Can solipsism be proven or disproven?

[OBEler]

@Ishanga "he's having a great affect on ppl, what affect are you having???"

Why did you said that to me? What does that have to do with this discussion about what's true? What has having a great affect on people to do with truth.

Edited February 20 by OBEler

[Ishanga]

Just now, OBEler said:

@Ishanga "he's having a great affect on ppl, what affect are you having???"

Why did you said that to me? What does that have to do with this discussion about what's true?

Because Your coming off like he's some sort of chump, whereas YOu are not, that is why, and maybe answer the question, what affect are you having on anyone, other than those close to You???

Your completely corrupted by Leo's teachings that is for sure, not that that is totally bad, but You look up to him too much, he's still got a ways to go, do Your own work, You know Shambhavi, do it intensely, drop the drugs, and go natural, see where it gets You...

[Yimpa]

Please watch your emotional reactions and realign your chakras. Thank you!

[OBEler]

Just now, Ishanga said:

Because Your coming off like he's some sort of chump, whereas YOu are not, that is why, and maybe answer the question, what affect are you having on anyone, other than those close to You???

Your completely corrupted by Leo's teachings that is for sure, not that that is totally bad, but You look up to him too much, he's still got a ways to go, do Your own work, You know Shambhavi, do it intensely, drop the drugs, and go natural, see where it gets You...

Hey Ishanga. Don't get stuck into teacher against teacher.

This topic is not about which teachings are best, which yoga or psychedelics are best. I don't care about Leo or sadhguru here, I think no one does but you. It's about discussing truth.

Now. If I made your sadhguru looking like a  chump I am sorry. I didn't mean that. I will make Leo look like a chump in a next post if you want. But please let's come back to discover what's truth.

 

[Carl-Richard]

"Proof" is so hijacked by the narrow intellectual notions of black-and-white logical propositions. You have to expand your notion of proof to perception and reason.

When you experience another person crying, you can cry and understand what they are feeling by virtue of that you're crying (whether it's about the same thing or simply crying). You don't see that by some logical deduction. You literally see it.

Like get seriously out of your own head and experience things. The fear that drives so many questions about solipsism (fear of detachment from other people) is created from the same thing: detachment from other people. It's like how people who are crippled by indecision and inaction simply aren't used to making decisions and actions and need to start making them more so they get more used to it.

So get out of your head and experience things and solipsism will seem like a deranged fantasy. If you're stuck in your own head all the time, no wonder you go around worrying about whether the world is just inside your head.

Edited February 22 by Carl-Richard

[Ishanga]

10 hours ago, OBEler said:

Hey Ishanga. Don't get stuck into teacher against teacher.

This topic is not about which teachings are best, which yoga or psychedelics are best. I don't care about Leo or sadhguru here, I think no one does but you. It's about discussing truth.

Now. If I made your sadhguru looking like a  chump I am sorry. I didn't mean that. I will make Leo look like a chump in a next post if you want. But please let's come back to discover what's truth.

 

I was posting what I think, You came along and mention Sadhguru, and You do this often in association with whatever I post, so this is on You not Me...Please do not do that, I have my own thoughts and opinions about things, as we all do.... I think it is wise to agree to disagree..

[zurew]

On 2025. 02. 18. at 8:16 PM, ActualizedJohn said:

Is there any way to prove or disprove solipsism? I definitely believe it’s impossible to ever know. 

There are multiple different things not just solipsism that seem to be close to impossible to prove or to disprove (if those terms like 'prove' and 'disprove' are defined in an inferential sense) . If you only care about inferential justification, then you should probably stay agnostic about a big set of metaphysical claims (including whether  solipsism is true or false) But if you are okay with non-inferential justification or if you don't care about inferential justification, then there might be ways to get around it .

Direct experience could be potentially categorized under "non-inferential justification" , but I personally still have issues with how the term 'direct experience' is used, because it seem to be used in a vague way and sometimes people seem to be using the term in different ways (because one person can claim that direct experience "proves" that solipsism is true and another can say  that direct experience proves/tells you that a completely different metaphysics is true).

Edited February 21 by zurew

[Xonas Pitfall]

It can! However, ultimately, you need to decide what "proof" is good enough for you.

If I tell you, Hey! Pluto exists, look at it through the telescope, and if you refuse to look, then you will never get your proof. Maybe you're such an overly skeptical person that you'd think I photoshopped images of Pluto or stamped some fake projection onto the telescope. In that case, you'd need to physically invest in becoming an astronaut - training, getting the money, waiting for your turn to be flown out to space - and only then could you finally prove it to yourself. That would take years of investment, effort, and cash.

So, if you're seriously looking to prove something that is so radically reality-shifting, then you need to invest the appropriate time - doing the contemplation work, deconstructing your values, narratives, and opinions about what you think the world is, and engaging in lots and lots of psychedelics, meditation, yoga, breathing techniques, or whatever you can get yourself into. (Even Leo himself recommends a solid 250+ breakthrough-dose trips of 5-MeO-DMT, which is quite a hefty amount.)

Good luck!

[Razard86]

On 2/19/2025 at 3:30 PM, Inliytened1 said:

It cannot be disproven because all you have is your direct experience.   It cannot be proven because all you have is your direct experience. 

Consider that Absolute Truth is prior to proof.  

It can actually be proven.....it's proven by the fact you only have your experience. All human experience is Solipsistic, and God Consciousness is also Solipsistic. There is only ever ONE experience in totality and that is the proof.

[CoolDreamThanks]

A thing I noticed:

When I believe that I am the only dreamer, my nighttime dreams are often gentle and lovely. 
 
When I believe that there are many dreamers, that this is a collective dream, then immediately I begin to dream nightmares of shame, murder, etc. 
 

interesting, huh?
 

 

[UnbornTao]

Can't prove a belief system. Go after what's true regarding what you are. 

[Anton Rogachevski]

I agree with @UnbornTao @zurew @Carl-Richard You guys are shooting in the right direction and see the situation here clearly and with great sanity.

@ActualizedJohn You are going in a great direction from what I see! You are skeptical and curious and actually want the Truth, and this brings me joy! Keep going like that and your understanding will deepen with time, that's almost guaranteed. This is a great assumption you have: "There may be something deeper."

That's a very advanced question you are asking, as it relates to the field of Ontology, but to go so far as to claim something about the actual nature of reality itself requires a prior basis of understanding and a well founded epistemic ground as the foundation for this inquiry. 

Some question to contemplate further with this if you would like to:

• What is your definition of Solipsism? What does it mean for you to be in a Solipsistic World if that was the case? 
• What does it mean to "know"?
• How can we "know"?
• What is "truth"? (there are many kinds)
• How accurate and reliable is the instrument of inquiry? (the brain)
• Is the human brain designed to derive truth?
• Is experience a valid instrument? 
• What is a "proof"?
• What kind of proof can even satisfy you?
• How to prove things?
• What is a belief?
• What isn't a belief?

Edited June 8 by Anton Rogachevski

[Inliytened1]

9 hours ago, Razard86 said:

It can actually be proven.....it's proven by the fact you only have your experience. All human experience is Solipsistic, and God Consciousness is also Solipsistic. There is only ever ONE experience in totality and that is the proof.

You are right but you needed awakening to verify that.  Awakening is what is required.  Direct experience turns out to be what proof is.  But only after you awaken. 

Edited June 8 by Inliytened1

[Breakingthewall]

Solipsism is irrelevant, what is sought is openness to the nature of reality, its ultimate substance.

Also it's sought the end of the contraction. Then first you have to see your contraction, how you are contracting yourself 

One vs two is just a mental differentiation. Openess is not mental, it's real. 

Edited June 8 by Breakingthewall

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Solipsism is irrelevant, what is sought is openness to the nature of reality, its ultimate substance.

It's very relevant to awakening as God.  You must realize that nothing exists outside of direct experience.   Life is a dream. There doesn't need to be anything behind the scenes.  Behind the scenes is imaginary. 

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

You must realize that nothing exists outside of direct experience. 

This is a mental differentiation. "Outside of your direct experience" is only an idea. If you are open to the absolute, this doesn't exist. 

 

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Life is a dream

This is another differentiation, implies that you are realizing that life is something different that you use to think. In the absolute you don't remember what do you use to think, because it's absolute, it's open, no contrast. Do you understand? Everything that you are saying are contrast, that is relative. 

 

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

There doesn't need to be anything behind the scenes

What scenes? Again: the absolute is open, total. If "scenes" is even a possibility you are in the relative. 

And another point: open means that everything is possible, if not it would be closed. 

[Inliytened1]

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

This is a mental differentiation. "Outside of your direct experience" is only an idea. If you are open to the absolute, this doesn't exist. 

 

This is another differentiation, implies that you are realizing that life is something different that you use to think. In the absolute you don't remember what do you use to think, because it's absolute, it's open, no contrast. Do you understand? Everything that you are saying are contrast, that is relative. 

 

What scenes? Again: the absolute is open, total. If "scenes" is even a possibility you are in the relative. 

And another point: open means that everything is possible, if not it would be closed. 

Is there anything behind the scenes?

[Breakingthewall]

11 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Is there anything behind the scenes?

Don't you understand that this is something that is drawed in the relative mind? In the absolute openess there is everything, but everything is reality, it's just openess. In the openess is everything. It has no relations with knowing if there is something behind the scenes or not, because to know that, you must be closed, being open you don't know nothing, or better, you know everything: what really is. Reality in not one or two, neither god or creation. All those things are possibilities that arises, but reality is beyond that, it's impossible to grasp with the mind, because the mind is an arising that happens in the reality, it means nothing. It's the same one or two, god or no god, creation or anything, it's open to infinity, thats what you are. 

Anyone who wants to open itself to infinity must drop the mind. Absolutely, without the slightest grip. Any grip closes absolutely. Open is without grip. Grip is fear. 

Edited June 8 by Breakingthewall

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

Don't you understand that this is something that is drawed in the relative mind? In the absolute openess there is everything, but everything is reality, it's just openess. In the openess is everything. It has no relations with knowing if there is something behind the scenes or not, because to know that, you must be closed, being open you don't know nothing, or better, you know everything: what really is. Reality in not one or two, neither god or creation. All those things are possibilities that arises, but reality is beyond that, it's impossible to grasp with the mind, because the mind is an arising that happens in the reality, it's nothing. It's the same one or two, god or no god, creation or anything, it's open to infinity, thats what you are. 

You're not answering the question.  Does your mother exist outside of your mind?

You can dodge the question all day long but at some point you will have to answer it.

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

You're not answering the question.  Does your mother exist outside of your mind?

This is a relative question and I will answer with my relative mind: I'd say yes, that the reality unfold in infinite dimensions simultaneously.

This means absolutely nothing, it has zero relationship with openess.  Openess in an action. It's when you release the grip and expand yourself without limits. It has to be absolute, or it is not the real openess. It's out of the mind, you can't even think in it, you can do it.