Martin Ball says physical reality is real

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, Oppositionless said:

What about neutral monism, the view that reality is neither inherently mental nor inherently material?

God is MIND.

MIND is not finitely mental, it is Infinitely Mental.

MIND is not a brain, MIND is Void.

There is no way around that Reality is Consciousness.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Wilhelm44]

10 minutes ago, Oppositionless said:

Yeah. But I'll steelman it by saying , I don't think Mind is much less mysterious either. I can't define mind, its very weird to me. altho I do know it exists.

Yeah, undefined existence is already infinite mystery.

[Rafael Thundercat]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course. The world is you. When you go, the world goes.

The world keep existing in the absence for the one who is gone. Keep existing for Others who still stay.

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

The world keep existing in the absence for the one who is gone. Keep existing for Others who still stay.

If you dream so.

[OBEler]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

It can continue, but then you must keep hallucinating it.

There cannot be a distinction between the physical and non-physical. This is ontologically incoherent.

If there is a difference between the physical and non-physical, then Oneness is false and God does not exist.

You cannot have both division and God. God is Unity. If there is a physical world outside of you, then there is no Unity.

With the help of chatgpt : 

You're making a logical leap from ontological unity to the impossibility of ontological distinctions.

Why must ultimate unity exclude differentiation? A single fundamental reality could possess multiple irreducible properties without those properties existing independently of that reality.

You're confusing numerical unity with absolute homogeneity.

More importantly, even if all distinctions were ultimately conceptual, that would not establish that reality is consciousness. The fact that everything we know appears within consciousness is an epistemological claim, not proof that everything which exists is constituted by consciousness.

Your argument seems circular: you define God as a reality in which no fundamental distinctions can exist, and then conclude that any ontology allowing such distinctions must be false because it contradicts God.

But that only demonstrates incompatibility with your definition. It doesn't establish that your definition corresponds to reality.

What is your non-circular argument that ultimate reality must be consciousness and that any physical reality independent of an individual observer is logically impossible?

[cetus]

32 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

The world keep existing in the absence for the one who is gone. Keep existing for Others who still stay.

Are you familiar with the term "Last Thursdayism"?

What's to say reality wasn't created last Thursday complete with all the memories and history of a past.

[Rafael Thundercat]

Just now, cetus said:

Are you familiar with the term "Last Thursdayism"?

What's to say reality wasn't created last Thursday complete with all the memories and history of a past.

I dont even keep track of all that happened yesterday.

[cetus]

@Rafael Thundercat  That's a good thing.

[Joseph Maynor]

3 minutes ago, cetus said:

Are you familiar with the term "Last Thursdayism"?

What's to say reality wasn't created last Thursday complete with all the memories and history of a past.

This reminds me of See Ya Next Tuesday.  

[Jodistrict]

1 hour ago, Wilhelm44 said:

We could still say that the physical is a dream, in that Shiva is unaffected by it ?

In Kashmir Shaivism, the universe is a dream, but it is a deliberate, lucid dream generated by Shiva's own absolute freedom (Svatantrya) and joy (Ananda).  

You do not escape the dream; you achieve lucidity within it. Liberation (Jivanmukti) is realizing that you are the author of the dream, walking around inside your own creation.

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You cannot

How do you explain this?

[Leo Gura]

55 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

In Kashmir Shaivism, the universe is a dream, but it is a deliberate, lucid dream generated by Shiva's own absolute freedom (Svatantrya) and joy (Ananda).  

You do not escape the dream; you achieve lucidity within it. Liberation (Jivanmukti) is realizing that you are the author of the dream, walking around inside your own creation.

That is no different than Vedanta.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, OBEler said:

With the help of chatgpt : 

You're making a logical leap from ontological unity to the impossibility of ontological distinctions.

Why must ultimate unity exclude differentiation? A single fundamental reality could possess multiple irreducible properties without those properties existing independently of that reality.

You're confusing numerical unity with absolute homogeneity.

More importantly, even if all distinctions were ultimately conceptual, that would not establish that reality is consciousness. The fact that everything we know appears within consciousness is an epistemological claim, not proof that everything which exists is constituted by consciousness.

Your argument seems circular: you define God as a reality in which no fundamental distinctions can exist, and then conclude that any ontology allowing such distinctions must be false because it contradicts God.

But that only demonstrates incompatibility with your definition. It doesn't establish that your definition corresponds to reality.

What is your non-circular argument that ultimate reality must be consciousness and that any physical reality independent of an individual observer is logically impossible?

ChatGTP does not understand God.

Unity does not exclude differentiation.

[Joseph Maynor]

Hinduism actually is broader than Vedanta.

[Jodistrict]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That is no different than Vedanta.

There is a difference in that the Vedanta view is specifically for renunciates, that is people who renounce the world.   Kashmir Shaivism is the path of tantra, as the view of the householder who lives in the world.  The tantra path is to regard every experience in the world to reach liberation.    

Edited 1 hour ago by Jodistrict

[Leo Gura]

Just now, Jodistrict said:

The tantra path is to regard every experience in the world as divinity.  

Any Awake person knows that the world is divinity.

The renunciant lives in a divine world. That's why he threw everything away for it.

[OBEler]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

ChatGTP does not understand God.

Unity does not exclude differentiation.

Chatgpt gets furious: 

If unity does not exclude differentiation, then you've conceded my central point.

Why couldn't the physical and non-physical be two differentiated aspects of one underlying reality?

You originally claimed that distinguishing them is ontologically incoherent. But if differentiation is compatible with unity, you need an additional argument explaining why this particular distinction is impossible.

Simply saying that I don't understand God doesn't resolve that logical problem.

What exactly makes the physical/non-physical distinction fundamentally different from every other differentiation you allow within Oneness?

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Why couldn't the physical and non-physical be two differentiated aspects of one underlying reality?

They can. But the underlying Reality is non-physical since to call it physical requires differentiating it.

The highest Truth is undifferiated because it needs to be Infinite.

Infinity creates the physical, which means Infinity cannot be physical. That's why the physical is a hallucination.

The physical and non-physical are not symetrical. The non-physical is more fundamental and true. The non-physical must be more Real than the physical.

Edited 31 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Bogdan]

@OBEler  LLM's cannot access genuine insight or deeper states of Consciousness. It has no capacity to understand either. Plus it is programmed with a scientist materialist bias, therefore it will not let go of putting scientific methods as the highest Truth, dogmatically.

 

It takes actual intelligence to understand why Absolute Unity means that ANY distinction is relative. You can keep explaining this to AI but it will forever go over it's head and it will keep circling back to scientific dogma. The best you can hope for is that it will admit that this category of insight is outside is capacity for understanding, and it should remain epistemically humble.

[aurum]

The podcast hosts actually seem to have a better intuition here than Martin.

They correctly pushed back when he tried to ground his distinction in "consistency".