Talk:Solipsism syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This obviously needs to be Wikified and edited, I grabbed it from NASA and couldn't find a copyright for it anywhere, so I assume it's public domain. If not, some of the facts are here at least. --Our Bold Hero 07:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed. In particular the stuff about 'extraterrestrial communities' needs some explanation. Ben Finn 13:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I was going to say that too. It just sort of comes our of nowhere. I had to go back and read again just to be sure I was not in some article about a sci-fi universe or something. Dalf | Talk 06:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "television as a substitute for reality"

I'm not sure that "television as a substitute for reality" is anything more than pure speculation. It stands out as a serious claim that requires evidence and reasoning. Perhaps expand on it in later sections or cut it out, completely? As it is, it's a throw-away statement that really adds nothing to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.173.93.39 (talk) .

The statement, now removed, came from the NASA appendix and was "It is also known to occur in some youths who have been brought up on television as a substitute to reality." I'm including it here because I think that it should go back in when it can be included with sufficient sourcing and more useful detail. There have been people who reported (in retrospect, after overcoming solipsism syndrome) that they thought that movies were made about their own lives, and that this seemed natural because of the way that television seems to be directly catering to the single viewer. I think this is correlated sometimes with reported experiences of near-constant uncanny syncronicity and possibly schizophrenia. — Coelacan | talk 03:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failure to distinguish being internally and externally consistent...

While solipsism is internally consistent, it is not externally consistent.

That distinction needs to be made so readers are aware that solipsism is not actually a valid way of thinking about reality. Solipsism, like many other metaphysical philosophies, is simply a "what if" scenario and not an objective description of the actual physics of reality.

Only if one accepts the premises that solipsism proposes without question, can the philosophy be perceived as internally consistent.

There are numerous examples of obviously make believe storytales and religions that also are internally consistent, as well as not being able to be disproved. This only serves to illustrate just how logically dishonest the term "not being disprovable" is. A thing is either provable or disprovable -- there is no such thing as "not being disprovable". What "not being disprovable" actually means is that the arguments presented are so far beyond the reach of external facts, provable facts, and/or a reason for the extension of known facts, that one can only accept the proposed premises purely by blind faith acceptance of them.

That does not mean that metaphysical philosophies do not serve some useful purpose, but rather they serve to help us understand our own psychology and (mis)perceptions of reality.

70.190.199.60 02:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)The_Sage