My Latest Solipsistic Insight

[Deadpixel]

@Someone here don’t worry man you’re fake. Actualized is just a dream fantasy Website I have of other people having awakenings. You’re not here

[Nemra]

I'm beginning to regret that I went in-depth here.

Edited 4 hours ago by Nemra

[Someone here]

8 minutes ago, Deadpixel said:

@Someone here don’t worry man you’re fake. Actualized is just a dream fantasy Website I have of other people having awakenings. You’re not here

I’m here. Why would I talk to you if I believed you were merely an inert character in my mind or dream?

 

Leo, this makes no sense, and it’s not funny anymore. This solipsism bullshit has gone far enough. I suggest he cross-reference his insights on psychedelics with those of other enlightened people and double- and triple-check his position on this point, particularly regarding the idea that equating oneself with God is identical to the philosophy of solipsism.

at this point , this is dangerous misleading from Leo’s part .

Edited 4 hours ago by Someone here

[kavaris]

7 hours ago, kavaris said:

Ive been liking "-copia", etc.

im adding to somethin i said, cause i found this wiki article describing the "vertiginous question": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_am_I_me%3F

... except that, if thats suppose to be a scientific view ("we are missing the constellation view...") then what even is a constellation view, right? Its like "We have one missing element from consciousness thing. The thing outside it, of which no one can verify, and that defeats the purpose of what we were saying". Like... "Why am i me" doesnt also ask about, "what is the universe, and is it looking at me" as that sounds absurd, so why this person suggested it, i dont know. I feel you could then ask about anything ~ "Why does my carpet watch me when i sleep" or something.

Or you replace the inital question, and refer to the initial subject as that universal questioner/observer.

Edited 4 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

Like, just inflamming science for a sec, is that something theyd say, a constellation view? Id like to know what a constellation view is, as thats interesting.  Is that like, "How Andromeda sees us"?

[kavaris]

If i dont find out how Ursa Major sees us, then i m not gona be able to proceed much more, im gonna have to just give up, because the whole reason i signed up was for the constellation view, from every constellation in view, including, but not limited to  Ursa major/minor   Like, can we find out the thought process of scientists, so we can go to college at 50 years of age, and succeed.. or wat, like... I need the constellation view or im not gonna make it. Okay, thats the end of the rant.

[r0ckyreed]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

What external world?

The things that exist behind me. I can blindfold myself, put hearing-blocking headphones on, and walk down 5th avenue in NYC and there will still be cars that exist that will run me over. How exactly can I get run over if reality is only what I perceive? How could a car drive without a person and their mind that I do not have access to? Maybe it is an AI that is driving it, but in most cases, it is a human mind that is operating the vehicle. That human driving the car has a race, gender, and story I will never know about.
 

Your toilet exists right now even though I cannot perceive it. You have sex with women that happens behind closed doors. The women getting pregnant from sex happened even though I’m not aware of it. All the children born or are the result of 2 people having sex, of which I never experienced. I have never witnessed a murder but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.There’s so much I don’t experience, but yet it exists. Thats what I mean by the external world.

Edited 2 hours ago by r0ckyreed

[JoshB]

37 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

The things that exist behind me. I can blindfold myself, put hearing-blocking headphones on, and walk down 5th avenue in NYC and there will still be cars that exist that will run me over. How exactly can I get run over if reality is only what I perceive? How could a car drive without a person and their mind that I do not have access to? Maybe it is an AI that is driving it, but in most cases, it is a human mind that is operating the vehicle. That human driving the car has a race, gender, and story I will never know about.
 

Your toilet exists right now even though I cannot perceive it. You have sex with women that happens behind closed doors. The women getting pregnant from sex happened even though I’m not aware of it. All the children born or are the result of 2 people having sex, of which I never experienced. I have never witnessed a murder but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.There’s so much I don’t experience, but yet it exists. Thats what I mean by the external world.

This is a strawman ( not to be mean). The solution is simple. You're dreaming of stuff happening outside of you and your experience. 

You have had plenty of dreams at night with similar "external scenarios". You dream of events at night that transpire outside of reach. You dream someone goes to the store and they come back with groceries. 

And the substance and creation of all of that came from your mind. 

Now the only difference here vs a night dream relativily speaking. Is your are imagining it to be REAL

 

Edited 2 hours ago by JoshB

[JoshB]

Reality can be dreamt in such a powerful way it appears stuff is happening outside of awareness. And because God can lower its level of consciousness to a human. It appears objective and external. 

And because identity is never questioned the level of consciousness never raises to see that these were self induced illusions. 

If your identity is never expanded to include the whole reality inc all others. Then recognizing that you created all of reality can not transpire.

Edited 2 hours ago by JoshB

[JoshB]

@r0ckyreed point to something outside your awareness. You cant not even in theory. 

[Nemra]

@r0ckyreed

Edited 1 hour ago by Nemra

[kavaris]

Understanding (as in, 'disproving the dream) is fifty percent of what it means to awaken, exactly 50, where as, 'awakening is exactly double the understanding of understanding, and enlightentenment is another 2x, exactly double of awakening, because enlightenment (in a strict sense) should carry both, it should then have the initial idea, the awakening idea, and then another multiplier that can somehow be in the knowing of what just happened, and by the logic, oneness... It just ends, like i dont think the dream has infinite scaling lvls in one sitting, you escalate into light, or you die into light, or... you accidentally realize theres a light, or accidentally experience it, and then, theoretically, you should just be that light, but then that would be enlightenment (strict sense).and not us talking about it here right now, and i only even say this now cause.. i just had (literally 1 min. ago) a weird, stupid dream where it felt like that (2x of this, 2x of that, 2x of that, the end?)

Edited 1 hour ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

If someone told me that tho, it would make no sennse, so i can also see why no one should even get wat i said.

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, Nemra said:

So when you replace x with God, solipsism doesn't break.

It does break because you changed the meaning of x. That's the entire point.

This entire thing you did here where you tried to retain the syntax between the two different understandings is literally schizophrenia, a bunch of structure irrelevant to the actual substance of the discussion. The problem is the semantic meaning is different, not the syntax.

Besides, you only chose quite arbitrary sentences. I can retain the syntax for two materialism understandings but they will still be different semantically of course (by definition, literally) which is what the actual problem is:

"x is all that exists". Replace it with "matter" (as in the common perception of materialism) or "God" (as in my for-the-sake-of-argument perception of materialism, where also God = matter) and the syntax is retained. Yet of course the meaning of the word "matter" in the two understandings is different, which is again what the actual problem is.

Likewise, I can find sentences where the two understandings of solipsism clash where the syntax is the same:

"x is the only sensory-bound, biologically body-centered locus of experience that exists". Replace "x" with "my mind" and you'll get the common perception of solipsism, replace it with "God" (as in the Cosmic solipsism perception) and the statement is false.

Agaiiin, the problem is we're clashing with the meaning of the word in the common cultural perception of it; the syntax of a few sentences is irrelevant.

Edited 24 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Nemra said:

He focuses on how people will abuse solipsism, which also works against him because God is way more abused than solipsism, and then he somehow is fine with people parroting words from spiritual traditions but not when it's from Leo.

I've said multiple times in here that "God" also sucks as a word when talking to noobies generally. I just think "solipsism" sucks extra hard. Feel free to explain why you think "God" is more "abused" than solipsism.

The larger point is to know your audience. Rupert Spira has a good view on this:

6:44

 

Edited 3 minutes ago by Carl-Richard