Someone here

Thank you . Chatgpt: Your perspective is interesting because it blends epistemology (how we know truth) with phenomenology (how experience appears). Philosophically, it contains several strong intuitions but also some tensions and questionable assumptions. Below is a structured critique. 1. The Core Claim: Truth Requires Persistence You suggest that truth depends on persistence in experience, which you equate with memory. Philosophically, this resembles ideas from: (experience and pragmatism) (temporal structure of consciousness) (ideas as copies of impressions and habits) Critique: Truth vs recognition Persistence may be required for recognizing truth, but not necessarily for being true. Example: a one-time cosmic event can still be true even if never remembered. Memory is fallible If truth depends on memory, then truth inherits memory’s unreliability. Philosophically, truth is normally defined independently of human cognition (e.g., correspondence theories). Category confusion You are blending: Truth (a property of propositions) Experience (a phenomenological event) Many philosophers argue truth belongs to statements about experience, not experience itself. This tension would be criticized by analytic philosophers like . 2. Constructions as Memory-Based Templates Your idea that concepts like chairs are persistent templates applied to experience aligns with several traditions: — categories structuring experience — meaning through language practices modern predictive processing theories of perception. However, there are problems. Problem: Conflating concept formation with truth The fact that a concept persists does not make it true. Example critique: “Unicorn” is also a persistent conceptual template. Persistence alone does not validate ontological status. So persistence might explain how we organize experience, but not why something exists or is true. 3. The Claim that Experience Itself Is Absolute Truth You argue that the existence of something happening is undeniable. This resembles Cartesian certainty: — “I think, therefore I am.” However, your formulation is closer to: “Something is happening.” Strength This is a powerful minimal epistemic certainty. Philosophically similar to: Husserl’s phenomenological givenness some forms of phenomenological realism Critique Even here there are challenges: Who or what experiences? If everything is construction, the subject itself might be constructed. Buddhist and phenomenological critiques Traditions such as Buddhist philosophy argue even the notion of "experience" is conceptually imposed. Self-referential problem If everything that delineates reality is a construction, the statement itself is also a construction. So the theory risks self-undermining skepticism. 4. The Construction vs Raw Experience Distinction You propose that truth might lie in non-constructed experience. This is philosophically controversial. Many philosophers reject the idea of pure, unstructured experience. Example: famously criticized what he called the “Myth of the Given.” His argument: There is no raw, uninterpreted sensory given; all perception is conceptually structured. If Sellars is right, your project of finding non-constructed truth may be impossible. 5. The Red Example Your question about redness touches a classic problem in philosophy of perception. Is redness: a physical wavelength? a neural process? a phenomenological quality? Philosophers call this qualia. Key issue: Even if the experience of red is immediate, the concept of red still structures how we interpret it. So the raw/constructed distinction becomes very difficult to maintain. 6. The Distinction Problem Your final question is philosophically deep: “Anything that delineates reality is probably a construction. But isn't reality just distinctions?” This resembles ideas from: — Laws of Form structuralist and Buddhist philosophy. Critique: If all distinctions are constructed, then: either reality itself is constructed or our access to reality is necessarily constructive. Both undermine the possibility of pure non-constructed truth. Overall Evaluation Strengths Your framework captures several important insights: perception involves pattern recognition concepts are socially transmitted constructions minimal certainty may lie in the existence of experience These align with phenomenology and cognitive science. Weaknesses Key philosophical issues: Truth vs cognition confusion Persistence explains recognition, not truth. Persistence criterion too weak False beliefs can persist. Unclear notion of “raw experience” Many philosophers reject its existence. Self-undermining skepticism If all distinctions are constructions, the theory undermines itself. ✅ A stronger version of your theory might say: Experience is structured through persistent interpretive patterns. Truth is not persistence itself, but stable successful coordination between interpretations and experience. This would move your view closer to pragmatism. If you'd like, I can also: show which existing philosophical positions your view is closest to, or help formalize it into a coherent philosophical theory (because it’s actually close to several modern cognitive theories of perception).

Yes I agree ..language is a huge part of the conundrum. What is language? A commony agreed upon verbal to describe objects ..what are objects without names?

Isn't this question begging ? My question is if you strip away all notions of base reality and also the notion of truth itself along with all of language and concepts and everything you've been taught by others ...then what is left ?

Thinking itself can never be 100% original. I made this point before . Observe yourself thinking ..you are always moving through concrete pathways and spefic lines of reasoning...all of which are not coming from within you from scratch but from others or external sources...not necessarily all of it .I conclude the only thing that is self-evident is raw qualia .

Thank you . Guide me through an example of contemplating from scratch about "what am I?".

@Sincerity an example of that absolute independent knowledge you're speaking about is the raw qualia I'm experiencing now (stripped of all interpretation and conceptualization ) ?

The true knowledge you come to know personally can never be 100% independent from everything that you've heard from others. I will think about this . Needs testing.

Can there be contemplating for myself from scratch ? I think it is impossible and nonsensical. I have to use a certain language like English. Even the logic I go through is borrowed from other resources..like books I've read or videos I've listened to. But also in the other side what's wrong with having presumptions while contemplating?

I hope no one locks this and accuse me of mental masturbation. Thanks . I'm looking at the forum page right now .at the top there is a picture of Leo. At the bottom there is the list of members who are online. I'm perceiving this with my eyes . I close my eyes ..usually when I close my eyes I immediately experience a mental image of the last thing I just saw before closing my eyes .so I see a mental image of the forum page .that mental image has no objective existence except in my mind .I mean the mental image of the forum page . Now I look at the forum page again..Leo at the top ..online members list at the bottom. Memories arise and say :I just saw this page seconds ago and I'm seeing it again now ..the same page . Obviously it is not the same page ..simply because this is a totally new fresh moment of time .the first time I saw the page is now swallowed in the past forever. What does this imply? That that event that just happened seconds ago doesn't actually exist at all right now . Moving on ..all the time there are mental images popping in my mind. ..Leo..Natasha..youtube video I've watched earlier today . We call that daydreaming .none of that is actual . Its in the mind .you obviously do realize how much time you spend daydreaming ? Put on your headphones and listen to your favourite music album and immediately you are fantasising about a past scenario about yourself. OK. That image of yourself is not yourself. Because it is an image of yourself. Likewise the reflection of your face on the mirror is the reflection of your face in the mirror..it is not you . I hope this is clear . Stop reading and get it . Moving on ..spend just an hour without daydreaming .what exists ? Direct immediate existence. That is actual .here it is . Moving on..sit alone . My mom is in the next room . I don't see her right now . I see a mental image of her sitting in the other room .that is not the actual mother .there is no actual mother right now in direct experience..there is the mental image of her . A thought arises "my mother is in the next room ". That is not an actual mother ..that's a thought . "Yes sure but beyond the entire realm of thought there is an actual mother in the other room!". That ..is..a thought . I'm trying my best to reach outside my thoughts ..but the reaching outside of thoughts is thoughts . Moving on ..a question:just because an actual perception is not presently here and now means it doesn't exist at all in actual reality ? That's the million dollars question. An answer : well yeah that's literally what's happening. There is no escaping that if something is not here and now directly then it's imagined by me . "OK sure but it exists outside the imagination ".."well that Is me imagining that there is something beyond my imagining ". You follow ? So the point Is: you can't reach outside your mental world .if you stopped imagining or thinking ..there is no thing but what is directly present. actual existence is this . Any other place or time isn't actual existence. 🤷‍♂️

What begins must end . What was born must die. What didn't begin can't end .what was never born can never die .

You "completely break free " every night when you enter into deep sleep..at least temporarily. Deep sleep gives you a glimpse or a little taste of absolute freedom and obviously of formlessness and unconditional self. Yes ..right now I am a finite human being apparently. But I've had many glimpses in the past that being a limited form like that of a human is not the ultimate nature of myself ..and I'm sure you too have had.

Yes it is . "The truth shall set you free" instead of making you more attached to egoic tendencies . Truth is not about adding relative or conceptual knowledge to yourself..nothing wrong with that but that's just the opposite of enlightenment . The truth we are seeking is remembering our unconditioned state which is prior to our birth in these bodies . Because we are conditioned right now by being a body and a mind living in a world of lack and responsibilities and problems. All these things don't please or entertain anyone on this earth. Because it doesn't resonate with our unconditional self which is free of everything. And you won't find true fulfilment without remembering who you really are. By seeking more conditioned knowledge you are actually deepening your conditioning and bondage instead of breaking free.

Sure no worries..you will pay for the Shisha though 😂 Is that you escaping from answering my questions though ? Because I take that as "I don't know".

This gets us nowhere. Too absolutist . Use whatever term you want. You are apparently the VeganAwake human being living a very specific life with very meaningful events .almost like a novel or movie script. How does that fit into the big picture of existence or creation as a whole? Is it just coincidence? It doesn't appear like it is at all. They are concepts pointing to something which is NOT conceptual . The concept "the kingdom of heaven "that Jesus talks about in the Bible is a metaphore for awakening. You didn't answer the question. Why are you currently not a cow ? You don't know any of that for a fact . Humble yourself and admit you don't know what death is or what comes after it .

But this assumes the death of the body is the ultimate end of everything and there is no Karma or further incarnations. If so..then Why are you currently incarnated in that body doing what you're doing living that specific life going through those certain experiences and why I'm having mine and not yours? It's our karma. Why are you not currently living the life of a cow in a slaughter shop? You don't literally believe after death its just eternal darkness? Even science doesn't say this anymore .countless evidence that conscious experience survives the death of the body. Look into near death experiences.

Your fear is irrational because entering sleep and waking are not under your conscious control. There is no on and off switch you click on to go from sleeping to dreaming to waking up .it happens by itself and gradually.

Which is a very big reason to take action ASAP towards fixing your relationship with everyone you know. Whatever evil they did to you (or vice versa ) is not really worth having any hatfulness between each other. We are all one in the end .

Sadhguru is not a real guru . He is a celebrity guru. He doesn't teach actual spirituality like what Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharshi did. He has turned spirituality into a business. Never resonated with him. And Leo is a philosopher..intellectual and spiritual teacher combined .not your stereotypical guru either .

OK maybe every once in a while ...Maybe providing further explanation why he thinks this is full of shit ..maybe adding a friendly emoji to ensure that we are just friends at the same level . The other thing is this is not the first time. They both troll Leo a lot .and yes the bottom line is obviously Leo is more developed than them and us . So does that mean this is a cult or echochamber ? No. But Leo is the "head coach ". We are "students ". Logically it must follow we treat him with humble. In a reasonable way ofc.

Like flat out insulting him like Carl's comment above without providing more context . Why should that be done ? Listen . Please stop .let's not derail the topic and create drama .

Look at it like this. There is always a million things to complain about in your life .you jump out of one hardship to the next. That's life . Anyone suggesting otherwise is fooling himself. The point is there is a logical reason for being hurt if you did experience sexual abuse as a child . My point is this : fuck logic .fuck your past . Forgive the person who raped you .It's a choice of choosing happiness instead of misery. Assume you were abused in childhood..so what are you going to do ? The past is the past. Can't change that .but you can change your present and future . What are you going to do ? Crawl up in a corner for the rest of life ? That's no good life . You realize within yourself first that you are unconditional love . You then forgive others no matter how badly they hurt you .that's the teaching of Jesus right? But when I say it why is it implausible to you ? Maybe because you enjoy crawling up in a corner and crying ? Fine .you do you .

Also while we are at it and this is completey off topic but I want to express this. Carl and my buddy UnbornTao are really getting used to Leo. I sense a lot of arrogance in their writing .I mean they are brilliant but tone down the "too cool for school " thingy with Leo. He has no time to post neat language stuff so he just speaks in a language that a kid can understands .like imagine the pressure he has to mod a bunch of kids basically and handle trolls and create content etc. Another thing which I have to spit publicly is Natasha is too rigid. She says its not personal but that she tries to keep a healthy atmosphere and high quality discourses between members. But I do think sometimes she takes it personally. She erases almost any comments targeted at her with cristism. She is over-moding. Nothing personal against her or Carl or anyone but I'm not satisfied with this behaviour in all honesty . Just expressing myself.

You and UnbornTao are getting used to Leo. You don't have to do it this way, you know that ?

But you can't take him seriously that's the point he is a little cheeky and devilish that's the style he chooses to express himself.

Not at all. You claim you know the absolute answer to the big questions. You said that . In short paragraph: what is existence? Why is it here ? Go ahead .