zurew

This was one of your main point that you expressed to Leo, right? Basically - "Start living in an unbounded way and stop narrowing your whole life down to being focused on, constrained by the chasing of truth"

@Nilsi So if I tracked you correctly - you take even mastery to be a constraint on self expression and self becoming. You would consider that an unnecessary limiting structure.

I might be making a mistake there, I should have used the term "real" - maybe by real you mean something different than by the term "exist". I am doing a poor job at trying to express what I am getting at - You are trying to say that reality is fundamentally experience, but I was wondering whether thoughts in your head would be categorized as experience or you would just say that they dont exist. This is why I brought the example with chairs - checking whether the idea of a chair that you can't sit on would be categorized as experience just the same way as a chair that you can sit on. Because the phenomenology between the two seems to be very different.

Sure , reality is an undifferentiated whole - but under your system the idea of a chair that I imagine in my mind would have as much existence as the the phenomenological instanstiation of a chair (that I can actually sit on)? Because then it just seems that by "existence" you mean something different than how it is typcially used (mereological nihilism aside).

That seems to be about a different issue. The problem you originally outlined is that some of those words dont refer to anything in the real world, mereological nihilism (as I understand it) wouldn't say for example that a chair doesn't exist, it would just say that chair is an arrangement of mereological simples - so the word "chair" would refer to something in the word (to an arrangement of the smallest parts). If you think mereological simples are quarks, then it would refer to a bunch of quarks, if you think its something different then it would refer to something different. But in the case of for example a unicorn, thats different, because in that case it isn't indexed to anything in the world (not even to an arrangement of mereological simples) - so this would be an issue separate from mereology. Btw I don't disagree with your overall point, Im just making a distinction.

Bruce Lee came to my mind once I read what you wrote there.

Yeah, it is. It comes from the absurd epistemology they are committed to for whatever reason. Under their view, literally all facts are defined by what their dream character is aware of at that particular moment.

Credit goes to @Carl-Richard, he found it. I just reposted it, because people ignored it. Yeah, thats my suspicion as well.

Yes there is. What you do is that you want to claim that all dream characters are unreal, but at the same time your dream character is real.

I personally dont think it makes sense much and I dont know what it substantially adds to say that you collapse epistemology and ontology there. You don't need to collapse epistemology and ontology in order to say that "What I am aware of right “now”is only thing that exist.". But regardless, you can take that view if you want, its just that you wont be consistent with it and it will lead to contradictions. One issue that you have to confront with such an epistemology is that 'what exist' and whats true changes by what you are aware of at a particular moment. Right now what you are aware of is that you are a limited human being , then you take psychedelics you might have a God realization and during the trip your view of yourself will be that you are God. When your awareness tells you two contradictory things moment by moment (you are a limited human being and you are God) - which one do you go with and why and how do you reconcile this only using the epistemology that you started with? You will inevitably appeal to something outside of your epistemology and want to make a claim that is true in all cases and all the time, regardless if you are aware of it or not (hence you drop your epistemology that you started with). So for example, you presumably want to say that there are facts about awareness and about how it changes and how it works, what you can be aware of etc . If you think thats the case, then that will be an issue for you , because you have an epistemology that cant ground those claims. Your epistemology is moment and awareness specific and these claims are supposed to be true moment and awareness independently (not tied to any specific moment). For example - the "You are God" claim is also a claim, that you are not aware of right now, but supposed to be true. So basically the crux of the issue is that going with an epistemology "what I am aware of right now is the only thing that exist and true" cant ground certain claims that you take to be true (because those claims are outside the scope of that epistemology). Any set of facts that you take to be true that supposed to be true in all moments , your moment specific epistemology cant deal with. So any claim about your ability or about your potential is outside of this epistemology. You are not aware of what you can be aware of, but you think there are facts about what you can be aware of. One weird way to get out from this is to take the Leo route , where you say that "yes in your pov , you being God isn't true, because you are not aware of it right now" - But what he doesn't realize or wants to acknowledge there is that with that move you relativize all truths (everything becomes moment relative) and he loses his ability to claim that you are infinite, you are all knowing, you cant die , because all those claims are moment and awareness relative and those claims arent true (under this epistemology) if you are not aware of them.

Under how you and Leo defines intelligence ,maybe, but thats not the kind of intelligence that is being developed right now. Under how other people who works in the AI industry defines intelligence - that kind of intelligence doesn't correlate with the things you listed there. You can be a really good problem solver , while also be a morally bankrupt psychopath.

Now solipsists , its time for you guys to argue with old Leo.

Tell that to the solipsists. These people want to use it as an ontological claim, not as an epistemic claim. They constantly conflate epistemology with ontology and dont realize that they are making a jump from "what I am aware of" to "what exists". Notice that they are struggling to connect that jump , they just make the same point over and over again about epistemology and then pretend that they somehow established the ontological part as well. Also notice the incoherency of them saying: there are higher levels of consciousness (more to be aware of) , while also saying "what im aware of right now is the only thing that exists " - so one not being aware that there are higher levels of consciousness is somehow not an issue under their view, even though it clearly is. "What you as a dream character stuck in your own dream is aware of, is the only thing that exists" while also saying "you can wake up from the dream" - gesturing towards something that you are not aware of, while also supposed to be true.

No im not saying that , I dont talk about anything about "other things experiencing reality" (I dont know whether there are other minds or not) - what I am saying is, that the absolute only gets you to appearance appearing, but it doesnt help you to make sense of the nature of the appearance and it doesnt help you to make sense of what kind of properties the appearance has or doesnt have. Again the moment you start to give a story about appearance - you are using something other than what is absolute, and you are subject to be wrong about it. Its you who for some reason wants to claim that solipsism is absolute - its not me who wants to claim that non-solipsism is absolute. In short - the absolute doesnt help shit with reducing down the possibility space - You need conceptual tools for that, and those are subject to being fallible

No , its not direct. Direct is appearance - what you did there is you made a judgement about that appearance and filled it up with content (filled it up with a story about its nature and about what properties it has or doesnt have [non-direct]) Direct doesnt tell you anything about the content. Stuff appearing on my screen is compatible with many different stories explaining it. The moment you enter into storytelling mode ,you are subject to be wrong.

How do you demarcate between this scenario being true (where there is an outside God that is not you, you are just part of God as an individuated consciousness): vs in the scenario where you are God and dreaming everything up and you are not part of any God (solipsism is true).

Like you understand that what you are saying there is compatible with a scenario where you are schizo , no outside input changes your internal states and you are infinitely lost in your own little dream. Like why do you think that a God couldnt create a world where a bunch of individuated consciousnesses are infinitely lost in their own world while not recognizing that there is an outside God, and they are inside God's mind?

No I dont grant that at all, thats an obvious big leap in inference that you are making there. If by "can" there you mean that you wouldn't be able to recognize in principle anything outside of your consciousness , then the answer is yes ,but that doesn't say anything about the outside world, its just talks about the limitations about in principle what you can be aware of. If by "can" there you mean that there isn't anything outside of your consciousness - there you just pressupose that the external world doesn't exist and you pressupose that your individuated experience isn't inside a larger mind that isn't you.

Why do you think that God-realization is impossible under the thought experiment where Christianity is true?

I dont understand this response. How do you get to that conclusion from what I outlined? Why is it that the conclusion from what I outlined isn't that your epistemology is limited?

Sure the response that there is only one possible world is a response where you can rule out all other scenarios - But whats the argument that there is only one possible world?

How does non-solipsism not unfalsifiable?

You are not tracking , we are not talking about what would a solipsistic view entail - we are investigating how adept your epistemology is (that lead you to the conclusion that solipsism is true). The issue again is that using your epistemology you can't recognize what the actual foundation is , because its not adept to recognize what the foundation is. if your epistemology would be adept enough ,then under the thought experiement where Christianity is the foundation, using your epistemology would recognize that Christianity is true, the issue is that your epistemology doesn't do that - in every possible scenario it generates the conclusion that solipsism is true even when its false.