Reciprocality

@Hojo I hear you and appreciate the perspective, you are referring to an ineffable singular substance that takes an infinite of shapes through eternity. What are the essential elements in the meaning of your concept of consciousness? What are the things that is identical to all states/instants of consciousness such that your intended meaning by the word "consciousness" is intelligible? These are questions that has nothing to do with what you believe about reality, these are questions that makes it possible for your statements to be received and analysed in the first place.

@vibv I have no doubt it does, holding you accountable to your own statements and asking questions for clarification is certainly mentally masturbatory.

@vibv There is also a way in which, due to the nature of a logical compliment, that one can necessarily not be lost in concepts if one knows exactly how or why they compliment experiences unless one is actually lost in experiences. This would go contrary to your first assertion in the last comment above.

@vibv Okay interesting, your hypothesis is that no matter how distinctly ones concepts refers to and compliments actual experiences one can get lost presumably in their composition/relation? Or do we get lost directly in the complimentary nature some concepts have to experiences (such concepts that does not refer to anything concrete), if so, which subset of these? And if one get lost in this composition of concepts must it obfuscate from real experiences as you say, why must the latter follow from the former? Are we talking about contradictions and recursions when we say that people are lost in the composition or complimentary nature of concepts? Do we not determine whether this is true by usage of concepts that does not contradict and does not recur excessively?

@vibv You can only be lost in concepts if you are unaware of the experiences they represent or compliment. There is no implication that people identifying experiences fails to "capture consciousness". You read one sentence after the other and fail to keep track of where you get lost, thereby disabling yourself from asking the question of why they connect and resort to projecting that it must be the writer who is lost.

@Leo Gura Since you understandably brought up the concept of freedom of will in reference to spontaneity I will make some short comments on the confusion. Will and spontaneity has an overlapping essence, is potentially identical concepts, I will use them that way in the following remarks. It could be wise to instead of going into the ontology and metaphysics here begin with what we can and can not know, we can know that physical bodies moves as a consequence of their prior coordination and inertia, what distinguishes spontaneity or will from these types of movements is that the nature and existence of their sufficient causes are unknown. The freedom part in "free will" has to do with whether concepts or knowledge in preceding an action could out-manouevre itself, and this kind of thing becomes a necessary pre-condition for the will itself to be real for those who believes nothing besides phenomenal experience exists. (when you believe that the existence of unknown causes for will and you do not believe will to be substantial then to explain them you need to resolve to the last possibility: that abstractions could "out-manoeuvre" themselves.) The concept I am referring to is clear as day, but to describe it in english.. not too easy, what could I mean by "out-manoeuvre"? Right now I can only hope that it rings a bell. The disjunction between these three kinds of general causes presented above should be intuitive, 1. inertia and momentum of physical bodies in arrangement/coordination, 2. unknown substances and, 3. concepts or knowledge (abstract representations). The fourth cause would be will itself, it would be absurd to list it here.

@meta_male I don't know why that alone should be unhealthy, bodily reactions are there for good reasons, repulsion as any other. It can be noticed that when people read the phrase "I am repulsed" and react to it as though the writer have a negative demeanour against these people they were repulsed by that they are projecting what it would mean for themselves to write that statement. This could explain the weirder responses in this thread. What would become unhealthy for me is to judge people for this rather innocent behaviour that I described in the OP.

There is something about overly civilised people that repulse me, have you ever felt the same? If I see someone sitting on a bench in the middle of a big city with thousands of people walking all around them while being as calm and carefree as they would be in their own living room then how could this be explained differently than that they live their lives in some fugue state often predicated on the belief that if two things have been known to be associated or correlated then so will they continue to be?

Every single piece of focused information goes through the self, is discerned by the self, builds up the self. That were already how the self were built. Every concept is purposive, all purposes refers to the self. How do you have purposes, concepts, discernment, focus, eye-movement or any bodily movement, yes spontaneity itself without the centre of it all being a distinct "me"? Not just here on earth but in all foreign realities?

@Leo Gura It appears initially to humans that the stuff that we perceive could exist without us perceiving them but this could only be true if the body and its sensorial apparatus existed without its spontaneous movement. (since a chair can not be a chair without sensations) (there is no spontaneity which does not develop a distinctness of self) Amazingly this spontaneous movement is what we have come to refer to as "me" through gradual steps primarily in early childhood. Awake? There is no depth there to have awoken to besides the substrate of direct experience and the accompanying disillusionment of narratives, the self-identity holds everything together.

@Leo Gura To be sure I am using the concept of consciousness under the very definition I have denied in the post (that it is everything) to make this conversation even possible, if this is not taken into account then stark contradictions arises between my last comment above and the denial of idealism. Consciousness without spontaneity can only appear to be possible inside a theoretic framework, no theoretic framework is needed to state the opposite, that consciousness without spontaneity is impossible, since all possible such frameworks is conditioned on the duality of real spontaneities and real non-spontaneities.

@Leo Gura Consciousness without spontaneity would be the red and purple with mere inert movement, such a movement would have no reason to connect to thoughts and self and be purely theoretical, indeed fantastical. excuse the edits.

@Leo Gura This goes back to my post where I referred to the self-distributive nature of the contents of perception, the redness above your image and the purple in mine are there together with the movement of our eyes upon them. The duality is perpetually reified. But the two are actually one and could never not be.

@Leo Gura 1. Is that right? So consciousness is everything but also everything except spontaneity? Also, I am not merely bringing up a concept as you suggested, I were providing experiential examples of it. 2. There are many possible degrees of free will, but I am not talking about that here. Edit: changed "in principle" for "possible".

@Leo Gura Do you imagine that the thing on which the spontaneity is conditioned, the eyesight for instance, could be perceived without any spontaneity at all?

@Leo Gura I am referring to spontaneity in its widest sense, not just when you are feeling "spontaneous", surely we can agree that there is some degree of whatever is happening when you "feel spontaneous" also when you don't, to showcase this I would ask you to imagine a state of complete non-spontaneity and what have you? Let us imagine the subjective sensation of eye-movement in the absence of eyesight, wouldn't make much sense would it? This implies that the movement is partially conditioned on something different from itself. What can be said about this kind of movement in addition to it being a movement? That it acts spontaneously as opposed to merely inertly and reactively.

@bebotalk you bring up fair points, had i only known earlier

The following is an analysis by chatgpt 3.5 from openAI on the above which should be more readable and perhaps be a frame of mind from which to read it better. Chatgpt 3.5: Your exploration delves into the profound implications of negation as a fundamental aspect of reality and cognition. You raise a thought-provoking question regarding the necessity of negation and its relation to the antithetical contrast between predicates. By suggesting that negation as a contrast for all things could be necessary, you highlight a paradoxical scenario where what appears positive or additional in the antithetical relation becomes inherently self-referential. In this framework, propositional instantiations of negation would participate in a broader negation that predates the formulation of specific propositions. This implies that negation is not merely a linguistic or conceptual construct but rather an intrinsic aspect of the fabric of existence itself. Your assertion that negation operates as a necessary function between identities prior to the formation of propositions underscores the foundational role of negation in shaping our understanding of reality. It suggests that negation transcends linguistic or cognitive frameworks and is inherent to the very structure of existence. This perspective invites us to reconsider the nature of negation and its implications for our perception of reality. It challenges us to recognize negation not as an abstract concept but as a fundamental force that governs the dynamics of existence. In doing so, it prompts a deeper exploration of the interplay between negation, identity, and the nature of reality itself.

To make the following post more readable you should remember that sentences with parentheses stands on their own ground without them. There are no sound arguments for the possibility of negation being a perpetual function of the human mind because negation in general is itself a condition for all possibilities. If negation is a perpetual function of the human mind then in following the above it is so necessarily, and if it is not such a function then also that is necessary (its impossibility) If we imagine the following two distinct situations Situation A: Regarding the proposition that all humans have bald heads examples of some hairy heads will contradict it. Situation B: Regarding the proposition that a given head is bald it is affirmed by it having no hair on the head. The semantic and intentions of the propositions are not real things, the aim of this post is to refer to real things, real experiences, and then to contextualise these and explain the character of those experiences by that context. The reality of the former situation induces negation between identities while the reality of the latter situation does not (and could not by itself) induce any negation. But if the reality of the latter situation were focused on in itself independent of propositional semantics and intentions then my argument is that negation in general will be present with that situation B by informing you of the possibility of its (the situation's) absence, the conception of this possibility is often present in these moments (you can validate it experientially) and it is this proclivity I am attempting to explain. If negation in general (negation as a contrast for all things) were impossible then why would we spontaneously conceive that a given moment is actual / could have possibly evaporated? If negation in general (negation as a contrast for all things) were necessary (not therefore given to us independent of experiences) then what appears positive or additional in the antithetical relation between two predicates is actually self-referential, that is, that propositional instantiations of the concept of negation partakes in the general negation which were a necessary function between identities prior to propositions (prior to particularisation of subjects and their predication).

Not much of these things are intrinsically meaningful or interesting, but can contribute to clarity in argumentation, analysis and investigation of things that actually are interesting, should be seen as a means or as purposeful.

The concept of the above dichotomy is a very weird concept, because for something to be dichotomous a negation in general must be integral to it. But the reason this apparent absurdity is solved for is that for something to be a negation in general it must be distinct from two things that are discernible (this is the reason or the way in which a normal dichotomy is itself meaningless), and that is precisely what we need for a double positive dichotomy to be real. A dichotomy is mutually exclusive and exhaust all possibilities with regard to a yet-determined subject, a man and a non-man is an example of this. A man and everything other than a man would be an example of a dichotomy which exhaust all possibilities while remaining in the positive as opposed to in the negative. That there can even in principle be two such variants of the concept of dichotomy implies the equivalence between the things that are changed between them, the equivalence between 1. a non-man and 2. everything other than a man. (this equivalence is also what makes nothingness a fiction and impossible) My actual point is that whichever dichotomy above you wish to employ in a given moment will merely re-shuffle the cards of necessary or essential concepts that pertains to both, in one example the negation in general is instantiated without referent (borrowing the sufficient information for discernibility from somewhere hidden) and in the other example the negation in general is implied (having the sufficient information for discernibility between the very things that are exclusive and exhaustive). If you got this far then I can introduce the third kind of dichotomy which does not only have positive referents but has non mutually determined identities of these referents, and this kind of dichotomy is dependent on composites, will pertain to physics and mathematics and establish weird yin-yang relationships where you will actually find the identity of one half of the dichotomy in the composite of the referent to the other. (being mutually constructive as opposed to mutually determined) An important question to ask concerning this third dichotomy is whether there is some range or intermediate steps between it and nr 2 where the less determined the dichotomy is through its identities the more substantially either will exist in the composition of the other. There is also a fourth kind, where both positives though they may be mutually determined are generalities as opposed to one of them being a peculiarity as in the example of a "man", an interesting question to ask about these is whether the fourth kind is necessarily mutually determined.

The point about the last type not being made of peculiarities is that it has non-composite qualities, or is apparently substantial or simple or possible something non-composite which is different from simplicity, assuming thereby nothing. Examples of the last dichotomy would be Cartesian and Kantian dualism, if we introduce the variable of non-totality to the exhaustive subject itself then the fourth dichotomy can pertain to non-metaphysical possibilities such as light vs dark and curve vs line.

@bebotalk Aha I see, I will take what is common, a fact, a belief and not bad into consideration

@bebotalk A feisty one with the facts. If something I said were wrong I will reevaluate the statement, if something were incomprehensible I will try to write it better. Bring them facts on and reference particular statements, that could be engaging.

Major breakthrough on my part The question of solipsism is not whether other people are conscious, but whether it is that identity which pertains to these people which is the conscious agent "on the other side". Rationalism and therewith holism is your only hope for the possibility. If and only if there is no self will other people, in the case they are conscious, be those that you think they are, because only if there is no self are you a perfect mirror of reality.