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.
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.