Carl-Richard

Then he was not talking to you, congratz. Again, more cash in the "solipsists contradict each other" bucket.

He said "only".

I'm just screaming into the void, don't worry 👍

You gotta word that better.

1. The guy is awakened, not enlightened (according to my enlightenment radar; if you disagree, you're obviously wrong). 2. I don't give a fuck. This is a problem about logic. You can be absolutely psychotic and enlightened at the same time. And it was said tongue in cheek, mirroring his condescending remark, except I made it direct instead of making it indirect, which is another brilliant tactic.

If nothingness had been realized, you wouldn't have tried to claim that some very particular somethingness is implied by the Absolute.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about re-activations, which is actually not a problem unless you're scared of being enlightened. Or maybe he has said something else.

And? The absolute doesn't hinge on logic. Solipsism (videogame version) hinges on inelegant logic. If you want to give me a logical account of reality, do it well: don't assume unnecessary entities, don't equivocate, don't make an unnecessary mess.

Logic is not Absolute truth. Logic deals with Maya.

Here is why videogame solipsism is unserious. You will speak about "appearances", you will describe them very vividly, with concepts, labels, forms, and you put this as the absolute truth, because, why? It makes ZERO sense. You're already way beyond absolute truth. Once you start speaking about appearances, colors, sounds, flowers, bikes, cars, you might as well start talking about inferences you can make with those things (e.g. an external world), because you already poisoned the holy water.

In the realm of logic, I take what is most elegant while explaining the most things. If you show solipsism to be that, I will speak favorly of solipsism. The problem is most people who try to do that (if they even are trying), don't. And 50% of the time, they contradict each other, so there is that as well, which makes the entire pursuit unserious. Any solipsism involving videogame analogies is unserious to me (not because videogames are unserious, but because "only 1st person limited appearances are real" is unserious). Any solipsism that equates it to the Absolute and which leaves the realm of logic open to whatever you may find most favorable (because the Absolute is ultimately beyond that), then I favor that solipsism. But I still find the word "solipsism" to describe that as an absolute Nobel Prize in communicative blunders, because of the cultural confusion around the word which is the very basis for why 50% of the time, people contradict each other.

"X, therefore y", is logic. Nothing special about it. Leo's logic also relies on assumptions. There is literally zero difference. It's just that you want to challenge the assumptions in one case but not the other.

No, you are. The point is the logical deduction, justification, relies on assumptions, and these must be evaluated.

Only what I see is real. Literal checkmate.

When I look around, I only see flat, therefore the Earth is flat. Q.E.D.

You can also "prove" the Earth is flat.

Lol. "Proving solipsism" in any absolute sense is another naive fantasy. Outside the absolute (which depending on the person explaining it, "Absolute Solipsism" ironically is not), you can only provide justification. And then it's up to how you evaluate those justifications. And that lays the basis for comparing different justifications. For example, if you spend 5 paragraphs saying something you can say in one, or you're able to explain more things with less, that could be one criteria.

Is context just one thing? Does it not depend on the context? 😛

This is where "sprint at 95% intensity" comes from. You want to tap into the innate flow of your body, which sometimes requires pulling back so you can feel it.

That's how you define "your reality" (interesting loophole for equivocation by the way; we're talking about reality, not just "your" reality). Instead of doing the linguistic tap dancing that you inevitably have to do to justify solipsism without being a lobotomy patient, i.e. "only 1st person appearances are real", "inferences based on appearances which you very intuitively want to call real (e.g. probabilistic scientific "laws") are just constructed on the fly like in a videogame", I just prefer to say immediate appearances is one thing, inferences based on appearances is another. Both can be said to have a reality, in that you give them a lot of solidity, a lot of epistemic weight. To try to reduce words down to single things, be it "reality is appearance", or to claim incessantly that "reality is definitely solipsism", is just intellectually naive, inelegant, and narcissistic, dare I say solipsistic. I'm not very interested if you can justify solipsism. I'm interested if you can make it seem better than other alternatives.

Male attraction is like you remove layers and attraction only rises 😶🤣

That's some female attraction shit right there.

Be careful what you wish for. Try writing as if you're creating an infographic for collective transport, which old people, young people and people with dementia and language difficulties are the most likely to understand.

The man has worditis, and the only prescription is concepts.

@Yeah Yeah Here is a trolley problem for solipsists who think only their bedroom exists: Imagine somebody kidnaps you, flies you to the other side of the world and carries you to some train tracks. Before the plane, you spot a lever. And as they tie you to the tracks, the kidnapper says "I will travel back to the lever on the other side of the world. If you scream 'pull the lever' enough times, I will pull the lever and you will survive. If you don't, you will die". Will you scream to pull the lever or not?