Carl-Richard

So you can't exclude anything. So apparently separate mind-body complexes can have apparently separate localized points of view outside of your own apparently separate localized point of view.

The problem I'm pointing out is claiming that some very specific forms are necessarily a certain way because there is no difference between form and emptiness. It's a total non sequitur. If you are claiming "there are no separate individualized mind-body experiences but this one", you can't claim that based on "form = emptiness". It's like claiming apples can't fall down or there can't be two clowns in a clown car because God is both and form and emptiness. It's a total non sequitur.

Consciousness without change can be known (it's always known), hence you can be conscious of it. There is always an unchanging element to every experience. Anesthesia is not "un-Consciousness". It's called unconsciousness by medical professionals who don't care about subtle metaphysical distinctions. If you grant the unknown, anything is possible. The ground of being could be a pink elephant. But within the known, Consciousness seems to be the ground of being. You're mixing up Consciousness with Maya (mind-body consciousness).

Firstly, the cone coming out the eyes should be thought of as a visual field rather than a pyramid. At the top, Consciousness is represented as an eye. Before it sees the world of illusion (form, Maya), it exists by virtue of itself. According to non-dualists and idealists, it's the bottom layer of reality, which is what the horizontal line represents (bottom layer of reality = ontological primitive). Consciousness sees the limited realm of form and illusion (Maya). It is not identical to it, because it exists prior to it, but it still sees and in fact creates the world of shapes, sounds, sights, smells, etc. That is also why Consciousness is referred to as "God" (all-powerful, all-knowing creator). Within the limited realm of form, as a human (and because it's useful), you have the ability to conceptualize and carve out distinct concepts of form. For example, the concept of "other" and "people", other mind-body complexes, as well as your own mind-body complex which you happen to be identified with. You also carve out meta-categories like space and time to organize such concepts: "other people exist distributed across space, separate from my own mind-body complex". The mind-body complex that you identify with is represented as the slightly bigger head with two eyes. The mind-body complex you identify with looks out on the limited world of form (i.e. the lines coming from the eyes), filters it through your limited sensory and perceptual organizing principles, and creates a representation of this limited world of form, inside your own private conscious experience (represented as the little cone). So when your mind-body complex looks out on the world and it sees other mind-body complexes (smaller heads with two eyes), if you conclude that "these other mind-body complexes do not look out on the world the way I do", you cannot say "because space and time does not exist" or "because only infinite consciousness exists", because you are already assuming space and time, you are already assuming finite wordly forms. If you concern yourself with mind-body complexes, you concern yourself with limited things. God, the Absolute, Infinity, is beyond limited things.

Yeah you flip-flop back and forth. Anyway, enjoy this disaster of a Paint creation. It's called "A lesson in space and time" (each horizontal line represents the ontological primitive of the respective view). The point is that solipsism (and the version that you now have officially endorsed) is Maya:

Leo should've released a video on what space and time (illusion, Maya) is before releasing that video. Because the most unfortunate part is not the people who expressed confusion. It's those who didn't but still took it the wrong way. Leo actually makes a distinction between "materialist / small self / egoic solipsism" and "Absolute solipsism" (Big Self / cosmic solipsism), but that distinction requires knowing what space and time is or else it doesn't register.

Yep. The problem is claiming to not make a statement about space and time while actually making a statement about space and time.

You are stuck in space/time without knowing it.

True. Doesn't change the fact that solipsists are stuck in space/time without knowing it.

It's the individualistic lifestyle championed by the leader, the atomized societal structure of post-modernity, and people being stuck in their minds instead of connecting to people, to nature, to feeling.

You can only know for sure that you are aware, that you are conscious, that you exist. But once you accept that, you can grant for sake of pragmatism concepts like appearance, change, time and space to explain what is happening in the illusion, in Maya. And here nothing is for certain, but you can create arguments based on reason, observation, logic, and you can evaluate which arguments seem more convincing. And then you can create concepts like "other people" and make reasonable arguments that other people have their own private illusory Maya mind-body spatio-temporal experience like you do. Now, what the solipsists often seem to do is they claim that consciousness is the only thing that exists, but then they inadvertently smuggle in assumptions about appearances, space, time, like "here", "now", "current", "this right here". And then they try to exclude that which is seemingly not "here", "now", "this here", but they of course end up excluding something which belongs to the domain of space/time. And suddenly, they're no longer the most simplest and straightforward perspective that they claim to be but instead a confused and deluded perspective.

"Current experience"? "Current" is a construct of time. "This experience right here" is actually a construct of space. So you're again inadvertently referring to constructs of space/time. If consciousness is beyond space and time, it's not limited to what is current, it's not limited to what is right here. Consciousness is that which knows what is current, what knows what is right here, but it is not limited to it. You know you are aware, you know you are conscious, you know you are you; that's it. If you want to exclude something happening "somewhere" or "sometime", you are in space and time.

Out of view, just like I can't see the back of my head. But this indeed assumes statements about space/time. If I wanted to not make statements about space/time, I would simply say "consciousness is all there is, end of story" and I would not make statements about whether space/time constructs (other people) have or don't have a certain characteristic. It's very simple: if you don't believe in space/time, don't make statements about space/time.

You seem very concerned about space/time ideas for supposedly not believing in space/time.

If you don't believe in "other", then why do you concern yourself with whether other people experience something or not? If you don't want to assume space/time, you should not make statements about things concerning space/time. But solipsists want their cake and eat it too.

No, you are 😂 Why are you asking "where?" if you don't believe in space/time? The problem solipsists have is they grant space/time only when it suits them.

If you are asking "where", you are assuming space/time. They're out of view.

Matter/space/time are ways of describing appearances. If there are no appearances, there is no matter/space/time, but there are also no people. So if you claim that "other people don't have a mind", you're the one that thinks that matter/space/time exists, because you assume other people exist.

What I am conscious of right now is that you are engaging in thought-terminating absolutistic stage blue statements.

Why not? Let's say you were to daydream about a stranger, and then you started daydreaming the perspective of that stranger. If that's possible, is it then so inconceivable that when you daydream a stranger, the stranger is also daydreaming?

People with multiple personality disorder report seeing their multiple personalities as characters in dreams, and when awake, the multiple personalities report experiencing events in that dream from their own perspective. So it's definitely plausible. https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/10/the-many-in-our-dreams.html This is a really interesting video suggesting other people are dream characters (and bases it on scientific research):

😂

Where accuracy and quality doesn't matter, always use AI (first). Use it to get an overview, to identify options or possibilities or things you haven't thought about, to solve practical tasks like coding or organizing where the only thing that matters is whether something works.

Bro the fucking kids sound like ChatGPT when they speak 😭😭

I understood nothing of what you said.