Solipsism

If I’d known Pro’s offer continue this debate was charitable I would not have accepted this debate. Pro still has not offered a definition of ‘mind’ or added any proof that allows us to be sure it exists. Without any evidence that his clicking fluctuating stream of competing memes is anything like a definition of mind how could we be sure with 100% certainty. Since Pro has the burden of proof and has not even presented a description of what he is 100% sure exists so his position fails by default. Pro’s Solimsism Definition “As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure.” Since new information is injected into this mind all the time from unknown sources how is the information in this ‘mind’ 100% certain? It obviously is completely unreliable given Pro’s position that this information is suspect. “To know something with surety, it would mean you are 100% certain.” I’d disagree that we can be 100% certain of anything and this is not relevant here. Pro misinterprets my position suggesting that I am asserting that an outside reality exists with with surety. By doing this he dropped my legitimate arguments that it is more likely that there is an outside reality and other minds than his position that only our minds (whatever the hell that is) exists. He continues by saying, “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.” This proves my point. Our information and the memes that make up our mind are continually coming from an outside source. Who or what told Pro that he had a mind describing some mysterious definition and told him all the facts and ideas stored in it? If senses are unreliable so is everything he knows about minds or their existence. Pro continues to suggest I offer an argument that I already have and that he dropped. Some argument that the mind is learning new things all the time through these unreliable senses. “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.” Again, this is exactly backasswords. Pro has the burden to prove that a single mind exists. He has simply assumed this without even providing a definitions for minds. To me this mind looks like a number of competing little minds but that’s another debate. Pro is trying to hold me to a definition of solipsism not represented in his opening argument: http://www.debate.org... His claim was clearly that our mind exists with surety and all other minds are unsure. Not only has he not offered any evidence that suggests that our minds exist (failing to uphold his burden of proof) but he has also hedged to a point where he is suggesting that other minds are likely which contradicts his round 1 claim in the link above and supports the Con position. “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.” Pro concedes that omniscience is a prerequisite for his position conceding my objection to his case. “except that you (Con) also think one’s own mind cannot be sure to exist... 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 did and Con has conceded it is a valid objection to the position again conceding the debate to me. -Pro offers no arguments to support the idea that our mind exists without providing a definition or explaining why we have any certainty that it exists. He essentially is assuming his position as the default and thereby fails to provide any evidence or in any way fulfill his burden of proof except a rene quote that he does not explain again simply assuming the vague reference to the ‘thinks’ from some guy named Rene confirms his position. He drops arguments I provided then concedes the objections at every turn.