Martin Ball says he's not solipsistic

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, OBEler said:

Leo was on his first trips already on his level.

However Leo went far beyond. If you just watch what Martin says , what Leo says you can clearly see that Leo went insanely more deeper. 

Martin ball may be deeper in some areas like energy healing etc. but in terms of reality/god/consciousness Leo is way deeper.

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

[Bluevinn]

29 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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

So true. But I still don’t understand why Leo did that exactly.

In his earlier videos, from about 3 or 4 years ago, he clearly distinguished between self with a lowercase s and Self with an uppercase S. He made a clear separation between absolute truth and relative truth when explaining these concepts.

However, around the time his solipsism video came out, he communicated it as if only the lowercase self exists, without making a distinction between absolute and relative truth.

Why did he do that? I’ve seen some comments suggesting he does it intentionally to break your ego. Could that be the reason?

Edited May 25 by Bluevinn

[OBEler]

1 minute ago, Bluevinn said:

So true. But I still don’t understand why Leo did that exactly.

In his earlier videos, from about 3 or 4 years ago, he clearly distinguished between self with a lowercase s and Self with an uppercase S. He made a clear separation between absolute truth and relative truth when explaining these concepts.

However, around the time his solipsism video came out, he communicated it as if only the lowercase self exists, without making a distinction between absolute and relative truth.

Why did he do that? I’ve seen some comments suggesting he does it intentionally to break your ego. Could that be the reason?

No, He doesn't do that to break your ego. He even deleted the video because people are not ready for that deep truth.

[Loveeee]

4 minutes ago, OBEler said:

No, He doesn't do that to break your ego. He even deleted the video because people are not ready for that deep truth.

Is it that deep

There's no space or time for anything but this here now 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Bluevinn said:

So true. But I still don’t understand why Leo did that exactly.

In his earlier videos, from about 3 or 4 years ago, he clearly distinguished between self with a lowercase s and Self with an uppercase S. He made a clear separation between absolute truth and relative truth when explaining these concepts.

However, around the time his solipsism video came out, he communicated it as if only the lowercase self exists, without making a distinction between absolute and relative truth.

Why did he do that? I’ve seen some comments suggesting he does it intentionally to break your ego. Could that be the reason?

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.

Edited May 25 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, OBEler said:

No, He doesn't do that to break your ego. He even deleted the video because people are not ready for that deep truth.

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

[Oppositionless]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

I always understood "solipsism" as you as a differentiated stream of consciousness being eternal . So it's actually natural there would be an infinity of Gods. But there's also a deeper Oneness beneath perception. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Oppositionless said:

I always understood "solipsism" as you as a differentiated stream of consciousness being eternal . So it's actually natural there would be an infinity of Gods. But there's also a deeper Oneness beneath perception. 

I understood nothing of what you said.

[Bluevinn]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

Yes i remember it too. Right after the solipsism video leo made that infinity of gods video. 

[Bluevinn]

10 hours ago, OBEler said:

No, He doesn't do that to break your ego. He even deleted the video because people are not ready for that deep truth.

Can you explain what it is ? 

Is it that only the self with lowercase "s" exists ?

Edited May 26 by Bluevinn

[zurew]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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

This is what Im talking about when a lot of terms that are used here are completely meaningless, but they are used to sound profound - "deeper" doesnt mean anything substantially other than "im more right than you, and you have yet to realize the truth im talking about".

None of this is philosophy, this is just a jerk-off session about who can sound more profound and at the same time communicate nothing of substance.

 

You know the high IQ move? Take a dogmatic position on metaphysics, once it is questioned and once problems are outlined about it - take all those problems put the label "feature not a bug" on them and everything is solved.

Edited May 26 by zurew

[Bluevinn]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

This is what Im talking about when a lot of terms that are used here are completely meaningless, but they are used to sound profound - "deeper" doesnt mean anything substantially other than "im more right than you, and you have yet to realize the truth im talking about".

None of this is philosophy, this is just a jerk-off session about who can sound more profound and at the same time communicate nothing of substance.

 

You know the high IQ move? Take a dogmatic position on metaphysics, once it is questioned and once problems are outlined about it - take all those problems put the label "feature not a bug" on them and everything is solved.

You probably said that because of the comment I made on someone asking why we can't experience other people's minds. I said, "That's a feature, not a bug," because if you could randomly access other people's minds, it would disrupt the duality of this world.

Okay, that's a dogmatic position. Can you actually answer it? Why can't we access each other's minds whenever we want?

Your reply will be so profound. Not some dogmatic shit. Because clearly, YOU'RE NOT THAT GUY. 

Edited May 26 by Bluevinn

[Bluevinn]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

"im more right than you, and you have yet to realize the truth im talking about".

It didn't take much time you to do the exact same.

 

6 minutes ago, Bluevinn said:

Take a dogmatic position on metaphysics

LOL

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

You know the high IQ move? Take a dogmatic position on metaphysics, once it is questioned and once problems are outlined about it - take all those problems put the label "feature not a bug" on them and everything is solved.

😂

[zurew]

28 minutes ago, Bluevinn said:

You probably said that because of the comment I made on someone asking why we can't experience other people's minds. I said, "That's a feature, not a bug," because if you could randomly access other people's minds, it would disrupt the duality of this world.

Okay, that's a dogmatic position. Can you actually answer it? Why can't we access each other's minds whenever we want?

Your reply will be so profound. Not some dogmatic shit. Because clearly, YOU'RE NOT THAT GUY

No it wasnt a reply specifically to you ( I havent even read the part you are referencing there) , it was an overall reply to the move Leo and some people who take Leo's view to be true make.

So rather than them admitting the issues and limitations of the view, they relabel it as if it would be something positive or at least something non-negative.

Edited May 26 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

Meow

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Bluevinn said:

because if you could randomly access other people's minds, it would disrupt the duality of this world.

Depending on what you mean by "disrupting the duality of this world" - that just seems straight up false.

For example, I see no obvious contradiction in a world where only your mind exist, but you are a limited being and you were created by a non-mind or you are eternal (you were not created at all) but at the same time limited in other ways , so you are not all powerful, but you happen to be in a world that has certain limitations.

I also see no obivous contradiction in a zombie world , where only you have a mind, but other people are philosophical zombies (they dont have a mind, but they still act and seem as if they would) and you could access their pov using your mind , but you are still a limited finite being  and you are not them, you just have an access to their pov.

 

So starting with the premise that solipsism is true, the issue about you not having access to other povs doesn't seem to be logically necessary at all. It seems to me, that many versions of solipsism is compatible with having access to other povs - so the fact of "we don't have access to other peoples minds" isn't expected under solipsism at all or isn't expected any more than under non-solipsistic views.

Edited May 26 by zurew

[Bluevinn]

24 minutes ago, zurew said:

Depending on what you mean by "disrupting the duality of this world" - that just seems straight up false.

For example, I see no obvious contradiction in a world where only your mind exist, but you are a limited being and you were created by a non-mind or you are eternal (you were not created at all) but at the same time limited in other ways , so you are not all powerful, but you happen to be in a world that has certain limitations.

I also see no obivous contradiction in a zombie world , where only you have a mind, but other people are philosophical zombies (they dont have a mind, but they still act and seem as if they would) and you could access their pov using your mind , but you are still a limited finite being  and you are not them, you just have an access to their pov.

 

So starting with the premise that solipsism is true, the issue about you not having access to other povs doesn't seem to be logically necessary at all. It seems to me, that many versions of solipsism is compatible with having access to other povs - so the fact of "we don't have access to other peoples minds" isn't expected under solipsism at all or isn't expected any more than under non-solipsistic views.

If two fingers on the same hand could fully access each other, are they really two fingers — or just one thing pretending to be two?

That’s the point I was making. The separation between minds isn’t just a technical limitation, it’s what creates the experience of individuality in the first place. If you could access any other point of view at will, the distinction between "you" and "them" breaks down. You’d just be one mind shifting perspectives, not separate minds.

So yeah, logically you can imagine a system where minds are accessible but then they stop being truly separate minds. You don’t get multiplicity and unity at the same time without changing what it means to be “another person.”

Edited May 26 by Bluevinn

[zurew]

19 minutes ago, Bluevinn said:

If two fingers on the same hand could fully access each other, are they really two fingers — or just one thing pretending to be two?

That’s the point I was making. The separation between minds isn’t just a technical limitation, it’s what creates the experience of individuality in the first place. If you could access any other point of view at will, the distinction between "you" and "them" breaks down. You’d just be one mind shifting perspectives, not separate minds.

So yeah, logically you can imagine a system where minds are accessible but then they stop being truly separate minds. You don’t get multiplicity and unity at the same time without changing what it means to be “another person.”

Okay so you argued against solipsism and you didn't try to defend solipsism.

I think I didn't track what you wanted to do earlier.

And yeah - one reason why accessing other minds isn't expected under non-solipsistic views , is what you outlined there (about issues around identity).

[Bluevinn]

3 hours ago, Bluevinn said:

Depending on what you mean by "disrupting the duality of this world" - that just seems straight up false.

Why ?