Someone here

Right now you're experiencing this particular perspective from this particular imaginary human body and mind. From this perspective, from the perspective of YOU as The Dao that can't be spoken, God, Absolute Eternal Infinite Consciousness, Norhingness... from that perspective,leo is just like a wave (imaginary you) in an eternal, infinite, dimensionsless ocean (real You, The Self-Less Self, Awareness Itself). What happens in a normal ocean when a wave finally splashes to the ground? ? A new wave starts to emerge, right. ? You are, in truth, the fabric and structure of existence itself. You are the whole ocean hallucinating it's only a wave. Isn't that what awakening reveals anyways ?

What I'm trying to communicate is NOT something that can be believed or learned or gained or attained or achieved or understood or known. What I'm trying to communicate can only 'be missed' (every adult seems to miss it) because it's so hilariously obvious to the real you, on the one hand, and extremely threatening to the ego (robot) that wants to survive and reproduce, on the other hand. "To not miss it" any longer, one - perhaps - has to imagine what the world looks like from the PoV of a 1-4 year old girl/boy. That's fucking it. One has to let go of beliefs. Empty your cup, as they say in Zen. It's much much more about unlearning than learning. It's about embracing the mental state of 'not-knowing' instead of being addicted to 'knowing'. Did Newton know about gravity before he 'got it' when the apple fell down onto him? Hell no, he was first in a state of not-knowing. Was Einstein addicted to 'knowing things' (= clinging to beliefs to make sense of the chaotic world) before he 'invented'/'realized' the (theory of) relativity of time & space? ? ? ?☯️??⌛? Hell fucking no. Einstein (and Niels Bohr and other great mystics) was curious and open-minded in extreme ways that most people can only dream of. Einstein acknowledged and embraced the fact that, absolutely speaking, he knows 0. Nothing at all. Even General Relativity is just a useful, accurate, mathematical *model* ... at best. Precisely because of the fact he acknowledged he didn't know shit, he was able to grasp such a magical mind-bending thing as the relativity of time & the curvature of space. What preceded these genius insights was <a total empty, calm 'state of not-knowing'>. Period. Let go. Accept. Surrender to your Innocence. Swim in your inner humility. Plant seeds in the garden of your mind so that your inner essential serenity, courage, truthfulness, non-attachment, love, sobriety, authenticity can begin to grow and overthrow your programmed ego.

Whatever you believe IS real. As in objectively real? Of course not. Nothing is. That's what's REAL: That absolutely nothing is real. It's so unreal it simultaneously becomes real. You see? Be careful what you believe in.

I'm still waiting for your clarification.

We are in the same kind of position as a little fish (ego) swimming around in the gigantic ocean (Reality), 'looking for the infamous Ocean' (enlightenment), but never finding it, only finding water. As long as the fish is searching for The Ocean, he will never find it. The day he fully lets go, surrenders completely, deeply relaxes all inner contractions, well, that shall be the day he realizes he was in The Ocean all along (enlightened all along, awake all along, God all along).

@peanutspathtotruth pornography and masturbation in all its forms are addictive and unhealthy. Common sense is important to talk about. Common sense is what the majority of people rely on when they evaluate risks, dangers, and effects, especially when it comes to children. We need to discuss common sense, and what it says about pornography, and modern sexuality in general. Because common sense and those intuitive feelings of rightness and wrongness are the dividing line between people who are increasingly worried about the growing dangers of pornography on the internet, and those who argue that the effects of pornography are minimal, or even positive. It seems to make common sense that because pornography, and sex in general, feel so good, that they could become addictive. It also makes intuitive sense that, because sex releases neurochemicals in the brain, that those neurochemicals could act like drugs on the brain. When we hear people talk about starting with one form of pornography, like Playboy Magazine, and ending up later looking at some extreme forms of porn like rape porn or bestiality, it makes common sense for us to worry that porn could have a tolerance effect that might lead people to pursue harder and harder forms of it, in order to reach the same level of stimulation. That need for greater stimulation could also make it so that men can’t get erect with real women, but only when faced by their fantasy images. If that slippery slope of porn tolerance might lead men to watch extreme porn like rape porn, then might it not lead them to act on those desires? Couldn’t it push someone over the edge, from fantasy to reality?

Your choice lol

February clean .

I think you are conflating the common sense/ordinary/conventional perspective with the philosophical perspective. In the conventional perspective, the default is the existence of an independent external world and this has survival value and occupy human consciousness most of the time. But this conventional perspective of the senses, empirical evidences, reason (basic and pure) has limitations. This perspective is analogical to say, the Newtonian perspective which has limitations when dealing with relativity or QM. Due to its limitations, philosophers had ventured to explore beyond the conventional perspective, i.e. the philosophical perspective. From the philosophical perspective, one has to discard the independent external world default of the ordinary perspective and starts afresh. This is why Kant asked for proof of the external world. So far, no one has provided convincing proofs and imo, there will never be any from the philosophical perspective. The philosophical perspective that holds the existence of an independent external world is 'philosophical realism', objectivism, and physicalism. Note philosophers like Putnam (has since given this up) and many other analytics hold this independent external world view within the philosophical perspective. It seems to me that even from the philosophical perspective one has to believe for some reason or another that it is ever so slightly more likely that those things that the non-nihilist, non-solipsist believes to be true are in fact true. Indeed because of the lack of proof in the most absolute, philosophical sense, we cannot know in the most absolute philosophical sense that we are not living in The Matrix, on The Truman Show or in a dream world or that certain falling trees do make sounds and that there is no teapot orbiting in the Solar System or that the Solar System even exists in some sense. However, of all those possibilities of which a true nihilist would think just as likely as any that propose the real world exists or that give any reason to make choices that provide survival value, the rest of us decide philosophically that it is ever so slightly more likely that any of the set of possibilities that in some way confirm the so-called real world in such a way that we can know things in the everyday in that we haven't absolute proof but rather evidence that warrants belief on probabilistic grounds are true than all the other possibilities. That's all it takes to not be a nihilist and not a near nihilist solipsist. And out of the philosophical context, of course we don't stand around talking about our beliefs as if they are just some weak probabilistic outlook, but all our words refer to and cares regard the relatively huge differences on that teeny tiny scale of believability that is accessible to us even if it is from 0% more likely than not (i.e. nihilism) as opposed to 1 in a googolplx-googolplexes. This provides complete justification for our everyday belief in the real world.

Now before i begin to even talk about this i want to make clear that i am not a solipsist, i just find this idea interesting. I'ts one of the most hated beliefs in esoteric philosophy and most people think it's defined as i am all that exist and everyone else in the world is not real. Viewing it this way is wrong because it makes it seem like you have an over inflated ego. When you contemplate on it and ask it questions it's really defined as anything outside your mind is unsure to exist. The only thing you can't doubt is your own existence, even if i tell you're not real, you know for a fact you are and no one can prove to you otherwise. The fact that you exist is the essence of solipsism and it's an idea that goes both way, you either are or you aren't, a paradox that cannot be solved. The part where it gets confusing, is that it states anything outside the mind is unsure to exist because you can't experience it without the five senses. Everything that is outside is happening within your mind. "The body-mind and the world are objects, they appear in us, we do not appear in them

I used to smoke between 20-40 cigarettes per week. When I decided to quit, I cut down to only 2-3 ciggies a day, and from there I smoked tiny amounts to get my nicotine fix. For the most part I have been smoke-free since late 2021. It’s tempting to have the odd cigarette or two when partaking in social drinking or under immense stress. But despite several moments of weakness (puffing it out), I have not been addicted to smoking at any time since 2022. Cigarettes are now ridiculously expensive. It actually keeps me from buying them and helps me stay smoke-free! I think I would have saved around $20 since I quit full time smoking over the last 4 years. I am a student, and the money saved helps me buy stuff that I need or want around the place. It’s nice to get Uber Eats meals here and there to save time and ease the pressure of studying and the busyness of daily living. Since quitting my breathing has certainly improved. This is a great accomplishment for a hobby personal trainer! My sense of smell has improved too. I haven't had bronchitis or chest infections for quite some time and my asthma has not been an issue, which feels amazing. My general well-being has improved. The chronic pain I possess from previous injuries has reduced. This could be attributed to the fact my blood is more effectively circulating throughout my body as the carbon monoxide levels within my body have re-stabilised. Quitting has also allowed my immune system to better respond to internal stimuli and I'm getting more restful sleep. One thing is for certain, it feels incredible to vanquish the late night/early morning cravings and the habitual tendency to get out of bed and jump aboard the tobacco train. Sadly, my parents and some of my friends still smoke. This makes it difficult for me to hang out with them. I am so happy that my sister quit. If there is one thing that I hope to have achieved from my role on the campaign it is that ‘I changed at least one person’s perspective on smoking and changed one life’. I truly believe that people are capable of great things if they set their mind to it. Thus, I urge others to avoid placing labels on the goals in their life. If we consider a task to be a superhuman achievement and too difficult, then we are not allowing ourselves the ability to succeed in the first place. “You can do anything you put your mind to”. Often support, space and time is all that is required. Believe in yourself and one day you too could be achieving your impossible.

Don't give up too early. I think it's a fruitful conversation that we are having. If a tree falling in a forest without a sound or the proposition that we all live in The Matrix or that there is a teapot floating around in outer space, we really cannot know in the most absolute sense whether these things are the case or not. Indeed, this kind of reliance on absolute knowledge does not just lead to solipsism but rather epistemological nihilism. We can't know anything in the most absolute, impractical sense of the word know. For the same reason we do not behave as complete nihilists, one is wise to not behave as a solipsist. To the degree we can know anything beyond an unreasonable doubt in that we have some degree of empirical evidence for it -- accepting the inherent infallibility of all empirical evidence for anything -- we can accept reasonably that other minds exist besides our own.

I've tried making a case against solipsism in one particular argument, but it rests on the assumption that the sole existent being would be God. That is, If solipsism were true, I would be God. But God is a perfect being, and my unknowing whether anything else but myself exists is an imperfection. Therefore, I am not God, and solipsism is not true. (of course this doesn't solve the other mind problem, just that what exists is not dependent on me). I'm not quite sure if people would be willing to grant that solipsism entails that person being God, though. But characteristically, they seem almost identical. For example, being a necessarily existent conscious being that is the source of all existence.

Of course I'm not a solipsist, but you didn't really put up an argument against it here. Secondly,if you claim there is a "world outside yourself" you better have good reasons for believing so. The thing is, no one has been able to do it.

There are two things. First, you assume that knowing requires sense experience. Secondly..that doesn't entail solipsism like you want it to. The reason why is that just because beings cannot be known to exist outside the mind, it doesn't follow that they don't. That is, just because you don't know p, it doesn't mean p is false.

I think I have made my position clear. A thing for which there is no evidence does not give any basis for examination. I'm simply not going to entertain the possible existence of fairies, for you or anyone else. there is no basis for examination, not a formal or scientific one. Speculations of all sorts cannot be seriously considered, especially those for which there is no evidence. There can be no proofs or refutations, of course, but serious consideration are not possible. That is the justification for such matters being safely ignored. Its just impossible to answer the solipsism question with certainty. At least that's how I see it.

Even that (no self and no other )are uncertain. Not of equal value, no, in the sense that "value" represents a subjective value judgement. the things we know, or in this case, can't-and-don't know. These claims may not be of equal value, but their probability (of correctness) is unknown and unknowable. Thus we cannot compare any two such possibilities, meaningfully or logically.

The matter under discussion is not the (trivial?) matter of whether Norman exists in our 'real' world. It is about the nature of that which actually is. Therefore it is unjustified speculation, of course. My point is that our intuition that the world whose picture our senses show to us ≡ that which actually is is nothing but speculation. It's as "made up" as the counter-intuitive "everything is a figment of my imagination" (solipsism). Both of these explanations - and many others too - are possible, and we have no way to tell which of them, if any, is correct. We cannot even say that one is more likely than another. So we cannot logically accept or dismiss any of them.

@The Lucid Dreamer @Mason Riggle if we're using "know" to refer to certainty, we're doing something that's pretty misconceived. We can't be certain about any empirical claim whatsoever, so this would suggest that scientific knowledge is impossible, for example. But there should be something clearly problematic about that stance. So maybe don't use "know" to denote certainty. Certainty doesn't matter. It's a red herring to worry about it. Worry instead about good reasons for believing one option over another.

Physicalism doesn't actually imply realism and vice versa. You're talking about realism--the belief that there are things (whatever their nature) external to oneself. That would be ontological realism, and then epistemological realism is that we can know (either in an acquaintance or at least a propositional way) the things that are external to oneself

It both make a difference and doesn't make a difference at the same time. With respect, I think that is exactly the point: it could be true. That is the only useful lesson (that I am aware of) that such speculations offer. There are some things we simply can't know, and can't be sure of. The world, as we experience it, is uncertain. Much more uncertain than we admit to. Isn't it insane the way to experience a reality is with fives senses to pretty much know a universe actually exist. The five sense are pretty translating to the mind what it thinks reality looks like and then the mind makes logic out of it for your human understanding. Reality is stuck in the mind and since it's in the mind it may not even exist, the mind just thinks it does, which can mean that the people who you come in contact with are stuck in your mind, so the mind can be pretty much be communicating with itself, these are mental problems, seems to me the mind is stuck in a world of illusions that itself has made up for no apparent reason. The very essence of insanity. "Reality is not reality, there may be no reality but certainly this is not it."

you will find that you cannot actually defend a contra-solipsism position. After reading around, there is one basic detail that is entirely unassailable: the simply analytic unavailability. Whatever it is, a couch, the moon, an oceanic tidal wave, if it is going to be accepted as there, outside of consciousness, your are going to have do the very obvious task of explaining how that thing out there puts itself into your brain. The brain in a vat is just an illustration of inaccessibility and you have to allow your thinking to focus on the simplicity of the problem. It has to be acknowledeged that in philosophy, what appears to be the case at first blush is always in error.

@Mason Riggle I agree ?

@LastThursday here is my overall point that I'm trying to make in this thread..... It is as absurd to assert the correctness of solipsism (or brain-in-a-vat, or any other example) as it is to assert its incorrectness. Neither of these assertions can be justified. The facts are that solipsism is possible, and that this possibility cannot be refuted. No more is, or can be, known. An associated understanding is that it is also absurd to assert that apparent reality is Objective Reality. All of these things are unfounded speculations; they cannot be confirmed or denied.

I disagree with the "no self " philosophy. At least partially. There is a self. The only problem is how you define the self .if you define it as unicorn then it doesn't exist. But if you define it as the body-mind phenomenon..then it does exist as that. You can't deny that you exist at the physical level of the body . So back to solipsism..how do we know that our existent self and the content of our perceived world is not a simulation? Ever heard of the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis? the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis might be true, whatever we might think. There are no grounds at all to assert its utter falseness. That's the point, just as there are no grounds to assert its truth. It is unknown, and a great example of something we can't know. The probability of us being brains in vats is not calculable; there is no evidence at all upon which to base our statistical speculations, so there can be no statistical speculations.