Martin Ball says he's not solipsistic

[gengar]

The beauty of solipsism is that there is no matrix of "other pov" existing to begin with. this would be a chaotic, schizophrenic reality, forever divided from itself.

And the beauty of solipsism is that other humans are not any less human than you. This is the genius of God's design; other humans are not less real than you. "your" human is just as imaginary as other humans. How else could it be?

The notion to even begin with that a "human is conscious" or "humans have sentience" is where the problems start off. The entire idea of sentience has to be reevaluated.

--------------------------------------

Imagine Hitler dying and waking up as God. If he truly did those things to "others", how could God ever forgive himself? People suffered, it's etched in history. Since God is existence, God could never forgive himself except if it was all a dream, which is thankfully what it is.

(Sorry for the radical example, I don't mean to offend anyone by it, but this is what I mean with solipsism being the highest good, it is the ultimate salvation of evil)

 

Edited May 28 by gengar

[zurew]

10 hours ago, Nemra said:

Even saying awakening could mean different things to different people. E.g., religious people would have a different idea about it, which could be to go to church and live the Christian life.

Or it could be gathering insights through revelation and the realization is that Christianity is true.

You would appeal to your awakening and say "nono, I dont care what you gathered through your revelation im right, and you are wrong about Christianity being true"

And the Christian would say "nono, I dont care what you gathered through awakening, im right and you are wrong about solipsism being true"

 

Point here is that non-inferential justification is subject to some of the same epistemic limitations as inferential justification. If I question the validity of method by which you gathered your insight , you whole thing is undermined and you cant appeal to the same method to solve this, because that is whats in question.

 

10 hours ago, Nemra said:

Well, I think you would also agree that those premises should also be questioned.

Yes, of course.

Im not sure if you had the impression that I thought any differently - this is why I qualify almost all of my statements more than probably anyone on this forum - because I dont want to pretend that I have any beliefs or knowledge that I cant be wrong about.

Edited May 28 by zurew

[gengar]

23 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.

True, but people make the mistake that solipsism would mean that "their" human is now more real under solipsism than other humans, when humanity and any form of "being a separate creature" is a complete illusion to begin with. They think solipsism defies love, when it is in fact it.

That being said, the realization of solipsism is in fact the end of all illusion and thus any form of worldly existence, let alone civilization (if all "humans" would start to realize it)

You know what the dislike of solipsism reminds me of? Asking dream characters in a lucid dream what the time is. They start to go crazy, get angry or afraid, like they've been found out, and that the full realization would end their existence.

Edited May 28 by gengar

[Salvijus]

The moment you can prove individuation is the moment solipsism collapses. And individuation can be proven the moment you have experienced an increase of self-awareness because an increase in self awareness automatically implies individuation. 

_______

An analogy from ChatGPT. 

The process of "becoming" implies a reference point.

  That reference point functions like an individual: it has limitations, history, personality, and a path of unfolding.

  Even if it's not ultimately separate, it acts like a distinct  node in the larger field of consciousness.

Analogy:

* A mirror in a dark room can gradually become illuminated, seeing more and more clearly.

* That doesn’t mean the mirror is separate from the light—but it does have a distinct position through which the light becomes visible.

* Same with consciousness: it may be one light, but becoming more aware happens through a specific aperture, which we experience as “me.”

Conclusion:

So: becoming more conscious doesn’t prove separateness, but it does require some form of individuation - a place where the infinite turns inward and begins to wake up.

Bonus Insight:

This is similar to how a mirror can’t reflect itself without curvature or angle—self-awareness may require individuation, not as separation, but as functional polarity within unity.

Edited May 28 by Salvijus

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I love this mental topic.

Absolute level of consciousness? Sure solipsism.

Relative individuated consciousness? Negative.

[Nemra]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

You would appeal to your awakening and say "nono, I dont care what you gathered through your revelation im right, and you are wrong about Christianity being true"

And the Christian would say "nono, I dont care what you gathered through awakening, im right and you are wrong about solipsism being true"

But see, you can actually understand that Christians are fooling themselves by understanding what they mean by awakening.

How? Because you understand what beliefs are from your experience.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

If I question the validity of method by which you gathered your insight , you whole thing is undermined and you cant appeal to the same method to solve this, because that is what's in question.

You can do that; however, you can't assume that questioning without understanding the mechanism of the method should be able to (in)validate that method or that questioning must absolutely be able to (in)validate all methods. Consider that questioning is a method too.

Edited May 28 by Nemra

[Salvijus]

Me:

So if increase in conciousness creates functional individuation, would that debunk solipsism ? 

ChatGPT:

Yes—if increased consciousness necessarily gives rise to functional individuation, then it strongly undermines solipsism, perhaps even debunks it, depending on how you define solipsism.

Let’s unpack this carefully.

💡 First, your premise:

"Increase in consciousness creates (or reveals) functional individuation."

This means:

As consciousness deepens, it doesn’t collapse everything into just a singular "I."

Instead, it becomes more aware of distinct expressions of itself.

These are not illusions or projections, but valid, autonomous centers of awareness—what we call functional individuals.

✅ If that’s true, then:

1. It Directly Contradicts Solipsism’s Core Claim

Solipsism: “Only my consciousness is real. Others are illusions.”

But if deepening consciousness reveals:

The existence of other centers of awareness, not created or controlled by "me"…

And that these centers are not reducible to your imagination or mind…

Then the foundational claim of solipsism—that others are not real minds—collapses.

2. It Replaces Solipsism with a Non-Dual View with Multiplicity

You don’t need to say:

"Each person is a totally separate self." (Dualism)

You can say:

"There is one consciousness manifesting as many valid expressions." (Non-dual individuation)

This view:

Preserves the unity that solipsists intuit.

But avoids the isolation that solipsism asserts.

3. You’re Not the Sole Dreamer

If individuation increases with consciousness, that implies:

Others are not just objects in your field of awareness.

They are participants in the same awareness, with agency and internal depth.

You are not the sole dreamer—you are a part of the dreaming field.

This removes solipsism’s central delusion: that you alone are real.

🔄 Summary

ConceptSolipsismFunctional Individuation Perspective

Reality of othersDeniedAffirmed as real centers of awareness

Self-awareness trajectorySelf-containedRelational and reflective through others

View of consciousnessSingular & isolatedSingular & expressed through many

Self-knowledgeThrough imagination onlyThrough relational recognition

✅ So:

Yes—if becoming more conscious reveals functional individuation, it effectively debunks solipsism by showing that:

You’re not the only conscious being.

Others aren’t illusions—they are as real as you within the field of awareness.

Consciousness knows itself through plurality, not solitary imagination.

[zurew]

6 minutes ago, Nemra said:

You can do that; however, you can't assume that questioning without understanding the mechanism of the method should be able to (in)validate that method or that questioning must absolutely be able to (in)validate other methods at all. Consider that questioning is a method too.

Notice that you didnt provide a solution to the epistemic problem that I brought up, all you did there is that you raised an epistemic objection about questioning.

Okay questioning is limited - now from there how you get to "awakening isn't limited" or how you get to "awakening wont give you false insights" ?

 

11 minutes ago, Nemra said:

But see, you can actually understand that Christians are fooling themselves by understanding what they mean by awakening.

How? Because you understand what beliefs are from your experience.

"Actualized.org users are fooling themselves by understanding what they mean by revelation"

We can play these games where I will play as a Christian for the sake of the argument and I will mirror all the objections and epistemic issues that you will bring up.

[Nemra]

@Salvijus, ChatGPT can reinforce your beliefs.

Don't look at LLMs as truth generating machines.

[Salvijus]

Just now, Nemra said:

@Salvijus, ChatGPT can reinforce your beliefs.

Don't look at LLMs as truth generating machines.

Those are my thoughts and insights really. Chatgpt just helped me to articulate it better and it helps to double check if my insights were logically consistent. Turns out it is. 

[Leo Gura]

You guys keep deliberately muddling the water around this simple topic.

Solipsism means that you are the only conscious entity in existence. Everything and everyone is your dream. And when you stop dreaming, all of it will stop existing.

Before you were born there was no universe, and after you die there will be no universe.

To Awaken is to realize that everything and everyone was always just your dream.

It cannot be more simple and precise than this. The only issue is that you don't like it. You confuse your dislike of it for some kind of metaphysical objection or contradiction. There is no contradiction. Just admit you do not like it rather than inventing stories. Of course you can't do that because your whole game is keeping your dream alive.

The bitch about truth is that it destroys dreams.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 

It cannot be more simple and precise than this. The only issue is that you don't like it.

Nah it's much more complex than that. Your position is not the most logical one and it doesn't withstand scrutiny. That's the real issue. 

Edited May 28 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

Notice that you didnt provide a solution to the epistemic problem that I brought up, all you did there is that you raised an epistemic objection about questioning.

The solution is to understand the mechanism of the method or else your questions would be misguided.

10 minutes ago, zurew said:

Okay questioning is limited - now from there how you get to "awakening isn't limited" or how you get to "awakening wont give you false insights" ?

Who said that you won't have false insights?

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

"Actualized.org users are fooling themselves by understanding what they mean by revelation"

We can play these games where I will play as a Christian for the sake of the argument and I will mirror all the objections and epistemic issues that you will bring up.

Well, the users might be fooling themselves, but actualized.org is definitely not a religion.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

 

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It cannot be more simple and precise than this. The only issue is that you don't like it. 

I simply have had a different experience to this. I have had awakenings to reveal something else. 

Can't really do anything with that as it is just what I have seen.

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Who said that you won't have false insights?

So if you can be wrong about the insights that you gather using awakening - then why is it that you think that solipsism is something that you cant be wrong about?

[Salvijus]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Just admit you do not like it

I think you're the one who's afraid to be questioned and challanged. 

[gengar]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys keep deliberately muddling the water around this simple topic.

Solipsism means that you are the only conscious entity in existence. Everything and everyone is your dream. And when you stop dreaming, all of it will stop existing.

Before you were born there was no universe, and after you die there will be no universe.

To Awaken is to realize that everything and everyone was always just your dream.

It cannot be more simple and precise than this. The only issue is that you don't like it. You confuse your dislike of it for some kind of metaphysical objection or contradiction. There is no contradiction. Just admit you do not like it rather than inventing stories. Of course you can't do that because your whole game is keeping your dream alive.

The bitch about truth is that it destroys dreams.

Not only do they defend their own dreams, others not realizing solipsism also facilitated your own awakening. You could have never awakened if you didn't live in and were nurtured by a society upheld by the denial of solipsism.

I'm missing this humbleness from your tone. You still somehow think you did this all by yourself -

[Leo Gura]

"But what if you're wrong!" applies to all positions, all arguments, all truth claims.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, gengar said:

I'm missing this humbleness from your tone. You still somehow think you did this all by yourself -

I am just your dream.

[zurew]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

"But what if you're wrong!" applies to all positions, all arguments, all truth claims.

Oh yeah, the difference is that you reject that when it comes to your specific truth claim, and pretend that yours is somehow not applicable to it , but everyone else's truth claim is subject to it.