Someone here

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "Materialism: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter". “Everything is matter.” Who says so? I, the subject. And if there were no subject who says so, there would be no one for whom matter matters, and therefore there would be no sense in saying that there is anything at all, because being and its meaning are not separable from each other. Nothingness of meaning means nothingness of being. So there is at least (1) the subject's (2) consciousness of (3) matter, instead of matter only. All three components are necessary to make a satisfactory ontological picture of reality. That I, as the subject, could be somehow reducible to my objects, or that my consciousness of matter could be somehow reducible to what I am conscious of, is absurd. Matter matters to me, but nothing matters to matter. So by doing a simple phenomenological analysis of the being of matter we find that materialism is a self-contradictory position.

@Mason Riggle

I think you should start to accept that life can be fucked up sometimes. It's full tragedy not only beautiful things.

Your response meets my empirical requirements. If that is not good enough for you, it is not relevant. We live in a mental world and all evidence of matter derives from clearly mental phenomenon (qualia :consciousness). Please demonstrate matter. What do you mean by it? And please show evidence of it without the presence of consciousness. It's not that consciousness =matter There is simply only consciousness and nothing else. If that's your point then we agree.

refutation of consciousness being reducible to matter in it's simplest form - there is no sign of consciousness outside of oneself. It is impossible to discover consciousness in matter, hence any searching for it would only be an act of cutting meat. So digging out someone else's brain with a spoon or scalpel is not altering consciousness. Consciousness, self awareness, or better addressed simply as sensation, excludes the possibility of others existing. For another to exist, there would have to be the sensation of others' sensation. I wouldn't even call this subjectivity, because sensation is all-inclusive of reality. Meaning all that is real is sensed, so what external influence is there to make sensation only subjective? Any idea of objectivity supposes there are other sensations outside of the sensations known, which means a reality apart from reality. An impossibility. Obviously, if senses are only our own, reality is only our own, consciousness cannot be found in matter. Obvious retort - what if I stab myself in the head or take a pill? Isn't consciousness affected through matter then? No, there is no experience of matter in these acts, only sensation. Through sensation there can only be sensation. The limit of a thing is another of the same type. The limit of a feeling is another feeling. Any attempts at altering consciousness, is a change in sensations. From the swallowing of a pill to the dizziness in your head, you only feel. The idea that consciousness can be reducible to matter is absurd because consciousness is not found in other people. Of course this is only one of the reasons, I listed others in two earlier posts.

@Mason Riggle I think all phenomena of consciousness have material correlates, but this does not mean that consciousness can be reduced to material processes. It is more like an instrumental relationship. And the subject itself has no material correlates. We can say that the subject and its consciousness of the world is ontologically fundamental, but the material world is the functional basis of the subject's concrete existence. The concepts of consciousness cannot be reduced to the concepts of physics. Only correlations between them can be found.

Yup. On the other hand.. Some argue that All empirical evidence of consciousness is based upon material. Specifically it is neural material. Without it there is nothing of the kind. So I think even if we might want to extend our understanding of matter to include the unique organisations of matter to include such things as information, data, and consciousness. There would still be two substances. Matter AND consciousness.

So, basically, solipsism is it?

@roopepa you're misunderstanding. A statement can be true or false. That's called relative truth. It's conceptual. Absolute Truth is everything. Even the false statement. Just not its meaning. But it's being. Watch Leo's last video. He explains all this all so well.

@allislove so should I stop being a separate person to overcome boredom? that's an illusion but I must identify as separate.

No I'm talking about the absolute truth.

@gettoefl truth is absolute infinity. It's omnipresent. It's all encompassing. You can't escape Truth.

Because it's hidden in plain sight. It's everything. Yet most people are not conscious of that. Not sure what you mean.

Shouldn't that be reversed? Less expectations =more boredom. When you (I) are bored you have no expectations. only when your expectations fail do you feel kinda shitty.

What's the connection?

False. Truth is the change and the changeless. Truth is everything.

@Vynce interesting. I don't like the fact that existence is inherently hollow and boring. But that's just my ego trying to survive. Some say boredom arises because our true nature is infinite and it's not satisfied with this finite world.

Oh I thought you were talking about seeing through the separate self.

It's the idea that acquisition of knowledge about the true nature of reality is impossible. examples of epistemological nihilism: Omphalos hypothesis Simulation hypothesis Descartes' "evil demon" "Brain in a vat" hypothesis Dream hypothesis Solipsism What they all have in common is that they are unfalsifiable and that they posit that, at bottom, all of our perceptions are illusions. They also have this in common: just about everyone has toyed with them at some point in their lives. The problem with them isn't so much that they are false/unlikely, but rather the combination of their being unfalsifiable and (if true) causing all other knowledge to be valueless. Or rather, that in the end they don't much matter. If it's true that we're in a simulation, for example, then statements about the nature of reality don't become meaningless, they just become statements about the nature of our simulated reality. If we're in a dream, then statements about reality become true statements about our dream world. And so on. And any statement about the nature of the unsimulated reality beyond us has no hope of being anything other than speculation. These are my own personal musings, but I would imagine that they're pretty standard and also that I absorbed them from somewhere. So I'm wondering if a) there is a standard philosophical treatment of these ideas, and b) if there are holes in what I've presented here.

Why don't you ask yourself? Aren't you God?(Godishere)

Truth is everything you are seeing around you all the time. Simple as that.

And no one is around it to hear it... Does it make a sound? No. Sound is the brain's perception of air molecules vibrating across a distance and for a duration. Yes, the tree still moves all those air molecules when it falls, but it makes no sound because there is nobody around to translate those vibrating molecules into sound.

Clever! Sound is the brain's interpretation of the vibrations.

@Nahm I'm not talking about lucidity in that sense (enlightenment or whatever). I'm talking about lucidity in night-time dreams. 90% of the time.. You don't know that you are dreaming while you are dreaming. You Believe the dream is real. Until you wake up. The argument carries that what if the waking state is also a dream. You wouldn't know. You could live your life believing that it's real. Only to wake up at the moment of death. That's one point. Is that you can't distinguish between the two (dreams and reality). This is one way those skeptics and epistemological nihilists argue that all of our perceptions might be an illusion and thus all of our knowledge is based upon illusion.

In what sense am I 'dreaming'? That's a vague statement. You need to elaborate. I don't think I am laying in my bed right now hallucinating stuff. Although that's just a belief. I can't know. Which precisely my point is we can't distinguish between reality and dreams. Unless you are lucid in the dream. Do you mean it literally or figuratively? Or is it something I can't understand unless with psychedelicds?