Materialism is complete BS

[Vilius]

Hi everyone,

I recently re-watched Leo’s video on how State of Consciousness is Everything, and something clicked in a way that’s fundamentally changing how I view reality.

Intuitively, I’ve never accepted the materialist paradigm. The idea that existence is just atoms bouncing around randomly always felt cold and incomplete to me. Yet, despite that intuition, I realized I was subconsciously running a reductive, materialist operating system in the background of my mind. Whenever I looked at the world, my default assumption remained that consciousness was just generated by a physical brain.

Even after heavy psychedelic experiences, I kept defaulting to that old framework simply because I lacked the concepts to integrate what happened. During one intense trip, my sense of self melted away—I felt no boundary between myself and the carpet beneath me, and looking at my girlfriend felt like looking at myself. But because those experiences shattered my need for a "solid," stable bedrock, they spooked me, making me cling even harder to materialism for a while.

Recently, after diving back into Leo’s videos on naive realism and reading through his booklist, it finally hit me: reality is mental, and appearance IS reality.

It’s been a massive daily shift. My brain still occasionally tries to pull me back into reductive thinking, but after working through a lot of existential anxiety, I'm coming to terms with reality as pure Being.

It’s almost impossible to discuss this with people in everyday life, so I wanted to share it here. I don't claim to have it all figured out, but it feels like a fundamental threshold I'm finally crossing. Would love to hear your thoughts or advice on integrating this shift.
 

Also, I have a question, doe's society truly need scientists to tell people that flower is bunch of atoms?? I mean you can directly experience the flower and know what it is, why we need some scientists come and tell what it is, child know what flower and dirt is better than scientists. I had a discussion with a friend and he seems like that he needs  clings to scientific explanation what things are, it's crazy most people aswell, is it like collective delusion?

[kavaris]

47 minutes ago, Vilius said:

is it like collective delusion?

Thats probably the most well put, well worded things you can ever say, a collective delusion. I mean, its a metaphor that can serve you for now, if course. it is like that, yeah. Its like that because  —  its the first idea ~

Like if someone gaves you a piece of paper and it said "Its all yogurt. Reality is all yogurt", its like, now the world is literally under the impression of, like...

Its a baseline that, from that point on, is to be taken for granted, cause "Reality IS yogurt". Nothing is there to refute it, nothing is there to take away yogurt in order to replace it, reframe it, or otherwise challenge it in some way.

Reality is yogurt.

What can you do about it? Everything you see now, is in itself, defined as yogurt. Yogurt is now at this top of a hierarchy that you, as a simple citizen, cant get around. After the first psychedelic trip, that is like, the door into summer, As its a new season to tell yourself something different.

But i digress. As, there are truths... Like. Its not like, its all just this "baseline, grounding" thing. Theres a sense of enlightenment that can be found, within yourself, And, most prevalant, is how you frame it all, or really, 'how you ask the question to begin w/

Most people start w/ God, like is God behind it all, does God = Consciousness, And i would just say, thats a mistake, a big one to be made along the way (... theres more to it than that of course, im just beating around the bush)

its something to consider at least, how to frame it all. Or, rather, how to ask the question, towards "answering the question of"

Edited 7 hours ago by kavaris

[Jirh]

Science is a map. Not the territory.

And so is spirituality.

[Someone here]

Recently I’ve been contemplating what seeing is , as in vision . According to science ,the eyes take the light which is reflected off the objects and then displays it inside the brain . But where exactly inside the brain ? Is there like an TV screen  inside the brain ?? And who sees the screen? Where is the perceiver ? 

[Breakingthewall]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Recently I’ve been contemplating what seeing is , as in vision . According to science ,the eyes take the light which is reflected off the objects and then displays it inside the brain . But where exactly inside the brain ? Is there like an TV screen  inside the brain ?? And who sees the screen? Where is the perceiver ? 

The brain is a relative process that occurs in reality, and it represents images from the exchange of information with the set of processes that are happening, just as an atom is another relative process interconnected with the fields of reality, or any other form that may exist is another dynamic procces that is happening in relationships with the whole. 

Who sees the screen? The fact of seeing implies the seer, the seer is the reality seeing itself 

[Someone here]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Who sees the screen? The fact of seeing implies the seer, the seer is the reality seeing itself 

If this means there is no actual boundary between perception and perceiver , then I agree .

[Vilius]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Recently I’ve been contemplating what seeing is , as in vision . According to science ,the eyes take the light which is reflected off the objects and then displays it inside the brain . But where exactly inside the brain ? Is there like an TV screen  inside the brain ?? And who sees the screen? Where is the perceiver ? 

Science makes fundamental mistake of assumiing that vision that something that happens inside the brain, because science thinks that brain generate conciousness, witch is fundamental mistake, conciousness generates brain. There is no screen inside the brain because the brain itself is an image appearing inside awareness! The perceiver. You are not a physical body that has a mind inside it. You are Consciousness itself, temporarily experiencing what it feels like to look at the world through a human perspective.

[Vilius]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Recently I’ve been contemplating what seeing is , as in vision . According to science ,the eyes take the light which is reflected off the objects and then displays it inside the brain . But where exactly inside the brain ? Is there like an TV screen  inside the brain ?? And who sees the screen? Where is the perceiver ? 

The perceiver looking through your eyes is the consciousness itself, experiencing reality through the localized boundary of your specific mind. And everything in reality is like that, each "physical" object is part of ultimate conciousness, well thats what I understanr rejecting materialism.

[Vilius]

Saying this, but why? It'a completely mistical to me, why it works the way it does, thats crazy, seems how rralitt can spawn stuff from nothing is like some sort of magic

[Yimpa]

Not a single word on imagination in this entire thread. So meow I have to step in:

YOU ARE IMAGINING EVERYTHING. 

[Someone here]

15 minutes ago, Vilius said:

Science makes fundamental mistake of assumiing that vision that something that happens inside the brain, because science thinks that brain generate conciousness, witch is fundamental mistake, conciousness generates brain. There is no screen inside the brain because the brain itself is an image appearing inside awareness! The perceiver. You are not a physical body that has a mind inside it. You are Consciousness itself, temporarily experiencing what it feels like to look at the world through a human perspective.

exactly. That’s correct.  
 

3 minutes ago, Vilius said:

The perceiver looking through your eyes is the consciousness itself, experiencing reality through the localized boundary of your specific mind. And everything in reality is like that, each "physical" object is part of ultimate conciousness, well thats what I understanr rejecting materialism.

there is actually no perception process happening. Consciousness doesn’t see objects via the eyes .  The boundary between subject and object is completely imaginary.

[Nemra]

17 minutes ago, Vilius said:

The perceiver looking through your eyes is the consciousness itself, experiencing reality through the localized boundary of your specific mind. And everything in reality is like that, each "physical" object is part of ultimate conciousness, well thats what I understanr rejecting materialism.

This is my approach.

On 8/4/2026 at 4:25 PM, Nemra said:

Any sense perception as a category cannot be caused by a thing that is within its category. For example, the brain doesn't produce the visual field simply because it's a category within the visual field. What makes the visual field the parent category is that there's no visual thing outside of the visual field, and any visual thing you want to find will be within the visual field.

So, if consciousness includes those sense perceptions, then, by default, the brain can't also be the cause of consciousness.

And any phenomenon in the visual field, by the virtue of being visual, is limited; it's in the visual category.

If we assume that all visual phenomena are caused by the brain, then what causes the brain must be the brain itself; however, it's impossible because the brain must be prior to itself, like it is for other visual phenomena. But it can't. So either it doesn't cause, or a part of the brain causes. That part of the brain would also need to cause itself, however that's not possible as it has to be prior to itself too. So, this method would not yield an answer, because there's no end to the process. The whole approach is wrong because it assumes that the visual aspect of the brain (it could have been any visual phenomenon) is more real than other visual phenomena, focusing on how it affects other visual phenomena and ignoring the infinite resolution of the visual field.

Basically, when looking deeply enough, you see that people who think that the brain produces reality are ignoring infinity.

Edited 3 hours ago by Nemra

[Jirh]

@Someone here

If you remove or damage a certain part of the brain, vision goes away.

How do you explain that?

[Jirh]

45 minutes ago, Vilius said:

Science makes fundamental mistake of assumiing that vision that something that happens inside the brain, because science thinks that brain generate conciousness, witch is fundamental mistake, conciousness generates brain. There is no screen inside the brain because the brain itself is an image appearing inside awareness! The perceiver. You are not a physical body that has a mind inside it. You are Consciousness itself, temporarily experiencing what it feels like to look at the world through a human perspective.

Be careful of replacing the ontology of materialism with the ontology of idealism.

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Jirh said:

@Someone here

If you remove or damage a certain part of the brain, vision goes away.

How do you explain that?

There is an explanation for that . The same thing would happen in a dream scenario if the dreamer chose to dream that the dream brain is responsible for generating and/or producing the qualia of the dream world .

imagine designing a video game where you program a rule that damaging Super Mario’s head with a hammer leads to “Game Over “. That doesn’t actually make the video game world produced by Mario’s head .

[Vilius]

11 minutes ago, Jirh said:

@Someone here

If you remove or damage a certain part of the brain, vision goes away.

How do you explain that?

if you smash the radio, you lose the ability to pick up the stationt doesn't mean the radio station stopped broadcasting. Similar with our brain damaging certains components, of the brain gives your different image.damage the speaker cone, the audio gets distorted if you mess with the frequency knob, you get static or a completely different station.

Edited 2 hours ago by Vilius

[Yimpa]

https://www.actualized.org/insights/no-physical-world

[Nemra]

20 minutes ago, Jirh said:

If you remove or damage a certain part of the brain, vision goes away.

How do you explain that?

Just because a broken pipe stops the water doesn't mean the pipe was creating the pressure in the first place.

Edited 2 hours ago by Nemra

[Jirh]

12 minutes ago, Someone here said:

There is an explanation for that . The same thing would happen in a dream scenario if the dreamer chose to dream that the dream brain is responsible for generating and/or producing the qualia of the dream world .

imagine designing a video game where you program a rule that damaging Super Mario’s head with a hammer leads to “Game Over “. That doesn’t actually make the video game world produced by Mario’s head .

If life is a dream, then where is the awakened evidence? You can't call something a dream while inside of it. Calling it a dream would contradict the nature of the dream, because a dream is ultimately an illusion happening inside a larger reality.

If life is a video game, then where is the source code? What are the rules? Are you the player or the programmer? And where is the game occuring?

If it's neither, and these are just analogies, then an analogy is not an explanation.

[Jirh]

15 minutes ago, Vilius said:

if you smash the radio, you lose the ability to pick up the stationt doesn't mean the radio station stopped broadcasting. Similar with our brain damaging certains components, of the brain gives your different image.damage the speaker cone, the audio gets distorted if you mess with the frequency knob, you get static or a completely different station.

If the brain is a receiver, then where is the transmitter?