Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

[Circle5]

As you can see, there are many variations of solipsism. But, in current use of the term, as far as I know it is generally used to describe any philosophy claiming material form is a product of perception and we can never know for sure anything about the external world, or that the external world does not exist at all and that is actually a delusion, only the perception of it actually existing.

No!

These theories are non-substantialist theories. Historical Pugdalavāda fought against "mainstream Buddhism" (which it called anātmanvāda, or "the doctrine of substancelessness", or "the doctrine of non-substantiality") on these grounds, for right or wrong.

Solipsism means that you think "only you" exist. That is the root of solipsism. Nothing about external reality. It 'means' only you exist. Theories about the substantiality or nonsubstantiality of the world follow therefrom.

So if one believes their family members will not continue to exist after they die, does this not imply that they only consider themselves to exist, and not their family members ?

[binocular]

How in the world can that be pointless ?

What do you hope to accomplish by calling this or that person a solipsist?

[Circle5]

How in the world can that be pointless ?

What do you hope to accomplish by calling this or that person a solipsist?

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.

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

[L.N.]

What exactly does one need to do to be considered a solipsist if not to believe only they exist in this world and others are just philosophical zombies ?

Apparently one just needs you to tell them so. Have you even considered the possibility that there is a little more to it than you think? And that labeling others is of no benefit to you, or to anyone else? Judging from the context previously provided, it appears you are not serious.

[Circle5]

What exactly does one need to do to be considered a solipsist if not to believe only they exist in this world and others are just philosophical zombies ?

Apparently one just needs you to tell them so. Have you even considered the possibility that there is a little more to it than you think? And that labeling others is of no benefit to you, or to anyone else? Judging from the context previously provided, it appears you are not serious.

Then open your mouth and speak. What is that "more to it than it appears" ? That's exactly why I opened this topic, for people to speak about that "more to it". So please speak my friend, don't keep it to yourself.

If the word "solipsist" used wrongly when speaking about people who believe only their own mind is sure to exist, and not that of other beings ? I am not a native english speaker. I consulted the dictionaries and this is what they said. If there is more to in than the dictionaries say, then please speak.

[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.