Nemra

When you don't experience something currently, do you say that it exists? If so, then you are confusing your memory of the experience with the actual experience of that thing. Which is happening right now, your experience or your memory of your experience? Your memory itself is in your experience, but what it refers to is not in your experience. Although, I'm not saying that memories don't refer to things that are true.

All you got is your experience.

If you say that you are conscious that others are also experiencing, then would you say that you should also experience what they are experiencing? If so, then why aren't you experiencing people's experiences?

For you, what does it mean to be conscious of an experience?

Please clarify how that was relevant to what I was saying.

I didn't say other dimensions aren't possible. But we are specifically talking about people being conscious agents. Either you say they are conscious agents or not, because it's about people in your experience experiencing stuff and not about you experiencing other dimensions.

No, your body isn't the ultimate source. Your body just has control over your experience. If I cut my fingers, I would have difficulty grabbing stuff. If I remove my eyes, my body wouldn't even appear. I wouldn't even see my body. To be more precise, you should have said that your sense organs are what allow you to have experiences. But you are using that to say that experiences happen in bodies. Which is not the case. What are you even saying? You were just saying that people could be having inner experiences, which assumes that experiences are happening in the body. The problem isn't that there couldn't be other dimensions for you to experience. For example, someone is sick. In a sense, you could say sickness exists. But there is a difference between someone being sick and you being sick. You cannot tell what sickness is until you get it. If someone is sick, you might feel bad for them because you project those feelings you had onto them when you were sick.

But why are you projecting your sense of experience onto appearances? You are basically suggesting that experiences might happen in the body. Is your experience happening in your body? No. So, from that you could understand that claiming that experiences are happening in bodies contradicts your understanding that your body is in your experience.

I haven't read the old Leo's response. I wasn't on the forum for a while back then. Honestly, I do not care about it. Can you even understand that if I don't feel confident enough about knowing something, it's stupid to fight about it? He might be right or wrong. Do you love wasting your energy getting frustrated about why people change their minds?

Ironically, they are also the ones who are obsessed with what Leo says.

Why do you assume that I believed it from watching a video? Also, why do you think what I'm saying is a belief?

@Schizophonia, disagreements aside, but damn, that's quite a face you've got there. 😂😵‍💫

That's the juicy part. 😏 They are imaginary. Appearances are so direct that they make it seem to you that appearances, like people, should have an inner experience. Honestly, it's beautiful.

You are saying why there are specific appearances appearing and not others. I don't know why either. You are talking about imagination at the level of appearances, and I also don't understand how those appearances are an imagination. However, appearance is actual. An appearance that isn't appearing is a possibility. What is appearing is true. I was more talking about how appearances are used to imagine conscious agents.

People are imaginary in the sense that you believe that they are conscious agents existing for themselves. That is a subtle thing to notice.

It is the golden age.

Again, I said screen was an analogy for your experience. Imagine a screen that has an infinite length and width. Or imagine a room where the walls, ceiling, and floor are one screen.

@Salvijus, it's one screen. The screen is an analogy for your experience.

When you are watching a movie, only that movie is being played and not any other. In the movie, you can see the characters as long as they are in the scene. Believing that the characters are experiencing stuff in the scene is part of the story, because the only thing that is being seen is the scene.

If you say that appearance is appearing, then you would be able to understand that appearances having appearances inside themselves is a story. That is what I know right now. Other than that, I don't know a lot of stuff that is being talked about.

And I'm telling you that you are using those appearances to create a story of things to be experiencing reality. It's tricky.

First of all, I said that individuated consciousness is imaginary. I know it's not wrong, because it is absolutely direct. For example, when you hear a sound, it is clear that you have heard it.

The solution is to understand the mechanism of the method or else your questions would be misguided. Who said that you won't have false insights? Well, the users might be fooling themselves, but actualized.org is definitely not a religion.

@Salvijus, ChatGPT can reinforce your beliefs. Don't look at LLMs as truth generating machines.

But see, you can actually understand that Christians are fooling themselves by understanding what they mean by awakening. How? Because you understand what beliefs are from your experience. You can do that; however, you can't assume that questioning without understanding the mechanism of the method should be able to (in)validate that method or that questioning must absolutely be able to (in)validate all methods. Consider that questioning is a method too.