Reciprocality

@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.

@Chadders I could try to do such an analysis so you get to know what I mean. There is an armchair besides me, it looks like a half-circle from above and like a square from the front and rectangle from the sides, it is very different from most chairs because the back of the chair is barely taller than the stuff you lean your arms on, this makes the chair more compact and less distinctly an armchair. This makes the chair go well with a varying type of environments or inventories as opposed to the more normally formed chairs, it is also grey which means that whatever colour lits it up will have a similar shade to the lightsource, that brings a second dimension to the chairs minimalism and makes it fit into an even more varied configuration of environments than if it were purple or blue etc. I used to enjoy this chair before I noticed all these things, now I know why I did it to some extent, but there is one layer beneath all that which is far harder to articulate, which tries to explain why we would like minimalism, homgeneity, simplicity, geometric figures etc but that is for another time.

@Chadders List ten purposeful things that you consider purposeful in general or for most people. Then list the ten last things you found pleasing aesthetically. When you will do your arts, would it be a good idea to know the causes for why each of these twenty things were listed as opposed to other things? Have you analysed these twenty things already in your past? If you did not then what occupied your mind instead of that analysis? Edit: I will ask more questions Do you have a distinct idea of where you should put a plant in your house in relation to other inventory, do you have a feeling for how many colors becomes too many in a composition whether it is clothes, websites, apps, clocks, houses etc? Are you a perfectionist? Is the forest beautiful to you, if I ask you to imagine the interplay between light, textures and volumes (whatever your mind does when I ask you this) is this an enjoyable experience to you? Do you take others emotions in after having talked with them? Do you see tens of ineffable emotions in the faces of people when you walk past them in the street?

@bebotalk Of course they do, that is why we have gotten this far, we dont edge and we dont lord here. If there is something you want to add to my assertion that undercivilised cultures do not lack healthy attentiveness in the form of minor suspicion against total strangers the way we do in big cities be sure to reply in the thread I welcome you.

@Osaid The concept of non-existence as you stated does not apply to any existential referent, but it applies to nothing besides the things that are thought as opposed to also or only to that. It also connects to dualities in general, by being their condition, without the meaning of non-existence being coupled with every experience then the duality of that experience and its opposite would merely be what we can call a semantic dream. The same said in a different way: a duality is not an experience. All this leads to the conception of general spontaneity which is one step from general purposivity. Edit: a few edits here because of some misunderstanding.

@Osaid Obviously hard headed focus on words is often pedantic but not the end goal here though it will continue that for a bit. The distinction between "me" and "others" does indeed happen within consciousness, and so would even the actual others and the actual us do (independent of the thinking of that distinction, this is possibly contentious), yet without that which is not consciousness the appearance of "others" would not exist, the appearance is simply an instant in the set of all non-conscious things without any of which the formation of the conscious agent would be impossible, its conception of the distinction inconceivable and indeed consciousness itself null and void, in your case as much as in mine. I think I understand why you would think that saying that everything is conscious views consciousness as an emergent property, the likely theory is that the statement for it to have meaning is synthetic and so that things could have been non-conscious but happen to be conscious through an emergent process, were they not conscious then they could have been something else. The concept of non-existence is the condition for meaning in all possible contexts, it is very understandable that it appears that the latter part of the duality of exist and not exist involves something that has no referent and therefore exemplifies something which as opposed to my paraphrased assertion: "that without an existential referent for both halves of a duality the duality itself breaks down" actually can. The concept of non-existence points to things that are outside present awareness, the ongoing knowledge of the possibility of a different experience is the referent for the concept of non-existence, in other words "non-existence" is the concept of concepts or concepts in general, in the same way the concept of negation is a postulate without meaning except when it is instantiated by anything which negates another thing, you are saying that the word "non-existence" has no meaning in its context but it always applies to things that are conceptual. The typical idea of "non-existence" as being a concept that only applies to something outside of everything (and therefore has no referent) is conditioned on a theory that its meaning is given to us a priori (prior to experience), this is a respectable perspective that I shared half a year ago, but I no longer think so, because we can have a purely a posteriori account for it by investigating phenomenally whether it derives from the relation one predicate or description has to mutually exclusive subjects in consecutive moments of time. If the pattern sufficient for a subject to appear like a glass is contradicted by the predicate of a bottle the previous moment and existence applies to the referents in a given moment then the existence of the bottle is negated and thus non-existence a concept that applies to concepts but not referents.

@Consept

On the other hand, and to give you what you ask for, I do care about sounding smart, not being smart has been a long lasting insecurity of mine and appearing intelligent in front of @Consept gives me what I need to maintain my sense of self.

@Consept The meaning of "dumbing down" have two interpretations, if you insist on reading it in the one way I will not stop you but then it is effectively you who is talking with yourself. I will respond to arguments and analyses of particular instances or examples of things not your feelings of how things appears. Respond on the basis of that alternative interpretation of "dumbing down" which only means that concepts and ideas are presented in a simplified way, or your speculations will be airy.

It could easily appear like I contradict myself between the last comment and the OP, but only if we do not differentiate between two different subjects. The one being the initial meaning of words pertaining to a theory and therewith that theory itself The other being the reinterpretation of that in that theory which is essential as opposed to inessential/accidental. When I say that solipsism is actually a different matter than first thought I do not confuse the territory of what were initially thought like were done previously in the thread. It goes hand in hand with a critique of realism about identities, I am saying that what people are actually unsure of, despite appearances to the contrary, when it comes to other peoples state of mind is not whether they are conscious but whether it is they who is conscious. @Osaid @Razard86 What I am saying here will go past your head if you insist on reading certain words through a straightjacket of metaphysical convictions, you are wilfully incapacitating yourself.

@Consept said: "you just need to work on how to best deliver your ideas to other people's minds in a way that can be understood as much as possible" @Consept, @Carl-Richard I appreciate the feedback from both of you, it is not obvious though that dumbing down ideas will be beneficial on the span of say 10 years, but it is possible that I should learn to oscillate between both methods also in forums, this is a long format medium which is why I have done it this way.