Chuck Bryant (3:20)

Yeah, I think Livia found something online that said no modern, legitimate philosopher even takes part in these arguments because it's just such like, hey, get off the couch with your bong and maybe talk about something, some real philosophy.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (3:36)

Well, also the other part of it too is if you were a genuine philosopher and you genuinely believe that nothing was real except in your mind, there is zero point for you to do anything like write a philosophy paper for solipsism, because nobody's out there to read it in actuality. So what's the point? You're by yourself in the entire universe, so much so that the universe doesn't even exist outside of your mind. You're by yourself in some incomprehensible form of existence. It's just weird and depressing in a lot of ways.

Chuck Bryant (4:09)

Yeah, for sure. We should mention the skeptics a little bit because that sort of lays the groundwork for solipsism a little bit. The skeptics started around the third century bce. The word itself came from the Greek term meaning inquiry or examination. And they were basically like, hey, it's not possible to have some knowledge to make definitive judgments. Arguing against the Stoics who said, no, you should be able to test claims using stuff that we can see and hear, using our senses and the skeptics. And this sort of laid the ground of what was to come. For solipsism basically said like, hey, we can all be deceived, though. What about the case of identical twins? You could be deceived there, or you could have a sensory experience. If you're talking about trusting your senses that aren't connected to reality, like, that's what a dream is. And dreams sort of play into the whole thing, at least at the beginning.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (5:10)

Yeah, the skeptic said, you ever had a dream, dingus?

Chuck Bryant (5:14)

Yeah.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (5:14)

How are you going to. How are you going to trust your senses with that? And so skepticism, like you said, is kind of an extension of it, a basis of it. It's not quite there, but enough that solipsism is often thought of as an extreme form of skepticism. Sometimes it's Also called global skepticism. Like you're skeptical of everything, and then it's also sometimes called mondo skepto.

Chuck Bryant (5:41)

Speaking of the dreams, though, there was a Taoist philosopher named Zhuangzi. And this also sort of laid the groundwork, was, hey, if I wake up from a dream, and I was, you know, a wildebeest in that dream, how do I know that I'm not really a wildebeest and that this is the dream?

Ahmed Ali Akbar (6:00)

Yeah. And all this again, yes, it does seem kind of bongish or bong adjacent, for sure. But this is the kind of stuff that philosophers care about. Like, it's called epistemology. Epistemology. I like to add a lot of syllables sometimes, so I'm not quite sure which one. But it's the basis of how we know what we know, how we gain knowledge. And the point of this, of all this stuff as people were kind of building on it, is to say, like, we need to kind of figure out how we do know. Because if you really stop and think about it, we're not quite sure exactly how we know anything. And that whole thing was picked up in the 17th century by Descartes and is very famous quote, I think, therefore I am came out of this, Right?

Chuck Bryant (6:50)

Yeah. And that's, you know, basically saying, like, hey, I know that I am real. I am doing the thinking. I have a brain. But that's about all I know. Right. You know, Descartes was the first one that came in and said, hey, maybe we should. He had a system called Methodic Doubt. Great band name. To determine if, like, hey, you're saying something is truth, like one of the truths. We should be able to test this. But things are fallible, like math. You can make mistakes in. You can't look at tradition of a culture because people might disagree with that kind of thing. And then the idea of an evil demon coming in and basically kind of taking hold of your consciousness and saying that you're having all these illusions and that's inhabited inside of you.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (7:44)

Yeah. So that evil demon thing, too, it's like, as we'll see, it's been updated in much more modern form. But Descartes was the first one to really kind of say it's possible. Especially we should say Descartes believed in God. The extension of that, I think, therefore I am is also that anything I can just intuitively know is real. Like God is real. So he believed that there definitely was God. So he was arguing like, okay, if we believe in God, then we have to entertain the possibility that it's not just our minds that are projecting this, but that we're being deluded, that we're like an entire universe is being created for us by this evil demon. This is his 17th century application of it. But like I said, it kind of formed these, or it's been updated in modern forms. And that really kind of. That's where it gets super tough because it's like, okay, yeah, it's ridiculous that you're the only person who exists and all the rest of us don't exist. Or even more creepy, this is where it gets it to me. Okay, when you start to try to argue against solipsism, one of the ways that you're going to go is that other people have experiences and thoughts and emotions too. So that totally discounts the idea that you're the only entity, you're the only self in the entire universe, and that all of this is just in your mind. But then you have to ask, like, well, wait a minute. How do you know other people have experiences and thoughts and feelings like you do? There's no way for you to know that. And there's actually no way for them to get that across to you in any provable way. And then you just kind of go like, oh, that's a little scary. At least I do. It's the kind of thing that keeps me up at night.

Chuck Bryant (9:46)

Well, the word itself, if you want to break it down, it first appeared in 1869 from Kant, and I think it's Latin for solus from alone and ipsi, meaning self. And this isn't the kind of thing where, like, at the beginning, people are like, wow, this really holds a lot of water. From the beginning, it was pretty ridiculous, and philosophers thought it was pretty ridiculous. Oh, here's a quote no great philosopher has espoused. Solipsism is the quote that Livia found. Because if you believe that there's nothing, then you can't have an argument about anything. Because like you said at the beginning, a solipsist would just come in and go like, well, how do you know? Prove it. You can't prove that because even your proof isn't proof because it's not real.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (10:37)

Yeah. One of the other things, too, just to kind of get this into perspective is like, you can't even say that you have a brain, because everything you know about a brain, you've basically, you're not born with the concept of a brain. You learn that from the external world. And if the external world doesn't exist, then maybe brains don't exist. Like maybe you just don't even. Can't even conceive of who you are. And that's the ultimate problem. You just, you can just keep producing it. Like you can't prove how you know what you know. And I feel like that's really kind of set us up for a break. What do you think?

Chuck Bryant (11:14)

Yeah. We'll be right back.

Greta Johnson (11:28)

Set 10,000 years before Frank Herbert's original novel, the HBO original series Dune Prophecy follows a shadowy sisterhood that would later become known as the Bene Gesserit on the official Dune Prophecy podcast. Join hosts Greta Johnson and Ahmed Ali Ackbar as they guide you through every episode of Dune Prophecy, including interviews with series creators, cast and crew. Whether you're a lifelong Dune fan or you're on your first journey through the galaxy, you'll go places you've never been before. Listen to the official Dune Prophecy podcast wherever you get your podcasts, and stream Dune Prophecy on Max.

Josh Clark (12:02)

All right, we're all set for the party. I've trimmed the tree, hung the mistletoe, and paired all those weird shaped knives and forks with the appropriate cheeses. And I plugged in the Partisan.

Chuck Bryant (12:11)

Partisan.

Josh Clark (12:12)

It's a home cocktail maker that makes over 60 premium cocktails, plus a whole lot of seasonal favorites, too. I just got it for 50 off. So how about a Cosmopolitan or a mistletoe margarita?

Ahmed Ali Akbar (12:23)

I'm thirsty.

Livia (12:23)

Watch.

Josh Clark (12:24)

I just pop in a capsule, choose my strength, and wow, it's beginning to.

Chuck Bryant (12:28)

Feel more seasonal in here already.

Josh Clark (12:30)

If your holiday party doesn't have a bartender, then you become the bartender. Unless you've got a Bartesian, because Bartesian crafts every cocktail perfectly in as little as 30 seconds. And I just got it for $50 off.

Chuck Bryant (12:42)

Tis the season to be jollier. Add some holiday flavor to every celebration with the sleek, sophisticated home cocktail maker Bartesian. Pick up your phone and shake it to get $50 off any cocktail maker. Yes, you heard me. Shake your phone and get $50 off. Don't delay.

Livia (13:03)

In the aftermath of a transformative election like the one we just had, it's hard to read the news without asking yourself every five seconds, how did we get here? That's exactly what we're always trying to figure out. On Fiasco, a history podcast from the co creators of Slow Burn. In our first season, Bush v. Gore, we examine an unmistakable turning point in American politics. The 2000 election, which came down to a recount in Florida and ended with one of the most controversial rulings in Supreme Court history. In many ways, it's the Beginning of the story we're living through right now. So if you're trying to make sense of the present moment, check out Fiasco Bush v. Gore and find out how a statistical tie in the Florida vote count put the nation into an unprecedented holding pattern during which American voters waited with bated breath to find out whether Al Gore or George W. Bush would be the next President of the United States. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (14:13)

So one of the things I kind of talked about earlier before the break, Chuck, was that as far as philosophy goes, like, if you're trying to actually apply this to philosophical arguments or maybe like real world kind of stuff, is that it has to do with other minds. And the fact that we can't ever fully understand what other people are thinking. And then as relates to solipsism, we can't really prove that other people are thinking. And there's actually some, not just philosophers, but neuroscientists who've kind of investigated this because it is an interesting question. Like, it's that same kind of question, like, how do I know that we both experience the same color green in the exact same way? And that what you call green, I actually think is blue? Like, I experience it as what you would experience blue, but I call it green because I think that's what you're talking about, too.

Chuck Bryant (15:11)

Yeah. And in terms of neuroscience, you're talking about maybe a technology where you could brain splice and you could literally maybe get someone inside someone else's head. But even then, it's not like some sort of foolproof solipsistic argument, because even if you were sending signals from one brain to another, it's still going to be a subjective experience. And you wouldn't have any idea, even though you're getting the signals from their brain, like, the subjective nature of it. Like, you can't gauge subjectivity scientifically.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (15:46)

Yeah. And there's this example of, like, okay, one person that you're connected to the brain of is saying, like, I'm thinking of a red apple. And the other person with the other connected brain is like, yep, I can see the red apple that you're thinking of. But again, to that person, red is what the other person would think of as blue. And you can't possibly know that that person is thinking of what would be actually a blue apple and calling it red. But the thing is, you can, you can just be like, okay, person number two. Now you think of a red apple and we'll see what person number one thinks of it, if it matches their conception. It'd be really easy to find that out, if you ask me.

Chuck Bryant (16:27)

Yeah. And if that was a test subject, they'd say, why is Chuck walking into traffic? What's going on?

Ahmed Ali Akbar (16:33)

Yeah, I mean, we should say here, like, all of this does require brain implants. And I just don't feel like there's anybody trustworthy to put an implant in your brain right now.

Chuck Bryant (16:44)

Yeah, that's true.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (16:45)

There's also this concept of a philosophical zombie. Right. They're called P zombies, and it kind of ties in with what I was saying. Like, we can't ever say that somebody else is thinking or emoting because we can conceive of something that looks like a human, acts like a human, has all the same thought processes of a human, maybe even has emotions and all that stuff. But they're missing what it means to be a human, which is the experience of experiencing something. Right. So not like that person can eat an apple and taste what an apple tastes like, but they will never feel what it feels like to taste an apple. That's, like, really delicious. You know what I'm saying? And so people came up with the idea of a pee zombie, a philosophical zombie, to try to investigate, like, what it is that makes humans humans. And that's kind of what they came up with.

Chuck Bryant (17:39)

Yeah. And if you, you know, as AI comes on more and more, and I know you tackled some of this in the End of the World, your special podcast series.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (17:48)

Thanks for the.

Chuck Bryant (17:50)

But the idea of, like, AI becoming sentient or conscious or whatever, like, how are we going to know if that's even happening? Because it's not just if it knows so much stuff. AI can learn facts and things, but it's that subjectivity of a human or I guess just an experience, because it wouldn't be human. And how do we know if that's happening to an AI?

Ahmed Ali Akbar (18:16)

Yeah. Or a person, too. It's just. And again, I think you kind of nailed it on the head. All this seems like navel gazing, but there is, like, some utility to it.

Chuck Bryant (18:27)

Well, let's talk about some of the, I guess, varieties of solipsism that they've come up with over the years. There's one called metaphysical solipsism that's basically that an individual is like yourself, is all that there is. Nothing else has any independent reality at all. Then there is epistemological solipsism, and that is it is not even possible to know where anything outside our individual consciousness exists or is Real.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (19:00)

And that one is actually like kind of a step down from metaphysical. They're like, we're not saying that nothing else in the universe exists but your mind, but we're saying, like you and I were just talking about with P zombies and AI we can't prove that anybody else has those thoughts and feelings besides the thinker.

Chuck Bryant (19:20)

Right. Not the famous statue, but a real thinker. There's methodological. Methodological solipsism. Got that extra O in there. And that means it's not possible to even start to analyze the world except through your own individual consciousness and lens, which. That makes sense.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (19:41)

Yeah, it does. But I saw that it really gets tricky with research because at base, methodological solipsism says you don't need to mess with data or other people's research, just what do you think about the subject? And that doesn't really hold water for, like, a research paper because. Yeah, I mean, that's a good place to start. You can't just dive in. Or I guess you can, but it's also like, what are your conceptions about this? And let's start from there and then go figure out if that's correct. This is just sticking with the. What do you think about this? And write the research paper. So that's not a really good idea, frankly. And then also, Chuck, there's just a straight up bad idea, Ethical solipsism, also called pos. Solipsism.

Chuck Bryant (20:28)

Yeah. I think there's a professor from MIT named, A philosopher rather, or maybe teaches philosophy, named Caspar Hare. And he had a book in 2009 called On Myself and Other Less Important Subjects where he was. He was arguing a lesser version of ethical solipsism, which is the idea that other things and people might exist, but we have no obligation to any of those people or ideas except for our own.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (20:58)

No. And I think ultimately at the end, he's like, but for us to. For the person, the individual, to lead a fuller life, you kind of do need people here or there. So you don't want to just completely screw over everybody for yourself. But that's the basis of what's called ethical solipsism, that you have no moral obligation to anyone except yourself. And then the other thing that really stuck out to me, Chuck, was that you have no moral obligation to anybody but yourself right now. So you don't even have to look out for your future self. All you need to care about is your present self. And that's why I called it positive solipsism.

Chuck Bryant (21:36)

Yeah. Piece of what Piece of s. There are also lots of little sort of side ideas that come along if you're going to gaze at your navel about solipsism. And one is the famous brain in a vat or the Futurama or the Matrix idea, which is all you are maybe is a brain floating in a jar with some life sustaining liquid and it's hooked up to a computer and everything you see is a simulation.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (22:05)

Yeah. And this is where we kind of get into the modern updated versions of Descartes. Evil demon. Right, like what's keeping you in the brain in a vat? What's running that simulation for you? There's also the simulation hypothesis which came from Nick Bostrom, which I did do a whole episode on End of the World on, because it just fascinates me. But a lot of people confuse it with a brain and a vap. But it's different because in the simulation hypothesis, which is that if a civilization becomes advanced, like say we're their ancestors, they're our descendants, they just keep getting more and more technologically advanced that they can invent simulations that are indistinguishable from reality and they run a bunch of simulations over and over again. Like say they sell copies of the simulation game. So 100 million simulations are ever created over the course of history then mathematically speaking, since we can't distinguish between reality and a simulation, it makes. It's much likelier that you and I exist in a simulation rather than the actual one version of reality that the simulations are based on.

Chuck Bryant (23:21)

Right.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (23:22)

And the thing that people get mixed up with the brain in a vat is that the brain in the vat in reality, your brain in a vat in the simulation in reality, your reality simulated. But to you it's reality. There's nothing different. There's no other reality that you could wake up to that's just reality. It's essentially like a techno version of creationism. Essentially like if you replace whoever came up with the code for the simulation with God, it's essentially saying the same thing.

Chuck Bryant (23:54)

Yeah. There's also, and this is sort of along those lines, the experience machine idea. There's a philosopher named Robert Nozick in a 1974 book that said, how about this for a thought experiment? I don't think that people are just basically hedonistic in life. And what if. What would people choose if they could be attached to a machine that can simulate any experience, like as if it were identical and real and you thought it was real. Like would it be hedonistic? Would you choose falling in love? Would you choose to write, you know, create a great piece of art or something like that? And then that, you know, there are different versions of that. Like, what if it's for two years at a time? What if it's your whole lives? And the counter to that usually is somebody saying, yeah, but people. It's not reality, and people aren't engaged in reality. And humans inherently want to engage with reality.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (24:48)

Yeah. And, like, to sweeten the pot, Nozick was like, you will have nothing but pleasure for the rest of your life. All the pleasure you want. You will never be able to distinguish it from what life was like before. You won't remember that there was a life before. Like, it will be amazing. And something like 74 to 80% of people who oppose this thought experiment say, like, nah, I don't want to do that. Even though life is suffering in a lot of ways and sucks and can be boring and is definitely not 100% pleasure all the time, most people still want to be engaged in reality. And that's, again, like, it's not just a cool thought experiment. They use that to argue against the idea that humans are, at bottom, just nothing but hedonistic creatures, creatures who seek out nothing but to increase their pleasure. Nozick really kind of demolished that with that thought experiment.

Chuck Bryant (25:43)

Yeah. I think in the Matrix, wasn't Joey Pants fully on board with the simulation?

Ahmed Ali Akbar (25:49)

I don't remember. I don't remember that.

Chuck Bryant (25:51)

I think he was, because I think he was eating the steak and they were like, yeah, but the steak's not real. And he's like, yeah, but it tastes real. Tastes real. Tastes good to me. Something along those lines. But, yeah, that's pretty interesting.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (26:03)

Do you want to take our second break and come back and talk about our favorite part of this? Criticisms?

Chuck Bryant (26:08)

Yeah. Let's journey into Act 3.

Greta Johnson (26:24)

Set 10,000 years before Frank Herbert's original novel, the HBO original series Dune Prophecy follows a shadowy sisterhood that would later become known as the Bene Gesserit. On the official Dune Prophecy podcast, join hosts Greta Johnson and Ahmed Ali Akbar as they guide you through every episode of Dune Prophecy, including interviews with series creators, cast, and crew. Whether you're a lifelong Dune fan or you're on your first journey through the galaxy, you'll go places you've never been before. Listen to the official Dune Prophecy podcast wherever you get your podcasts and stream Dune Prophecy on Max.

Josh Clark (26:58)

All right, we're all set for the party. I've trimmed the tree, hung the mistletoe, and paired all those weird shaped knives and forks with the appropriate cheeses and I played plugged in the Bartesian Bartesian. It's a home cocktail maker that makes over 60 premium cocktails, plus a whole lot of seasonal favorites too. I just got it for 50 off. So how about a Cosmopolitan or a Mistletoe margarita?

Ahmed Ali Akbar (27:18)

I'm thirsty.

Livia (27:19)

Watch.

Josh Clark (27:20)

I just pop in a capsule, choose my strength and wow, it's beginning to.

Chuck Bryant (27:24)

Feel more seasonal in here already.

Josh Clark (27:26)

If your holiday party doesn't have a bartender, then you become the bartender. Unless you've got a Bartesian, because Bartesian crafts every cocktail perfectly in as little as 30 seconds. And I just got it for $50 off.

Chuck Bryant (27:38)

Tis the season to be jollier. Add some holiday flavor to every celebration with the sleek, sophisticated home cocktail maker Bartisian. Pick up your phone and shake it to get $50 off any cocktail maker. Yes, you heard me. Shake your phone and get $50 off. Don't delay.

Livia (27:58)

In the aftermath of a transformative election like the one we just had, it's hard to read the news without asking yourself every five seconds, how did we get here? That's exactly what we're always trying to figure out on Fiasco, a history podcast from the co creators of Slow Burn. In our first season, Bush v. Gore, we examine an unmistakable turning point in American politics. The 2000 election, which came down to a recount in Florida and ended with one of the most controversial rulings in Supreme Court history. In many ways, it's the beginning of the story we're living through right now. So if you're trying to make sense of the present moment, check out Fiasco, Bush v. Gore and find out how a statistical tie in the Florida vote count put the nation into an unprecedented holding pattern during which American voters waited with bated breath to find out whether Al Gore or George W. Bush would be the next president of the United States. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Chuck Bryant (29:09)

All right, so when it comes to criticisms of solipsism, not from us, there are some famous stories, one of which very famous story in philosophy circles, that is, at least, if you're not a philosopher, you probably would be, like, what's that guy kicking the rock for? But it was an 18th century story about writer Samuel Johnson who was in a, I guess, debate with a philosopher named George Berkeley. And Berkeley said, hey Descartes, mind body dualism is faulty and everything that appears to have existence is just made up in your mind. Well, first, Berkeley said, it's impossible to refute this. And that's when cheeky old Samuel Johnson came in and kicked a very large rock and said, I refute this. In other words, hey, this rock is here. And this is just an absurd idea because I can kick that rock and it hurt my toe.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (30:04)

Right, exactly. Yeah. And so if you're a philosopher, you're like, samuel Johnson doesn't get it. And if you're not a philosopher, you're like, samuel Johnson gets it. Philosophers are very famously, maybe overly engaged in perfectly crafted, totally airtight arguments. And the idea of just kicking a rock and being like, see, it's real. It doesn't really hold water with them. But for everybody else, it's like, yeah, it kind of gets to what Wittgenstein. Is that how you would say it in German? Yeah, Ludwig Wittgenstein. I'm going to say his name again at least one more time because it's fun. He was a philosopher of the 20th century. He basically was like, man, philosophy, this is not a quote I'm paraphrasing, has some real hangups with having to. Just the fact that solipsism is actually. It exists, and people feel the need to argue against it sometimes says all you need to know about how uptight philosophers are about philosophy. And essentially, we just need to take some things as fact, as granted, or else all we're doing is spinning our wheels. But if you say, like, okay, I believe that the world is material, that it exists apart from human consciousness, that if there were no humans around and nothing, no life to experience it, everything would still be the same. Let's just take that as fact, if that's what you believe, and just move on from there. You need to have some sort of foundation that you can say, this is real, this exists, and then you build off of that, and if you don't, then you're just shooting yourself in the foot, essentially, was what Ludwig Wittgenstein was saying.

Chuck Bryant (31:51)

Yeah, I think, unfortunately, at Wittgenstein. Well, I didn't see it, but I think the second letter in the EI in German is the one that's favored.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (32:02)

Oh, so how would you pronounce it, then?

Chuck Bryant (32:05)

I think it would be Wittgenstein.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (32:08)

Well, I still like Wittgenstein, so I'm going to stay with it.

Chuck Bryant (32:12)

Like Frankenstein.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (32:14)

Oh, I had it backwards, so I thought that Stein was like the Anglicized version of it and Steen was the German version.

Chuck Bryant (32:24)

I'm pretty sure the second letter in German is the one that's pronounced. No, I believe You, I'm not positive, but I do know that Frankenstein was the doctor.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (32:33)

You mean Frankenstein and not the monster there. That's true.

Chuck Bryant (32:39)

So let's talk about Stephen P. Thornton. He's a philosopher at the University of Limerick, the most sing songy university in all of Ireland. He has an argument that, hey guys, it's a big mistake to view these mental states as just something we experience subjectively and then, you know, relate to others. Like, hey, I know how it feels to get my toes stubbed because I've done it. So I see that's happened to you, so I know how that feels. He says, no, we learn what these mental states are in what he called an inter subjective world. Like we learn like a kid when it's born, understands what being sad is by looking around at someone crying or something like that. And that's how they know what sad is, because of a behavior they witness and a context they witness it in. So if you. Livia used a great example. If you're grinding your teeth and if you're snapping at people in your life and you can't sleep, then you probably know you're experiencing stress, right?

Ahmed Ali Akbar (33:41)

This guy's argument to me is the one that makes the most sense. Just refuting solipsism, which is, yes, you have internal feelings and thoughts. The experience of feeling sad is not the whole of sadness, that there's other stuff. And all the rest of it essentially comes from interacting and learning from the external world. And so the whole idea of solipsism is based on a faulty premise that the entire world could possibly just be in your head, because how are you going to learn from something that's not actually there in the first place? I like Stephen P. Thornton. He's my new favorite philosopher. There was one other guy too we have to bring into the conversation. Bertrand Russell. He was a very famous philosopher and mathematician, I believe. And his whole thing was like, if we might be like, what was it Zhuangzi, him saying, how can I tell if I'm a man dreaming of a wildebeest or a wildebeest dreaming of being a man? And Bertrand Russell was like, if that were true. Dreams are just weird and freaky and anything goes. Waking life is not like that. So if waking life were a dream, there would be measurable ways that it veers off of physics or whatever and we would notice that. And these days it's called a glitch in the Matrix. You would notice glitches in the Matrix. And there's actually a really cool Reddit subreddit called Glitch in the Matrix. And it's people's like, stories about just how just weird, inexplicable, strange, small things that they've noticed here or there in life. They'll post them and every once in a while there'll be, like, a picture too. This is kind of fun to go through.

Chuck Bryant (35:24)

What would it be of like, give me an example. Do you have any.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (35:29)

One that I saw a couple of times is something like seeing somebody, like, go out a door and then like 30 seconds later they come in a totally opposite door that they physically couldn't have possibly gotten through. So how do you explain that? Just stuff like that? Yeah, like how in the actual movie the Matrix, things would literally glitch. Like, you could kind of tell. All of a sudden they were like, ones and zeros. This is kind of like that. But it's like the program itself is lazy or something like that.

Chuck Bryant (35:57)

I gotcha. So the navel gazing and talking about solipsism and debating it or whatever is one thing. But if you have a mental illness, especially if you have something like schizophrenia, this idea is terrifying. It's called derealization. And it's something that can happen if you suffer from paranoid schizophrenia. There are people that suffer from that that talk about sort of exactly this. Like the people around them are extras or empty shells, and that you and you alone are real and responsible for the world moving on as it is and being alienated from your own body and not having a sense of self. That's all real stuff and terrifying stuff.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (36:45)

Yeah, for sure. There's a psychologist named Clara S. Humston who kind of explains how somebody with schizophrenia might actually retreat to a solipsistic state as a way to kind of exercise control over a world that they feel like they have zero control over. That. Like, if you're like, nope, all of this is just in my mind and it's not real, then in a weird sense, even though as lonely and horrifying as that thought actually is, like, you can feel like you can control those things then too? And that actually kind of ties into yet another argument or criticism of solipsism. If all of this is just in your mind, all of reality, how do you explain the fact that you have no idea what's coming in the future or that you can be surprised or startled? None of that makes sense either. So I don't remember 30 seconds on how those two things tied together, but if I rewind, I'm sure I would find out that they did.

Chuck Bryant (37:46)

Well, there Are other disorders, too, that touch on other parts of solipsism? Certainly you were talking about the POS kind, the ethical solipsism, that very closely could tie into something like narcissistic personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder. That sort of lack of empathy and only making choices based on their own needs. That definitely is like rings of ethical solipsism.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (38:12)

Yes. So, yeah, I mean, that's pretty much solipsism. I don't think we're going to do a part two eventually. I think we've kind of put it to bed, which feels good. Chuck. And since Chuck doesn't have anything else. Right.

Chuck Bryant (38:30)

I got nothing else.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (38:31)

I got nothing else either. So then that means, of course, that it brings up listener mail.

Chuck Bryant (38:37)

This is from Jun, spelled J A N, but Jun is German. Hey, guys, listen to the episode on Ludwig ii, which I enjoyed, like all your episodes. I work in research and development for wastewater technology, so I know how much work it is to research a new topic and become familiar enough to talk about it like you guys do. And I mostly research research stuff in my own field. So well done. I want to say thank you for being a steady presence throughout my PhD on waterless toilets, fatherhood, the pandemic, and my new job, which often takes me on long road trips. Love learning, and your podcast allows me to broaden my horizon way beyond my normal work. Today, however, guys, I have to write to assure you that filling a hall of 500 people in Germany would be ein kinder Spiel. Child's play.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (39:26)

Oh, wow. Okay.

Chuck Bryant (39:29)

Most people below the age of 40 here speak English to a decent degree. And I know plenty of people that listen to your show. So please, please come to Germany. If you do, I'll make it my mission to get the event sold out.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (39:40)

Oh, wow.

Chuck Bryant (39:40)

And let me know if you want any recommendations for decent beers while you're here. And that is from Jun.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (39:46)

Man, that's awesome. That was a great email, Jun. Yeah, I think we should take Jun up on that. Finally, Chuck. I want to go to Germany.

Chuck Bryant (39:53)

We've had enough people saying, come to Germany. I think we have to go to, like, Berlin and Munich just to see what the heck is going on.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (39:59)

Oh, two, huh?

Chuck Bryant (40:00)

Yeah, we could do the big city style and then Bavarian city style.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (40:05)

Okay, let's do it. Then it's. It is settled. And that was from Jan. Yeah, I'm glad you said that, because for my whole life I've been saying, well, first I said Jan, then I grew up, and I thought Jan. I did not know it was Yun.

Chuck Bryant (40:21)

Well, this is what I mean. J A N in this letter said it's pronounced Y U N N. Yeah.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (40:29)

That'S Yung for sure. That's young, all right. But anybody's name pronounced Jan reminds me of a quote. Have you ever seen Johnny Suede? The Brad Pitt movie?

Chuck Bryant (40:40)

I never saw that.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (40:42)

Yeah, but there was a classic line in it where he's at dinner at, like, his date's house, and the date's dad says, you know, John, if we were in Sweden, your name would be Jan Svade. And he says, no, sir, it'd be John Johnny Swain. Always has been, always will be.

Chuck Bryant (41:03)

That's a pretty good Brad Pitt.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (41:05)

Yeah, you have to imagine Brad Pitt blankly saying this, but with a huge pompadour. It's pretty great.

Chuck Bryant (41:11)

Not bad.

Ahmed Ali Akbar (41:13)

Well, I think that's it. Again, thanks, Jun. And we'll see. Everybody, including Jun, in Germany eventually will figure it out. And in the meantime, if anybody out there from Germany or otherwise wants to get in touch with us, you can send us an email to stuffpodcastyheartradio.com.

Josh Clark (41:32)

Stuff.

Livia (41:32)

Youf Should Know is a production of iHeartRadio.

Josh Clark (41:35)

For more podcasts My Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever.

Livia (41:40)

You listen to your favorite show.