Is Solipsism a Selfish Idea?

[Death]

I haven't really though about solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism) much until now, but the idea that the only real thing with emotion and senses (everything else being part of your vivid imagination) is the solipsist themself struck me as something that would be predominantly be existant in infants, who are naturally selfish. So what about solipsists then? If they think that they are the 'real thing' and everything else is a figment of their imagination, why would they go out of their way to do good things liek donate money? Surely the obvious reason of helping others would not apply to them because they believe that they are nothing more than a figment of their imagination? Call me crazy, but it's just an idea I've been recently pondering.

I was therefore wondering what VT's views on this were. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to tell me how.

[embers]

I just think of solipsists as people who believe in the idea because 1. they think it's cool, and 2. gives them reasoning for selfishness. I mean people who declare themselves solipsist just because they're selfish and don't want to work on it just makes them look like major dickheads. Some generalisation there, but yeah, until I'm shown otherwise, that's my view.

I mean, the concept you brought up of not giving to charities because only you exist, I suppose it would be for some peace of mind? Even though if this were imagination, solipsists are like any other human being and feel pain and natural emotion. It's very hard to put those aside. If you saw someone hurt or injured in front of you, solipsist or not, you'd feel morally obliged to help them. If you turned and walked away, regardless of whether you think that injured person really exists or not, you'd still know you walked away from someone you could have helped, and that'll always play into your subconscious.

You know what I mean? Like, nightmares aren't real, but they still scare you. Same thing here. You avoid guilt by helping.

[Death]

I mean, the concept you brought up of not giving to charities because only you exist, I suppose it would be for some peace of mind? Even though if this were imagination, solipsists are like any other human being and feel pain and natural emotion. It's very hard to put those aside.

...

You know what I mean? Like, nightmares aren't real, but they still scare you. Same thing here. You avoid guilt by helping.

That's probably true to an extent, and probably suggets (in my view) that solipsism isn't 100% core to their perception and actions. Still, I wonder if solipsism may make those who still do bad things feel slightly better about it, like a self-comforting thought.

[Peace God]

Solipism is about taking a skeptical view on what is "real". Many people have concluded that their minds are the only things that can be sure to exist, so they are Solipsists. They come to conclusions like this from studying different philosophies and understanding certain scientific developments (http://youtu.be/LJThU1jDT2o) (wooo, 2deep4ubro).

On what basis are you guys establishing these inherent qualities of a Solipsist's character? Just because someone believes it to be true or highly likely, how do you guys get that that person is automatically selfish? This is not just something people agree with just because they have a certain view on humanity or just because they feel like it.

[Death]

I didn't think solipsists were automatically selfish; I just thought that the idea appeared selfish especially with the fact that multiple solipsists cannot agree with each other since they all think that they are the real ones.

[Korashk]

I didn't think solipsists were automatically selfish; I just thought that the idea appeared selfish especially with the fact that multiple solipsists cannot agree with each other since they all think that they are the real ones.
You're misrepresenting solipsism. It's not the position that only oneself exists. It's the position that one's own consciousness is the only thing that you can claim objectively exists.

It's sort of like the unverifiable question of color. Does green look the same to me as it does to you? Who knows? Nobody; that's who.

[Death]

You're misrepresenting solipsism. It's not the position that only oneself exists. It's the position that one's own consciousness is the only thing that you can claim objectively exists.

I was more concerned with the solipsists who have misinterpreted this idea of solipsism and do genuinely believe that the world is literally in their mind and non-existent from a physical standpoint. This may sound crazy, but I've actually seen some people say it on the internet.

It's sort of like the unverifiable question of color. Does green look the same to me as it does to you? Who knows? Nobody; that's who.

How could the green look different anyway? We don't see the universe as it is since the brain has to interpret light ray into an image we can comprehend. That would make everything subjective in its own way.

[Korashk]

How could the green look different anyway?
It wouldn't look different. That's not the question. The question is does green look the same to me as it does to you? Like we're both looking at grass and can both claim that it's green, but the color we're seeing is fundamentally different. An unanswerable question.

[Death]

It wouldn't look different.

but the color we're seeing is fundamentally different.

So does the theory claim that the colours do or do not look different?

[Peace God]

I was more concerned with the solipsists who have misinterpreted this idea of solipsism and do genuinely believe that the world is literally in their mind and non-existent from a physical standpoint. This may sound crazy, but I've actually seen some people say it on the internet.

I didn't think solipsists were automatically selfish; I just thought that the idea appeared selfish especially with the fact that multiple solipsists cannot agree with each other since they all think that they are the real ones.
Again, how does that mean they're selfish?

In RotW, it would be better to disprove the idea (or show it highly unlikely and illogical) rather than try point out qualities of a Solipsist's personality based on a few people you've seen on the internet.

Like I said, there's reasons that people agree with it, you should talk about that instead of conclusions that you've reached about most Solipsists that are both false and irrelevant.

[Death]

Again, how does that mean they're selfish?

It doesn't. If you think I meant that solipsists themselves are selfish, then I've given you the wrong idea. What I was thinking is that the belief that only their mind really exists was a self-centred belief because they can only sense stimulus that affects them. As I mentioned earlier, solipsists, unlike people following various religions, will all disagree on one fundamental prinicple; they are the one whose mind is sure to exist.

In RotW, it would be better to disprove the idea (or show it highly unlikely and illogical) rather than try point out qualities of a Solipsist's personality based on a few people you've seen on the internet.

Myself, I find it unlikely because of the points I made earlier about each solipsist disagreeing with each other about whose mind is sure to exist. Since each different solipsists' beliefs would differ on that fundamental principle, solipsism already appears to have little going for it in my opinion.

[Peace God]

It doesn't. If you think I meant that solipsists themselves are selfish, then I've given you the wrong idea. What I was thinking is that the belief that only their mind really exists was a self-centred belief
Annnnd? Your point?

they can only sense stimulus that affects them.
As opposed to who? Of course they can only sense things that affect them. Everyone is like that.
As I mentioned earlier, solipsists, unlike people following various religions, will all disagree on one fundamental prinicple; they are the one whose mind is sure to exist.

Myself, I find it unlikely because of the points I made earlier about each solipsist disagreeing with each other about whose mind is sure to exist. Since each different solipsists' beliefs would differ on that fundamental principle, solipsism already appears to have little going for it in my opinion.
You're basing you're entire argument on that? That doesn't even have to do with likelihood. Isn't it obvious that someone who believes their mind is the only one that exists would also agree that the minds of other Solipsists don't exist either? That doesn't even mean that they disagree with Solipsism because they disagree with other Solipsists. And even if it did, it still wouldn't make the idea any less valid or unlikely.

And why is this subject even being compared to religions? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for proving things to be illogical but I'm just really confused as to what the point of this thread is because you don't seemed to be focused on doing so and not to mention, there's one little problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_predicament) that, as far as I know, makes any definite proof against Solipsism virtually impossible and makes it a pretty reasonable stance.

Again I'll attempt to point this debate thread towards what it should be focused on (the idea itself and not the people):
I've stated that the idea is likely due to our current scientific knowledge fields like physics (where we know that an observer creates its own reality) and the human brain and how it creates an entire experience that none of us can really prove to be real. Did you watch the video btw? I know it's can be weird for some people and some of them ramble on but you might find some really eye opening topics to research from watching it.

[Death]

Annnnd? Your point?

You said I claimed that solipsists are selfish. I didn't.

As opposed to who? Of course they can only sense things that affect them. Everyone is like that.

Obviously. What I said was that is why each solipsists will believe that they are the one whose mind is sure to exist. That's all I was saying.

You're basing you're entire argument on that? That doesn't even have to do with likelihood. Isn't it obvious that someone who believes their mind is the only one that exists would also agree that the minds of other Solipsists don't exist either?

Again, I do not remember saying that it wasn't. But get two Christians of similar mindset together to talk about religion and there is a notable chance they will agree on virtually everything (or most things). This alone would give Christianity creditibality in my eyes, even if I do not actually agree with it personally. Get two solipsists on the other hand, they will not ever agree on whose mind is sure to exist and who's the figment of the other's imagination. The fact that no-one will ever back up a particular solipsist's beliefs does anything but give it creditability in my eyes. And this is quite simply because each solipsist will believe that they are the one whose mind is sure to exist. The belief is always about themselves.

So, whilst a solipsist may not be selfish, solipsism itself works in a way that is.

That doesn't even mean that they disagree with Solipsism because they disagree with other Solipsists. And even if it did, it still wouldn't make the idea any less valid or unlikely.

If you want more reasons why I reject solipsism as an idea, here you go:

Firstly, it does not provide any 'arguments' as to how anything came to be like other belief systems and/or religions do. Solipsism is arguable 'useless' in that those looking for answers to questions will likely want more than everything is a figment of their imagination. Why do they age? Why can't they control their thoughts? Etc. It also raises the question of how other people can behave in a similar fasion to you if your mind (the 'only' one) cannot control them and also what happens when the solipsist dies. If you universe can only exist when they are alive, how did everything come to be what it was when they were born? Solipsism alone is not enough to 'answer' all these questions.

And why is this subject even being compared to religions?

I was actually comparing them to other beelief systems and naturally using religion as an exapmle. This is kinda off-topic though since I origionally meant to argue about the nature of solipsism rather than its logic. I suppose I don't mind arguing about it though.

Again I'll attempt to point this debate thread towards what it should be focused on (the idea itself and not the people):

It was what I initially meant to do.

I've stated that the idea is likely due to our current scientific knowledge fields like physics (where we know that an observer creates its own reality) and the human brain and how it creates an entire experience that none of us can really prove to be real. Did you watch the video btw? I know it's can be weird for some people and some of them ramble on but you might find some really eye opening topics to research from watching it.

I did in fact. I know that the brian creates an image which isn't necessarily what's there (i.e. optical illusions) and people therefore don't percieve the world as it actually is, but I don't get why someone would take from that the assumption that their own mind is all that is sure to exist without considering the minds of others, even if they do not possess them.

[Peace God]

You said I claimed that solipsists are selfish. I didn't.
Yeah, I wasn't talking about that. You said Solipism is a self centered idea, in fact the whole point of this thread according to you was to do something pertaining to that. And I'm saying...what is your point? Yes, solipsism is a self centered idea...of course it is. Did you really make this thread just to point out the most obvious quality of Solipsism and do nothing else?
I origionally meant to argue about the nature of solipsism rather than its logic.
Again for what purposes? Wouldn't it be better to go into whether or not it's reasonable rather than whether or not it's self centered belief (which it obviously is). I find the former a far more interesting discussion.

Obviously. What I said was that is why each solipsists will believe that they are the one whose mind is sure to exist. That's all I was saying.

But the mind is the only thing sure to exist. If you don't believe so then please explain why by addressing the Egocentric Predicament that I pointed out in my last post.

Again, I do not remember saying that it wasn't. But get two Christians of similar mindset together to talk about religion and there is a notable chance they will agree on virtually everything (or most things). This alone would give Christianity creditibality in my eyes, even if I do not actually agree with it personally. Get two solipsists on the other hand, they will not ever agree on whose mind is sure to exist and who's the figment of the other's imagination.
:crazy: You're basing credibility on how much they agree?!?!?! By that logic science is less credible than christianity.

I was actually comparing them to other beelief systems

Firstly, it does not provide any 'arguments' as to how anything came to be like other belief systems and/or religions do.

IT'S NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM OR A RELIGION. Stop looking at it that way. It's a philosophical idea. People can either reject it, completely believe it, accept it as highly likely or only slightly possible.

Solipsism is arguable 'useless' in that those looking for answers to questions will likely want more than everything is a figment of their imagination. Why do they age? Why can't they control their thoughts? Etc. It also raises the question of how other people can behave in a similar fasion to you if your mind (the 'only' one) cannot control them and also what happens when the solipsist dies. If you universe can only exist when they are alive, how did everything come to be what it was when they were born? Solipsism alone is not enough to 'answer' all these questions.
Why do you think it's supposed to be the answer to these things? Oh right, because you think it's some sort of psuedo-religion.

I did in fact. I know that the brian creates an image which isn't necessarily what's there (i.e. optical illusions) and people therefore don't percieve the world as it actually is, but I don't get why someone would take from that the assumption that their own mind is all that is sure to exist without considering the minds of others, even if they do not possess them.
No you're missing a lot of the major points. It's not just optical illusions that make people not percieve the "world as it actually is"...there is no world as it actually is. I know it sounds weird, but at an atomic level there is not certainty until a conscious observes it and creates and experience from it through their own minds. Everything we experience can be doubted, the minds of others would obviously still fall under the category of... "everything".

[Death]

Yeah, I wasn't talking about that. You said Solipism is a self centered idea, in fact the whole point of this thread according to you was to do something pertaining to that. And I'm saying...what is your point? Yes, solipsism is a self centered idea...of course it is. Did you really make this thread just to point out the most obvious quality of Solipsism and do nothing else?

Well, no, I did mean this thread to involve more about whether or not it was self-centred, but I could have sworn you disagreed with me earlier on that point. What I wanted to know is how a solipsist would justify their 'idea' (seeing you don't like the term 'belief system') given its self-centred nature.

Again for what purposes? Wouldn't it be better to go into whether or not it's reasonable rather than whether or not it's self centered belief (which it obviously is). I find the former a far more interesting discussion.

You can do that, yes; you're not meant to completely follow the title.

But the mind is the only thing sure to exist. If you don't believe so then please explain why by addressing the Egocentric Predicament that I pointed out in my last post.

Don't debates usually work the other way round? Like you prove something before you disprove it? Regardless, I'll answer anyway...

I've already explained issues with the mind 'creating' the world on its own without it really being here:

"Why do they age? Why can't they control their thoughts? Etc. It also raises the question of how other people can behave in a similar fasion to you if your mind (the 'only' one) cannot control them and also what happens when the solipsist dies. If you universe can only exist when they are alive, how did everything come to be what it was when they were born? Solipsism alone is not enough to 'answer' all these questions."

On top of this, how could someone's mind be powerful enough to produce a world in its imagination which follows not only the laws of physics to a perfect degree, but also be able to involve the actions of other minds without any issue? It's like a computer running a simulation, except it would have to render an entire changing universe at once with impecable AI that learns. If the entire universe is in someone's imagination, there's no way in my eyes that the brain would be powerful enough to show it as real as it is.


:crazy: You're basing credibility on how much they agree?!?!?! By that logic science is less credible than christianity.

And here was me thinking that more people believed in science than religion and that the two could co-exist. Besides, this wasn't entirely what I meant. I was arguing that the nature solipsism made it impossible to agree with another solipsist unlike other ideas/belief systems/whatever you want to call it.


IT'S NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM OR A RELIGION. Stop looking at it that way. It's a philosophical idea. People can either reject it, completely believe it, accept it as highly likely or only slightly possible.

Okay, sorry, I've stopped. Offending you wasn't my intention.

Why do you think it's supposed to be the answer to these things? Oh right, because you think it's some sort of psuedo-religion.

I'll admit that was one of my weaker aguments, but I've just made others.


No you're missing a lot of the major points. It's not just optical illusions that make people not percieve the "world as it actually is"...there is no world as it actually is. I know it sounds weird, but at an atomic level there is not certainty until a conscious observes it

And here was me thinking that an object still exists if unobserved, you just don't sense it or know it's there if you haven't seen it before. I believe infants learn this around 12 months; it's called 'object permanence'.


and creates and experience from it through their own minds.

But surely that would require the object to exist for this to be possible? I know people can hallucinate and imagine, but as I've explained before, I find it too implausible to believe that someone can imagine a living, breathing, and learning universe like this one perfectly without error whilst still being able to do things themselves. Besides, what's to stop a solipsist from thinking happy thoughts and changing their life around?

[Peace God]

Well, no, I did mean this thread to involve more about whether or not it was self-centred, but I could have sworn you disagreed with me earlier on that point.
Nope.
What I wanted to know is how a solipsist would justify their 'idea' given its self-centred nature.
Lol. You say "given its self centered nature" as if that actually makes the idea flawed or unjustifiable. Why does the fact that it's self centered need to be justified if its not a bad or unreasonable thing? It doesn't mean the person is selfish or they've reached their conclusion through selfish means.
you don't like the term belief system
I don't like the term 'belief system' when it's being used on something that's not a belief system like solipsism…or atheism. And it's not just because it's wrong but also because whenever someone thinks something is a belief system (or even worse, a religion) that isn't, they'll typical assume many other things about the specific subject that simply aren't true.

Also, it's not just about not calling it that anymore, like I said you still need to look at this differently as well. As with many other philosophical ideas, it's not really about belief… sure people can take Solipsistic ideas and say that they don't believe anything is real but that view wouldn't encompass all of solipsism…the main idea of it is that the mind is the only thing that is sure to be true and that everything else can be doubted to exist.
Don't debates usually work the other way round? Like you prove something before you disprove it?
...what?

Why can't they control their thoughts?
A solipsistic world wouldn't necessarily make the mind able to consciously control its own perceptions.

It also raises the question of how other people can behave in a similar fasion to you if your mind (the 'only' one) cannot control them
This doesn't make all that much sense to me as an argument. Assuming a world with other minds has been created by one's imagination…wouldn't it make more sense for the people to behave more similar to that person rather than completely unpredictable and different?

and also what happens when the solipsist dies. If you universe can only exist when they are alive, how did everything come to be what it was when they were born? Solipsism alone is not enough to 'answer' all these questions."
No shit. Nor does it claim to. This is why I'm telling you to stop thinking of it as something that's supposed to have an answer to everything we don't know.
On top of this, how could someone's mind be powerful enough to produce a world in its imagination which follows not only the laws of physics to a perfect degree, but also be able to involve the actions of other minds without any issue? It's like a computer running a simulation, except it would have to render an entire changing universe at once with impeccable AI that learns. If the entire universe is in someone's imagination, there's no way in my eyes that the brain would be powerful enough to show it as real as it is.
I find it too implausible to believe that someone can imagine a living, breathing, and learning universe like this one perfectly without error whilst still being able to do things themselves. .
:scratchchin:
I like this one… Hmmm, I guess an argument against that would be the fact that we have no other "realities" to reference whether or not this world is really all that complex. Yes this universe might appear complex but compared to what? Another thing is we still don't truly understand the full power of the mind. Perhaps under certain circumstances it is possible.
And here was me thinking that an object still exists if unobserved, you just don't sense it or know it's there if you haven't seen it before. I believe infants learn this around 12 months; it's called 'object permanence'.
It think you've missed the point again…object permanence doesn't seem to exist at certain level. Hmm, let's see if Dr. Quantum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc) can explain this better! …he seems a bit coo-coo but it's ok because he's a cartoon :props:.
Besides, what's to stop a solipsist from thinking happy thoughts and changing their life around?
*facepalm* Who says they aren't thinking happy thoughts? Why do they need to turn their lives around? You keep on thinking there's something inherently wrong with their personalities. It's pretty funny.

[Death]

Lol. You say "given its self centered nature" as if that actually makes the idea flawed or unjustifiable. Why does the fact that it's self centered need to be justified if its not a bad or unreasonable thing? It doesn't mean the person is selfish or they've reached their conclusion through selfish means.

Again, that's not what I meant to say. In fact, the only point I was trying to make was that I would find more creditibility in a argument which did not rely on a single person's views (like solipsism since the solipsist views his own mind as the only one sure to exist). In this instance, I wasn't trying to speak for everyone, so I can accept that you'd disagree with me on this. Forget I brought this point up.

I don't like the term 'belief system' when it's being used on something that's not a belief system like solipsism…or atheism.

How would you define a belief system then? And what's the difference between it and religion?

...what?

Okay, I'm going to say that the flying spaghetti monster exists. I now expect you to prove me wrong.

A solipsistic world wouldn't necessarily make the mind able to consciously control its own perceptions.

Then how does the solipsist differentiate between the world in their mind and what I would percieve their mind to be? As in a solipsist can still think of thoughts of their own which don't actually involve the world as most would see it. How would a solipsist view these as being different?

No shit. Nor does it claim to. This is why I'm telling you to stop thinking of it as something that's supposed to have an answer to everything we don't know.

Considering that it isn't a religion, you have a point. Coming to think of it, I don't even know why I brought that up except to pointlessly state that solipsism may not seem as 'necessary' to some people than religion may.

:scratchchin:
I like this one… Hmmm, I guess an argument against that would be the fact that we have no other "realities" to reference whether or not this world is really all that complex. Yes this universe might appear complex but compared to what? Another thing is we still don't truly understand the full power of the mind. Perhaps under certain circumstances it is possible.

Which is more complex? The behaviour of an ant, a calculator which calculates mathmatics, or the behaviour of the entire universe from both a scientific and psychological standpoint? I would have guessed that the last would be the most complex compared to other, more mundane things.

The fact that a solipsist can 'render' an entire universe like a computer with perfect memory and performance but may not be able to perform comparatively simple maths operations in their heads (not implying that they're stupid since this would apply to anyone) would, in my eyes, suggest that their mind isn't actually producing the world - just seeing it.

*facepalm* Who says they aren't thinking happy thoughts? Why do they need to turn their lives around? You keep on thinking there's something inherently wrong with their personalities. It's pretty funny.

You've minunderstood me. You think that I'm making a dig at solipsists here. I was doing anything but that. I was only saying that if the universe is produced through their mind, then if they are having a bad time, they should be able to alter what they experience by thinking happy thoughts.

If, 'in their mind', they are being attacked by a group of thugs, then surely by thinking about being on a wonderful holiday, then, 'in their mind', they would be having a nice time. The point I was making was in fact similar to the point I made earlier about how a solipsist would philisophically differentiate between their personal thoughts and the outside world, which is also 'in their mind'.

[Peace God]

the only point I was trying to make was that I would find more creditibility in a argument which did not rely on a single person's views (like solipsism since the solipsist views his own mind as the only one sure to exist).
It doesn't rely on a single person's views.
How would you define a belief system then? And what's the difference between it and religion?
Easy…something with more than one belief. As for a religion I guess that would be more of an establishment or a group centered around a belief system.
Okay, I'm going to say that the flying spaghetti monster exists. I now expect you to prove me wrong.
But see, I never said my mind is the only thing that exists.
Then how does the solipsist differentiate between the world in their mind and what I would perceive their mind to be? As in a solipsist can still think of thoughts of their own which don't actually involve the world as most would see it. How would a solipsist view these as being different?
Easy… one they can consciously control, the other they can't. (although im not completely sure what you're saying in the first sentence).
Which is more complex? The behaviour of an ant, a calculator which calculates mathmatics, or the behaviour of the entire universe from both a scientific and psychological standpoint?
The ant can be arguably as/more complex as the calculator. The the entire universe is obviously more complex because it involves the other two.
The fact that a solipsist can 'render' an entire universe like a computer with perfect memory and performance but may not be able to perform comparatively simple maths operations in their heads (not implying that they're stupid since this would apply to anyone) would, in my eyes, suggest that their mind isn't actually producing the world - just seeing it.
As I said I like this argument in reducing it's likelyhood. A mind would have to both create an experience but not completely understand it…although that doesn't seem too farfetched if you ask me and would still be possible.
You've minunderstood me. You think that I'm making a dig at solipsists here. I was doing anything but that. I was only saying that if the universe is produced through their mind, then if they are having a bad time, they should be able to alter what they experience by thinking happy thoughts. If, 'in their mind', they are being attacked by a group of thugs, then surely by thinking about being on a wonderful holiday, then, 'in their mind', they would be having a nice time.
Oh ok. Like I said before "A solipsistic world wouldn't necessarily make the mind able to consciously control its own [experience]." I think you can relate too, if you were having a dream about being attacked by a group of thugs, you can't normally just think happy thoughts and make them go away.

[Death]

But see, I never said my mind is the only thing that exists.

So a solipsist believes that there is a possibility of everything else existing then? It doesn't think that the mind is definitely the only thing that exists like Roman Catholicism effectively says that God definitely exists?

Easy… one they can consciously control, the other they can't. (although im not completely sure what you're saying in the first sentence).

You make is sound like a dream since in dreams, you have thoughts which you can and can't control. How many solipsists do you think would actually believe that they could be dreaming all the time?

The ant can be arguably as/more complex as the calculator. The the entire universe is obviously more complex because it involves the other two.

As I said I like this argument in reducing it's likelyhood. A mind would have to both create an experience but not completely understand it…although that doesn't seem too farfetched if you ask me and would still be possible.

We can always experience things we don't understand, even in dreams. But the question remains about how the mind can get the misunderstood phenomena to actually react realistically if the solipsist would not even know about it. It's like the solipsist not knowing how a cat behaves (so wouldn't be able to answer questions about their behaviour or biological processes) but their mind still being able to 'render' them as if he did. But then again, our body works without us knowing how. But how much of that is actually in the mind?

Oh ok. Like I said before "A solipsistic world wouldn't necessarily make the mind able to consciously control its own [experience]." I think you can relate too, if you were having a dream about being attacked by a group of thugs, you can't normally just think happy thoughts and make them go away.

A good analogy, I have to admit. It's as if the solipsist is living in a dream.

[Peace God]

It doesn't think that the mind is definitely the only thing that exists like Roman Catholicism effectively says that God definitely exists?

Exactly! I thought I made this obvious enough. (seriously ive probably mention something to that effect like 10 times already man). That's one of the reasons I've been saying that its not like a belief system or a religion.

It's what me (and Korashk) have been saying. Sure there's plenty of solipsists that can believe that their minds are definitely the only things that exist but that wouldn't apply to all of solipsism.

I don't define myself as a Solipsist btw. Like many other people that find the idea inteteresting, I dont "believe" in it, I just find it to be a reasonable stance (for the reasons ive stated several times in this thread) and it only deals with one metaphysical/epistemological issue. It's far from covering the rest of my philosophical views.

I think believing it to be 100% true would assume to much about the nature of the universe and would be ignoring the "Egotistical Predicament" that I've mentioned like a thousand times already.

[Spook]

I couldn't imagine believing that the world and the people in it were just a "figment of imagination." That would be like a walking zombie. xD

Kinda scary.

Anyways, I don't think it is selfish, because the people really aren't connecting with reality, the truth of it all. So...no. I guess.

[Death]

I think believing it to be 100% true would assume to much about the nature of the universe and would be ignoring the "Egotistical Predicament" that I've mentioned like a thousand times already.

Not meaning to equate solipsism with religion again, but couldn't you say the same about religious evangelists?

I couldn't imagine believing that the world and the people in it were just a "figment of imagination." That would be like a walking zombie. xD

Kinda scary.

Scary in what way?

Anyways, I don't think it is selfish, because the people really aren't connecting with reality, the truth of it all. So...no. I guess.

I can't say I thought of this before. What might appear selfish isn't because the solipsist wouldn't believe that the others even exist in order for the term 'selfish' to be applicable.