Quote:
"Solipsism is the belief that only the mind exists - and nothing else exists externally of the mind, but these perceived "external objects" are actually nothing more than an illusionary product of the mind itself."
actually, solipsism doesnt claim that nothing exists except the mind. It claims that we *can never know* if anything exists except our own mind. And therefore casts doubt upon experience as external, claiming it is entirely possible that everything is really generated by the mind, and there is no external at all. " The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist". The strong position of "there IS NO external non-mental reality" is just as unjustified under solipsism as the position affirming external objective reality; neither position can ever be known. That is kind of the point, really.
As a quick example, this: "Since the surrealistic sub-category of solipsism states that the only thing which exists is the mind, then this implies that the mind is indivisible and absolute" is false. There is no necessary reason why the mind could not be "all that exists" and still exist fragmented in an interconnected set of mental parts or processes. I believe the conclusion you arrive at here comes from an understanding of 'mind' that is very simplistic and unrealistic. The belief that the mind is just a "singularity" or is "indivisible" is not necessary for the solipsistic argument, and therefore while you correctly identify that such claims of indivisibility and singularity are false, this does not directly address solipsism itself. Also, "since 'only' implies one" is also false. "only" can apply to things which exist with subparts. Think of a room with "only one person in it". there is only one person, yet there are many aspects and parts of this person. There are many THINGS in the room, cells and elements and organs and all that, but still only one PERSON. Likewise there could be only one mind, and yet this mind is comprised of many mental parts, each of which is mental in itself in the same way that the cells of a person are a part of that one person.
As for the a priori a posteriori distinctions, this just tends to confuse these sorts of issues. We cannot have an experience without an EXPERIENCE, clearly. This means that so called a priori knowledge is impossible, because any act of knowing or knowing-event must be an experience, which requires a) an experiencer and b) an experienced. However, solipsism could still maintain here, as both of these a and b could be generated from within a mind. The experiencer could be experiencing itself, which is entirely possible. We experience our own thoughts all the time. As for logically necessary knowledge, this is said to be a priori, but also depends upon an experiencing itself in the same way. "All bachelors are unmarried" is logically true, because it is a definition. But such knowledge required experience with the concepts of bachelor and its definition of an unmarried man. There is no knowledge which can be gained without an experience of some sort. And once you already have experienced the concept of bachelor, in the future you are experiencing the memory which contains this knowledge. The knowledge never just "exists" without being experienced in an interactive way. All knowledge is an experience, yet there is also no reason why these experiences could not be generated by your own mind, although as ive stated before, its also equally pointless to assume that they ARE all generated by your mind.
Dont get me started on the a priori, a posteriori stuff, trust me its all a load of crap. There is no such distinction. Likewise analytic/synthetic is just made up garbage. Dont let yourself get confused or worried over such things. There is no such thing as a distinction, all knowledge is arrived at by exactly the same means.
By the way I do agree with you that solipsism is useless, or absurd, but only because it is self-defeating. It doubts everything by establishing a standard of proof that can never be met: we are told we must PROVE external reality, which we can never do, because we have absolutely no way at all of obtaining even a single datum of information without relying on our local minds and internal subjective state. Solipsism isnt anything to worry about, because it sets up an impossible standard, like saying "you cant prove that God does NOT exist?! So there!". But its useless to waste time on such things.
Solipsism is not incorrect or wrong. It is entirely possible that every experience you have is internally generated. There is no logical reason why the mind cannot stimulate itself internally. We do this all the time when we think. Sure, it seems pretty rediculous and unlikely, and its nothing to lose sleep over, but nevertheless its still there as a logical possibility, just as the existence of God is. Neither can be proven nor disproven, but that is exactly why it shouldnt really bother you at all.
Quote:
My point is that the process by which experiences occur is the same whether you are experiencing a priori or a posteriori knowledge. Yes, we *understand* the *concepts* of these knowledges themselves differently, I get that. However, assuming any sort of ontological significance beyond this is false. When you experience the knowledge of "Where was ****** born?" and you have to go look it up in a history book, your conscious aware brain interacts directly with data, which filtered into it via the senses. If you are experiencing the knowledge of "Are all bachelors unmarried men?", your conscious aware brain interacts directly with data, which filtered into it via sense impressions stored in your brain already. Note also that such impressions must also exist for you to understand "******", "Birth", "year", etc.
Cognitive data is the same, it is processed information run into and through the brain, and generated into an experience. Ultimately all data in the brain is the same. Whether it runs through the eyes and retina and visual cortex and higher cognition to *you*, or whether it runs from a copy of a data which in the past ran through the eyes and retina and visual cortex and higher cognition to *you*, is the same. Memories are the exact same substance as "external" experiences. They are streams of data, copied for further use. Whether data streams from a copy in the memory, or it streams through a sense organ is irrelevant. It is not EXPERIENCED until it is generated internally, holographically and consciously for *you* to experience. Experiences are constructed from data.
That was my only point, really. Yes, we can identify the difference between the source of data, whether it is authentic or whether it is a copy of a previously authentic experience, but the brain treats either case exactly the same. And besides, virutally every single experience is a synthesis of these two anyways. In fact I cannot imagine a single experience that is not.
