Osaid

Leo is still a philosopher, first and foremost. He is what you get when you try to reach enlightenment through philosophy. Yes, his communications can be very clear and direct and beautiful and intellectually satisfying. Enlightenment, truth, or reality, is not a philosophy and wont be captured that way though.

You are being overly technical, so I must speak your language. "No other minds outside of you" are symbols/words which point non-existence, it doesn't actually have anything to do with others, it only has to do with non-existence. Again, there is no such thing as different types of non-existence, that is just human imagination. What must be focused on is not language, but what the language is actually pointing to in your direct experience. The utility of the word "non-existence" should not be misinterpreted. Non-existence is an invention of human imagination and language, by definition it is what is not experienced.

The bracketed "(of other)" is overly conceptual, we can simplify it. There are not different types of non-existence. That is just an input from your imagination. There is that which exists, and that which doesn't exist. Non-existence doesn't exist.

I would save the friend for the same reason as saving the daughter. So my answer wouldn't change.

The problem is that non-existence doesn't exist. Anyways, I'm not gonna talk about solipsism here, because then we would have abandoned the previous thread for no reason, which is what I was trying to prevent until I got intercepted, so I'll just take a vow of silence instead.

Homeless person dies. Daughter lives. I don't know anything about the homeless person, I know everything about my daughter. It is the safest option with the knowledge I have.

The OP is creating an identity. They are defining their experience as solipsistic, and they are defining experience by referring to an imaginary entity called "other minds" or "other people." You can say that this is mind, or that is mind, but it fails to say anything really substantial. In this case, a tautology is created which says "I am me, therefore there are no other minds outside of me." If there are "no other minds outside of you", that sentence points to something that does not exist, it is pointing to non-existence. They are defining themselves with something that does not exist. Their "proof" is based on something that is imagined. I am not going to go into details about whether imagination, knowledge, etc. can count towards a valid existence of "other people", that is truly a debate for another matter, because the OP is presenting a very specific word/philosophy for his experience, which is "solipsism." And he claims that he has proof for it, and his logic for that is contingent on "I am me, therefore there is no other." That logic is where my contention lies, and where I say you cannot experience that because it points to non-existence.

Yep

Yep

Guess we're having a different flavour of solipsism today haha

No need for duplicate threads, keep it streamlined.

Ultimately, you have not truly realized that "other people" are imaginary. You have simply replaced it with another belief that says "Other people don't exist." You use the same imaginary parameter that you critcize in order to define your own experience, and so then you say "You can experience solipsism." The inability to imagine something does not create non-existence. You cannot create or realize non-existence by thinking about other people. I am not saying that other people do or don't have their own experience, I am saying that your proof itself doesn't say much.

The idea that enlightenment is a belief that can be dropped and reinvestigated is very funny. Certainly, that is probably how your awakenings feel. Awakenings require investigation, contemplation, philosophy. They need to be refined over time. Changed over time. They become more radical over time, as Leo says and exemplifies. Unfortunately a big red herring though. If enlightenment is an idea or belief for you, that is fine, but do not mistake that with enlightenment.

Seems like it.

If triangles had a God, they would give it 3 sides If humans had a God, they would make it a terrifying psychopath, sadist, masochist, and maniac 😅

Whatever story you tell yourself, it is experienced with the same simplicity, although the story itself might be complex. If other minds do exist, your experience of yourself is not going to change, you are not going to feel their pain. If they don't exist, your experience of yourself is not going to change, you are not going to feel their pain. Compassion was always extended from your experience. And also, pleasure on a universal scale? You cannot experience anything on a universal scale though because you're not experiencing everything at once, that is a generalization created through thought, and same goes for any other minds. Really, nothing would change experientially. Experience is simple. Solipsism seems simpler because it gets you to stop thinking about other people and it reduces the thoughts that you expose yourself to, similar to what would happen in meditation. No more thinking about "universal scales", just me. The issue is not the belief system, but your ability to handle your own imagination.

There actually isn't an outside or inside at all, like I said before. The fact of my experience is that I can have beliefs about things which aren't experienced, but those are just beliefs, and don't actually say anything about their existence, but that does not lead to non-existence, it is just a changing in beliefs. Experience contains notions of "outside" and "inside" within it, so it is inaccurate to use those notions to determine what consciousness lacks, because that then points to non-existence, which is the whole contention. Consciousness has the property of containing dualistic notions inside of it, which you could say is what makes it "infinite." My experience definitely doesn't say anything about non-existence, and you cannot reach non-existence by imagining a duality of "outside" or "inside."

There aren't any bubbles at all. It's not that there is nothing outside of experience, but rather, there isn't an "outside" or "inside" at all. Consciousness is not an object or container or bubble, it is infinite. All finite limits are a function of human imagination. At this point all I can really keep saying is that it is infinite, but that doesn't do much to explain what that means unless it is directly realized.

Solipsism is a philosophy which defines "you/reality/this/now" by pointing to a relative concept of "other" or "other minds." If "other" is truly deemed as non-existent, it is completely redundant to define your experience using that non-existent entity. Defining yourself using something that doesn't exist is just a tautology. It doesn't say anything about your experience, or what actually exists. You cannot experience non-existence, and you can't use non-existence to define existence. You can't define experience by saying "this thing does not exist" because non-existence is not a phenomenon which can actually truly occur or be experienced. You can imagine and then unimagine non-existent things for eternity and it will get you no closer to realizing what your experience is. Solipsism looks like a mental inference to me. If I look at the color red, that is just the color red. It is not "not blue", or "blue doesn't exist." The latter is mental inference. If someone has never perceived blue, or has never perceived an "other", that inference cannot exist, because your imagination and knowledge is simply based on your memory. You can experience memories and knowledge of "other people", but aside from that your experience says nothing of their existence. And I mean actual nothing. Not non-existence. You can't truly realize that something doesn't exist, in the same way that you can't truly believe that something exists. For example, when you believe Santa Claus exists, they are not actually coming into existence, it is just that your experience is recontextualizing itself around a belief about Santa Claus. It is belief which exists, not Santa Claus. In a similar light, when you realize the unicorn you're imagining is imaginary, that doesn't mean the unicorn doesn't exist, it means the unicorn is imaginary. I am being anal about how I use the word "exist" because we are talking very existentially here. Humans give too much significance to their imagination. You cannot create or realize non-existence by thinking about things or realizing that something is imaginary. This is anthropomorphizing. Reality is not unimagining or creating non-existence behind the scenes, that is a process of creation which you create philosophies out of, like solipsism. Like any other "awakening", solipsism is incomplete, and it is partial. It truly does not point to anything. It is a realization based in an idea which points to something relative, which can't be the truth. Solipsism is defined by pointing to relative parameters, like "you", "other", "me", "people", "humans", but fails to say anything about the nature of what is absolute. You can hypothetically skip the entire "awakening" if you were simply born in a universe where you were the only creature that existed, or if you woke up tomorrow and every creature on earth was gone. I didn't see it as any kind of proof, which is why I inquired. My experience is certainly not limited, and it is not experienced as anything which is divided. I think that the very statement "this does not exist" is a limit, and so it is false. I don't see how your proof coincides with solipsism, which says "your experience is the only thing, therefore other minds do not exist." The limit of "other minds" must be a mental inference since reality is unlimited, but in that case, it now fails to describe experience because it cannot be "yours" or "the only thing" if the way you are reaching that conclusion is through a mental inference. It's kind of like saying, "your experience is the only thing, therefore unicorns don't exist." Ok, but what does that actually tell me about experience? We are back at square one. It seems like it is actually saying something, but if you look at it really carefully, it points to something which cannot be experienced, AKA non-existence. Right, not two. I have realized that reality is physical, in the sense that no physical laws have really changed, but that it is also simultaneuously infinite and without boundaries. Most materialists are just living in an imagined version of physicality which includes many divisions, and that is simply because they still believe in an imagined self. Duality has nothing to do with physicality, that is a materialist misconception for the most part. But that is now moving to the topic of enlightenment.

https://lbot.ca/post/730542840629903360/osho-avoid-esoteric-knowledge Good shit, even back then people were raving about "levels of truth" hahahahaha.

If other people don't exist, does that mean solipsism points to non-existence? If you are saying that solipsism is true because "x does not exist", what is that actually saying about the things that do exist? Bit of a tangent, but since you brought it up, not believing in something wouldn't necessarily make me a disbeliever. If someone stopped believing in God, that would not necessarily turn them into a disbeliever, they could also simply be agnostic.

How do you find proof that something doesn't exist? Does your experience, stripped of beliefs, truly say something about what doesn't exist? What is the "me" which exists in "your" experience, and then what is the "other" which is negated by the existence of "you"?

99% of people have no clue what they are talking about and they are truly just parroting things, especially on this forum. I will be honest, I have no clue what spirituality means anymore, other than some vague term which points to mystical experiences and insights. Reality is bigger than that. Anyways, I think your sentiment is wise.

Yeah saw a bunch of those last year, and the year before, and the year before that... If it is a real thing, those videos don't really do much to explain it.

No clue. Just another meaning given to certain types of meaning.