Martin Ball says he's not solipsistic

[Salvijus]

6 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Imagining that something has a separate consciousness is different from things being separated from each other by some boundary.

Functional individuation still exists. And that's all it takes to dissolve solipsism. 

[Nemra]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Again my problem is underdetermination that your argument doesn't help with - your argument is compatible with a world where there are other minds and people don't have the ability to experience those minds.

No. Sorry, but I cannot even prove to you what I'm trying to say because you think that I'm experiencing reality in your experience.

First of all, you are experiencing reality. Notice that there's nothing out of that experience. You cannot run away from your experience, because wherever you go, the experience will be there.

When you say that others are also experiencing reality, you are literally copying your sense of experiencing reality and pasting it onto others. Which hasn't been there at all, because all of those people that appear to you are in your experience.

[Nemra]

@zurew, also, if I ever could experience from your perspective, then I would literally experience the same way as you would, but that's not happening for me right now.

That's happening for you, which by the way is an imaginary thing for me. Other people experiencing reality is imaginary in my experience and in yours too.

This is paradoxical. 😁

Maybe there's a better way to say this. I don't know. I'm trying not to say things that I haven't realized or use words that I'm not familiar with.

Edited May 27 by Nemra

[zurew]

11 minutes ago, Nemra said:

but I cannot even prove to you what I'm trying to say because you think that I'm experiencing reality in your experience.

Wait how is that relevant with respect to the argument that you are cooking up?

It sounds like that in order for me to accept whatever you are cooking up I need to believe first that what you are saying is true - sounds like a sneaky way to make a question-begging argument (again).

 

Imagine me saying , for me to make my argument successfully first you have to believe that other minds exist.

 

11 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Which hasn't been there at all, because all of those people that appear to you are in your experience.

This is what Im saying that none of you can provide a non-question begging argument 

"which hasn't been there at all" "you only experience your own mind" these assertions are all loaded.

 

Depending on what you mean by "you only experience your own mind" is compatible with even physicalism? If you entertain the idea (which im not arguing for btw, just for the sake of the argument) that physicalism is true, then the way you would experience the outside world would be through your mind as well - like do you think that if physicalism was true then the fact of "things appearing in your experience" would suddenly change? No - what you are saying there is compatible not just with multiple different versions of Idealism, its compatible with multiple different versions of physicalism as well.

Edited May 27 by zurew

[zurew]

12 minutes ago, Nemra said:

First of all, you are experiencing reality. Notice that there's nothing out of that experience. You cannot run away from your experience, because wherever you go, the experience will be there.

These are so bad arguments - like this couldn't even be used against physicalism, let alone against non-solipsist idealist views.

 

[Vibes]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I make so such distinction.

There is only one form of solipsism. The one everyone dislikes.

But hey, who cares what I say. Find out for yourself.

@Leo Gura There's no one out there to dislike it but me. But that is so weird to say it out loud in a 'public forum', because parts of my mind will come protest this and make me feel egoistically drunk. But I know there's only one consciousness, how could it be another outside somewhere out of sight when consciousness is self aware??? Outside is inside.

Edited May 27 by Vibes

[Nemra]

37 minutes ago, zurew said:

These are so bad arguments - like this couldn't even be used against physicalism, let alone against non-solipsist idealist views.

You want some appealing sophisticated nonsense that I have been conjuring up?

I have been contemplating and observing my experience trying not to depend on other explanations. What have you been doing?

However, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.

Edited May 27 by Nemra

[Nemra]

@zurew, also, what you actually need is a change of state and not comparing different philosophies together endlessly to see how much compatibility they have.

I have done weeks of long-form concentrated meditation that has helped me to realize a few things here and there. But I have stopped for now. However, I tried to speak what I have realized.

Edited May 27 by Nemra

[zurew]

7 minutes ago, Nemra said:

You want some sophisticated nonsense?

I dont want anything sophisticated , my only bar is non-question-begging arguments , like how is that a high bar?😭

 

Like I want people to show what reasons they have to adopt the view they have. Like why is it that you are not agnostic about a given proposition, especially  if you dont have any good response to underdetermination? (and by not good response, I mean all of your arguments are compatible with the view that you want to argue against).

 

Like imagine the same attitude and reasoning in any other setting:

There is a competition and you need to figure out the right answer to a given question.  You are only provided with one premise (namely that there is at least one red marble in the bag). The question is, "how many red marbles are in the bag"? (Imagine you are not provided with any other background knowledge about the bag and about the situation). The first guy says, "there are 2 red marbles in the bag". After that, a second guy comes and  says "there are 3 red marbles in the bag!". Then you come and say "I think the first guy is right - there are 2 red marbles in the bag!" then you are asked this question: Nemra, why do you think that first guy is right? "Well, because I was provided with the premise that there is at least one red marble in the bag "  and then I come and ask you the question "Why do you think thats a good reason to go with the first guys's view , when that reason is compatible with the other guy's view as well?" 

[zurew]

We can skip all this inferential talk and inferential reasoning, because I know some of you prefer non-inferential justification (like appealing to awakening)

But I don't understand why you guys use inferential justification, when the inferential reasoning that you guys generally provide for solipsism is horrible in almost every case.

 

Also - If you guys think, that all inferential justification is nonsense and garbage and useless - then why use it in a very bad and unpersuasive way?

Edited May 27 by zurew

[Nemra]

@zurew, have you ever changed your state?

Edited May 27 by Nemra

[Nemra]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

We can skip all this inferential talk and inferential reasoning, because I know some of you prefer non-inferential justification (like appealing to awakening)

I don't understand why you would think that I was relying on beliefs?

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

I don't understand why you would think that I was relying on beliefs?

Under how I use the term, all of you guys are relying on beliefs and inferences and no amount of appealing to awakenings will change that.

The idea that you can be protected from objections, just because you use the label "direct consciousness" or "awakening" just doesn't work with me.

None of you are above of being wrong, just because you use a magic label.

[Nemra]

@zurew, well, knowing how much someone is relying on beliefs can be a difficult task.

30 minutes ago, zurew said:

The idea that you can be protected from objections, just because you use the label "direct consciousness" or "awakening" just doesn't work with me.

Of course, you cannot trust anyone.

The word direct is very powerful in this case as it draws your attention to the thing that's being talked about without intermediaries.

30 minutes ago, zurew said:

None of you are above of being wrong, just because you use a magic label.

I agree.

But what is important is to turn your attention on the thing that you are observing and not so much on what and how people say stuff.

Edited May 27 by Nemra

[Nemra]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

my only bar is non-question-begging arguments , like how is that a high bar?

I don't really have a persuasive reason for why these kinds of arguments are question-begging.

Edited May 27 by Nemra

[Nemra]

@zurew, have you done meditation or used psychedelics?

 

[Harikrishnan]

4 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

@Leo Gura  The one part I dont get, is when you said that when you die, the whole universe stops existing with that event. But people die all the time, and the universe is still here ? We are all equally imaginary, so why should the universe stop existing when my imaginary character dies, and not so when my imaginary neighbor dies ?

My neighbour who dies and all the people who dies is within my consciousness, I will see all of them  go or some of them go. When I go everyone cease to exist. Because everyone else is part of my story. 

[Wilhelm44]

31 minutes ago, Harikrishnan said:

My neighbour who dies and all the people who dies is within my consciousness, I will see all of them  go or some of them go. When I go everyone cease to exist. Because everyone else is part of my story. 

"When I go everyone cease to exist" - you mean that from your point of view right ? Because if you died before me, i would still be here, or if I died before you, you would still be here. Or am I missing something ?

[Nemra]

@zurew, let me be more clear.

1. There is the experiencing of reality that a person could be conscious of.
2. That experience does not have limits, which means you can infinitely zoom in or out, go left, right, up, or down, and there's no limit to the objects that can appear to you. It includes everything that is happening.
3. If you say that someone has consciousness, then that person must experience reality, and what I said in point 2 should also apply for that person.
4. However, point 3 is impossible to be the case in your experience; otherwise, that person's experience would be the only one happening and not yours at that moment, because of what I wrote in point 1 and 2.

Therefore, if I'm having my experience, that's what's happening. If you're having your experience, that's what's happening. However, these don't happen at the same moment. Both of our experiences are imaginary in the opposite one.

Edited May 27 by Nemra

[Yeah Yeah]

If I'm the only dreamer then how do I wake up from this dream and what happens to me when I die is it madness, limbo, bliss, divine schizophrenia or super self awareness manyfold spiritually but without human distracts to escape myself