Solar Fission

The essence of solipsism is "the physical world is ... an illusion" or "... thought itself" or similar.

You mix a lot of solipsistic and non-solipsistic concepts in many of the things you say. Sometimes it sounds like you lean that way. Other times you seem to have recovered.

Lately you seem to be leaning again.

<b>[Solar Patroller]"What do you mean by ... It's not wise to be opposed to something you know nothing of."</b>

I do not claim to be an expert on the solipsism model of the universe. But I have studied it to some extent and that give me the confidence to chuckle at it. Or, at least to chuckle at the basic idea. Laughing at something you are not even a little familiar with is a sure fire way to embarrass yourself.

It is a model that cannot be falsified. That alone precludes it from being a *scientific* model.

Creation science has the same problem. In fact, the two models can be said to be the same.

Slopism does not say the physical world is illusion, it says there are no other minds, which is totally ludicrous, incoherent, inherently contradictary, and is easily falsified, and has no relation whatsoever to idealism. Idealism does not at all say there are no other minds. And there was nothing at all in what I said that would lean toward slopism or that would be construed as such.

I quote from Metaphysics by Inwagen, "In saying that Berkeley denies the existence of an external world we do not mean to imply that he is what is called a slopist. If one is a solipsist--from the Latin <i>solus</i>, "alone"[+ ipse, "mere or very"]--one believes that one is the only individual thing there is." Monist idealism says there are no individual things in reality, which necessarily excludes slopism and might be considered its opposite. To confuse slopism with idealism is not good philosophy.

BTW, I have a certificate in metaphysics from the Pathwways to Philosophy school and am a life-time member of the International Society for Philosophers and have about 20 books on the subject.

I think you've heard me say it before - the experts usually disagree.

There are a number of different flavors of solipsism. Adherents of each (much like adherents of the various Muslim sects and the various Christian sects ... and so on) claim that their flavor is the only one that tastes right.

Most non-involved bystanders just chuckle. Or shrug. The similarities overwhelm the differences.

***

<b>[Solar Patroller]"... solipsism ... is easily falsified ..."</b>

I've not seen this, and it sounds interesting. Can you show us?

***

BTW, would you please stop using the slur "slopism"? This is not an order, just a request (your moderator God has been feeling benevolent lately). It makes you look bad and by extension it makes the board look bad.

Thanks

Quoting myself, "... their flavor is the only one that tastes right."

I just have to share a new joke that is going around.

***

Two cannibals are nibbling on a clown.

After a few bites, one of them stops and says to the other ,,,

"Say, does this taste funny to you?"

Most of the experts agree there is no connection between SI (the usual term sounds as bad as the idea so I avoid it n saying the alteration doesn't make me look bad at all) and idealism--to make such a connection is bad science and only bad philosophers do it. And SI has no variants (in metaphysics). Any similarity to idealism is with subjective idealism, and is spurious, and my idealism is objective (i.e., monist).

The idea is falsified by being self-negating--it falsifies itself IOW. See also The Incoherence of Solipsism in Solipsism in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I forgot to say I also took an on-line course in metaphysics at Oxford.

I won't be arguing the point any further.