division and separation, are just concepts, and not something real.
John Lennon said, in a manner far more artful than I can manage...
I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together
Thank you so much for a great comment. I will need to think about this a bit more. But my initial thought is that separation seems like a physical property. I'm not sure how to conceptualise separation and division as a property without invoking physics.
You've given me a lot to think about -- thank you.
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.
Thank you for your kind words, John.
Thanks for the book series recommendation. I was unfamiliar with this series, but a quick Google search tells me I'm going to enjoy this one. So, thank you.
Good post! "Let yourself know in the comments." 😂
I think the only way out of solipsism is making the leap of faith that the physical world that appears to us phenomenally is, in fact, the real deal. Descartes was right that the only fact we can *know* 100% is our own existence.
The objections have reasonable replies. Conflation? Surprise? Just making the world I imagine more interesting for myself. And sometimes I (possibly deliberately) forget things for the same reason. Language? Just my inner voice, my own thoughts being expressed. Pain? Joy without suffering is empty. A full life demands both.
I do think that a life filled with learning new things seems a strong argument against solipsism, but maybe (self-)discovery is just how a disembodied mind works. Born (somehow) in infancy and weaves a world as it goes. Perhaps we don't imagine things until we encounter them and then have to make them up. Does my made-up bakery have made-up bread? I dunno, I'll make it up when I get there. Surprise! Life would be dull without it.
The existence of other people, other minds, always seemed an even stronger argument. A solipsist needs to believe they imagine all those *different* non-player characters, those figments of their (incredibly vivid) imagination. The most surprising of the world's surprises. The leap of faith of accepting that those other minds have parity with yours -- the theory of other minds -- seems pretty easy to take.
Speaking of vivid, another strong argument I think is the richness and detail of the reality I presumably made up. I know I have a good imagination, but how impressive to have imagined *everything* from quarks to quasars!
I like your idea of made-up bread. But if I can make up bread, why can't I make up bread that tastes like salted caramel buttercream cupcakes with warm, homemade caramel sauce that has zero calories? Wouldn't that be better than boring bread that is often served stale, sliced too thinly, and has the texture of a kitchen sponge? 🤣
A most cogent question! The only answer is that we’re apparently all closet masochists… 🤔
Haha! Clearly!