RMQualtrough

What is the best proof against Solipsism?

33 posts in this topic

@Someone here I suppose I can't see a difference between the two. 


"I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RMQualtrough said:

But there's no free will?

The idea of humans having free will is false. Nonetheless, you are not a human ;).

Who you truly are has infinite free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@RMQualtrough Ahahahaa so funny people are stuck in this. The logic is so flawed, they don't understand that the simple fact that the modulation of cognition denies any philosophy that is purely self referential destroys solipsism right off the bat. You can't create philosophy without adhering to the discovered origins of the creator, aka you, most people simply aren't smart enough to think about the math of that though so they're stuck in these egoic loops they're not even aware enough they're doing. They're the philosophical zombies of intellectualism, I'm a fan of zombies more than philosophy and intellectualism in general, they're just a means to an end; what, how, who is reality.

Edited by ll Ontology ll

꧁◍❅◍❅◍❅◍❅◍(¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.->     𝒳    >-.¸¸.·`¯´·.¸¸.·`¯( ◍❅◍❅◍❅◍❅◍꧂

▁ ▂ ▃ ▄ ▅ ▆ ▇ ▉  𝕮𝖍𝖆𝖔𝖘 ᥴ᥅ꫀꪖꪻ꠸ꪜ꠸ꪻꪗ  ▉ ▇ ▆ ▅ ▄ ▃ ▂ ▁

ℝ ⁼ ᴬ¹ 𝕩 ᴬ² > 𝕊^ᵂ < ᴿ~ ⁼ ᴹ ⁽ⁱⁿᶜˡᵘˢⁱᵛⁱᵗʸ⁾

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

I mean typical Solipsism, that the limited mind is all that exists.

I see that SOME other conscious process may be at play since I can read works of fiction or poetry I could never ever consciously come up with.

But what is the proof that there is seeing happening from perspectives other than your own?

There is not typical and non-typical solipsism, there is just solipsism. Try to disprove Mormonism. You will realize quickly ism denotes belief, conjecture, dogma, a way of thinking.

That you cannot come up with the most beautiful poetry that has ever manifested is a limiting belief. In honesty, you don’t know what’s gonna happen five minutes from now.

Seeing is not happening in your perspective.  Perception is perception. Thought is thought. Notice you cannot think perception, nor can you perceive thoughts. Awareness is directly aware of thoughts, and directly aware of perception. Then notice there is no duality or separation between awareness and thought or perception. 

 


MEDITATIONS TOOLS  ActualityOfBeing.com  GUIDANCE SESSIONS

NONDUALITY LOA  My Youtube Channel  THE TRUE NATURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Directly transcending the experience of solipsism.

All apparently separate happenings, consciousnesses, and isnesses, are connected... by (and as) absolutely nothing. There’s no separation — nor enough for there to be real connection.

I mean literally the perception that there are other people separate from you is an utter illusion, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t apparent other-selves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are actually two types of solipsism: Metaphysical Solipsism and Epistemological Solipsism.

Epistemological Solipsism is a knowledge claim: only the mind can be known to exist with absolute certainty, but this position leaves open the possibly that physical reality exists, but the existence of physical reality cannot be known to exist for certain.

Metaphysical Solipsism is a reality claim: the mind is in fact the only thing that actually exists, and physical reality does not, in fact, exist.

Epistemological Solipsism can be proven with introspection, autolysis, axiom regression. It is not a scientific claim. It is not falsifiable.

Metaphysical Solipsism, like any scientific claim, can not be proven, but it can be disproven. It is falsifiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nahm said:

Seeing is not happening in your perspective.  Perception is perception. Thought is thought. Notice you cannot think perception, nor can you perceive thoughts. Awareness is directly aware of thoughts, and directly aware of perception. Then notice there is no duality or separation between awareness and thought or perception. 

Nice one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The0Self said:

Directly transcending the experience of solipsism.

All apparently separate happenings, consciousnesses, and isnesses, are connected... by (and as) absolutely nothing. There’s no separation — nor enough for there to be real connection.

I mean literally the perception that there are other people separate from you is an utter illusion, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t apparent other-selves.

But this is not able to prove that there are other points of view of seeing etc. Is there a reason Rupert Spira etc says Solipsism is ridiculous? Is there something that shows that not only are all things including me in pure consciousness, but that other finite senses are also existent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

22 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

I mean typical Solipsism, that the limited mind is all that exists.

I see that SOME other conscious process may be at play since I can read works of fiction or poetry I could never ever consciously come up with.

But what is the proof that there is seeing happening from perspectives other than your own?

 

22 hours ago, iboughtleosbooklist said:

RIGHT HERE BITCH!

THERE IS A PERCEPTUAL BUBBLE ON THIS END TYPING THIS IN ALL CAPS RIGHT NOW.

Here's some random emojis to prove how random I am and not an NPC: 😏🤪🎶❤️🎶🤙🤘😘🤙 

Solipsism disproved. Now you have to persuade me that you are conscious 😉

very well played, but we all know that only I exist bruh

but why are there trillions of things on the world and the internet which I am never going to even look at? Who are they for and why are they generated? Uhh DUUH they are generated only for me when I look at them... 

If I was the only one who is real, why am I not the ruler of the world? We don't need proof against solipsism, just talking about it gives it more credit than it deserves. Its like flat earth - just talking about it gives it a little bit of reality :D So to say its ridiculous is giving it a little bit of life and some doubt in the mind will come "WHAT IF" 

FUCK THAT :P :D Don't go crazy! Life is beyond our feeble minds and will remain a glorious mystery lets respect that. 

If you don't want to get stung, don't poke the hornet nest hehe. Investigate your own self, but respect that there are other selves also. No ofcourse you don't have direct proof of other selves, BECAUSE YOU ARE YOUR OWN SELF xD

 No proof does not mean proof of the opposite. It is a very fallible logic! Mathematics teaches you that. If you have no proof of other "direct experiences", that does not mean only your direct experience exists. That would need a proof. I await proof of solipsism and then will laugh at the results because my direct experience would be the proof against that proof, because it was not me who wrote the proof and they couldnt write it without direct experience - if they did, then the proof is wrong, because they have no direct experience to draw conclusions from. I hope you follow my logic here, because it is solid from my understanding. 

Edited by Dodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

But what is the proof that there is seeing happening from perspectives other than your own?

Break through the illusion of separateness. There is only seeing.


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

To worry about the existence of others is to assume the existence of oneself.

A singular consciousness can have multiple experiences in the relative domain, just like a singular consciousness can have multiple forms in the relative domain. Why not? With regards to the movie/relative, there's a lot in this moment you can't experience based off your state of consciousness e.g. other dimensions, other minds, other entities, etc. On the other hand, Leo is right in saying that all that is is the eternal now because behind the veil it has never been anything but pure bliss. Both are true depending on how you look at it. Absolute vs relative. An inability to properly integrate this will fuck you up. 

Non duality is about realising that the whole thing is a game, it tells you nothing about the nitty gritty details of the game.

To think non duality will give you the answer to solipsism is the equivalent of thinking non duality will give the answers to how DNA operates, how gravity works, etc. etc.

"Bu-but, Gravity is just an illusion, DNA cells are an illusion! It's all illusion!"

Yeah, and? Did you realise the whole thing was an illusion? Did you realise despite all that the game still uses certain rules and regulations that cannot be broken? Maybe questioning solipsism is more distractions related to/inside the game that cannot be proven or unproven? You realise that everyone on this forum asking this is wasting their time completely? 

2 hours ago, Dodo said:

No proof does not mean proof of the opposite. It is a very fallible logic!

yep! 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Break through the illusion of separateness. There is only seeing.

With no one to do the seeing, no ownership at all. I'm surprised people on the forum almost gloat about being absolute nothingness; shit's kinda weird lol. Probably because the belief of being God is more ego inflating than the actual raw experience of it.

Edited by Ry4n
slight fix up for details

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop trying to prove anything, proof requires comparisons, and that ain't very non dual of you ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Break through the illusion of separateness. There is only seeing.

But you only know of one field of vision. You see what I mean? It is evident there are things my finite mind is not consciously aware of (I could not consciously write Bohemian Rhapsody), but this is also true of a dream.

Why do we say that in a dream only our character sees, but in waking life we say there is more than one field of vision? That is a field of vision that extends beyond the one known by our finite mind?

Edited by RMQualtrough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now