Is solipsism the only rational position?

>muh predictions

only you care about your fantasy of prediction

every discussion on Veeky Forums basically boils down to "dude everything's a spook lmao"

is there a way to avert this?

...

This feels like a troll response, but can you explain what you mean?

Solipsism is why reason can't be the only approach to understanding reality. You can't refute it without invoking empirical facts, and the solipsist can simply refuse to accept the inductive leap involved.

It's about as rational as assuming there's an external world. It's also the first thing you must attempt to overcome (or just outright ignore) in creating a coherent philosophical system.

>I am a physical body
>I am conscious
>ergo, other physical bodies are conscious

Is this rational?

What's rational? It is unfalsifiable but it is the most simple. But if you want to treat zombies morally, then no, if you like zombies then solipsism leads to narcissism which doesn't help zombies.

>a banana is an object
>a banana tastes like banana
>ergo, objects taste like banana

Yes.
>I am a lump of chemicals
>I have feelings and wants
>A similar bag of chemicals must therefore have feelings too

If the conclusion is wrong then you can always say
>It seems that if I subject others to stimuli they respond like X
>When I'm subjected to that stimuli I also respond with X
>It follows we share something in common.

Complete con sqeuitor.
A Banana is an object, which has characteristics that of itself, but you can come to that conclusion.

If Smith is a healthy human and so is Jones, and Smith is conscious, why isn't Jones?
Smith and Jones share all qualities alike.

You should have said
>a banana is a banana
>a banana taste like a banana
>ergo, bananas taste like bananas

Well, there are infinite Universes, are there not?
Atoms at the start of the BIg Bang may have varied so that, Earth still being made, an entity with my DNA and similar brain chemistry from birth was raised differently to become a billionaire.
But If this world has creatures with minds where it's not solipsistic, if other universes can be Solipsistic ones then what makes something a mind?
Universe X may have humans who all have minds, Universe Y may have Human A who is the only conscious one and Universe Z where Human B is the only conscious one.
What makes Human A in Universe Y different from Human A from Universe Z?

you're saying
1. A is a subset of B
2. A is a subset of C

and you're saying that means
3. ergo, B is a subset of C

which is not rational.

Quantum indeterminacy indicates universe A is in a state of superposition with universe Z. Both are congruent and therefore it cannot be said to be a solipsistic super-reality.

Is it wrong to believe that either A or B is the case?
A: All Humans are minds (I am Human, I am a mind, It should follow that what makes me a mind is apart of me being human, so if I truly am a mind due to my brain, all other brains that function as I do, are minds)
B: No human has a mind (If other humans don't have minds and I am also human, what can I have that don't as a purely material being which as the same properties? If none then I do not have a mind)

businessinsider.com/what-is-rokos-basilisk-2014-8

With the premises you said, either 1 or 2 is true, with no evidence you can assume one or the other and not be correct either way. But no one has evidence either way, so having an opinion is irrational.

...

I know what this is, no one read it. Robots will kill you.

Is mental insanity your goal? Then yes. Pursue solipsism.

I'm not reading that shit.

If by solipsisim you mean the theory that we cannot know anything beyond the self, surely this theory is not itself *our* self; therefore it refutes itself.

(saying that 'i cannot know beyond myself' requires the knowledge that there exists that which is beyond oneself, effectively contradicting itself)

This is precisely wrong for the reasons listed hereReason is what gets you out of solipsism by way of induction, Occam's razor, or other conjectural explanations for experiences.

Find something that isn't a spook

sauce quad Lord

Not since I met my irl waifu

You're proving the very conclusion you were rejecting.

...

proof is a social construct created by liberals and libertarians

Facts.

I don't know if it's rational per se, but in my opinion it can't be disproved.

I mean it's similar to how you can't prove you're not an omnipotent deity pretending to be a mere mortal.

Buddhism is just another cult.

>Monastic communities in the Buddhist tradition, cut normal social ties to family and community, and live as "islands unto themselves". Within a monastic fraternity, a sangha has its own rules. A monk abides by these institutionalized rules, and living life as the vinaya prescribes it is not merely a means, but very nearly the end in itself. Transgressions by a monk on Sangha vinaya rules invites enforcement, which can include temporary or permanent expulsion.

>you don't control what you think
Epictetus says hello. :^)

>literally fucks himself in the first paragraph

Dependent Origination doesn't remove the need for a First Cause. In fact, that's a key premise of the Argument from First Cause.

>Dependent Origination doesn't remove the need for a First Cause. In fact, that's a key premise of the Argument from First Cause.
See pic.

If you've got a causal loop you have a situation where every event is dependent on another event, yet without a first event/cause.

...

the two view on the DO

That's nice but if he thought he controlled what he thought, he was wrong.

>If you've got

Do you understand origination?

I don't think you understand what you're talking about.

Read up on Buddhism, then come back.