Solipsism

Quote from my opponent will be in italics, and my own quote will be bold.Your definition of solipsism requires that there be only one mind as seen in our previous round on as this is a generous continuation of our first debateIt doesn’t state that there is only one mind, it just states that one mind if all we can know with surety. Under solipsism, there can be other minds, just we don’t know for sure that they exist. Defending: We are not 100% certain reality exists outside of our mind. AND My opponent should provide a way we know with surety that other things exist besides one's own mind.The definition says that the only thing we can be "sure" of is the existence of one's own mind. To know something with surety, it would mean you are 100% certain. When you took the con position, it means you believe there are other things which can be known with surety, and this does have a burden of proof with it. There is no burden of proof when it comes to proving that we can't know things with surety, plus I provided examples of how our perception is wrong, so it means the burden of proof would now be on you to prove that our senses are correct when looking at our world or for determining other minds exist. There cannot be an assumption that our senses are correct, you need something to verify that your senses are correct. Thus, you need to prove that our senses can be trusted in determining reality.I only have to challenge his claim that it’s likely that a single mind exists as opposed to alternatives.Which you need to provide evidence for these alternative minds. It should not just be assumed that there are alternative minds. This requires proof as well. You could argue that other ideas come from other people, but how do I know I didn't come up with that idea, and my mind decided to attribute it to this image of a person I see? Con would need to prove that everything isn't just a product of my mind. There is no evidence that I know of that other things are not a product of my mind.I only have to challenge his claim that it’s likely that a single mind exists as opposed to alternatives. This seems to misunderstand what the definition of solipsism is, as well as my own position. Again, it doesn’t state that likely only your own mind exists, alternatives are possible in solipsism, they just can not be accepted to be known to exist with surety, according to it. When you say “likely” I think this is misrepresenting solipsism. One can be solipsist, for example, and believe that it is unlikely the case that only your own mind exists, they just don’t claim to know it with surety that other minds do exist. In other words, to believe it is unlikely that only your own mind exists, also means you believe it is likely that other minds do. You can believe it is either likely or unlikely that other minds exist and still be a solipsist provided that you don’t believe it with surety. Surety would be believing there is 100% probability that something exists. This is why to disprove solipsism, you need to provide a way we can know with 100% surety that something else other than your own mind exists. I would have to written every piece of music every piece of art and every movie script. I like to write but music is a mystery to me. Engineering concepts are absolutely horrendous to grasp but I was able to learn many of them because of help from other minds and text books I did not initially understand and I have since forgotten a lot of what I did learn.The mind is a complex thing. You can, for example, forget something, but it would still be stored in your mind somewhere. It is, therefore, possible that you have omniscience, or close to it, but everything is stored somewhere deep inside the brain, and not readily available. Instead, it can be possible the mind creates what appears to be another person, or information that someone else made, when it was really in your mind to begin with. Where are these complex ideas and thoughts stored if not in my mind?It would be in the mind, as said before, there are only so many things that the brain will allow you to recollect at any given time, however everything you’ve ever touched, seen, smelled, etc would still be stored in your brain even if you can’t recollect it. I would say that nothing can be known with certainty including that our own mind exists as it appears. If you believe that, then you would mostly agree with solipsism, except that you also think one’s own mind cannot be sure to exist. So, I suppose then, since you believe that, that would still be a stance against solipsism, since solipsism states the only thing which can be known is one’s own mind, but you’re saying even that cannot be known. Perhaps you should argue this. I argue, using the same logic from Rene Descartes of “I think, therefore, I am” to be reason to believe one’s own mind exists.