Someone here

Good. Let's just agree on that definition. So you are saying the world is an appearance without substance.. that is to say there is nothing behind it. No one causing it. No reason for its existence at all. Not even a dreamer who is dreaming it up.. It's impossible for it to exist yet here it is! That's basically what you are saying. Well I simply disagree for obvious reasons. But if that convinced you fine. Go for it!

What imaginary are you talking about for sanity sake? Here is the world around you! What more evidence do you need to know it's real! ? " oh but it might be a dream".. Who said a dream isn't real? It's real (as you live it) and there is a mechanism behind it (doesn't matter which perspective you look at it). I think we need to define the terms "real".. "imaginary".. "hallucination" if we wish to go somewhere from this conversation. You can keep calling everything an imaginary hallucination all you want or call it real but it's gonna remain the same exactly as it is not caring about your perspectives.

Cool!

How do you know? It appears the exact opposite of that.!

No problem but "how do you know"? What is your evidence? " I took a psychedelic and I saw mind blowing hallucinations"...fine what is the link between that and your conclusion that everything is a hallucination? I just can't see the link at all. I'm talking the common sense perspective that all human beings intuitively know. You are presenting something new and radical with no evidence whatsoever!

Maybe!

Sorry leo you didn't address my question at all. Why is materialism a hallucination? Why is the material world (or whatever you wanna call it) a hallucination? Just because you took a powerful hallcucinating drug and saw how is the brain capable of hallucinating stuff (we already know that because we dream every night)?. And don't tell me the psychedelic and the brain are hallucination because that would be perfect circular reasoning right there!.

The explanation is there through how is the chemical affects the brain. Who needs psychedelics? We dream every day and create a whole universe using our imagination that's enough. The explanation for such phenomenon is related to brain activity. I don't see them as conclusively debunking the material paradigm. What after the drug wears off? You are back to the material paradigm!. Just the fact that you have to take a, specific chemical to experience such states should tell you something.

Can anyone explain to me why a hallucination from a psychedelic drug can he taken as evidence against the materialism?

Nothing is imaginary. Everything is real.

You have a two hour's episode about openmindedness btw.

The pinky finger in my left foot?? No can't be that!

Oh boy..

No they appear as they are seeing stuff when there is actually nothing around them (except from their POV).

Intersting way to look at it. You can see people tripping live on YouTube. Nothing is around them. The hallucinations are just inside their awareness.

OK boss!

It's a phrase that Leo emphasizes a lot. That reality as it is appearing in direct experience is exactly as it is. Nothing is hidden. There is no "stuff behind the scenes". There is no such thing as atoms and molecules. There is no mechanism behind it. All there is are those appearances!. Now from common sense perspective and day to day life this doesn't make any sense. We all function in life knowing that there is way more stuff than just what we perceive on the surface. Will give just give one example.. A jar of honey and I will put a drop of poison in it.. If I ask you to eat you won't eat it even tho you can't taste the poison or feel it in any way (except when it starts poisoning you). So just because you can't perceive the poison in any way (all you can perceive is the delicious honey) doesn't mean the poison doesn't exist! And that's why you don't eat the poisoned honey. We can apply the same principle to the "stuff behind the scenes". We don't perceive atoms and molecules and the cells in our bodies but that doesn't mean they are just imagination and concepts!

That depends on the nature of reality and how accurate is our maps in describing that nature. I get that the map Is not the territory but that doesn't mean all maps are equally true or equally false. The map of there being brains and chemical elements is relatively true and useful. If we use mathematics as a map I think it's not contradictory at all and gives us accurate maping of reality.

I think your metaphysics is confusing and somehow contradicts itself. It's like either there's nervous system and brains and all that or there isn't. What difference does it make to say that there is but it's imaginary?

I'm sorry if I seem like I'm just arguing to argue. I Wanna insure you that I'm not. I think that's just the nature of these topics. There is really no easy and final answers to such questions IMO. Love the quote btw ?

Intersting perspective. I was missing this way to look at it.

Well yes. There is a shared essence between stuff but they are not totally and completely the same from all possible perspectives. That's just not true. It's all vibrating strings but these strings vibrate at different levels and follow different mathematical equations which lead to different atomic structure which at the end result with a radically different objects like humans and apples. There is both duality and nonduality in the world. Both are ture but for some reason the duality is more apparent and the nonduality is only seen under the surface.

Thank you. I appreciate your guidance and will work on it. Much love and respect ?

Do you know what matter is bro? It is the phone that you're holding to type this reply and the electrons in your electronics that's running these technologies etc. Why do you always bring the dream analogy? It might be true Inside of a dream. What evidence do you have that life is a dream? Do you even mean it literally (like there is literally someone somewhere dreaming this reality up) or as a metaphor?. From the first look time does flow lineary. The cause comes always before the effect this Is a logical rule not a physical rule. It's true by defention. The first cause is not necessarily bounded by time. Could be outside time and space completely. Now this is just speculation i admit that. Because we've reached a place outside of our knowledge. All that's left is to speculate. But at least we should hold on to what we already know as facts about our reality.

Which question ??. Generally speaking tho I can be OK with not knowing the answer to any question. What do we really know? If we are not OK with not knowing we gonna suffer a lot!