Reciprocality

@Consept The meaning of "dumbing down" have two interpretations, if you insist on reading it in the one way I will not stop you but then it is effectively you who is talking with yourself. I will respond to arguments and analyses of particular instances or examples of things not your feelings of how things appears. Respond on the basis of that alternative interpretation of "dumbing down" which only means that concepts and ideas are presented in a simplified way, or your speculations will be airy.

It could easily appear like I contradict myself between the last comment and the OP, but only if we do not differentiate between two different subjects. The one being the initial meaning of words pertaining to a theory and therewith that theory itself The other being the reinterpretation of that in that theory which is essential as opposed to inessential/accidental. When I say that solipsism is actually a different matter than first thought I do not confuse the territory of what were initially thought like were done previously in the thread. It goes hand in hand with a critique of realism about identities, I am saying that what people are actually unsure of, despite appearances to the contrary, when it comes to other peoples state of mind is not whether they are conscious but whether it is they who is conscious. @Osaid @Razard86 What I am saying here will go past your head if you insist on reading certain words through a straightjacket of metaphysical convictions, you are wilfully incapacitating yourself.

@Consept said: "you just need to work on how to best deliver your ideas to other people's minds in a way that can be understood as much as possible" @Consept, @Carl-Richard I appreciate the feedback from both of you, it is not obvious though that dumbing down ideas will be beneficial on the span of say 10 years, but it is possible that I should learn to oscillate between both methods also in forums, this is a long format medium which is why I have done it this way.

@Carl-Richard I understand you have payed some attention to the difference between people appearing original and actually having something original and worthwhile to contribute, you have also drawn the connection between isolation, word salad, pseudo-intellectualism, the ego, emotional states, sense of grandiousity, and appearing smart. You assert that being a unique individual coupled with sincere interest in truth should produce original results, possibly implying that this is most often the cause for why those that already had original insights did so. You write self-evident statements attempting to conceal their true intents (I infer that instead of confronting what I write head on you write in general terms)"Not coincidentally, it's the people that know how to think that we fashion as original thinkers, not the people who fail to think." You also couple things that has nothing to do with the other and contradict the first distinction you yourself drew that I referred to first above: "Ironically, the concept of an original thinker is really about appearances and social recognition, which is why you shouldn't care about it if you're an original/true thinker. " "Also, in a sense, you'll stop thinking for yourself, because you'll be driven by something larger than yourself. And this is again why coming off as an independent thinker no longer becomes important." Being driven by something larger than yourself is perennial, it is the human condition, the important distinction is whether one is aware of that or not, which could be what you are implying, on the other hand I don't think it has anything to do with who wishes to come of as an original thinker or not and of all conceivable distinctions to draw concerning those who are either aware of that or not I don't think whether they are trying to come of as independent, or even coming of at all, is that important or correlates the way you believe. I don't intend to be asinine about the last claim of yours, it is not expected that you have statistics available or anything like that, but the connection you drew is terribly vague, what is the supposed percentage range of the correlation between these two variables, assuming you don't actually think there is a necessary connection between them. In either case, what actually matters is to analyse reality and reflect on our own relation to it over a span of decades, to toughen up and question again and again our own pet theories and to go through the emotional turmoil that follows from there, the original ideas that often comes as a result will again and again be almost incommunicable to those that has not gone through that actual experience. Actual experience is king, imagination is a helpful servant and language is like a jester. So toughen up, learn to read better, reevaluate your conception of an original thought because 99.99% of the stuff you see around here is no such thing, but are instead identifiable tropes and cultural waves. Edit: When it comes to originality it is ridiculous how many times we can fool ourself into thinking that we have achieved original ideas, while actually being a connection or distinction we have already heard about in the past or being something that many others have actually already considered.

@Consept nah I'm getting better, I doubt it would draw any interest if it were that bad.

@Osaid The properties of consciousness does not need to be assumed, the distinction between what is and is not conscious is conditioned on the properties we refer to if we want to use the term. When you say that everything is consciousness you have to undermine the meaning of the distinction, it is therefore a meaningless statement. That which is non-conscious supplants your mind with the possibility for your statement "everything is consciousness" to have the meaning you yourself think when you say it, if your usage of the words are consistent with the natural language of english. For solipsism to be false there must be other consciousnesses (even if something is identical to them all), though these too must be distinct from the kind of thing in opposition to which the word could possibly have a meaning, and indeed does have a meaning, to disagree with that is to want to change the meaning of words. Someone could in principle be conscious without a self, and so contrary to what you have been saying there does not need to be other selves for solipsism to be false, but in case you would want to make a philosophical argument for why all consciousness must form a self, which I happen to believe in myself, id definitely listen and you should do that instead of presupposing it. However, if you want to question the initial distinction itself between what is conscious and what is not by suggesting some inconsistency then the burden falls on you and even if you could successfully show that the distinction has problems with it you contradict yourself when you assert that everything is conscious, because you could not do so without reinstantiating the distinction.

@meta_male Hey appreciate the analysis. The repulsion part could be read too much into, these people do not repulse me in such a way that I literally have to remove myself from them or even that I judge them. But on the occasion the repulse response did occur I analysed it as them having let themselves go, this too will always go back to my own inner world as you suggest but if it can be justified by the negative aspects that comes out of and is associated with dullness then maybe I don't need to investigate the inner world. For every particular such case as in the example of the OP there could be as you say a hundred causes, and it is important for our own sake to not delude ourself into thinking we know someone just because of singular symptoms. I think they generally are unaware even of the possibility of danger, and it is self-evident that it is a byproduct of modern civilisation.

@Carl-Richard In real life I don't talk much, I have to angle things in ways they have not considered before or build up something that sounds weird to them to even get to my point. I could do this in my late teens and early twenties but dont work any longer. There are good reasons it is incomprehensible, when I read what I wrote half a year prior the main reason I can understand what I wrote is because I remember the distinct thought I were trying to convey, not by building it up by language. Most of my ideas from two years ago sounds like rambling insanity to me.

If you pay attention to people who communicate with each other they will do one of four things. 1. They refer to the spatial or sensorial similarity between things. 2. They refer to themselves directly. 3. They tell stories or convey experiences with a morale directly or imply such a morale indirectly. 4. They refer to causes between things on the assumption or affirmation that 1. is a given. I am as many others are perpetually testing statements concerning any of these three against my own experience of myself and reality, but I no longer contribute back to it, it is not my interest any longer though obviously this statement is an exception to its own rule. The first is the archaic basis for everything mathematical, the second is the archaic basis for everything philosophical, the third is the archaic basis for anything ethical, the forth is the archaic basis for anything scientific. In virtually every sentence each of you write I see concealed or glaring purposivity, you wish to understand what I am saying for a purpose, but what if that kind of expectation removes you from the possibility of understanding the things that are a condition for instants of purposes in general, surely you can conceive that there should be such things? For instance, if I now describe these categories as non-disjunctive, as I am sure you can see them being, it may remove for some of you the whole point of those categories, and if I then ask you "what if it doesnt?" what would you reply? You probably think about yourself right now, so let me ask you directly, what is a condition for a purpose, or framed better: what are purposes conditioned on? Do you think about yourself again? Abstract concepts are to the self what maths are to space and shape, all concepts are here for a distinct purpose to a distinct someone and the distinctness of the "someone" is logically necessary for these purposes. You want to understand what I am saying but it would ruin the purposes for why you would understand something in the first place, so your mind finds its weird ways to conceal its own nature from you.

@OsaidIt is rarely wise to speculate about others intension, but when it is unimaginable that something is done in good faith then it is also unwise to not call it out. There is no possible perspective you can have where the meaning of the word solipsism changes because of it, and if you are a moderator on this precise forum then you know that definition. I said that if something exists consciously outside of this now then solipsism is negated, this is true because if the opposite is correct then that would affirm it, and you know but were trying to essentialise it into something entirely different and off the mark. To be clear, your statement "You are essentially saying "if something exists outside of existence then solipsism is false" infuses a personal perspective on what is and is not true about reality into definitions of words only to make it appear that "You are trying to turn existence/consciousness into an object which is separate from itself, which just wont work because it betrays its nature.".

@Osaid The disturbing part is that the rest of the comment goes accordingly and so it could not have been by mistake, you are actively undermining the meaning of words to present your metaphysical perspectives, I don't hope these tactics are used often on this forum and don't want to think about the sorry fellers who it works on.

@Osaid That first sentence of yours is so full of shit it is disturbing.

@Osaid If anything besides this now exists consciously then solipsism is false, I am saying that even if the body of a person we talk with is conscious then it may be someone else than the person we think we are talking to, it is very hard for us to even imagine this possibility because of how strong and distinct the ideas in our minds are, cus of how unimaginable intelligent humans are. The possibility that the person we are talking to not only is conscious but is actually the distinctness we think when we talk to them is conditioned on the same kind of thing that happens when a given tree is identifiable through its leafs, or when Trump is identifiable through his hair. The part must not merely imply the whole, but make it impossible that it pertains to something else than the whole, the problem is that when you talk with your mother you are creating the whole that you find the evidence for through perception, but just like someone could have the same hair as Trump without being trump so too could someone be the consciousness behind the appearance of your mother without that actually being the conception you have of them, a similar problem though far less problematic and easier to understand is that your mother almost certainly has a rather different self-identity than the distinct concept you think when you perceive her talk. To solve this problem bolded above we must know that some of the identifiable traits of our mother could not fail to induce in a purely reflective mind the very thought we think when we think of her, that would be an impossible science to actualise (impossible to falsify), the only possibility is therefore that there is some kind of a-priori relationship between those parts and the identity of the whole, that we in other words did not construe the conception of our mother the way we construe the conception of Halloween by building it part by part, but that instead the whole is necessitated through the parts like when we are dividing 1 into 5 as opposed to count five objects. I call it the actual problem of solipsism, as opposed to the false problem of solipsism, because it considers the problem at its roots as opposed to as a symptom of these roots. I am sorry that I can not write it better than this currently, but maybe ill try tomorrow.

@OBEler I hope my last comment made it clearer.

@Thought Art I am saying that the people that you love in your life are either 1. only physical bodies or 2. also someone you do not know unless the construction of the distinct concept you have of them in your mind is like a holon where the whole is "contained" in the part, that is, unless the identity or distinctness of that conception is actually who they are. And this is only possible if in the formation of that conception you are not adding anything to what reality is on its own, in other words, if there is no self or ulterior motive to create false or fantastical concepts.

So the conclusive remarks is that you do not exist, but you are that which you intended to talk about when you said that something could be of existence or reformulated: of existent things. You have presupposed that there is something about you which is different from your experiences, and you literally have to do so to survive, this is the nature of purposivity, will and spontaneity. Edit: the illusion is that the map could possibly contain attributes that are distinct from the territory, and if no such attribute is possible then you will have mapped all of existence without mapping the maps, the concept of mapping a map is what is self-refuting, the map of all maps is reducible to the map of all territory, existence is by virtue of mappable things so all existence is by virtue of all mappable things.

@Davino You do not need to map the map to map all of existence, you are assuming the infinity that you conclude with. What you do need is something that is distinct from mappable things, and this must be without attributes, that which is "of existence" is not existence itself and it is existence itself that can not be mapped, not the things that are of it, and these can be in principle mapped completely, even though that which is identical to all these distinct properties is unmappable. And if you reread my comment you may see that this is what I said. The complete map is not of existence but instead purely an abstraction to us, that does not mean that it is not something that can happen in principle, I would even say that we are a part of it right now and that we are an infinitely small part at that but can i know? If as you suggest the identity of all things without exception (being or isness) is one of the things that must be mapped for all of existence to be mapped then it would be correct that this is impossible, but I am saying that the impossibility of such a thing is a function of the contradiction between 1. a single subject being predicable by all predicates and 2. that same subject being predicable by non-predicates. All of existence are the things that predicates the single subject, discernibility is a condition for predicates and therefore the single subject is not a predicate of itself. A complete set of maps of discernible things are possible because maps add nothing to the territory and are themselves indiscernible, the maps do not exist because the maps are of existence. Our abstractions attempt to create discernibles in addition to those that already exists, but they can in fact only create discernibles by division of what already exists and the discernibles are therefore substantial. The set of them all may or may not be infinite. The bolded above is Leibnizian rationalism (or any rationalism really), Godel has not refuted it in the slightest. Our real object is to answer the question "how can we discern between 1. discernible things and 2. the thing which discerns between discernible things? in the first place", because we obviously can, and the answer is again contained in the discernible things that are not the thing which discerns. That is, if there is anything discernible at all then a distinctness of "I" called ego is formed so that it can partake among those things, the indeterminate collection of all egos is unfalsifiable by logic and science and becomes a matter of faith.

@Davino You can in principle map all of existence, but what you may mean to say is that you can not map existence as a whole. A better way to frame the above: let us say that you could not map all of existence, it would not be because you can not map existence as a whole. What is the difference?

Also, I have not circled back to that initial comment you referred to, explicitly, I am simply saying that nature is in need of a sense of self and that we can actually know through analysis and logic that if it did not have that need it would not be purposive cus even sufficient similarity on its own would require states that are not identical and non-identical states requires that which includes the other and that does not happen without active duality. To perhaps make it more familiar: All this is a variation of the conception of the impossibility of physical randomness, which I am sure you have heard about.

@Carl-Richard So it follows that the highest purposes belongs to the highest sense of selves. ..If purposivity in similar fashion to the self is over and beyond pattern-recognition, the function of sufficient similarity. Anyone who has questioned deeply their identity and therefore identities in general will have wondered how they come to have an ability to identify anything at all, sufficient similarity between memories follows from there, I mean it has to. Do you want to argue against that? Id be up for that, sounds exiting.

@Carl-Richard Well obviously that is the point, that they connect, but not that they connect in general, which they do, but instead that they connect and form a particular conclusion. If the principle that all memories at a given moment must either occur because they are sufficiently similar to whatever happened the previous moment or because they stand in relation to a self is correct then if that self has no characteristics then there would be no reason for any particular element in the set of all memories to occur as opposed to any of the other particular ones at a given moment except for because of its sufficient similarity to the previous moment.

@Carl-Richard This^you responded to the following sentence: "Everything x which is sufficiently different from the thing y upon which it follows must stand in relation to every other thing through a distinct self that contains the very attributes in relation to which that x, though the intellect could find no analogy between it and y for which the spontaneity of subsequents in general are owed, is spontaneously occurring." Yes I would certainly just put these words together in a huge pile just for shits and giggles. It is a sentence without concrete referents, humans can think concepts that does not pertain to particular things in the world with distinct characteristics, every word in your own sentence has the same structure to them as those in mine, you just piled seven dualities together to express confusion yet will insist that when other plays your game with set of dualities that together express unfamiliar meaning that therefore it can not make sense. Let me try to kind of write it as a composition of individual statements. There is spontaneity in particular. There is spontaneity in general. There are particular attributes. There are attributes in general. There are identities, there are differences. A relation in general is a relation in particular. A relation is not such a thing which can be different dependent on context, has no essence but serves an important function in language similar to syntax in general. There are things. Something can follow another thing, such things are called subsequent. Something can if so merely in principle occur without spontaneity. An x can represent partiality of plurality. Y and x can represent a plurality. Some things are imagined after other things. Some things are imagined because they are similar to the preceding moment, such occurrences implies sufficiency. There is sufficiency in general. There is randomness if so merely in principle. Some relationships between imagined things are nonrandom. Something that must happen can not fail to happen. There is a self. A self must have characteristics. If you take problem with any of these then lets hear, if you do not then the above statement should be computable and if you are able to write it better and clearer than I did then teach me your arts.

Pretty place this Leeds, yes got a decent energy about it too, probably didn't hurt that it were sunny that day either, the Grimsby looked awful, precisely how I imagine England, sorry : P

@BlueOak Appreciate the long format expositions of lived experience, they bring in the importance of not taking abstract depictions as not always pertaining to all situations, in the sense that being less attentive in certain neighbourhoods or cultures than others is less of a problem and far less a consequence of something excessive such as in the hypothesis of the overly civilised. If I were to try to reply to the above in the discursive way it probably deserves that comment would fall rather short so Ill avoid it, in general though it appears that you have had a lot of experience of different situations and can be critical of theories that don't fit observations thereof, this will almost always be ideal knowledge, far surpassing what can be known through logic. I don't think it is implied by my assertion that alertness to strangers is natural that people are born alert to the same thing, that would be a reduction ad absurdum. You raise the point of when crimes are likely to occur, that it is unlikely to happen on busy sidewalks or where there is busy in general, I agree to that.

@Rigel ^You said this in reference to remembering insignificant details, but are you sure the mind works similarly to a hard drive in these ways? In certain circumstances I would agree that there are upper limits in our mind the way there are upper limits to a hard drive, but while the information you can store on a hardrive in any given hour on a pc is limited by how much is already stored within that duration it appears from my own experiences that many times I will have a higher capacity to remember something particular from within the duration of a given hour the more things I were doing in addition to that thing, until perhaps the law of diminishing returns.