baby's first big book of philosophy

[jerry mcmasters]

Don’t want to interrupt the other thread because this will be beginner level stuff.  Without ever thinking about it deeply, I’m familiar with “I think therefore I am” and I am familiar with Solipsism.  So trying to think about it:

There is at least one thing I know for certain:  I think, therefore I know I exist.

There is a second thing I know for certain:  I don’t know anything else for certain. (We are in a simulation, nothing is real, brain in a vat type stuff) 
 
(sidebar: It seems this could be equivalent to saying “I don’t know everything else for certain.  Therefore there are an infinite number of things I know, I know that I don’t know for certain about anything anyone can posit, no matter how ludicrous- God, gods, imaginary anythings, all of them I don’t know about for certain”  But set that aside for now)

Therefore that is two things I know for certain.

I understand it is solipsism to claim only that and it leads to a disrespectful position like “why are you even posting this if you don’t think it, and anyone reading it, is real?”  But is it wrong?  It can’t be proven to be wrong, can it?  Nor does it prevent me from believing- not knowing for certain, but believing to my own satisfaction- that many other things are most likely true, i.e., my senses are not lying and they are perceiving things that are true in the real world; this post is real and someone reading it is indeed real.  But it could still technically be not true despite all of humanity’s hard-won hard-earned truth-finding methodologies.  I, and you, could still be brains in vats or NPCs in a simulation. 

So is solipsism wrong, or just distasteful and an easy mark to make fun of?  I think part of why I like the position because its humility suits my nature, I’m generally very cautious about positions and willing to concede at the jump that I could be wrong.  And of course no one likes to be told they don’t know anything, lol.

(sidebar: Another issue would be use of language.  Can one be a Solipsist and be forgiven for using “I know” in common obvious language as a stand-in for the awkward “I think it’s true but I can’t say for certain”?  I mean gun to head I’m going to say Yes I know I’m looking at my laptop screen right now but is it impossible that I’m not?)

[Jarsa]

Don’t want to interrupt the other thread because this will be beginner level stuff.  Without ever thinking about it deeply, I’m familiar with “I think therefore I am” and I am familiar with Solipsism.  So trying to think about it:

There is at least one thing I know for certain:  I think, therefore I know I exist.

There is a second thing I know for certain:  I don’t know anything else for certain. (We are in a simulation, nothing is real, brain in a vat type stuff) 

Technically, there are more things you can know for certain. Anything related to definitions (Bachelors are not married), because those things are true by definition. If bachelors were not single, they wouldn't be called bachelors. I don't know if these would come under cogito, because it is me who accepts that bachelor means unmarried. I also think "I don’t know anything else for certain." would come under cogito, because there are a lot of things you can say with certainty about yourself. (I love my mom, I hate Trump, I find this joke funny.) 
 
(sidebar: It seems this could be equivalent to saying “I don’t know everything else for certain.  Therefore there are an infinite number of things I know, I know that I don’t know for certain about anything anyone can posit, no matter how ludicrous- God, gods, imaginary anythings, all of them I don’t know about for certain”  But set that aside for now)

Therefore that is two things I know for certain.

I understand it is solipsism to claim only that and it leads to a disrespectful position like “why are you even posting this if you don’t think it, and anyone reading it, is real?”  

Yeah, A lot of people misunderstand solipsism. Solipsists don't think everything is an illusion, just that everything might be an illusion. I think I used this analogy before, but lets say you have schizophrenia, and you hear the door bell ring. Now this might be one of your hallucinations, or it isnt, you have no way of knowing. But if when every single time you hear the bell ring, you check the door, and there is someone actually there, you are going to operate under the assumption that the door bell is real, even if it might be a hallucination.

But is it wrong?  It can’t be proven to be wrong, can it?  Nor does it prevent me from believing- not knowing for certain, but believing to my own satisfaction- that many other things are most likely true, i.e., my senses are not lying and they are perceiving things that are true in the real world; this post is real and someone reading it is indeed real.  But it could still technically be not true despite all of humanity’s hard-won hard-earned truth-finding methodologies.  I, and you, could still be brains in vats or NPCs in a simulation. 

So is solipsism wrong, or just distasteful and an easy mark to make fun of?  I think part of why I like the position because its humility suits my nature, I’m generally very cautious about positions and willing to concede at the jump that I could be wrong.  And of course no one likes to be told they don’t know anything, lol.

Solipsism is just the idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. To disprove it, one would have  to come up with a fact that is sure to exist. And this fact cannot be something abstract, like definitions, and it cant already come under cogito, (I am happy right now.). This is impossible because any evidence that you use to come up with a fact would also be part of the "simulation".

(sidebar: Another issue would be use of language.  Can one be a Solipsist and be forgiven for using “I know” in common obvious language as a stand-in for the awkward “I think it’s true but I can’t say for certain”?  I mean gun to head I’m going to say Yes I know I’m looking at my laptop screen right now but is it impossible that I’m not?)

I mean, yeah. Kind of like how atheists still say good-bye, or oh my god.

[Mathilda]

Don’t want to interrupt the other thread because this will be beginner level stuff.  Without ever thinking about it deeply, I’m familiar with “I think therefore I am” and I am familiar with Solipsism.  So trying to think about it:

There is at least one thing I know for certain:  I think, therefore I know I exist.

There is a second thing I know for certain:  I don’t know anything else for certain. (We are in a simulation, nothing is real, brain in a vat type stuff) 

Technically, there are more things you can know for certain. Anything related to definitions (Bachelors are not married), because those things are true by definition. If bachelors were not single, they wouldn't be called bachelors. I don't know if these would come under cogito, because it is me who accepts that bachelor means unmarried. I also think "I don’t know anything else for certain." would come under cogito, because there are a lot of things you can say with certainty about yourself. (I love my mom, I hate Trump, I find this joke funny.) 
 
(sidebar: It seems this could be equivalent to saying “I don’t know everything else for certain.  Therefore there are an infinite number of things I know, I know that I don’t know for certain about anything anyone can posit, no matter how ludicrous- God, gods, imaginary anythings, all of them I don’t know about for certain”  But set that aside for now)

Therefore that is two things I know for certain.

I understand it is solipsism to claim only that and it leads to a disrespectful position like “why are you even posting this if you don’t think it, and anyone reading it, is real?”  

Yeah, A lot of people misunderstand solipsism. Solipsists don't think everything is an illusion, just that everything might be an illusion. I think I used this analogy before, but lets say you have schizophrenia, and you hear the door bell ring. Now this might be one of your hallucinations, or it isnt, you have no way of knowing. But if when every single time you hear the bell ring, you check the door, and there is someone actually there, you are going to operate under the assumption that the door bell is real, even if it might be a hallucination.

But is it wrong?  It can’t be proven to be wrong, can it?  Nor does it prevent me from believing- not knowing for certain, but believing to my own satisfaction- that many other things are most likely true, i.e., my senses are not lying and they are perceiving things that are true in the real world; this post is real and someone reading it is indeed real.  But it could still technically be not true despite all of humanity’s hard-won hard-earned truth-finding methodologies.  I, and you, could still be brains in vats or NPCs in a simulation. 

So is solipsism wrong, or just distasteful and an easy mark to make fun of?  I think part of why I like the position because its humility suits my nature, I’m generally very cautious about positions and willing to concede at the jump that I could be wrong.  And of course no one likes to be told they don’t know anything, lol.

Solipsism is just the idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. To disprove it, one would have  to come up with a fact that is sure to exist. And this fact cannot be something abstract, like definitions, and it cant already come under cogito, (I am happy right now.). This is impossible because any evidence that you use to come up with a fact would also be part of the "simulation".

(sidebar: Another issue would be use of language.  Can one be a Solipsist and be forgiven for using “I know” in common obvious language as a stand-in for the awkward “I think it’s true but I can’t say for certain”?  I mean gun to head I’m going to say Yes I know I’m looking at my laptop screen right now but is it impossible that I’m not?)

I mean, yeah. Kind of like how atheists still say good-bye, or oh my god.

Please do not reply within someone else's quote, even if it's in a different colour. It stops the other person easily replying to you and they then have to put in more work to sort out your replies. This rarely happens in practice so replies end up very confusing to read.

[Paleophyte]

So is solipsism wrong, or just distasteful and an easy mark to make fun of?

It isn't wrong, it just isn't particularly useful. Sure, everything that you ever experience is filtered through the grand hallucination that we call perception, and that's all in our head. It's possible that you're barking mad and wildly hallucinating this post while drooling into your straightjacket. Or that you're a butterfly dreaming that you're a Chinese philosopher. It's wonderfully effective at dismissing claims of absolute certainty, but little else, and there are a variety of similarly sceptical philosophies that go a lot further than basic doubt of the absolute.

Am I philosophically certain that this bus exists? No. Am I reasonably confident that this bus exists? Yes, probably best not to step out in front of it.

[SteveII]

It all has to do with how we define knowledge and what is the standard of a justified belief (epistemology). If one insists on absolute certainty, solipsism is difficult to escape without God (which is why Descartes used that argument). If one accepts fallible standard of justification, then you have options to account for what appears to be justified beliefs about your experiences.

Solipsism is unlivable (even solipsists behave as if other people exist) and it is useless—it provides no explanatory power.

I stumbled upon Jeffrey Kaplan a few months ago and listened to all these lectures in case your are interested.

[Mathilda]

If one insists on absolute certainty, solipsism is difficult to escape without God

Corrected for you.

[Dānu]

I don't see how God helps escape solipsism in any way. I've heard theists make similar claims about having a basis for logic and morals, but it doesn't appear that an inference or assumption that a god exists is anymore immune to skepticism than anything else. Sometimes they say that assuming God gives them a reason to believe in the justified existence of this or that, but then so does any other explanation. It doesn't seem to function in the way theists seem to believe it functions as some kind of weapon against uncertainty.

[Rhythmcs]

I'm a solipsist about solipsism. It can't prove it exists. Some people think that they're solipsists.... but are they really, or are they just imagining that?

[Paleophyte]

I don't see how God helps escape solipsism in any way.  I've heard theists make similar claims about having a basis for logic and morals, but it doesn't appear that an inference or assumption that a god exists is anymore immune to skepticism than anything else.  Sometimes they say that assuming God gives them a reason to believe in the justified existence of this or that, but then so does any other explanation.  It doesn't seem to function in the way theists seem to believe it functions as some kind of weapon against uncertainty.

It's turtles all the way down.

[SteveII]

I don't see how God helps escape solipsism in any way.  I've heard theists make similar claims about having a basis for logic and morals, but it doesn't appear that an inference or assumption that a god exists is anymore immune to skepticism than anything else.  Sometimes they say that assuming God gives them a reason to believe in the justified existence of this or that, but then so does any other explanation.  It doesn't seem to function in the way theists seem to believe it functions as some kind of weapon against uncertainty.

I am not derailing this thread with a God argument. This is Descartes's view. He uses a first cause argument to establish God then his reasoning about what we are justified to believe flowed from that--basically that God would not systematically deceive us. It's more complicated than that, but that is the gist.

[Rhythmcs]

Poor descartes, he doesn't take god at magic books word. Says right in there, and multiple times, that god does systematically deceive us. As a matter of principle in general, but also just to keep the plot moving in specific.

[Dānu]

I don't see how God helps escape solipsism in any way.  I've heard theists make similar claims about having a basis for logic and morals, but it doesn't appear that an inference or assumption that a god exists is anymore immune to skepticism than anything else.  Sometimes they say that assuming God gives them a reason to believe in the justified existence of this or that, but then so does any other explanation.  It doesn't seem to function in the way theists seem to believe it functions as some kind of weapon against uncertainty.

I am not derailing this thread with a God argument. This is Descartes's view. He uses a first cause argument to establish God then his reasoning about what we are justified to believe flowed from that--basically that God would not systematically deceive us. It's more complicated than that, but that is the gist.

Since it directly relates to the question of what can be known for certain, it's very much on topic and not a derail. First cause arguments are no more immune to skepticism than any other multistep inference. In particular, the first cause argument relies upon reasoning from what regularly occurs in the so-called real world to what must occur in the real world. It's the same defective chain of logic that undermines any other non-solipsistic claim. I'm of the opinion that cogito ergo sum is likewise unsound, as it reasons from the observation that effects result from existent causes. Reasoning that something must exist because an effect exists is anagogical thinking and is therefore likewise susceptible to scepticism.

[SteveII]

I am not derailing this thread with a God argument. This is Descartes's view. He uses a first cause argument to establish God then his reasoning about what we are justified to believe flowed from that--basically that God would not systematically deceive us. It's more complicated than that, but that is the gist.

Since it directly relates to the question of what can be known for certain, it's very much on topic and not a derail.   First cause arguments are no more immune to skepticism than any other multistep inference.  In particular, the first cause argument relies upon reasoning from what regularly occurs in the so-called real world to what must occur in the real world.  It's the same defective chain of logic that undermines any other non-solipsistic claim.  I'm of the opinion that cogito ergo sum is likewise unsound, as it reasons from the observation that effects result from existent causes.  Reasoning that something must exist because an effect exists is anagogical thinking and is therefore likewise susceptible to scepticism.

Descartes claimed the causal principle was self-evident (he called them "clear and distinct ideas"). I guess the question is: is the causal principle a necessary truth or an empirical one?

[Cavebear]

Don’t want to interrupt the other thread because this will be beginner level stuff.  Without ever thinking about it deeply, I’m familiar with “I think therefore I am” and I am familiar with Solipsism.  So trying to think about it:

There is at least one thing I know for certain:  I think, therefore I know I exist.

There is a second thing I know for certain:  I don’t know anything else for certain. (We are in a simulation, nothing is real, brain in a vat type stuff) 
 
(sidebar: It seems this could be equivalent to saying “I don’t know everything else for certain.  Therefore there are an infinite number of things I know, I know that I don’t know for certain about anything anyone can posit, no matter how ludicrous- God, gods, imaginary anythings, all of them I don’t know about for certain”  But set that aside for now)

Therefore that is two things I know for certain.

I understand it is solipsism to claim only that and it leads to a disrespectful position like “why are you even posting this if you don’t think it, and anyone reading it, is real?”  But is it wrong?  It can’t be proven to be wrong, can it?  Nor does it prevent me from believing- not knowing for certain, but believing to my own satisfaction- that many other things are most likely true, i.e., my senses are not lying and they are perceiving things that are true in the real world; this post is real and someone reading it is indeed real.  But it could still technically be not true despite all of humanity’s hard-won hard-earned truth-finding methodologies.  I, and you, could still be brains in vats or NPCs in a simulation. 

So is solipsism wrong, or just distasteful and an easy mark to make fun of?  I think part of why I like the position because its humility suits my nature, I’m generally very cautious about positions and willing to concede at the jump that I could be wrong.  And of course no one likes to be told they don’t know anything, lol.

(sidebar: Another issue would be use of language.  Can one be a Solipsist and be forgiven for using “I know” in common obvious language as a stand-in for the awkward “I think it’s true but I can’t say for certain”?  I mean gun to head I’m going to say Yes I know I’m looking at my laptop screen right now but is it impossible that I’m not?)

Thank you. Some things are awkward to express, but you did a good job of it. My thought about solipsism is that if only I individually exist, then I am spending a lot of time talking to non-existent imagined people in a world that only exists in my mind. And that would suggest that my body itself doesn't really quite exist as there would be no actual physical existence.

Solipcism can only really exist in some sort of "reduction to absurdism" and I really don't want to bother to go there much.

I think I exist in a real physical universe as detected by observation (admittedly not mine). If the universe is a creation of my (non-physically-existing) mind, it is a damn good fake!

Or am I getting solipcism all wrong?

[Dānu]

Since it directly relates to the question of what can be known for certain, it's very much on topic and not a derail.   First cause arguments are no more immune to skepticism than any other multistep inference.  In particular, the first cause argument relies upon reasoning from what regularly occurs in the so-called real world to what must occur in the real world.  It's the same defective chain of logic that undermines any other non-solipsistic claim.  I'm of the opinion that cogito ergo sum is likewise unsound, as it reasons from the observation that effects result from existent causes.  Reasoning that something must exist because an effect exists is anagogical thinking and is therefore likewise susceptible to scepticism.

Descartes claimed the causal principle was self-evident (he called them "clear and distinct ideas"). I guess the question is: is the causal principle a necessary truth or an empirical one?

Cause occurs in time. Thus causal principles absent a metaphysics of time are incomplete.

What were Descartes's views on time ? Ideas about time may be intuitive, but asserting any specific view of time as necessary seems a stretch.

Before determining whether the causal principle is a necessary truth, one must specify what they are referring to as the causal principle. How did Descartes describe said principles?

I'd also like to know what you mean by a necessary truth. Is God limited by necessary truths, or are necessary truths a product of God? The former are immutable in a way the latter are not.

I'd also note in passing that the idea of a necessary being seems to violate any principles of causality. We're not inside the confines of any argument that could wall off that problem.

[Cavebear]

Please do not reply within someone else's quote, even if it's in a different colour. It stops the other person easily replying to you and they then have to put in more work to sort out your replies. This rarely happens in practice so replies end up very confusing to read.

A pet peeve of mine.  Overly-complicated posts are nearly impossible to reply to.  And don't get me started about unattributed quotes.  

Sometimes, I just don't reply to some posts for either/both reasons.  And I suppose the poster thinks "wow that must have been a great post; "no one objected".  Well, of course they didn't.  No one could figure out "how".  

[Jarsa]

Thank you.  Some things are awkward to express, but you did a good job of it.  My thought about solipsism is that if only I individually exist, then I am spending a lot of time talking to non-existent imagined people in a world that only exists in my mind.  And that would suggest that my body itself doesn't really quite exist as there would be no actual physical existence.

Solipcism can only really exist in some sort of "reduction to absurdism" and I really don't want to bother to go there much.

I think I exist in a real physical universe as detected by observation (admittedly not mine).  If the universe is a creation of my (non-physically-existing) mind, it is a damn good fake!

Or am I getting solipcism all wrong?

Solipsism is not the view that only the mind exists. It is the view that only the mind is sure to exist. So solipsists don't believe that they are talking to themselves, but that they might be talking to themselves. That doesn't really affect their normal lives because solipsists just operate under the assumption that everything is real, even if though know philosophically, no one can prove that it is. Its not a particularly useful idea, but it is true. And helpful to point out to theists who claim to know with certainty that their god exists.

[Rhythmcs]

Turns out that wasn't so sure itself.

[jerry mcmasters]

Don’t want to interrupt the other thread because this will be beginner level stuff.  Without ever thinking about it deeply, I’m familiar with “I think therefore I am” and I am familiar with Solipsism.  So trying to think about it:

There is at least one thing I know for certain:  I think, therefore I know I exist.

There is a second thing I know for certain:  I don’t know anything else for certain. (We are in a simulation, nothing is real, brain in a vat type stuff) 

Technically, there are more things you can know for certain. Anything related to definitions (Bachelors are not married), because those things are true by definition. If bachelors were not single, they wouldn't be called bachelors. I don't know if these would come under cogito, because it is me who accepts that bachelor means unmarried. I also think "I don’t know anything else for certain." would come under cogito, because there are a lot of things you can say with certainty about yourself. (I love my mom, I hate Trump, I find this joke funny.)

 That makes sense to me.  I don’t see a compelling counter-argument.  It’s a weird thought, granted, that we can’t have 100% certitude about anything (besides I exist), but it’s not a repelling thought, just kind of an oddity.

(sidebar: It seems this could be equivalent to saying “I don’t know everything else for certain.  Therefore there are an infinite number of things I know, I know that I don’t know for certain about anything anyone can posit, no matter how ludicrous- God, gods, imaginary anythings, all of them I don’t know about for certain”  But set that aside for now)

Therefore that is two things I know for certain.

I understand it is solipsism to claim only that and it leads to a disrespectful position like “why are you even posting this if you don’t think it, and anyone reading it, is real?”  

Yeah, A lot of people misunderstand solipsism. Solipsists don't think everything is an illusion, just that everything might be an illusion. I think I used this analogy before, but lets say you have schizophrenia, and you hear the door bell ring. Now this might be one of your hallucinations, or it isnt, you have no way of knowing. But if when every single time you hear the bell ring, you check the door, and there is someone actually there, you are going to operate under the assumption that the door bell is real, even if it might be a hallucination.

But is it wrong?  It can’t be proven to be wrong, can it?  Nor does it prevent me from believing- not knowing for certain, but believing to my own satisfaction- that many other things are most likely true, i.e., my senses are not lying and they are perceiving things that are true in the real world; this post is real and someone reading it is indeed real.  But it could still technically be not true despite all of humanity’s hard-won hard-earned truth-finding methodologies.  I, and you, could still be brains in vats or NPCs in a simulation. 

So is solipsism wrong, or just distasteful and an easy mark to make fun of?  I think part of why I like the position because its humility suits my nature, I’m generally very cautious about positions and willing to concede at the jump that I could be wrong.  And of course no one likes to be told they don’t know anything, lol.

Solipsism is just the idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. To disprove it, one would have  to come up with a fact that is sure to exist. And this fact cannot be something abstract, like definitions, and it cant already come under cogito, (I am happy right now.). This is impossible because any evidence that you use to come up with a fact would also be part of the "simulation".

(sidebar: Another issue would be use of language.  Can one be a Solipsist and be forgiven for using “I know” in common obvious language as a stand-in for the awkward “I think it’s true but I can’t say for certain”?  I mean gun to head I’m going to say Yes I know I’m looking at my laptop screen right now but is it impossible that I’m not?)

I mean, yeah. Kind of like how atheists still say good-bye, or oh my god.

That’s about where I am on it, without being able to express it as clearly and succinctly.

[jerry mcmasters]

So is solipsism wrong, or just distasteful and an easy mark to make fun of?

 
It isn't wrong, it just isn't particularly useful. Sure, everything that you ever experience is filtered through the grand hallucination that we call perception, and that's all in our head. It's possible that you're barking mad and wildly hallucinating this post while drooling into your straightjacket. Or that you're a butterfly dreaming that you're a Chinese philosopher. It's wonderfully effective at dismissing claims of absolute certainty, but little else, and there are a variety of similarly sceptical philosophies that go a lot further than basic doubt of the absolute.
 
Am I philosophically certain that this bus exists? No. Am I reasonably confident that this bus exists? Yes, probably best not to step out in front of it.

 
Okay thanks yeah that’s about how I see it.  Its usefulness or lack of usefulness seems irrelevant, as to me it seems to operate only in the naval-gazing academic realm, as both completely true and completely trivial.  In the real world, we still know what we mean when we assert that we “know” something, and we’re still not going to pretend that the bus barreling down on us is just an illusion.

[jerry mcmasters]

It all has to do with how we define knowledge and what is the standard of a justified belief (epistemology). If one insists on absolute certainty, solipsism is difficult to escape without God (which is why Descartes used that argument).  If one accepts fallible standard of justification, then you have options to account for what appears to be justified beliefs about your experiences.

Solipsism is unlivable (even solipsists behave as if other people exist) and it is useless—it provides no explanatory power.

I stumbled upon Jeffrey Kaplan a few months ago and listened to all these lectures in case your are interested.

Thanks for the reference. 

I don't see how it's unlivable.  If I'm a brain in a vat, the electrodes attached to my vat are providing me stimulation to make me believe that I'm probably typing on a laptop right now, and to make me want to type on my laptop right now, and to be hungry for dinner later and interested in the Superbowl tomorrow.  What's my alternative lifestyle?  To pretend I know with 100% certainty that there's a God who's giving it all an "explanation" and making my life "livable?"  Sounds goofy and childish.

[jerry mcmasters]

Don’t want to interrupt the other thread because this will be beginner level stuff.  Without ever thinking about it deeply, I’m familiar with “I think therefore I am” and I am familiar with Solipsism.  So trying to think about it:

There is at least one thing I know for certain:  I think, therefore I know I exist.

There is a second thing I know for certain:  I don’t know anything else for certain. (We are in a simulation, nothing is real, brain in a vat type stuff) 
 
(sidebar: It seems this could be equivalent to saying “I don’t know everything else for certain.  Therefore there are an infinite number of things I know, I know that I don’t know for certain about anything anyone can posit, no matter how ludicrous- God, gods, imaginary anythings, all of them I don’t know about for certain”  But set that aside for now)

Therefore that is two things I know for certain.

I understand it is solipsism to claim only that and it leads to a disrespectful position like “why are you even posting this if you don’t think it, and anyone reading it, is real?”  But is it wrong?  It can’t be proven to be wrong, can it?  Nor does it prevent me from believing- not knowing for certain, but believing to my own satisfaction- that many other things are most likely true, i.e., my senses are not lying and they are perceiving things that are true in the real world; this post is real and someone reading it is indeed real.  But it could still technically be not true despite all of humanity’s hard-won hard-earned truth-finding methodologies.  I, and you, could still be brains in vats or NPCs in a simulation. 

So is solipsism wrong, or just distasteful and an easy mark to make fun of?  I think part of why I like the position because its humility suits my nature, I’m generally very cautious about positions and willing to concede at the jump that I could be wrong.  And of course no one likes to be told they don’t know anything, lol.

(sidebar: Another issue would be use of language.  Can one be a Solipsist and be forgiven for using “I know” in common obvious language as a stand-in for the awkward “I think it’s true but I can’t say for certain”?  I mean gun to head I’m going to say Yes I know I’m looking at my laptop screen right now but is it impossible that I’m not?)

Thank you.  Some things are awkward to express, but you did a good job of it.  My thought about solipsism is that if only I individually exist, then I am spending a lot of time talking to non-existent imagined people in a world that only exists in my mind.  And that would suggest that my body itself doesn't really quite exist as there would be no actual physical existence.

Solipcism can only really exist in some sort of "reduction to absurdism" and I really don't want to bother to go there much.

I think I exist in a real physical universe as detected by observation (admittedly not mine).  If the universe is a creation of my (non-physically-existing) mind, it is a damn good fake!

Or am I getting solipcism all wrong?

Thank you that was very kind.  Yes, I totally recognize the reduction to absurdism of it, it just doesn't faze me or even interest me, as you say, the fake, if it is fake, is just too damn good!