Someone here

Here is where it starts hitting dead ends with me. I have tons of questions here that maybe won't be appropriate to discuss them on the forum. I really wish if you shoot a video explaining the mechanics of how this works exactly and how it is linked with solipsism because I'm so confused by that.

OK Leo this is pure epistemological nihilism here. It's like an intellectual suicide. How you then progress into saying "your life is....". I'm sure you don't mean that everything anyone says is totally false except what you say!.

It's an interesting possibility. Just that. But it's built on the assumption that this reality that you are living right now is literally a dream. Do you know that?

Start by questioning the assumption why should psychedelic trips be taken as revealing any important facts about you and reality and who you are at all? Let it be pleasant or terrifying makes no difference. It's just a temporary trip and you are back to who you really are! Just like getting lost inside a mind blowing VR video game. For a while and then coming back. Nothing more IMO.

Like a lot of people. Sadly!

They might be the same and they might not be the same.! Both are possible. That's what you're missing. It's the same as simulation theory. In this reality we are able to create simulations that appear 100% "real" and then follows the question "what makes you sure we are not inside a simulation right now?". Well nothing makes me sure! Who said I'm sure?? But you also are not sure and pretending to be sure but in the opposite direction. As for the last part I think you are just trolling and no need to respond to that.

I'm not getting it. From the beginning you are calling both states a "dream state" to conclude at the end that they are both dream states! and your only argument for that is that they have similar (not identical) phenomenology?. Two logical fallacies here : the first is circular reasoning (the assumption is identical to the conclusion) and" jumping ". That is to say your reasoning doesn't actually lead to your conclusion. A dream world is similar to the waking world but that doesn't mean they are both dreams. A high quality video game is similar to the real world but that doesn't mean they are both video games.! And I agree with the last part. If all duality collapses that would be identical to "nothingness". The only thing that exists or could exist must be dualistic.

Indeed.

@Keyhole just let her go. Don't like her.. Don't watch her. Life is so easy when you are smart and not a woman (jk lol ).

We can't live without illusions!

Disclaimer : likely to cause existential crisis. Watch on your own risk lol.

I totally get what you are saying. I can summarize it " I don't know what I don't know". That's true. Unfortunately I don't have access to psychedelics at the moment. But I'm doing some alternative spiritual practices and trying to be open minded and consider all outlooks on the world equally (even the outlook of no outlook).

Again it depends on the perspective. The perceiver and the perceived are one and not one from different perspectives. However the two perspectives are not equally true (yes believe it or not). From conventional first hand experience they are totally separate and you have to intellectuallize really deeply or to go into some meditative trance to dissolve this duality and still its gonna be temporary and you will be back to duality. That's just the nature of anything. For anything to exist it must be dualistic. If there is no light there won't be darkness!.

But I'm not starting from any paradigm here (at least in the last two posts). I'm just observing and discovering how my direct experience work. That's Leo's advice! And bringing forth my results. That's what my direct experience is literally revealing. Keep in mind there is no "conclusive" evidence for any particular paradigm and I'm well aware of that. Reality can shift it's rules every single day to fit different paradigms and we might not know that or manage to stop it . That's why the only thing that we can rely on is direct experience. That's the one thing that we can all agree and be sure of.

I think it's over right there. There's a duality between the represented and the thing that is being represented. For there to be perception there must be a thing that's being perceived independently from the perceiver. Now this perception process is not perfect and it only gives edited representations of the external world but that's irrelevant to the fact that there exist that external world independent from the perception and the perceiver

Proposition : " if I'm not perceiving something that means it doesn't exist." . Let's test that experientially. Here's a wall in front of me..i can't walk through it.. It exists. I close my eyes and try again to walk through it.. I'm not perceiving it yet it's still there and I can't walk through it. Let's examine this from a pragmatic point of view. Let's see how well aligned you are with your beliefs. If a lion attacks you.. You can just close your eyes or look elsewhere and you won't perceive it anymore and (according to you) it should literally stop existing and you will be safe. Have the open mind to actually try these experiments to discover what's the true relationship between perception and existence. Don't argue or theorize about it. Actually go and do it( especially the second one) and report back your results!. @Inliytened1

Obviously I'm not listening to him to get answers. It's still interesting tho the stuff he talks about opens your mind to new perspectives.

The question is already answering itself. You can't say if a tree falls does it even fall? You just decide does it fall or not?. The very proposition that you build your question on is that there is a tree that's falling and yet you ask does it fall?. If A happend. That's a proposition. And there was nobody seeing it. That's the second proposition and it's not related to the first one. Question :does A happen? Well yes you just proposed that it did!. Sorry but I'm done arguing about this. I can't explain it any further.

I watched them. I'm a hardcore Leo addict forget about it lol.

I watched them. The absolute infinity series is my favorite ! And in that series he said reality is absolutely infinite and that means it's not some particular way but it's all ways..so my question why does he then tend to say reality is just imagination and there's nothing objective or physical about it? If it's infinite it can be anything and everything in fact it has to be if it's infinite. So how can we say reality is absolutely infinite and yet say but it's only imagination?

OK dude whatever. But you just ignored 99% of my post!

OK Leo but I wish if you could elaborate a bit more. Your brief responses are kinda disappointing lol.

We are contemplating together. Did you imagined that sentence? Did you actually know what I was going to say in this reply? Did you willingly create this appearance these words which are appearing in your awareness right now as well as when exactly are they going to appear?. As for me I'm not imagining you. If I tried to imagine you out of existence you would still be there!. Neither do I know for sure whether you exist outside of my awareness e or not. Both are possible. I don't fucking know lol. It's just appears to me that you do and that's the safest assumption to make for now!!

Do you believe there is an actual person with An independent awareness and understanding that can read your question and respond to it on the other side?

This is just empty talk at this point. Who exactly is the imaginary? Me or you? Or we both? (we both real btw lol) . Like dude this is not gonna work trust me.