I think you are taking the description too literally.
The idea of solipsism is everything is an illusion and only your Self exists. Even though this is true, your mind doesn't actually interpret them as illusions, it's more like the spell makes you aware or believe you are aware that solipsism is actually true.
whch unprovable philosphy is more likely?
Re: whch unprovable philosphy is more likely?
unoduetre wrote:[mention=705]Ryuuko[/mention]
It was a very sensible thing in that spell description. A good catch!
I think there are also types of solipsism which do not agree, e.g. they claim that people should act on their "illusions" etc. Probably as many solipsist philosophers as many kinds of solipsism.
I'm sure there are different ideas of it, with philosophy there usually are different ideas of what they mean.
Re: whch unprovable philosphy is more likely?
Still don't get the Self part. Never experienced it.
Never experienced it.Re: whch unprovable philosphy is more likely?
I must admit wrapping your head around being the only Self is bizarre. I'm not sure how anyone would come up with the idea.
Re: whch unprovable philosphy is more likely?
Ryuuko wrote:I think you are taking the description too literally.
The idea of solipsism is everything is an illusion and only your Self exists. Even though this is true, your mind doesn't actually interpret them as illusions, it's more like the spell makes you aware or believe you are aware that solipsism is actually true.
I think it just makes the creature treat all of their experiences the same way they treat illusions. It's usually not rational to act on illusions. That's why the creature under that spell doesn't do anything.
Re: whch unprovable philosphy is more likely?
Ryuuko wrote:I must admit wrapping your head around being the only Self is bizarre. I'm not sure how anyone would come up with the idea.
No, I mean, I have never experienced self. I've experienced thoughts, pain etc. But not self itself.
-
WorldIsMine
- Standard Member
- Posts: 402
- Joined: 18 Mar 2014, 19:46
-
Re: whch unprovable philosphy is more likely?
Ryuuko wrote:I must admit wrapping your head around being the only Self is bizarre. I'm not sure how anyone would come up with the idea.
sorry bruh i'm everything
Re: whch unprovable philosphy is more likely?
unoduetre wrote:I think it just makes the creature treat all their experiences the same way they treat illusions. It's usually not rational to act on illusions. That's why the creature under that spell doesn't do anything.
Indeed, but I believe if anyone truly adhered to solipsism they truly would believe everything was an illusion and not act on it. Or they'd treat all of it as objects of their imagination and sensations their mind is simply creating to entertain them.
Re: whch unprovable philosphy is more likely?
Ryuuko wrote:Indeed, but I believe if anyone truly adhered to solipsism they truly would believe everything was an illusion and not act on it. Or they'd treat all of it as objects of their imagination and sensations their mind is simply creating to entertain them.
I have no idea whether the following is a part of solipsism or not:
"You should not act on your illusions."
Maybe there are some kinds of solipsism that say that:
"You should act on some of your illusions."
No idea, really.
Re: whch unprovable philosphy is more likely?
unoduetre wrote:I'll like to point to your attention the following. Which time do you use? What does it mean "was created afterwards"? I think you imagine something like an external time and internal time. So the creator is inside an external universe with its own time and the creator creates another universe inside the external universe (internal universe) with its own time.
But the creator also creates Thursday and all following days. The creator can create them at the same time or not. It doesn't matter. All of that happens in the external time and uses the creator's external calendar. But the internal time is a totally different thing and one should not confuse them.
If we're going external/internal, the creator could have made internal universe 1, which began on a Thursday by its own internal calendar, at point A of the external calendar. Someone in universe 1 doesn't believe that universe 1 began Last Thursday, so they attempt to travel to last Wednesday. The creator prevents this by moving them to last Wednesday of universe 2, created at point B of the external calendar. You didn't move at all throughout the internal time of universe 1, you just think you did. And even by the external time, you've only moved somewhere created after last Thursday of universe 1. Universe 1 still has no last Wednesday and never did.
Re: whch unprovable philosphy is more likely?
[mention=1400]Citizen[/mention]
OK, so you assumed that the world (worlds) is (are) not created all at once, but it's some sort of a process happening, so new days are created as the process develops.
Yes, you're right about what you said! Only universe 2 has Wednesday!
So universe 2 was created on (internal) Wednesday and (external) B.
So it wasn't created on (internal) Thursday.
OK, so you assumed that the world (worlds) is (are) not created all at once, but it's some sort of a process happening, so new days are created as the process develops.
Yes, you're right about what you said! Only universe 2 has Wednesday!
So universe 2 was created on (internal) Wednesday and (external) B.
So it wasn't created on (internal) Thursday.