Martin Ball says he's not solipsistic

[gengar]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont understand this response. How do you get to that conclusion from what I outlined?

Why is it that the conclusion from what I outlined isn't that your epistemology is limited?

 

 

 

Because checking if Christianity would be true would require looking beyond the phenomena - which is impossible and requires imagining things beyond appearance.

Like I said, Solipsism is the only thing which you can totally check from the inside. all other worldviews require an external truth.

The question is more, "can there be anything outside of my consciousness" ? If no, solipsism is proven by default.

I'm claiming it isn't possible because what it means to "be" is that it exists within consciousness.

I can never prove it to you this way because you can keep doubting whether things can exist outside of consciousness. And thats the dead end.

But why continue to assume projections can come from outside , and not inside?

Ibn Arabi is saying the projections are coming from inside, the core of your being; God.

The projections are not coming from outside. There is no outside, there is only an infinite inside. This is all you witness so why imagine this outside which you have zero proof of? You're playing semantic games to fool yourself.
 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

It still is too advanced.

I am just trying to open some minds here.

Don't take my arguments too seriously. In the end I want you to discover whatever is true for you. Consider that I may be wrong. Do not try to reach for my words, reach for whatever is actually true.

10-4 Red Leader

Sharpening the tools

[Salvijus]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

My goal in this thread was to steelman solipsism and clarify what it means IF it is true.

Oh, that's more like it. 

[gengar]

14 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Those are not the conclusions from chatgpt. Chatgpt just collected the date of every guru in the history of humanity. Conclusion being that all of them reject solipsism. 

If you contemplate the weight of it, it makes Leo's position look absolutely absurd. 

if any form of human consensus holds any weight to you, I pity you.

It's not about Leo's position, but about realizing the inherent unreality of anything beyond appearance and consciousness. Solipsism is just the inevitable conclusion of that.

 

[Salvijus]

10 minutes ago, gengar said:

if any form of human consensus holds any weight to you, I pity you.

It's not about Leo's position, but about realizing the inherent unreality of anything beyond appearance and consciousness. Solipsism is just the inevitable conclusion of that.

 

It's a combination of things at play here. 

1. My own insight and inquiry leads me to believe solipsism is false. 

2. Every mystic in the history of humanity says the same thing. 

3. Non solipsism is logically a more realistic position. (I already gave my arguments why earlier in this thread which were doubled checked with chatgpt for logical consistency) 

4. Why should I believe Leo? Especially why would I take his word over every mystic that ever lived? 

All things considered, I can't help but hold the position that I hold. It has nothing to do with me "being afraid" of solipsism. Solipsism is just a dumb position on many levels. 

Edited May 28 by Salvijus

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, gengar said:

The question is more, "can there be anything outside of my consciousness" ? If no, solipsism is proven by default.

No I dont grant that at all, thats an obvious big leap in inference that you are making there.

If by "can" there you mean that you wouldn't be able to recognize in principle anything outside of your consciousness , then the answer is yes ,but that doesn't say anything about the outside world, its just talks about the limitations about in principle what you can be aware of.

If by "can" there you mean that there isn't anything outside of your consciousness - there you just pressupose that the external world doesn't exist and you pressupose that your individuated experience isn't inside a larger mind that isn't you.

[zurew]

17 minutes ago, gengar said:

The question is more, "can there be anything outside of my consciousness" ? If no, solipsism is proven by default.

Like you understand that what you are saying there is compatible with a scenario where you are schizo , no outside input changes your internal states and you are infinitely lost in your own little dream.

 

Like why do you think that a God couldnt create a world where a bunch of individuated consciousnesses are infinitely lost in their own world while not recognizing that there is an outside God, and they are inside God's mind?

[zurew]

How do you demarcate between this scenario being true (where there is an outside God that is not you, you are just part of God as an individuated consciousness):

Quote

Like why do you think that a God couldnt create a world where a bunch of individuated consciousnesses are infinitely lost in their own world (each of them thinking that they are God and that Solipsism is true) while not recognizing that there is an outside God, and they are inside God's mind and that infinitely many individuated consciousnesses exist?

vs

in the scenario where you are God and dreaming everything up and you are not part of any God (solipsism is true).

Edited May 28 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

@zurew If you are merely part of some God then you just haven't fully realized that you are God.

This is simply a function of how conscious you are.

The higher your consciousness the more you see that everything is your personal dream. The less conscious you are the more it feels like your dream is an object outside yourself.

If you became more conscious you would clearly see that you are imagining me. But until such time, it will feel to you like I exist as an object beyond your mind.

Reality is an infinite illusion. Consciousness allows you to see through that illusion.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@zurew If you are merely part of some God then you just haven't fully realized that you are God.

You're both. 

[Greatnestwithin]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@zurew If you are merely part of some God then you just haven't fully realized that you are God.

This is simply a function of how conscious you are.

The higher your consciousness the more you see that everything is your personal dream. The less conscious you are the more it feels like your dream is an object outside yourself.

If you became more conscious you would clearly see that you are imagining me. But until such time, it will feel to you like I exist as an object beyond your mind.

@Leo Gura I wonder how Peter Ralston became conscious of these stuff only through comtemplation? 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

You're both. 

Yeah this is what I have had revealed to me, and seen myself.

[Salvijus]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This is simply a function of how conscious you are.

Individuation is the necessary function of conciousness to recognize itself. Individuation implies that you're both a piece of God and entire God together. And that one addition is what brakes solipsism. Individuation is self evident the moment there is an increase of conciousness taking place. 

"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

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Greatnestwithin said:

@Leo Gura I wonder how Peter Ralston became conscious of these stuff only through comtemplation? 

1) He's a genetic freak. He's not merely doing it through contemplation. He's doing it through a higher state of consciousness. Contemplation is easy if you're high on DMT all the time.

2) There is much he still hasn't become conscious of (according to my view of things).

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

@Leo Gura so you're just going to ignore all objections to your position and call that steelmaning yours?

[Greatnestwithin]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

1) He's a genetic freak. He's not merely doing it through contemplation. He's doing it through a higher state of consciousness. Contemplation is easy if you're high on DMT all the time.

2) There is much he still hasn't become conscious of (according to my view of things).

@Leo Gura yes, like Love. And in your interview he mentions how this is accessible to everyone regardless genetics.

Edited May 28 by Greatnestwithin

[BlueOak]

On 25/05/2025 at 5:38 AM, TruthFreedom said:

I'm sorry, but solipsism is not "absolutely" true, it is only relatively true.

Yes, I get that the only thing "I" can experience is my own mind, but to believe that other people don't exist is foolish.

What about when you ask someone about their day and they start describing it to you.

Do you really believe they didn't have that experience?

 

On 25/05/2025 at 5:19 AM, TruthFreedom said:

Solipsism is basically selfishness/narcissism dressed up as spirituality.

Mind is a concept in your mind. X or Y is a concept in your mind. Reality just is. Anything you put over the top of it, labels, definitions, reactions you put there. Then we get stuck trying to convince what we consider or define as 'others', that other labels and definitions are correct or not.

Here for example, most people on the forum don't realise this one, maybe it'll be helpful.

It's not selfish because there is no self, its the complete dissolution of the self.

Then after that, it doesn't get easier. Because you get to be construct aware, that is every single thing that ever happened in your life was created by you, all the things you've assigned as trauma, or bad, or painful (and all the good stuff too), you created. That is impossible for most people to accept, because it defines their identity and concept of self. Which ultimately doesn't exist. 

^But all of that, including the initial reaction I had, was me attempting to convince you (my reality) how I decided to frame reality was real, even if I stepped back and tried to macro it. 

So Solipisism isn't there yet, but its a damn good framework (claiming to not be a framework ) It's closer though, I understand that much.

*Also i'd contend it was more individualist in nature than collective, whereas the spiral dynamics model is more collective in nature. So its an interesting pairing here.

Edited May 28 by BlueOak

[Leo Gura]

27 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

@Leo Gura so you're just going to ignore all objections to your position and call that steelmaning yours?

Yup.

I'm not here to argue. I'm here to suggest ideas for you to explore on your own if you are curious.

24 minutes ago, Greatnestwithin said:

@Leo Gura he mentions how this is accessible to everyone regardless genetics.

All genetic freaks say that sort of thing.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[Wilhelm44]

2 hours 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.

Where is the proof that the universe didnt exist before you were born, or that it wont continue after you die ? 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Where is the proof that the universe didnt exist before you were born, or that it wont continue after you die ? 

The proof is that it's only in your mind right now.

Your mind IS the universe. If your mind dies, that's the universe.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura