Debunking solipsism... for the 476th time 💀

[Bazooka Jesus]

Well, let's hope that this is going to be the final round.

An esteemed member of this forum PM'd me today in order to inquire about my take on Solipsism, and I was so mightily pleased with my response that I thought it might be a good idea to share it with all you other buggers out there. You're welcome!

---

Look, it's very simple: Reality is appearance. Whatever appears here and now is that which exists. And that's the whole story! Slapping the label 'me' onto the whole of existence/appearance is an unnecessary and nonsensical extra step, and it is based on a very clear and obvious fallacy... the fallacy of taking a random relative concept (me) and conflating it with the absolute. Instead of calling it 'me', you might as well call it 'cheeseburger', 'Santa Claus' or 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster'.

Now, do others exist? Sure... as a concept, they exist. Does their perspective exist? Sure... as a concept, it exists. These concepts are undeniable appearances in the here and now and thus they are real; if they weren't, we could not talk about them right now, you see? But don't conflate random relative concepts with the entirety of reality in which these concepts appear... it is the mother of all spiritual traps, and it can lead to all kinds of dangerous delusions.

Hope this helps!

[Someone here]

@Bazooka Jesus is there a distance between me and you ?

[Princess Arabia]

Answer these questions.

1. Is Consciousness all there is. Y/N

2. Are you Consciousness. Y/N

 

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Answer these questions.

1. Is Consciousness all there is. Y/N

2. Are you Consciousness. Y/N

 

👍. 

I have my answers but I'm gonna withhold them until hearing your answers first .

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Someone here said:

👍. 

I have my answers but I'm gonna withhold them until hearing your answers first .

My answers are both yes. Waiting for Bazooki's.

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

My answers are both yes. Waiting for Bazooki's.

Mine are No..and No.

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Someone here said:

Mine are No..and No.

Interesting. Care to briefly elaborate. Don't have to.

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Interesting. Care to briefly elaborate. Don't have to.

Sure .

You see..."Consciousness" is a subject..whereas everything else are an object..so I don’t think it makes sense to say that everything is made of consciousness...because consciousness implies some conscious agent and objects to be conscious of. And that's duality .

Also ..consciousness is limited. You can't say that there is nothing outside of your bubble of consciousness.  I mean how many time you were sure that "THIS " is all there is ..only to wake up at morning to find out  it was a dream within a dream .😉

[AerisVahnEphelia]

you only debunking yourself

[Princess Arabia]

24 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Sure .

You see..."Consciousness" is a subject..whereas everything else are an object..so I don’t think it makes sense to say that everything is made of consciousness...because consciousness implies some conscious agent and objects to be conscious of. And that's duality .

Also ..consciousness is limited. You can't say that there is nothing outside of your bubble of consciousness.  I mean how many time you were sure that "THIS " is all there is ..only to wake up at morning to find out  it was a dream within a dream .😉

Ok, I understand where you're coming from with this, even though I disagree. You also call it "bubble of consciousness, which tells me you are not seeing the significance of this so-called "bubble". You are also looking at how you're able to know things that you say were not a part of your consciousness before and all of a sudden it becomes a part of it. You're trying to think this through using your logical mind which was not designed to figure out certain things. The mind cannot understand the mind, you have to step outside the mind to see things clearly.

Intuition plays a part in this too, even though not all parts, because that involves feelings and emotions which can also be distorted and conditioned. You are always aware of something. You are Awareness, aware of being conscious. Anyway, this isn't going to change your perception you have to see it for yourself and recognize the "a-ha" of it not using your logical mind. Remember the Universe is illogical and cannot be grasped using your logics.

[cetus]

[Osaid]

The funniest thing is when you realize that "imagination" and "concept" are themselves concepts. They are categories of experience. You can't experience a category of experience. So when you say "that's just imagination so it's not real", the distinction of "imagination" and "real" are themselves concepts and imagination. So, you are using imagination to determine that imagination is not real. There is no meaningful metaphysical implication of identifying that something is imagination, because that is just more imagination. It is just a tool to describe experience, yet many people hinge their entire existential position on it.

You can say that there is "visual perception", but notice that this label of "visual perception" is a category of experience. It doesn't actually describe what is visually perceived, it just turns it into a general abstraction through thought. Categories only exist in thought. What is missed is that you can abstract thoughts through thoughts as well, by calling them "thoughts" or "imagination." You generally don't use visual perception to deny visual perception, but notice that you deny thoughts with thoughts. When you visualize an image in your mind's eye, you might have an extra thought/interpretation that comes up and says "that's not real, it's just imaginary." Or maybe a more relatable thought for the members of this forum would be "that is metaphysically wrong to think about" or "that doesn't exist metaphysically." Thoughts are a sensory experience just like visual perception, but you believe that you can truly dissect and figure out the entirety of reality using that sensory perception, which is false, in the same way that you don't "figure out" reality by tasting ice cream or visually perceiving something. 

All your metaphysical conceptualizations are still conceptual, they are not actually metaphysical or existential or absolute. And they get conflated with the absolute all the time, because the concept you think of says "This is absolute, not conceptual. I am God, I am this, I am that, there are no others." But this is still in the realm of concepts, and you are essentially just building up a philosophy which says "this is not a philosophy, this is absolute and existential because I experienced it before, yadda yadda." If you are still using concepts to identify yourself and explain yourself, you have not left the realm of the average philosopher coming up with their own theoretical conclusions about reality. What you are is not a theory or answer or conclusion or anything like that, it is just what you are, and that contains any theory or answer or conclusion inside of it. You are the thing which generates answers and conclusions about yourself. 

Notice that whenever you say something like "I am the only thing that exists", that statement only exists in contrast to the opposite duality of itself, which is "I am not the only thing" or "something else exists." So, it is still a conceptual identity. It exists in relation to a concept, the opposite concept, which is "there are other people." The experience of being the only thing that exists does not exist, and the experience of not being the only thing that exists does not exist either. Because they both depend on each other conceptually. They are dualities. When you see another person in front of you, that is not you being alone or together, that is simply just the experience of another person being in front of you. It's just that fucking simple. You can theorize all you want about it later, but that is exactly what you experienced. The "you" which can be alone or together is a conceptual interpretation of that experience. It does not change your experience of that person at all. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Osaid

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, Osaid said:

Notice that whenever you say something like "I am the only thing that exists", that statement only exists in contrast to the opposite duality of itself, which is "I am not the only thing" or "something else exists

I see this. Recognize this. Question: What is your stance on Solipsism. I understand it will only be mind and concepts explaining this, but I didn't really get how you saw Solipsism from your above explanation. 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Princess Arabia

[Osaid]

6 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

What is your stance on Solipsism

Solipsism is ultimately an identity or conception which is never experienced as anything other than identity or conception. It is trapped in a conceptual duality, and so it is never experienced. It is just as accurate to say "there are only other people" as it is to say "there is only you", because both concepts assume that something else can be the case, that is the only way both concepts can exist at all.

My stance was basically summarized in this section:

Quote

When you see another person in front of you, that is not you being alone or together, that is simply just the experience of another person being in front of you. It's just that fucking simple. You can theorize all you want about it later, but that is exactly what you experienced. The "you" which can be alone or together is a conceptual interpretation of that experience. It does not change your experience of that person at all. 

I elaborate more poetically on this point in another post of mine:

Quote

Your POV is inside of everyone else's POV. You are viewing everyone's POV right now. You ARE everyone's POV. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about "other POVs" in the first place.

Hypothetically, if you DID experience everyone's "POV", their POVs would literally stop existing, because it would just become your POV.

The POV of other people exists EXACTLY BECAUSE you cannot directly view them. It is a relative dualistic dance.

Sometimes "other people" is visual perception. Sometimes it is a physical presence. Sometimes it is sound. Sometimes it is imagination. It changes. It is ephemeral. It's not some fixed idea of "Everyone is imaginary!" 

Is the flower in front of you "other"? It happens in your own experience, yes. But it absolutely has its own unique qualities, despite being in your POV. It has its own intelligence. Its own flair. Which cannot be imagined by any kind of ego "you", only experienced.

There is an input from you, where you imagine things about people. You imagine things about yourself as well. This is being mistaken as "you" being "alone." No.

Is realizing that the tree outside your house is being imagined making you lonely too? Do you want the physical tree to exist in your experience forever? Do you want a physical human to exist in your experience forever? No! It's a beautifully intelligent dualistic dance. Love it. The tree becomes concept. The tree becomes physical. The tree becomes an idea for a drawing. The tree becomes a creating of oxygen. You are putting a big limit on the tree when you say "It only exists when it is physical!" Same goes for other people. It is an anthropomorphic and materialistic interpretation of reality when you think otherwise.

Really, any notions of "you" and "other" are equally real, because they are dualities which depend on eachother. Yin and yang.

 

[Razard86]

Me goes beyond concept....Me states or points to what you are. These are just silly little ego games you are doing to avoid the VOID.

When your human dream ends...and you realize that you are the totality of everything...this little game you are playing will be seen for what it is. There is not other. Other is ME, There is ONLY ME. Me is to state what you are which is totality.

Your human self disappears when you don't dream and go into deep sleep and so does the universe. All appearances disappear because they are impermanent. Solipsism just says that you are TOTALITY. There are no other perspectives or experiences because YOU ARE TOTAL. You play dishonest games because you don't realize that total means you are all alone. You are all alone because you cannot be separated. 

What is a concept is SEPERATION. ME just points to TOTALITY.

ME=TOTALITY. Self=TOTALITY. There is ONLY ME....and that is it. Enough of these games you avoiders.

[Princess Arabia]

15 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Solipsism is ultimately an identity or conception which is never experienced as anything other than identity or conception. It is trapped in a conceptual duality, and so it is never experienced. It is just as accurate to say "there are only other people" as it is to say "there is only you", because both concepts assume that something else can be the case, that is the only way both concepts can exist at all.

This reminds me of the "Death doesn't exist" statement. No one has experienced death other than as a concept. I'm sure you're aware death doesn't exist, so you're saying Solipsism doesn't exist except in identity or concept. I get this is what you're saying. 

The POV stuff was bit complicated for me to grasp at the moment no matter how many times I read it, even though I will, maybe after reading it 100 more times, or maybe one more time, idk but I'm still not sure if you're saying there is only one being in existence, or if there are multiple beings, both one and multiple or none or nothing or whatever. It seems a bit of a riddle. 

[Razard86]

Just now, Princess Arabia said:

This reminds me of the "Death doesn't exist" statement. No one has experienced death other than as a concept. I'm sure you're aware death doesn't exist, so you're saying Solipsism doesn't exist except in identity or concept. I get this is what you're saying. 

The POV stuff was bit complicated for me to grasp at the moment no matter how many times I read it, even though I will, maybe after reading it 100 more times, or maybe one more time, idk but I'm still not sure if you're saying there is only one being in existence, or if there are multiple beings, both one and multiple or none or nothing or whatever. It seems a bit of a riddle. 

They are confusing you because they don't want you to awaken. They fear Solipsism because Absolute Solipsism is equal to a dream. 

When you go to sleep at night the others in the dream do not have their own POV. This is true for you in your direct experience. Notice you TELL YOURSELF that they have their own POV but you have NEVER confirmed it. And you never will. Now can you imagine they have their own perspective and then they get one? Sure...but that is because YOU GAVE THEM A POV. Them having a POV is not inherent, you have to construct that/project that onto your experience. 

The only POV you have ever confirmed is your own. This is why you have to be HONEST to get to the bottom. Even your human POV is also a construction as well and you only have a human POV because you give that to yourself and you can deconstruct away that POV also. That's the point. Whether you have a POV or whether another person has one is based on what you DECIDE is true. 

The problem is even if you dissolve your human identity and the identity of so called others....YOU WILL STILL EXIST. This proves that there was NEVER OTHER perspective to begin with, it is just a construction. If you can get fooled by bots on social media how can you not be fooled that other people have their own experiences? LOL they don't because YOU ARE EXPERIENCE.

[Princess Arabia]

5 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

They are confusing you because they don't want you to awaken. They fear Solipsism because Absolute Solipsism is equal to a dream. 

When you go to sleep at night the others in the dream do not have their own POV. This is true for you in your direct experience. Notice you TELL YOURSELF that they have their own POV but you have NEVER confirmed it. And you never will. Now can you imagine they have their own perspective and then they get one? Sure...but that is because YOU GAVE THEM A POV. Them having a POV is not inherent, you have to construct that/project that onto your experience. 

The only POV you have ever confirmed is your own. This is why you have to be HONEST to get to the bottom. Even your human POV is also a construction as well and you only have a human POV because you give that to yourself and you can deconstruct away that POV also. That's the point. Whether you have a POV or whether another person has one is based on what you DECIDE is true. 

The problem is even if you dissolve your human identity and the identity of so called others....YOU WILL STILL EXIST. This proves that there was NEVER OTHER perspective to begin with, it is just a construction. If you can get fooled by bots on social media how can you not be fooled that other people have their own experiences? LOL they don't because YOU ARE EXPERIENCE.

Oh my, oh my, oh my. The dream part made me grasp this a little easier, I guess because I've experienced dreams and can make the comparison. I think people can feel alone in life for whatever reason, no matter how many people are around, precisely because of this reason. Nobody ever said, there are too many people around me I need to get away when there's no one around, unless they are insane or mad, it's always, " i feel so all alone" even if there are plenty of people in their lives. To me, that's a dead give-away, but that's just mind interpreting,

[Osaid]

5 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

This reminds me of the "Death doesn't exist" statement. No one has experienced death other than as a concept. I'm sure you're aware death doesn't exist, so you're saying Solipsism doesn't exist except in identity or concept. I get this is what you're saying. 

The POV stuff was bit complicated for me to grasp at the moment no matter how many times I read it, even though I will, maybe after reading it 100 more times, or maybe one more time, idk but I'm still not sure if you're saying there is only one being in existence, or if there are multiple beings, both one and multiple or none or nothing or whatever. It seems a bit of a riddle. 

It simply has no relevance to your experience. You can sit in your room by yourself, and you can either come to the conclusion that other people exist or don't exist. At the end of the day, your experience is still that of a human that sits in their room and contemplates mental conclusions about reality. Nothing regarding other people was changed or experienced. You are still by yourself in that room, just contemplating things. Other people did not change, your beliefs about them did. There is a difference between having a physical human in front of you, and contemplating theories and conclusions about other humans. The latter is ultimately just you changing beliefs and knowledge, and it has nothing to do with the former. 

You can theorize about other people having their own experience or not, but that is just theory. You will never experience someone not existing, that is something that only happens in theory. There is nothing metaphysical or absolute about contemplating knowledge or theory. You cannot become more or less alone by changing beliefs about yourself or other people. Whether you believe they exist or not, nothing has changed but beliefs, not their actual existence. It doesn't change what is actually happening. You can't become more or less alone by changing beliefs.

You can say that there is one being, multiple beings, or none, but those are just changes in identity if they are taken as conclusions about reality. What you are experiencing right now is a human body, and believe it or not, the experience of your body right now is neither one being, multiple beings, or no beings, those are all just relative concepts. Your physical body is exactly just your physical body, and it is beyond any of those relative concepts. If you focus on the sensation of touch, can you call that "one being" or "multiple beings"? When you taste ice cream, can you call that "one being" or "multiple beings"? I am saying that both touch and taste have nothing to do with any beings, and that saying it has anything to do with a "being" is an unnecessary interpretation, and the same goes for your experience as a whole. Even when you say "there is no being" that is still a conclusion which exists within the paradigm of "beings that can exist." When you look at the color red you say "that is red", you don't say "that is a being which is the color red." The latter is an unnecessary identity being projected.

If you say "there is a being in experience" that is knowledge about things that are in experience. If you say "there are no beings in experience" that is still knowledge about things that are in experience. Notice that both conclusions can be held in experience, even if other people are present or aren't present. Therefore, it is truly irrelevant to the experience of other people, but only relevant to your own knowledge about other people. Experience itself doesn't need knowledge or conclusions to be experienced. You are what you are currently experiencing.

To really nail in this point, if you lived in a universe where you were the only creature that existed, there would be no such thing as "absolute solipsism", and there wouldn't even be a "lack of other people" to begin with, because you are the only human being in that scenario. You would have no frame of reference for "other people." This really shows that none of this has anything to do with anything absolute or existential, it is just a relative change in beliefs and identity. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Osaid

[Hojo]

Isnt identifying with the background a part of transention. People identify with body and call it me. If I identify with the background and call it me isn't that how you transend the body.

Also saying you could call it flying spaghetti monster or anything is nonsense as they aren't in direct experience but me is a part of my direct experience always. Even when I saw God and was looking out gods pov I was still me just happier.

Not the word me but the thing I am

It feels like you are denying your soul

Edited October 24, 2023 by Hojo