[quinnchr]

"But the solipsist has no reason to believe this as the other people don't exist outside of his own mind therefore he is not like them."

Except the solipsist is also unsure he exists outside of his own mind too, so why would he believe he is the sole exception to everything he's observed in the only reality he can be sure of?

[philwelch]

He already believes he's the sole exception to everything he's observed by definition of being a solipsist.

[quinnchr]

No? How does him being unsure that reality exists outside his own mind mean he believes he's the sole exception?

I mean if you're unsure there is a reality outside of your own mind, wouldn't that make you more risk adverse? Your death could potentially mean that everyone you've ever known/loved would cease to exist, even if they are a product of your unconscious mind...

[philwelch]

> No? How does him being unsure that reality exists outside his own mind mean he believes he's the sole exception?

A solipsist isn't "unsure", he definitely believes reality doesn't exist outside of his own mind. That alone sets him apart from everyone and everything else in the universe, because a solipsist believes he is the only one who actually exists.

[quinnchr]

That's a pretty unique definition of solipsism. As far as I'm aware a solipsist believes he can't know if reality exists outside his own mind.

But we've strayed pretty far from my original point, which was that you can't disregard centuries of philosophical thought with a story that doesn't address any of the arguments of the ontological frameworks it's trying to refute. I'm not personally a solipsist, but solipsism is by definition not falsifiable, so I'm a little confused about where this conversation is supposed to go...