Someone here

Well since you are here then certainly you" should "be here. And that's the key to answering your questions. And there is really no other answer or better answer. The reason for anything that is occurring is it must/should occur. Because it is occurring. But Why should it occur?.. You will go looking for the why of the why to infinity... So ultimately there is no why. No reason or explanation at all why this is. Except itself.

Leo says no one is awake because awakening is death. No one is awake inside the dream. Because they are still inside the dream. To wake up is to wake up. To exit the dream. Inside the dream there ain't no waking up. Just different degrees of lucidity (consciousness). That's within the Leoism. In advaita vedanta the most direct teaching is you can't possibly become that which is already all that there is. So one way is to realize you are already awake and this is it. Other way is to kill entire universe and duality.

@The0Self LOL

Are you VeganAwake's twin? ?Jk lol. @VeganAwake

Yes I get you now. Thanks for sharing your pov.

Two ofcourse. Don't tell me one because the two cameras are being perceived by me lol..... The experiment is on the two cameras not on me. Just to show that it's completely possible experientially for two perceptual systems to coexist... Independently.

There is a difference.. The same consciousness looking through our eyes simultaneously is not the same as its only looking through my eyes.

Kant was a realist. He said there is two layers of reality. Phenomena and noumena. Aka "the thing in itself". Which is supposed to be the true nature of reality independent from observation. He said there is a world beyond perception but it's impossible to access because perception always vails it.

The only question an enlightened being can't answer. Enlightened : You don't exist outside of my consciousness. Materialist : You are wrong. You can't possibly know that. Enlightened :Watch let me prove it to you... Materialist : Wait a minute why are you even talking to a figment of your consciousness? Enlightened :.................

Sorry can't understand clearly. Lots of complex concepts. Explain to me as if I'm 8.

Without that monkey in your head you will die son... So don't pretend that you don't have a monkey in your head.. You have plenty of them. Otherwise we wouldn't be hearing from you.

Why do you think these thoughts arise? They match your direct experience. Because your direct experience can't give you access to what is not in your direct experience. Namely the past.. The future.. Your bank account.. The back of your head. You don't have conscious control over your direct experience. You have no clue why it's here. If it's a figment of your consciousness.. Go ahead and will the fridge out of existence. Ofcourse all that isn't conclusive but if you can't see why there is no link between what your direct experience tells you about what is supposed to be outside of it. Then you need to use your mind a bit harder.

The whole point is that if it exists outside your experience then you can't verify that from within your experience...you are trying to verify if the fridge exists outside of your experience from within your experience.. Do you see something wrong here? Come on guys what's wrong with yall lol .. All you are really is " I can't experience it when I'm not experiencing it." wow such brilliance lol . Does it stand there when you are not experiencing it is a totally different thing.

Screw the materialist paradigm.. It's a very simple and straightforward question.. Do you exist as a conscious being outside my own consciousness? I can't see why would that be impossible. To say that just because I can't verify it then it's not real is just silly imo. I can't experience anything outside of my own experience by defintion but that has nothing to do with do you have an experience of your own. There is no link whatsoever.

You don't know what you don't know.

Dude no point getting lost in those technical details. For me objectivism.. materialism.. Realism are the same thing.. that stuff out there are out there not just in your head. Same solipsism.. Idealism the same. There is actually different categories and subsets under each one of them so let's forget about the label and focus on the meaning. For me now I just don't know but I gravitate more towards that you are a real person in any case.

Yes that's your view. I'm not sure if I know that for certain as you Claim. So I remain skeptical.

Both the materialist' view and the solipsist's view are circular. The conclusion is already in the assumption. The assumption that you start with is the conclusion that you end up with. So it can't possibly be true. @Javfly33 read above. Won't explain it to you again. You don't know what is "the only way possible" for xyz. You just assume that.

This is speculation.. It's definitely possible for two independent POVs to exist. Take two cameras.. And record your room from two angles.. Check out the room from the two angles.. So here you go you have two POVs ofcourse each camera has no access to the other camera.. Yet they both exist independently simultaneously .. Now turn off one camera.. And check out the other one.. Does turning off one camera affect the other camera?????? Ofcourse no. Nothing mysterious about it. Common sense stuff. Now apply that to your pov and barack Obama's pov. Why can't it be that way? Because you are too attached to your own camera and you think it's the whole world?

Exactly. For both the solipsist and the materialist.. the assumption =the conclusion. For something to exist it has to be experienced.. And I can't experience something if I'm not experiencing it.. Therefore nothing exists unless I'm experiencing it duh ?.......... But the whole devil is in the first bolded statement because you just have to ASSUME that it's true.

I get you.. so you're saying in any case I will never experience anything outside of experience!! What a revolutionary insight. I basically don't disagree with that. The question is there something outside of experience? These two separate things. That fact that you can't experience something outside of consciousness doesn't equal that there is nothing outside of consciousness. Even tho there is nothing outside of consciousness FOR YOU.

Careful guys don't mess around with Nahm too much.. He will roast you and completely deconstruct every word you say and you might not know your way back home again. Just sayin ?

Very good question. I think here is the crux of the matter. What does it mean to say that something exists? From the video Leo literally said "to exist is to appear". In other words to have a phenomenal quality that you can.. see touch.. smell.. taste.. hear right now. If you can't access it right now it literally does not "exist". That means if you are not directly perceiving Paris or London or Madrid or New York right now.. They don't exist. But see the absurdity and the circulation here. You already assumed that to exist is to appear and then you negated the existence of whatever that isn't appearing right now. Simply because it's not appearing right now. Ofcourse that is true by the definition. But who told you your definition is true? That to appear is to exist? You don't know what you don't know DUH? If stuff exist outside of appearance you can't confirm their appearance-independent existence from within the domain of appearances. It's a lack in your end because you're stuck in your perceptions. A lack on your end isn't conclusive of what is supposed to exist outside of your limitations. Isn't that obvious?

What does your ability to understand my words have to do with whether we are dependent on each other or not for our existence? The key point is this.. The fact that appearances disappear immediately with the disappearance of one's consciousness has absolutely nothing to to do with whether these appearance have a deeper layer of existence. " Just because I don't see it when I don't see it.. That means it's only there when I see it" ?. there Is absolutely nothing in this logical building that is conclusive. Or valid.

Chop wood and carry water