It is more than that, and unless you continue to avoid the paradoxes in the "lokiya" teachings, and try to rationalize them, using arguments about computers, nueroplacticity, quantum physics, babies and animals...etc things that you have read somewhere, not based on looking at your experience and how your mind functions, i don't see how we can proceed. To be honest, you come across as someone who is interested in providing answers more than investigating the truth. For example, if you give priority to the knowledge based on your experience (meditation), you would not claim that babies and animals have no concept of the self, you would simply claim that you don't know. Or simply by looking by them, you would see that they have instincts implies "self preservation" or "craving for existence" so a sense of self must exist on them. The looking at the mirror to measure if someone has "self view" is a poor one, invented by psychologists, and you are here parroting what you have read.
It is OK to refer to what we know from different sources in a discussion, but to over use them, or present them as "facts", especially in a topic discussing solipsism (which gives priority to personal experience) have weakened your arguments in my opinion.
Back to the Dhamma eye, which is linked to the seeing or understanding the supramundane "lokuttara" teachings. By definition, it is derived from "loka" which means the world (which we have been discussing) and "uttara" which means beyond, so it is a knowledge beyond/surpasses the world, this is why i described as "mystical". The scientist eye which you mentioned is what many intelligent yet ordinary people possess, nothing really special.
I am not sure about your love for computers, and what makes you feel that the human experience has any similarity with computers. All i can do is to point out the mindset you are using trying to disprove solipsism: by implying that existence is independent of whether knowledge about it exists or not, and this can only be done by fabricating scenarios based on thinking, not experience. From a "first hand" experience point of view, i cannot know if viruses have independent existence, all i can know is how things unfold as i experience them. So, the notion "viruses existence is independent" is merely another idea appear and disappear in my experience, this is what i can be sure of, everything else can be doubted.I know the point where you are trying to get, the point that I have indeed forgot to address is about the relationship between this and solipsism. It is one of the classic arguments for solipsism that was indeed not addressed yet.
Well, let's take the same example with the computer and use it here too. So there is the knowledge of a virus being present when the antivirus is installed, but there is no knowledge of that virus being there when it is not installed. Is the virus still there ? Will the virus still cause damage even if there is no knowledge of it ? Of course it will, cause it's existence is independent of weather knowledge about it exists or not.
If you want to refute/disprove any idea or philosophy, you will have to understand it or even to temporarily adopt it as a mindset. Only then, you will be able to come up with strong arguments.
Again, from a first hand knowledge point of view, all of the above is second hand, it does not prove that there is real existence outside of me.And it is the same for humans. Thorough using the same logic as the above, we can disprove solipsism. For example if everybody believes the world is flat, does that make the world really be flat ? If one of these flat-earthers would sail a ship, would that ship behave like on a flat earth or like on a round one ? Their perception aggregate is one thing, the form aggregate is another thing. Regardless of their perception, the form aggregate will behave independent of their perception. The world laws will work the same regardless of their perception.
This is not what solipsism claims. It claims that the only thing i can be sure of is my own experience, every thing else can be doubted.What solipsism does is claiming form comes from perception and claiming there is only a one-way conditionality going on between perception and form. It is similar to materialism which claims the same thing only in reverse, it claims form gives rise to perception and that the only conditionality going on is a one way conditionality, from form to perception and not the other way around.
Solipsism does not discuss/not concerned with conditionality. You are simply asserting things in order to refute them, but never addressing the real issue head on.Things are simply not like this. Neuroplasticity disproves the kind of conditionality materialism claims exists. The fact that if you lose half your brain the perceptions that will arise will be different disproves the kind of conditionality solipsism claims exists. Solipsism simply got wrong the kind of conditionality that exists between the 5 aggregates.
This is exactly why i asked perkele to provide a definition of solipsism, and i also provided one. Both definitions, if you refer to them, does not mention that my consciousness causes things to appear, but things that appears in my consciousness is all what i can be sure of. I saw this mess was coming, hence i insisted to define the term from the outset before proceeding.