Carl-Richard

"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.

Explain how it's deeper. "It's too deep to explain". Hence the confusion perpetuates itself.

How many IQ points did I just lose from just glancing at that chart?

The real question is why did he after that make "Infinity of Gods", which presents the idea of multiple Gods existing separately from each other, when that is seemingly antithetical solipsism? And I can hear Leo answering something like "no, you just multiply the solipsisms", but that really just negates the term. I also think "Infinity of Gods" is flat out redundant, as God is infinite, so Infinity of Infinities is redundant. You just put up an arbitrary boundary when there are already infinite boundaries. The problem is complicating something which is really simple: God, Infinity, Oneness. But maybe I'm just simple-minded.

What happened is that Leo started using the word solipsism and people became confused. It's his biggest pedagogic blunder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion) When you are referring to attributes, things that are changing, or the magic show of form, you are referring to Maya. When you talk about appearances, e.g. "other people" (mind-body complexes), you are talking about Maya. When you talk about Maya, you are talking about that which is illusory and obscures Absolute Truth. Solipsism (the way it is most often conceived) relates to that which obscures Absolute Truth.

Solipsism is Maya.

Oh yes, that's a lot of substance right there, exactly what I asked for. I can also only talk in single sentences: You are stage BLOOOO.

You're literally no different from a religious zealot from the 10th century if you get hung up on a word like that without addressing the content of what is being said. What is the substance of your disagreement?

Not everybody is unemployed

No joke: As for "there is nothing magical in your brain, just the same neural network throughputs; [...] anything that is happening in a human brain can be replicated in a machine", try replicating electrochemical gradients that create a graded response of neural signals (instead of the "yes/no" signals of neural networks) backwards and even "sideways" propagation of signals (instead of strictly unidirectional signals) on average 860 trillion connections (instead of 1.7-1.8 trillion of GPT-4) And this is still assuming that "neuronal signals" is the salient level of computation. Why not the ion channels along the axon that drive the signal, or generally the rich flow of activity across the cell membrane (e.g. transporters, neurotransmitters, general enzymes, nutrients)? And what about the cellular interior (and where for example microtubules have been hypothesized to exert quantum effects)? And just look at what ChatGPT (an LLM) is. It pumps out letters on a screen. Unlike an organism, it doesn't have agency. It doesn't actively seek out new information. It doesn't tap you on the shoulder and ask you a question out of curiosity. It doesn't give you unsolicited advice when you are just minding your own business. It doesn't have concerns, self-concern, homeostasis, senses, relevance realization. It doesn't care, because it's not a living thing. Also, when we get wowed into thoughts of it being conscious because it simulates language very well, what about dogs, cats, chickens, fish? Why do we extend consciousness to these things while they have no impressive human language presentations? Like, is it not obvious that an LLM is a machine simulating human language based on some inputs? Why is not the Google algorithm or Google Translate conscious (which also employ neural networks)? Why do we not extend the same type of downward scaling to them like with dogs and cats? Is it maybe because we're not being wowed by them pulling on our heart strings?

😂 There are actually so many times he has had this super confrontational and reductionistic attitude of like "no, it's actually just this, and if you disagree, you're just being ignorant and unreasonable, and that's fine, we're all human sometimes" about a wide range of topics, it's like a character trait at this point.