So, there isn’t much substance to this post, but I’m kind of just curious about other people’s opinions on solipsism.
Specifically, I am curious about metaphysical solipsism, which is the idea that the mind is the only thing that exists, as opposed to epistemic solipsism, which is just saying that the mind is the only thing you can be sure of.
Anyways, I’m just curious, so please comment about why or why not you believe it, and your justification.
That’s monism but I don’t think there’s a relation between mind and body that would satisfy the question of whether there exists only mind.
On the Youtube channel, “Closer to the truth,” the host interviews in one of his videos a neurologist.
It’s been some years since I’ve watched it, but from what I remember the woman said that consciousness is not just in the mind. She also didn’t want to expand too much on it, don’t know why.
Before I give my own opinion, see if you can find this video, it may help a lot with the OP question.
Kind regards
Edited : I just remembered, there’s also the concept of exstended mind… If you’d like to discuss that.
Sometimes Solipsism led to Idealism, roughly speaking.
I think Solipsism depends on the external world. If we extract it in a pure metaphysical approach—as you are asking—we could say that our mind exists because it makes us have beliefs about the external world, which remains uncertain. For this reason, I think it would be unfair to call the external world non-existent.
However, perhaps the external world is very influenced by our subjectivity. The external world is a set of representations, but they do exist.
"It’s an interesting question but I don’t think it’s very useful. Much of the evidence we have points to the mind being at least partially a product of the physical brain, so I don’t see any sound grounds on which to base an argument that only the mind exist.
I don’t “believe” or disbelieve in solipsism. How can we believe something that cannot be proven or disproven? I think the whole (useful) point of solipsism is that it sounds ridiculous, on the face of it, but it cannot be refuted. Just like brain-in-a-vat, living in a simulation, and so forth. This is the joy of metaphysics, yes? 
We might adopt a fallibilist account of knowledge. Identifying statements then testing them.
Charles Sandel Pierce suggests that we ought not to create "paper doubts’. We test reasonable doubt and by doing so generate an undertanding of the world. We accept that is always failable and open to revision
The only thing I know about solipsism is that some debaters (but not here) have called me a solipsist when frustrated by my questions, but none of them would explain what they meant. So I currently see it as meaning something like ‘ahole’ or ‘jerk’.
But I’d be happy if anyone would like to unpack it for me.
Some have called me a fallibilist. So far as I can tell, that one is pretty accurate.
Without wanting to make any judgement you might have, or also have, been described as a sophist, which is slightly different, and is someone who likes to argue for the sake of it.
This is the metaphysics area. Much of what is discussed here cannot be tested. At least not by us humans.
Yes, thats fine. Lets hear everyone. As long as I can also present my metaphysical view.
The real problem underlying all this confusion is our conviction that there is a metaphysically ‘real’ world “out there” somewhere beyond what would then be a mere ‘facsimile’ of it “in here.” This is called indirect realism, or representational realism. Once that idea loses its stranglehold, it opens up the possibility that there are only ‘minds’ (plural), which points us squarely at Whitehead’s process ontology.
Developments in theoretical physics over recent decades (e.g. Carlo Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics) support this rejection of indirect realism. And as a bonus, David Chalmers’ “Hard Problem of Consciousness” evaporates away… since there is no “metaphysically real” world, accounting for the appearance of consciousness in that putative domain turns out to be a pseudo-problem.
Yes, that was the more common one, now that I think of it… and guilty, of course.
It’s central to my worldview, that argument (I call it friction sometimes) is close to an obligation. Many of us hide out in our own narratives, where it’s just too easy to believe anything we like.
But if I were to post a list of the things I’ve been called, we’d need a bigger dictionary and at least a month for a full analysis.
Apparently, people on the internet don’t care if they make you cry.
One could say believing in solipsism is a loss of reception to what’s present.
It certainly isn’t common-sense; to believe in solipsism is to deny a majority of the observed.
Again, it’s like a loss of reception, backing into a very dark corner of solipsism, completely disconnected.
How small it is observed that you are, can’t really be said to increase or decrease chances of solipsism being true.
It’s a lot of information one denies to believe he/she is solipsist.
But do you actually observe any other minds attached to brains because you are only aware and observant of your own mind? You observe brains creating behavior similar to your own mind but not actually other minds.
There’s a lot of fakeness in your mind if you are solipsist. You carry the weight of a whole universe on your brain.
One might say it’s staged. The universe could become a great fear upon you.
I’m affected by the truth of this, and I don’t believe I’m solipsist.
Rather than the big lie, it may be the big truth- everyone experiences mind.
Or half-truth-half-lie: only some vessels experience mind.
Descartes would say that we cannot be sure that other people have minds like ours. I think we usually have sufficient evidence from induction to rely on our practical knowledge. Although, in these days of chatbots and AI there must be some greater uncertainty
If you set the criteria of existence within the limit of your perception, then yes, solipsism is correct. Only and strictly what appears to you and your mind only exists. What is not perceived to you doesn’t exist.
But if you extend the criteria of existence to beyond the limit of your perception i.e. not just your own mind, but also allowing and inferring others’ mind existence based on their behavior, actions and interactions in language and co-operation between you and others around you, then solipsism is incorrect.
Hence it really depends on where you set the criteria of existence. Is it within the limit of appearance in your perception, or is it beyond the appearance of your perception postulating the existence of others’ minds.
A mind is an emergent phenomenon. Therefore it can’t be the only thing that exists.
I mean, that’s just your claim, but how can you be so sure?