Tag: Solipsism

Trivium based Composite of Dualism and Solipsism

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: Janurary 29th 2020

In reference to a type of philosophical system that argues for solipsism but at the same time dualism, there hasn’t been any substantial work towards such a claim or argument, we haven’t seen any philosophers who argue even for the existence of solipsism itself, other than pointing out its unfalsifiability, which is never a good argument for anything. It’s entirely possible to make such a claim even though there’s no reason to believe in solipsism when the alternative makes more sense, in other words, there is no good reason to believe in solipsism other than its unfalsifiability.

Where solipsism posits the notion of there not existing independent consciousnesses outside of the consciousness which is aware of its own existence while simultaneously contains the belief in the idea of solipsism, a philosophical dualistic argues for this consciousness to be of immaterial origin, to be of a different “substance” than the material world. It is possible to hold the belief that I am living in a solipsistic universe, and that what I believe to be “me”, my awareness, or whatever description of consciousness I choose to adhere to, is located within this framework, yet made of a substance, or has an essence, that is different than the matter that makes up the material world. This itself is logical from its own perspective, but like many things that make sense within its own purview, it could be at odds with concrete reality. The fact that this consciousness is integrally related to the material realm is something that modern man cannot deny, as related neural damage and its affects to consciousness has been long proven in neuroscience, and the relation between certain contents of consciousness and our brains structure has been mapped, broadly speaking. But whether the essence of this materially caused consciousness is itself a material or non-material substance, doesn’t truly matter to me. Any experience shows that being conscious has a feeling that points us to the belief that it isn’t a material thing, it is something different, but this is merely perspectival. I believe this conscious essence is part of the phenomenal world just as much as any other phenomena, but from the subjective experience it feels as if it is separate. Whether this counts as philosophical dualism or not is not important to me, the truth is, and this picture of a materially arisen subjective experience of “myself” which is unique to humans, enabling emotions, hierarchical reasoning, and mental time travel (as Joseph LeDoux described as our ability to put ourselves in hypothetical future situations), all arising from a concrete material structure, is to me a borne out scientific fact.

In the spirit of still entertaining the question, we can take as a hypothetical a solipstic universe yet viewed from an Advaita Vedanta nondualist approach, rather than a philosophically dualist approach. This entails that our consciousness is the only one in existence (solipsism), yet posits that the content of this consciousness – labeled object – and the consciousness which it is aware of – labeled subject – are one and the same in their essence. Our “self” in this context has blurred the lines between the subject and object, the arising of a phenomenon in consciousness becomes who we are, as it is our experience, it is more than what we see, but what we are experiencing, and this, in this line of reasoning, is me. Thus other people, being objects to our subject, become us, or we become them, as parts of the whole totality, that merely is. Thus the material realm and the non-material realm, are able to be “seen” yet “excepted” cognitively as being one and the same.

When entering into a non-dual frame of mind, we no longer make the conscious recognition as subject and object, neither appears in awareness, all that (if done right) appears in awareness is the experience of the present, yet not conceptualized as I am seeing, I see a car, rather, just the experience of “seeing” is what makes up the consciousnesses momentary awareness (this of course is impermanent and constantly changing, just like all other phenomena). This approach is merely a mode of our being, a mode of non-duality, which has, in effect, tricked the brain into separating the distinction between object and subject, and fused the conceptual understanding, as well as experiential understanding, into conceptualizing both aspects of the world as one and the same.

Most of us don’t adhere to solipsism, yet we can easily recognize its infallibility, and we also, generally, don’t spend much time in a non-dual mode of being unless we are a dedicated yogi. While this is generally our state of affairs, we can see the benefit and apparent truthfulness behind the conceptualization of ourselves as part of a whole, as part of a totality of phenomena manifesting themselves within the universe. We, as people, and experience, as consciousness, is an aspect of the universe itself manifesting itself, and in our tiny book of this universe, we are the universe becoming aware of itself. At the same time, we intuit our experience as appearing radically different from the material realm, yet directly caused by it, and arising from it. This contradiction naturally needs rectifying, and it is done so by the realization that what we intuit isn’t necessarily the case in reality, no matter how much we would like it to be. The material world necessarily is the world we find ourselves in, it is what we are perceptibly entwined with, it just doesn’t appear that way, from our perspective. This is, in effect, objective non-dualism, yet simultaneously recognizing infallibility of solipsism as well as the subjective notion of philosophical dualism.

On a correlated note is a theory I have been expounding, off and on, for years now. It appears to be unfalsifiable in the same way solipsism is – that of “Differential 4th dimension”. If we take the proposition that all beings lie in different 3 dimensional space within the present, what happens when we carry the conclusion to the 4th dimension? Meaning, it would be unfalsifiable to suppose that all conscious beings could lie in a different time dimension, as our x, y, and z dimensions differ, why is it we assume our T dimension is the same? As to what is my present, right now, given a deterministic universe, where the only true arrow of time is represented by the equation of entropy, it is, in effect, a different time dimension than what any other consciousness is located within. My present could be your past or your future, but we can never truly know which moment in time someone else’s consciousness is currently located in, when looked at from our subjective perspective. This theory is solipsistic in reference to the present, but it admits the existence of other consciousnesses, but staying true to the absurdity of the world we currently find ourselves in. This world where we are unable to grasp the content of other people’s consciousness (apart from inference in reference to our own), nor the existence of other consciousnesses in other beings, apart from appearances. But due to the similarities displayed in the outward projections of our own consciousness, and that of other beings, we can conclude, due to the unlikelihood of the antithesis, that other beings appear to have consciousness in the present, yet we remain uncertain as to whether our present moment is the same location, in time, as their present moment.

Universal Existentialism, Its Manifestations, Absurdism, Solipsism

On By Chris Shuttleworth1 Comment
Originally Written: February 22nd 2019

All humans follow a philosophical existentialist doctrine, whether or not they recognizing or fully become conscious of it. It isn’t a necessary precondition to meaning seeking to recognize the absurdity, or meaninglessness of existence. One doesn’t have to be interested in formal philosophy, to follow a philosophically analyzable lifestyle, and the same applies to our pursuit of meaning. I think humans are hardwired to seek meaning, and to follow it, whether it is the will to survive and preserve the organism, or protect one’s family, or pursue success, everyone unknowingly follows a meaningful path that exists in an un-meaningful world. Thus, anyone who hasn’t killed themselves, has essentially followed some source of meaning and purpose whether they consciously know or accept that fact. Even the staunchest nihilist is a hypocrite in this regard, they are still breathing, they find some meaning in being alive, even in the worst case if it solely is the biological imperative, their being, the totality of the individual, has found some meaning in this existence. Solely stating that life has no meaning, and that meaning is un-findable, doesn’t make it true. Ones actions say otherwise. From an objective perspective, life has no meaning, in its particulars or in its totality, but all life has convinced itself, at least at the lowest level, evolved, so that it believes, or acts out the belief, that there is some reason to live. Life keeps on living, regardless of its meaningless place in the continuity of the world. Thus, all life, that is, somehow, miraculously, still alive, has a meaning in reference to itself that is sustaining its life. Whether this is consciously conceptualized, or not, it exists in all life that is not attempting to annihilate itself.

A rock thrown across the yard has no objective purpose to continue moving in that direction it was thrown, and will keep moving till it reaches its destination, it is simply the laws of physics at work, and if the rock was conscious of its own existence, and became aware of the physics moving it across the yard, and the inability for things to be otherwise, whether his thought mattered objectively or not, he could consciously believe that following that path he is on inevitably matters, revolt against the nihilistic tendency of reality, be happy with his situation and find a transitory purpose in moving to that determined location. This understanding, acceptance, consciousness, and transitory meaning I believe to be truer to reality as well as more psychologically beneficial than holding the belief that one has the “power” to move out of the laws of physics governing the situation inevitably. This revolt against meaningless, and the acceptance of a transitory meaning within this world where death is a given, is the solution of absurdism given by Camus.

We are the rock thrown. We can realize that the universe is at work, that we are part of it all, we are just an aspect of the physics of all nature, becoming conscious of ourselves, and while we can see that from an objective, external source, our lives have no meaning, as they are positioned in a meaningless world, we can accept our condition, smile at the absurdity, accept it, and revolt against the meaninglessness by creating or following values we ultimately know to be valueless, outside of ourselves and other life. Life is the criteria for meaning.

Some conclusionary states that a human may find themselves in, in regards to meaning are: 1) consciously finding the meaning inherit in the physics which created our biology which makes up the fundamental levels of our psyche which pushes us to survive, or 2) unconsciously following that meaning, or a meaning, without realizing it, one way or another staying alive or 3) while following that biological, psychologically inherit deterministic meaning, also become conscious of the absurdity, that meaning itself, and then create a further abstract ideology, morality, or system of meaning in addition to that which is naturally within all life, additionally in all human life, etc., 4) be unaware of our place in the universe, unaware of absurdity, yet consciously create a structure of meaning to be fulfilled in the world, or have a psychologically more pleasant experience through various sources such as the adoption of responsibility or pursuing something your psyche/culture/influences has deemed important or meaningful. 

Proposition 1) It is possible to believe that every moment in your subjective experience has meaning, every thought you experience, word you say, action you take has meaning. It’s possible to do this because these things all become prior causes with future effects. Thus you are impacting the future. The problem comes when objectively stating that this impact matters at all, is good or bad. This in turn, depends on the perspective, or lack of perspective, taken. When examined from a life-form, proposition 1 matters in its ability to affect the subjective experience of the being, for better or worse, in the present or in the future. Thus, where there is life, there is an importance to one’s action, from the perspective of that life which can be affected. But from the perspective of the universe, or from the inanimate, the nonliving, from reality as a whole, or as a collective of all its constituents, there is no meaning, as there is no reference, no individual, no experience, no consciousness, no suffering and pleasure, no better or worse state, thus no importance, no good or bad in proposition 1 “Answer to the Absurdist Conundrum”. Thus, being that we are life, and being that we want a beneficial experience, and recognizing there is other life, and other people are able to have better or worse experiences, better or worse conscious states, we are able to 1) act out unconsciously a (biologically/socially/culturally reinforced) system of ethics, 2) consciously adopt someone else’s or some organizations, system of thought or ethics, etc. or 3) consciously reason out a reasoned philosophical system of ethics, and develop morality, with a spectrum of integrity and thoroughness, and a range of influences and factors, yet consciously compiled.

Once consciously considered, one may ask how do I most honestly articulate where this morality comes from? I propose, through phenomenological means, or introspection, and the primacy of subjective data given through our experience, including; meditation, mindfulness, contemplation, philosophizing in general, studying other philosophers work, talking to others, wisdom gained from experience, etc. Maybe one asks, what are the basic constituents that must come into being to create morality? I propose that this is best articulated as morality comes into place once we take into account our own situation, of being alive, and our own conscious states (self-interest – in either its rational or irrational forms), and the existence of other life forms in a similar situation. It’s absurd to consider that a nonliving object would take on a moral code or act morally. As for itself, and for everything outside itself, from its perspective, the possibility of better or worse situations is nil. Life itself implies meaning, and the existence of life outside oneself logically produces morality, that is, at least from my perspective, as I believe other life has consciousness and an experience similar to mine, therefore better and worse states, therefore my actions truly matter in that they affect other life form’s experience.

If you reject the claim that any other being has consciousness, an experience, or that that experience can be better or worse in some way or another (solipsism), then you reject morality and our ability of effecting others. A question arose to me in considering this, could morality exist in this type of universe? You cannot deny that your own conscious has better or worse states, “Basic Moral Realism”, and perhaps morality, stripped of external meaning, stripped of belief in other beings’ consciousness, can at its base find morality, good and bad, in how thoughts/speech/actions are proceeding effects that are produced within itself, producing better or worse states. In this way it’s possible to produce a morality only concerned with oneself, placing good and bad value on what is better or worse for yourself, in terms of suffering and wellbeing. This value judgment exists upon the spectrum of what one considers is better for oneself, in one’s hierarchical value structure, it could be; hedonistic pleasure, usefulness, growing towards truth, etc. As philosophical positions and focuses can vary, their ethical systems naturally express the ideas behind each respectively. This says nothing about different philosophies and their overall ranking in a hierarchy which we ourselves create, or, to confuse the subject one last time, says nothing about the meaningless of every philosophy as it relates to a non-living phenomenon, including the universe or reality or time, themselves.