Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

[L.N.]

[binocular]

What do you think one will acomplish by being a solipsist but denying that he is one ? Why hide so much behind the finger about it ? And please let's stay on topic and avoid metta-discussion.
If you don't believe other people exist, then you are a solipsist. That's the english language definition of the term.

I'm sure all the solipsists in the world tremble in fear of your accusations!

And please let's stay on topic and avoid metta-discussion.

You're the one who keeps bringing up the topic of solipsism. There is an aspect of this discussion that you persistently ignore, but acknowledging which, as several people have told you many times, would go a long way to resolve things.

[Circle5]

Please avoid metta-discussion and trolling if you have nothing to say on-topic. If I would have a single post like those, it would get deleted and probably even banned. But in your case I see the moderation is doing nothing as usual. Just like in Ben times. Gang on 2-3 people an keep trolling, hoping the guy has 1 message of trolling back to get a reason for closing the topic or ban. Or at least derail the topic and try to ridicule it until it gets closed.

[retrofuturist]

Metta,
Paul.

[L.N.]

Please avoid metta-discussion and trolling if you have nothing to say on-topic. If I would have a single post like those, it would get deleted and probably even banned. But in your case I see the moderation is doing nothing as usual. Just like in Ben times. Gang on 2-3 people an keep trolling, hoping the guy has 1 message of trolling back to get a reason for closing the topic or ban. Or at least derail the topic and try to ridicule it until it gets closed.

The "witch hunt" video is actually on topic, because it speaks directly to what you are doing. You are engaged in a witch hunt.

I will defend you against being ganged up on. That should not happen. I have not had the pleasure of conversing with you yet, but unfortunately I have the perception that you are not serious.

What is that "more to it than it appears" ?

Based on everything that apparently has been shared with you on this topic, what do you think? I sense that you prefer a game of "you tell me and I'll tell you if you're right." I would be interested to know if you believe anybody has contributed any thoughts which have offered you any idea of what might make this not quite so simple as you present it.

[L.N.]

Wishing you well.

[Circle5]

The only thing ontopic here has been this from you:

The test is ineffective, in part because the question assumes identity view as a starting point, regardless of whether one answers "yes" or "no." The test is pointless. Labeling others in this manner is pointless.

Where you have claimed the label "solipsist" or "buddhist" or "christian" is pointless altogether because it assumes identity as a starting point and I felt no need to comment on that.

And this from Alfatun:

Also consider the possibility that seeking a theory to explain, prove or disprove the reality of a shared world might be an approach doomed to failure, because a shared world is presupposed by any such theory...and for other reasons that I don't have the time to get into at the moment.

But unfortunatelly he did not had the time to explain it at the moment.

Other than this, 2 pages of trolling and a post from Perkele that was about him having troubles about solipsism that I will respond to but in the topic about solipsism not in this one, which is about something else.

This one is about weather a person that does not believe other beings will continue to exist after he dies can properly be called a solipsist according to this british dictionary definition of the term:

British Dictionary definitions for solipsism Expand
solipsism
/ˈsɒlɪpˌsɪzəm/
noun
1.
(philosophy) the extreme form of scepticism which denies the possibility of any knowledge other than of one's own existence

I have seen mainly postmodern trolling so far and claims that my question is not serious. I have not yet seen someone explain how can one believe other beings don't exist yet that does not make them a solipsist according to the british dictionary deffinition of the term.

Since I've seen such vigurous reaction from moderations about me using the term "solipsist" on people who are not sure weather other beings exist or not, I expected at least a honest attempt to explain this somehow, or at least other forum members offering at least a half-decent explanation or something.

[binocular]

This one is about weather a person that does not believe other beings will continue to exist after he dies can properly be called a solipsist according to this british dictionary definition of the term:

Yes, he can be called a solipsist.

[Circle5]

This one is about weather a person that does not believe other beings will continue to exist after he dies can properly be called a solipsist according to this british dictionary definition of the term:

Yes, he can be called a solipsist.

How about one that claims he can not know weather other beings will continue to exist after they die ?

Notice the highlighted part:

British Dictionary definitions for solipsism Expand
solipsism
/ˈsɒlɪpˌsɪzəm/
noun
1.
(philosophy) the extreme form of scepticism which denies the possibility of any knowledge other than of one's own existence

I never claimed solipsist are just those that say other beings don't exist. I always used the term on people who claim they can never be sure weather other beings exist or not. I used it on people who say they just can't really know for sure, cause they have access only to their own perception and are therefore skeptical, and so on.

Don't look strange at me. This is what they say in the british dictionary. I'm not a native english speaker. What am I supposed to believe ?

[binocular]

How about one that claims he can not know weather other beings will continue to exist after they die ?

A type of agnostic.

[Circle5]

Have you read the highlighted part from my english dictionary quote ?

Please enough with the BS. I do not understand why solipsist hate it so much to be called solipsist. It's just like postmodernist swearing on their life they are not postmodernist. If that's what they say in the dictionary, that is how I use the term. Don't force me to use it differenty with the moderation heavy boot.

It is ridiculous to not only see people hide behind this "but I don't believe other people don't exist, I just claim I can never know" - like this somehow makes them not solipsist. No my friends, the english dictionary says the same thing I have been saying all along: that this term applies to people who claim they can never know, not to people who claim other beings don't exist.

I am not the one who wrote the dictionary, I am just a non-native english speaker who uses it.

I would not bring that up if there weren't the big problems with the moderation recently, deleting my posts because I used the "solipsist" term in this way. I would have been just as contempt to just mind my own business and call people "solipsist" if that is what they were.

And it's not only because it says it in the dictionary. I never read the dictionary until now. I used it like that cause that's just what everybody understands it to mean. It's like that "postmodernist" word that postmodernist hate so much. No matter how much you hate a word, you can't just make it disappear or pretend like dictionaries don't exist. Those are childish postmodern tactics that adult people laugh about.

[binocular]

Please enough with the BS. I do not understand why solipsist hate it so much to be called solipsist.

Ask them.

I would not bring that up if there weren't the big problems with the moderation recently, deleting my posts because I used the "solipsist" term in this way.

So much for no metta-discussion ...

Those are childish postmodern tactics that adult people laugh about.

Then laugh about them.

[L.N.]

The only thing ontopic here has been this from you:

The test is ineffective, in part because the question assumes identity view as a starting point, regardless of whether one answers "yes" or "no." The test is pointless. Labeling others in this manner is pointless.

Where you have claimed the label "solipsist" or "buddhist" or "christian" is pointless altogether because it assumes identity as a starting point and I felt no need to comment on that.

This is false. I have asserted that your question itself assumes identify view as a starting point. You have disregarded this point. In addition, it is on-topic that you are engaged in a witch hunt. My comments have not been "trolling," as you again choose to label.

My perception is that you simply are not serious about this discussion. You may be able to persuade me otherwise if you respond in a meaningful way to the following request, which so far you have ignored:

I would be interested to know if you believe anybody has contributed any thoughts which have offered you any idea of what might make this not quite so simple as you present it.

My guess is that you will continue to ignore this and instead attempt to taunt/provoke others through additional name-calling and inappropriate pigeon-holing. If so, your conduct is the definition of "trolling." You may have noticed that most Members are wisely ignoring this thread you created. Probably because of your ongoing abuse of forum TOS, which I recently came to understand. For the moment, you have a slight benefit of the doubt as far as I am concerned. But I am more and more inclined to join the others who are simply ignoring your posts.

Wishing you well.

[Circle5]

You may be able to persuade me otherwise if you respond in a meaningful way to the following request, which so far you have ignored:.

I think you have missed this post of mine: viewtopic.php?f=16&p=442437#p442391

If you see other arguments that I have not responded to in this topic, please quote that specific argument.

[Dhammanando]

In my opinion, a proper test for solipsism is asking someone:

If you die, will your family, your city, this planet, etc. continue to exist ?

If they answer "yes", then they are not a solipsist. If they answer "no" or say that they don't know weather it will continue to exist or not, then I qualify them as solipsist.

Why bring the interviewee's death into it? If she is a bona fide solipsist then she won't believe that her family exist even now and so the question of whether they will continue to exist after her death will be regarded as nonsensical, being based upon a false premise.

And why bring cities and planets into it? Solipsism is a position taken regarding the alleged existence of other minds. It's logically compatible with any number of different views about the physical world.

Do you believe this is valid test to label one as solipsistic ?

Since it seems you are only allowing "yes", "no" or "don't know" as admissible answers, clearly the test is useless. All three of these answers will show that the person is not a solipsist:

"Yes" = My family do exist now and will continue to exist after I die.
"No" = My family do exist now but will cease to exist after I die.
"Don't know" = "My family do exist now, but I don't know whether they will continue to exist after I die.

Might we then say that a solipsist is anyone who declines to give one of these three answers?
Unfortunately no, for there are other possible grounds for rejecting the question than solipsistic ones.