Indeed, I can’t solve the problem of hard solipsism, but neither can you. I can only say that we’ve made a pretty successful run at things by just assuming we all share an objective reality.
And if that reality doesn’t exist outside my brain, I’m a pretty fucking impressively smart girl, with some really fucked up issues.
It’s not solipsism, as I specifically said in my first post. It’s idealism. There’s a significant difference. I suggest you read on it before throwing around terms.
Would it? I’d say that would depend on the theory being defended at the moment. Which one are you talking about, and how does it define consciousness?
I don’t need to defend the idea with the ideas of a system that hasn’t first proven itself.
To say anything about the world, you blatantly obviously need consciousness first. That’s the status quo. The burden of proof is on materialists.
I already gave definitions in my first post.
Burden of proof for what? That you need a brain to make observations of the world? That’s not a hard claim to support.
You, however, seem to assert some form of magical super-consciousness that seems utterly undisprovable
What would you know about brains if not for consciousness?
Ohhhhhh, its solipsism in a trenchcoat.
Indeed, I can’t solve the problem of hard solipsism, but neither can you. I can only say that we’ve made a pretty successful run at things by just assuming we all share an objective reality.
And if that reality doesn’t exist outside my brain, I’m a pretty fucking impressively smart girl, with some really fucked up issues.
It’s not solipsism he’s describing a view known as idealism
It’s not solipsism, as I specifically said in my first post. It’s idealism. There’s a significant difference. I suggest you read on it before throwing around terms.