>You can't prove you exist to me independent of my senses because the only way to communicate with me is through my senses.Why does this statement piss so many people off? It's true.
>>17090065Intuitively you know solipsism is false
>>17090065>Why does this statement piss so many people off?Because it's wanking yourself off and not actually trying to reach tangible truth.It's like when midwits on here try to score points and screech about fallacies and definitions so they can "win" the argument. Just go sit in the corner if you're gonna be a little faggot like that. The goal for real men is truth, getting lost word salad tongue twisters is the intellectual equivalent of shitting yourself on a crowded train.
>>17090073Not necessarily, besides, what if the point of this solipsistic exercise is to lose yourself in the illusion of matter? If that's true, what you "intuitively know" may just be a psychic safeguard to keep the game interesting (one that you yourself set the parameters of and won't remember until you "die").
>>17090065This is so stupid because clearly I'm the one with the the sensations. Burden of proof is on you retard
>>17090115Filtered
>>17090788>Be lucid dreaming>See person and tell them they're not real>They reply "I'm the real one, Anon, you're just a figment of my imagination">Immediately wake upExplain.
>>17090065Ok, disprove this>punches you
>>17090065It is true, but Descartes posited that since information is neither innate — since we need the thinking process in order to accumulate more — nor created, as information is merely learned, logically there must be at least one object, the source of information unknown to the self. Descartes thought it was God (since that object was the source of every concept in existence). Because that object is a precedent, it sets a precedent for the existence of other logical or sensorial object IRL (not an undisputed proof, tho)>inb4 more than one sourceDescartes further wondered how concepts like "omnipotence" and "perfection" were ever learned if they are unobservable or uncontemplateable as the "multiple sources" hypothesis posits.
>>17090797Anon...
>>17090792My imagination really needs to stop hallucinating
>>17090792They were real until you woke up. You killed them you bastard.
>>17090834Good.
>>17090065I usually use that to argue with atheists online who infer to me that “god isn’t real” so I say “you can’t prove your existence either so this is argument is over”
>>17090847Pathetic
>>17090851It might be but it’s also hilarious too
>>17090065it's true, but the reason people get mad at it is not because it's false, but because it's a thought-terminating, conversation-ending argument.If you're having an argument with someone, where they're pushing their ideology, or belief, or interpretation of whatever and you're pushing yours, and you respond to them "Well, we can't know that anything is real, so it's all just meaningless," then the conversation's over. You have effectively just said "I disagree with the fundamental assumptions that underlie this conversation that are taken as a matter of faith." There's nowhere to go from there. Everyone now just has to stop talking and give up.
>>17090065That's nonsense if you take it literally. You can't prove anything exists without your senses.
>>17091229>implying
>>17090065I know things that you do not, and I am able to reveal those things to you.
