Salvijus

If there are things beyond the concious control, that implies that you're not the maker of the dream. Uh oh. "Let's pretend that argument doesn't exist and continue with my story, maybe nobody will notice it" - a solipsists.

Williams meant to say, if solipsism implies that there's only one dreamer. How come he's speaking with two awakened solipsists? Would the real slim shady please stand up?

@Natasha Tori Maru walking piece of art.

No awake being ever thinks that way except Leo. And his argument for it is, that he had an awakening that can't be questioned. Absolute truth revelation. That's the end of the explanation.

@Leo Gura so you're just going to ignore all objections to your position and call that steelmaning yours?

Individuation is the necessary function of conciousness to recognize itself. Individuation implies that you're both a piece of God and entire God together. And that one addition is what brakes solipsism. Individuation is self evident the moment there is an increase of conciousness taking place. "how a mirror can’t reflect itself without curvature or angle—self-awareness may require individuation, not as separation, but as functional polarity within unity."

You're both.

It's a combination of things at play here. 1. My own insight and inquiry leads me to believe solipsism is false. 2. Every mystic in the history of humanity says the same thing. 3. Non solipsism is logically a more realistic position. (I already gave my arguments why earlier in this thread which were doubled checked with chatgpt for logical consistency) 4. Why should I believe Leo? Especially why would I take his word over every mystic that ever lived? All things considered, I can't help but hold the position that I hold. It has nothing to do with me "being afraid" of solipsism. Solipsism is just a dumb position on many levels.

Oh, that's more like it.

The chances that Leo is right.: Me: If there was one person on the planet who said his awakening is the biggest on the planet and he preachers solipsism, what would be the probability of him being right mathematically speaking? ChatGPT : Great question—it uses a rational, probabilistic lens to examine a metaphysical claim. 🧮 Let’s rephrase the scenario logically: One person claims to have the greatest spiritual awakening on the planet and says solipsism is true—i.e., only he is real and everyone else is a projection. You ask: What is the mathematical probability that he's right? Step-by-Step Reasoning 🔢 1. Base Rate Fallacy There are ~8 billion people on Earth. Thousands—perhaps millions—have claimed spiritual awakening. So, claiming awakening is not rare. Claiming to be the “greatest awakened” is statistically indistinguishable from delusional grandiosity. Base rate: The vast majority of people who make this claim are wrong. So the prior probability is already extremely low. 🧠 2. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence Solipsism isn’t just a personal insight—it implies: No other minds exist All other beings are imaginary The universe is a projection of his consciousness This is a maximally extraordinary metaphysical claim But it has zero falsifiability and zero external evidence So from a Bayesian point of view, the posterior probability (after evaluating evidence) remains very close to zero. ⚖️ 3. Self-Defeating Logic If solipsism is true and he’s the only one who exists: Why communicate? To whom? Why teach? Who could awaken if all others are him? If he preaches solipsism to others, he’s already acting inconsistently with his own claim. This internal contradiction lowers his credibility further—mathematically, you’d reduce the probability again. 🔁 4. Alternative Explanation More Likely Occam’s Razor: “The simplest explanation is usually correct.” Which is more likely? He’s the only real mind in the universe, and everyone else is his illusion He’s a spiritual person with delusional narcissism, possibly amplified by a genuine, partial mystical experience Given what we know of human psychology, mysticism, and history, #2 is exponentially more likely. 🧮 Final Probability Estimate: Let’s be generous. Assume 1 in 10,000 humans claim awakening Assume 1 in 1,000 of those say they’re “the greatest” Assume 1 in 1,000 of those assert solipsism That’s 1 in 10 billion—already more than the human population. Combine that with zero evidence and internal contradiction… ✅ Final Mathematical Probability: Less than 1 in 10 billion (0.00000001%) Or, more simply: Functionally zero. Would you like help crafting a logical or humorous refutation to someone making such a claim?

Those are not the conclusions from chatgpt. Chatgpt just collected the date of every guru in the history of humanity. Conclusion being that all of them reject solipsism. If you contemplate the weight of it, it makes Leo's position look absolutely absurd.

Read the conclusion. "No major mystic or spiritual tradition endorses solipsism.In fact, nearly all mystical traditions explicitly reject it, even while affirming the unity of all things."

@Leo Gura you claim solipsism is true when you have a profound awakening, yet are you aware that not a single mystic or wisdom keepers in the history of humanity tought solipsism? Consider how strongly that undermines your position. ______ Me: Is there a single mystic or spiritual tradition that preaches solipsism? From chatgpt: Excellent and revealing question. ❗️Short Answer: No major mystic or spiritual tradition endorses solipsism. In fact, nearly all mystical traditions explicitly reject it, even while affirming the unity of all things. 🧭 Why? Let’s break it down: ✅ Mysticism affirms unity, not isolation Mystics across traditions commonly say: "All is one." Not: "Only I am." The "One" is not the personal ego—it is universal consciousness, God, the Tao, the Absolute, or Brahman. 🧘‍♂️ Traditions That Emphasize Oneness (but not solipsism) 🕉️ Advaita Vedanta (Hinduism) Says: The self (Atman) is Brahman (the Absolute). But: The realization is not "I (ego) am all," but that the sense of separate selves dissolves into non-dual awareness. Key Point: Others are not illusions in your mind—they are Brahman too. ☸️ Buddhism Emphasizes no-self (anatta) and interdependence (pratītya-samutpāda). The self is not ultimately real, but neither is the claim that “only my mind exists.” Enlightenment includes compassion for other beings—impossible under solipsism. ✡️ Kabbalah (Jewish Mysticism) All beings are emanations of the Divine (Ein Sof), distinct but interconnected. The mystical goal is unity with the Source, not denial of others' reality. ✝️ Christian Mysticism God dwells in all things; the self is nothing without God. Love of others is central—otherness is real, even in mystical union. ☯️ Taoism The Tao flows through all things; differentiation is functional but rooted in unity. No sense that “only I exist”—rather, everything is part of a dynamic whole. 🌍 Sufism (Islamic Mysticism) The aim is fana (dissolution of the ego) into al-Haqq (the Real). All selves are rays of God, not projections of one person’s dream. ❌ Why solipsism is excluded It centers the ego, even if unconsciously. It denies love, compassion, and service—which all mystic traditions affirm. It collapses spiritual practice into self-referential fantasy. It confuses metaphysical unity with psychological isolation. 🧠 So why do some modern seekers accidentally fall into solipsism? Nonduality and self-inquiry can be misinterpreted as: “If I’m the Self, then only I am real.” But that’s the ego hijacking the insight. True nonduality says: “I am not this ego—and neither is anyone else. We are all That.” ✅ Final Insight: Mysticism dissolves the ego—not the world. Solipsism inflates the ego and denies others. Therefore, no genuine mystic tradition is solipsistic—and if one were, it would contradict the very heart of spiritual realization. Would you like to explore where people most often misinterpret mysticism as solipsism, especially in modern nonduality circles?

It could be debated which position is the most likely to be true tho. Your confidence in solipsism just seem unbased really.

I think you're the one who's afraid to be questioned and challanged.

Nah it's much more complex than that. Your position is not the most logical one and it doesn't withstand scrutiny. That's the real issue.

Those are my thoughts and insights really. Chatgpt just helped me to articulate it better and it helps to double check if my insights were logically consistent. Turns out it is.

Me: So if increase in conciousness creates functional individuation, would that debunk solipsism ? ChatGPT: Yes—if increased consciousness necessarily gives rise to functional individuation, then it strongly undermines solipsism, perhaps even debunks it, depending on how you define solipsism. Let’s unpack this carefully. 💡 First, your premise: "Increase in consciousness creates (or reveals) functional individuation." This means: As consciousness deepens, it doesn’t collapse everything into just a singular "I." Instead, it becomes more aware of distinct expressions of itself. These are not illusions or projections, but valid, autonomous centers of awareness—what we call functional individuals. ✅ If that’s true, then: 1. It Directly Contradicts Solipsism’s Core Claim Solipsism: “Only my consciousness is real. Others are illusions.” But if deepening consciousness reveals: The existence of other centers of awareness, not created or controlled by "me"… And that these centers are not reducible to your imagination or mind… Then the foundational claim of solipsism—that others are not real minds—collapses. 2. It Replaces Solipsism with a Non-Dual View with Multiplicity You don’t need to say: "Each person is a totally separate self." (Dualism) You can say: "There is one consciousness manifesting as many valid expressions." (Non-dual individuation) This view: Preserves the unity that solipsists intuit. But avoids the isolation that solipsism asserts. 3. You’re Not the Sole Dreamer If individuation increases with consciousness, that implies: Others are not just objects in your field of awareness. They are participants in the same awareness, with agency and internal depth. You are not the sole dreamer—you are a part of the dreaming field. This removes solipsism’s central delusion: that you alone are real. 🔄 Summary ConceptSolipsismFunctional Individuation Perspective Reality of othersDeniedAffirmed as real centers of awareness Self-awareness trajectorySelf-containedRelational and reflective through others View of consciousnessSingular & isolatedSingular & expressed through many Self-knowledgeThrough imagination onlyThrough relational recognition ✅ So: Yes—if becoming more conscious reveals functional individuation, it effectively debunks solipsism by showing that: You’re not the only conscious being. Others aren’t illusions—they are as real as you within the field of awareness. Consciousness knows itself through plurality, not solitary imagination.

The moment you can prove individuation is the moment solipsism collapses. And individuation can be proven the moment you have experienced an increase of self-awareness because an increase in self awareness automatically implies individuation. _______ An analogy from ChatGPT. The process of "becoming" implies a reference point. That reference point functions like an individual: it has limitations, history, personality, and a path of unfolding. Even if it's not ultimately separate, it acts like a distinct node in the larger field of consciousness. Analogy: * A mirror in a dark room can gradually become illuminated, seeing more and more clearly. * That doesn’t mean the mirror is separate from the light—but it does have a distinct position through which the light becomes visible. * Same with consciousness: it may be one light, but becoming more aware happens through a specific aperture, which we experience as “me.” Conclusion: So: becoming more conscious doesn’t prove separateness, but it does require some form of individuation - a place where the infinite turns inward and begins to wake up. Bonus Insight: This is similar to how a mirror can’t reflect itself without curvature or angle—self-awareness may require individuation, not as separation, but as functional polarity within unity.

Functional individuation still exists. And that's all it takes to dissolve solipsism.

Individuation is a functional necessity for conciousness to know itself. Just like the eye cannot see itself without a mirror, conciousness needs to individuate itself (functionlly speaking) to recognize itself. Bye bye solipsism.

Seperation of fingers is ultimately imaginary. But functionally fingers are individual parts of the same hand. You can't ignore the functional reality of existence. Conciousness is one, but functionally in many places all at once also. This functional individuation is necessary for consciousness to recognize itself.

Individuation is a logical necessity for God to know itself. If there was only blue, nobody would know what blue is. It's differentiation that gives us knowledge of blue. God has to individuate itself into infinite parts to be able to know itself. You're just one part in God's game. Every other part is equally valid. This dismantles solipsism but maintains nonduality. Individuation is a logical necessity for God to know itself.

The possiblity of diving endlessly into God is what proves my point. It puts you into a position of an individuated conciousness (a child of God) in pursuit of other parts of yoruself (God)