Solipsism

Thank you for your response. I have to admit that I am either too ignorant to understand, or you have used words without saying anything, or I suppose both is also possible. To me your response was a word salad. I have offered you reasons to disbelieve your claims, but you have not offered any arguments in support of your claims (at least as far as I can see). Apologies if I have missed something, please re-direct me if I have. I have attempted to refute Idealism, by challenging its subjective view of Existence and its falsity on the issue of the Primacy of Consciousness. I have challenged Solipsism on the same basis, plus its use of non-private experiences to justify itself, when it claims that only private experiences are possible. This is an incoherency at the centre of solipsism. Combine this with the perspective that there are no reasonable grounds to believe any of it it is actually true. You need to establish a case for why Idealism/Solipsism is true, not just assert that solipsism explains things you personally find mysterious. So to your points: Pro states: "How is true fairness amongst beings done without either something such as robotic technical equality or solipsism." I do not understand this point. Please clarify. Fairness is largely a subjective concept and it is difficult to crystallise objective truths from it, but I do not see a problem with that. The same is true for aesthetics. How would solipsism ground fairness such that we could derive objectively "true" fairness (that is to say free of the whims of conscious minds)? Pro states: "The inclusion of illusions solves the problem of companions who are not conscious. The illusion of the companion having senses." What is this meant to mean? What problem of companions? If I have a non-conscious companion, then all I have is a non-conscious companion. I have no problem identifying whether it is conscious or not. The non-conscious companion, on the other hand, cannot identify anything because it is not conscious. What is the mystery or problem we are trying to solve here. Pro states: "Your argument about language is simply solved by a deterministic metaphoric script were the companions who are an illusion behave properly to perform such things." I am glad you have solved Wittgenstein's challenge to solipsism. Now all you need to do is sketch out the solution and not just assert it is 'solved' (although I admit Wittgenstein is a hard read). I understand the words deterministic, metaphoric and script separately. But I literally have no idea what they are meant to convey when strung together in the manner you use them. But more than, even supposing your sentences made sense, I am unsure why you think this is a rebuttal? In a solipsistic universe language does not exist, and the concepts we form using it make no sense. Take the concept of "pain". "Pain" in a solipsistic universe can only mean "my pain" and for the solipsist it is just a private experience. But this is incoherent, because we only know what pain means from contexts which are non-private, whether these are referential or shared experiences they involve the presumption of other minds. Pro states: "In a cosmos where one solipsist being is the entirety of the physics an Earthly history would not only not be needed but not even exist as the beings first experience was the start of the cosmology, emphasising Idealism." This doesn't show that Idealism/Solipsism is true, only that it leads to absurdity. I have attempted to demonstrate that we are conscious of an external reality and whilst you may not be happy with that, you equally cannot deny it (without committing the fallacy of the stolen concept). Thus at the moment I contend you are proposing an incoherent thesis.