Things exist outside your experience. Things exist outside my experience. The only way to get to the perspective you describe is to discard or devalue the experience of everyone else.
If you encounter a large carnivore in the wild and it knocks you out, the animal doesn’t disappear.
To seriously hold that all of what you have known was created for your experience is an extreme exercise of narcissism that enables some fairly incredible behaviors. But it is not closer to truth.
It was in fact one of Kant's three "necessary postulates". He asserted that the question of subjective death was not empirical, and thus impossible to know or even gain confidence about one way or another, but he thought it was (for other reasons, related to his moral theory) necessary to assume that you would not subjectively die.
Whether it's possible for this body you currently seem to be experiencing the world through to be ripped apart by a wild animal, though, that IS a highly empirical question.
I don’t buy into that idea, but any question about consciousness that will never be answered during my lifetime is always something fun to dabble with.
Religion is, by design, unverifiable. It can't be used to predict the future. If it were, its predictions would be easy to check, which is not allowed. So all religious teachings evolved to avoid making any hard predictions about the future. The Messiah WILL come - but nobody will tell you the date. You WILL go to Heaven if you behave - but nobody came back to report.
Chapter 1 of the Tao te Ching has a long track record of quite accurately (not the best word?) but very vaguely predicts future human behavior: constant ignorance of the truth contained within the scripture, the consequences of which we continue to suffer.
I don't think there's a solpsistic component to the idea that we have our own subjective realities. For one thing, it's about as true as we seem to be able to tell. For another, accepting it doesn't mean we have to be self-centered. Even our experiences of other people aren't objective; someone giving a speech can give very different vibes depending on who's listening. I read what you wrote, but do I really understand what you mean? In this case I have a pretty good idea, but there's no way I can be certain that we're on the same page. Our consciousnesses, our intelligences, are separate. We aren't in some hive mind; we are self-contained agents that interact with each other and gain our own experiences.
The solipsism is the second half of parent’s comment where they state that everything exists only within their reality. Subjectivities are subsets of our existence. Arguing that an entire universe exists for one human awareness is solipsism.
Technically incorrect. Standard abstraction, decomposition, ontology, etc can achieve it as well, sometimes even without people getting their feelings hurt.
> To seriously hold that all of what you have known was created for your experience is an extreme exercise of narcissism that enables some fairly incredible behaviors. But it is not closer to truth.
As a self-diagnosed narcissist, this seems more like delusion or normative cognition (on your behalf).
Narcissism is very useful for certain forms of analysis though.
How do you explain forms of socially facilitated learning if your mind is the only thing that exists?
The burden of proof is yours, not mine.
> How do you explain forms of socially facilitated learning if your mind is the only thing that exists?
I don't because I'm not a solipsist, but I see no reason why that couldn't be imagined. If anything, most people have a problem with not imagining reality.
