“The problem of the world is the problem of the brain. If it makes the wrong world, you won’t be you in there. Regardless either way what problem does it have you solve in there?”
That’s kind of a riddle if you don’t already know. It’s an intellect’s thing. You have the right to be one if your brain allows you don’t mind being such a thing.
We say the brain processes information, and it renders the graphs that show for that information processing. These graphs are the mind, and they represent the whole world one each in us regardless of whether we’re human or other species. Even computers are doing it. Hehe.
Based on those graphs they show that the minds are coming from the brains, so in a sense the world, our graphical worlds, come from these brains.
The solipsist posits that there is no verifiable proof other than what is displayed in the graphical representation of that world situation. The solipsist says there’s a mind, it’s information, what it is comes from from what that information says, or it doesn’t.
The solipsist says that there is a mind, it’s information, and that information says that there are other people, and they have minds too, or it doesn’t because that information is not verifiable except only in the context of just more graphical information.
That mind’s information is alike a world, no? It represents one, yes? Information is always the subject and predicate graphical components that correlate in an aggregate way, so that it represents what it says, means, reflects.
If the aggregate components of a sentence represents something in the world, what are the sentence’s aggregate components? It’s a graph or a graphical, but what is it composed of? Ink and paper, pixels and computer, video and TV tube, paint and wood and sign post… But what is the graphical aggregate that the mind is constructed of? No one knows. No one can tell either. It’s beyond knowing.
A person asked me what I think about solipsism and the problem of other people’s minds.
The graphical images of my mind mean other people, and my mind information suggests minds in other people. The consequences certainly argue a strong argument in favor of that. However a solipsist wants verifiable proof beyond mere information that is the mind’s graphs.
So if the images of other people are orchestrated graphics which form the mind, regardless of whether those people are real and their minds or not there must be a puppet master. We can say that the puppet masters of those people images in our minds are their minds, but the solipsists would have it that they are the puppet master of that informationous imagery that represents those people.
That’s a very complex obligation to be the procession that orchestrates all of those complex behaviors of all of those people images and everything else that is represented in the mind. When you put it like that, you immediately decline from saying one more time that you somehow could be the procession behind all of that physics and drama. lol
Here’s one that’s even more than that though:
The information that is mind represents you too, and the solipsist must wonder that while the subject + predicate matrix that is the aggregate graphical, the mind, may mean other people and their minds without conclusive evidence that they exist beyond the graphical information that has portrayed them…
…while the solipsist says that those people are simply information not proving they are reality beyond the information…
…the solipsist must say the same for oneself.
The information that is mind representing the self is not conclusive evidence of there being a self. The information that is mind that means self may be some collection of predicates forming some matrix that means absolutely nothing worthy of practical value in the larger reality that is the procession behind the manufactured mind matrix in the first place.
Whatever makes the mind information that represents ourselves and others whether we know what it is or not is not something verifiable conclusive. We simply take our mind’s graphical word for it.
BUT…it is not wise nevertheless to test it as though it were unreal or as if there were no consequences. Yes, there is moral hazard. There is moral consequence. The regrets from loss, fear, pain, nausea, etc are certainly predicates that can be rendered as mind information by whatever is factually the manufacturer of said information that means you and anyone else and anything else.
No escape from the mind, and that has verifiable evidence right there in your midst before you, as you, before, after now, and after then.