Mindopener

Here will be frequently asked questions and their answers. To ask questions, leave comments or give suggestions use my contact page on the top right of the screen.
Some of these questions can make things very complex. That is why i didn't incorporate all the answers on the other pages.

Q1 - What have You been smoking?
Q2 - Why make a public website on solipsism/Why is the website written in second person perspective if we are just thought up by You?
Q3 - How can You believe You thought of everything?
Q4 - Doesn't this way of thinking promote arrogance or selfishness?
Q5 - (On determining the probability of a theory:) Can't a theory use a seemingly weird starting argument but still make more sense than others as it develops?

Q1 - What have You been smoking?
A1 - I don't smoke.

Q2 - Why make a public website on solipsism?
Why is the website written in second person perspective, if we are just thought up by You?
A2 - I cannot write this for anything or anyone outside this world i'm in, since i do not relate to/know anything about what is outside. So i write this for me, and for the people as i see them. In my eyes everyone has a consciousness and different desires and the capability to shape their world the way they want to. They in turn can shape the way they see me or do whatever they want to, but i do not experience any of those things directly. I only know You the way i see You, and that is the only You that i have to deal with.
I consider You an equal, in an equal situation, but that does not determine the development of the You that i see. I do with all as i think, You do with all as You think.
Therefor i thought this information could be relevant to You, and that there could be a cooperative effort in making it work as efficiently as possible.
Using the word You instead of i makes it easier for You to put these ideas into perspective, to imagine what they mean.
If there is an actual You outside of the You that i think of, then i don't know the actual You. Then i don't know what the actual You looks like, i don't know whether You can read this website or what You find on it. There is no point in attempting to talk about it.

Q3 - How can You believe You thought of everything? You can't seriously claim to have the ability to think of thousands of video's on YouTube on the fly, make up physics and mathematics, think of every article on wikipedia, possess the talent to have composed Mozart and so on and so forth.
A3 - I can and i will explain it. I do not claim to have that ability as the person You know of but i do believe the mind is very capable of such things.
Firstly, there is nothing we know that the mind can be compared with. It's kind of hard to say that it is impossible or unlikely for the mind to think of everything, if it is the only thing actually thinking.
Secondly, none of us thinks of all those things in full detail at the same time. In fact attempting such a thing boggles the mind, does it not? Which is of course happening because we believe in limitations.

Q4 - Doesn't this way of thinking promote arrogance or selfishness?
A4 - The thought of being the Writer creates many possibilities, but it also shows how little i still am in comparison to my potential. The world isn't perfect, yet i have little excuse for why i let it be that way. This world showcases potential, but also how little i understand of it, and how limiting and destructive i was. It's rather embarrassing, or completely logical. Every death my curse, every newborn my blessing. This is not something to be arrogant about, but something that needs some work.
Keep in mind the Writer has little to do with the person walking the earth. Everything is thought up, and so is this body walking the earth and this personality. You are just as much 'me' as is this body, and our ideas. To feel supreme as one part of what we usually call 'me', over another part that we usually don't call 'me', by identifying this bit but not that bit with the actual 'me', seems a little silly.
As long as i don't accept this theory completely there will always be some selfishness in me. I do still experience me, as separate from You. But as written above, it seems silly to become selfish by abiding these ideas.
(Also take into account the creation of the norm(al). If i am consistently selfish or arrogant chances are that the people around me will be the same.)

Q5 - (On determining the probability of a theory:) Can't a theory on truth that emerged using a different starting assumption than this one still make more sense/become more probable as it is applied? (i.e. science)
A5 - Yes certainly, i do believe that this happens. And no i do not think it is right.
Though let's first be clear about the problem here. This isn't really about the starting argument when constructing a theory but the things that come right after. While all theories start with an assumption that is to the scientific mind as probable as a random assumption in a random situation, the bits that are constructed neatly around this assumption that form the firmament of the theory are the most interesting. The idea is that the less assumptions You use, and the less objects You use, and the less relationships per object in the firmament of a theory, the more probable the theory becomes. As it is easier to be wrong than right.
Then You could still argue that science may not have the strongest of firmaments but its most basic results are proven through experience to work in every day situations, better than many a completely different take on the world. In other words the scientific method shows results. Through science we have gained insight in this world that is of use. And ways of thinking that go against the principles of science have a hard time doing this.
And i agree with this partially. The scientific method through the theory on science is something that works to a certain degree, more so than most other popular theories on truth, and therefore can make a whole lot of sense. However You cannot truly know to what degree the scientific method 'works' compared to something new. If we find a new theory which turns out to work as well, it might work a hundred times better or worse. The scale or usefulness of the results does not answer the question to what extend the theory is true. And whether it works or not is not very indicative of whether it is true. There is a very important step between theory and practice which is method. Our first attempts at flying weren't successful either.
Besides this, my theory does not dispute the scientific results and it is both their firmaments, not their results that will determine their probability and thus our investment in exploring their effectiveness.