I've been thinking about this for a while, and this came up: Are all of you real, or are you just objects that were created for "my" world. Maybe each of you have "your own" real world. Now just asking you this question completely messes with any bit of truth that this could even have a slight chance of having.

The best way to test out the theory is to try to take someone's wallet. If there is no reaction, then that person is a figment of your own thoughts. If, however, you get a punch in the face, chances are that there is another being out there. Let me know what happens.

Rich

This analogy doesn't work.
If you are truly creating your own world, it would seem to follow that you've created your own system of cause and effect, laws, rules and regulations as well, so you would therefore imagine someone punching you in the face when you take their wallet, unless you are a very sly pickpocket and they don't notice.

Exactly, maybe me or someone else who created this world of mine (and yet if this is rue it is so weird to be talking about) has created a set of laws, to not only keep these created objects called other people, but to keep my own morals in line.

This analogy doesn't work.
If you are truly creating your own world, it would seem to follow that you've created your own system of cause and effect, laws, rules and regulations as well, so you would therefore imagine someone punching you in the face when you take their wallet, unless you are a very sly pickpocket and they don't notice.

This analogy doesn't work.
If you are truly creating your own world, it would seem to follow that you've created your own system of cause and effect, laws, rules and regulations as well, so you would therefore imagine someone punching you in the face when you take their wallet, unless you are a very sly pickpocket and they don't notice.

Well, it would be interesting if everyone created a world where if they took money, which they justly felt was their own (because it is one world, so who cares), that the response would be a punch in the nose. While possible, I would go for the alternative which is that there is a separate being attempting to protect his belongings. However, both stories are fine.

Rich

Any supposition, however bizarre and implausible, can be defended if enough other suppositions are made to defend it. But what is that supposed to show about the original supposition? Not that it is not bizarre and is plausible. It shows only that the supposition maker is imaginative. It is like constructing a self-consistent fairy tale. It shows nothing about the truth of the tale.

Any supposition, however bizarre and implausible, can be defended if enough other suppositions are made to defend it.

Does this apply equally to Zacrates' supposition of a solipsistic world as it does to richrfs' suggested method of testing Zacrates' supposition? And, I would suppose, to my response as well?

Also, is this a form of tautology?



I may be reading this wrong, but isn't this like saying, "a supposition can be defended if suppositions can defend it"?

Or, does this not matter, as defending something doesn't mean that it is true?

Or, did I leave something extra on the hat rack in the hall . . . . ?

Two questions:

1) If this is true, why would you or "someone else" do this?

2) If someone else is doing this, who are you?

Well, O. J. Simpson was well defended during his murder trial, and he was acquitted. But I don't think he should have been. Sure, any bizarre and crazy belief can be defended by assuming other bizarre and crazy beliefs, ad hoc as philosophers like to say. That is, "after the fact". How else can a fairy tale be made plausible-sounding to children?

Indeed, how else could the homeopathic medicine industry continue to thrive, were it not for bizarre belief piling upon bizarre belief.

that would leave me to believe that this "higher being" put me into this personal world of mine to teach me lessons, and that in fact when i die i go into the full world.

So who creates the "full world"?

And how do you see it as being different from the world you think you might be in now?

Beliefs come in clumps. They stand or fall together. Read, The Web of Belief by W.V. Quine, and Joseph Ullian.

Well the "full world" would be where the real everyone is..... and as to the creator, well that is a question that would be in the is there a god who or what is he blah blah blah subject

Thanks. I'll see if I can get our local bookstore to order this, as unfortunately they only have about six philosophy titles in stock, and they all seem to be variations of the Philosophy and the Simpsons and Philosophy and Buffy the Vampire Slayer variety.

If not, I'll put it on my Amazon Wish List.

---------- Post added 10-12-2009 at 07:08 PM ----------



But how would you define the "real everyone"?

This sounds a bit like imagining that you are being denied admittance to some sort of exclusive party or club.

I like to imagine all sorts of odd things, but I generally try to avoid pretending that I'm being excluded from some other sort of fantasy.

Here is a review of what i am thinking:

I have my own world full of fake people

The real versions of these other people have their own worlds just like me

When we die in our personal worlds we are sent to the literal world where there are no fake people, only the other 'real people' who have died in their personal worlds.