Nemra

What movie have you recently watched, or are you now watching? I have yet to finish watching the movie "The Irishmen".

Gangsta's Paradise.

Checking if my hallucination of a hallucination corresponds with what that hallucination says it has hallucinated. 😂

If I see people behaving in some way or saying things, there are various possible experiences I can imagine them having, due to others' experiences being imaginary. But I cannot be sure if that would correspond with what they say they have experienced.

I wonder whether Spinoza had an awakening.

It is logical that there are. It must be.

Well, I disagree with that. By your definition of "ego-mind", you have pretzeled your experience so much so that you ignore the actuality of your experience. Your definition is deceptive because it tries to equate ego with experience, but then it says the ego is an abstraction of the experience itself. Your experience doesn't depend on your ego. There are always things in your experience that your ego isn't constructed on, due to experience being infinite. So, your experience is more fundamental than your ego. Your experience absolutely exists because it is self-evident, e.g., red is red, square is square, pain is pain, sound is sound, etc. The limitations of your experience are actual. You cannot get out of your experience no matter how hard you try. It is solipsistic.

I don't understand how you don't see that for materialism, x is assumed to be the underlying substance of everything while assuming that x is an unintelligent thing that qualia arises from. Solipsism says nothing exists or can be proven to be known outside of x without saying what x is. The assumption of solipsism is that x must be absolute (I ignored this assumption, sorry). However, my main point was that God breaks materialism because of its assumptions. It seems that x can be absolute, but when you put a thing that is absolute and intelligent it breaks. I removed the words "matter" and "mind" for you so that you could see where the assumptions lie, and it helped me as well, as you see. You complicated things when you tried to bring up materialism. Materialism is inherently not intelligent. I won't continue arguing about materialism. I'm tired and this is not the appropriate thread for this, so we are starting to get off topic.

@r0ckyreed The above is from Wikipedia. Each of your sensory field is distinguished from each other by a distinct qualia, which are what make your sensory phenomena actual. So, you will never find any sensory phenomenon outside of its appropriate sensory field, and the sensory fields cannot be the cause of each other, which means sensory fields do not have an external stimulus. Your sensory fields are a hallucination. So, to say that the external world outside your sensory field is actual invalidates your sensory fields being a hallucination. But if you say that the actuality of the external world is a hallucination, it wouldn't be invalidated.

@r0ckyreed

I'm beginning to regret that I went in-depth here.

The stability of your experience doesn't prove that there are experiences outside your own. "Others' experience" means the experiences that are assumed to exist independently of your own that have the same characteristics as your own experience, which is different from experiences that you could have but are not currently having. The stability of your experience can make you believe that non-actual things that you could eventually experience are actual, that is to say, that there are objects independent of your experience.

The root of this whole problem stems from not understanding actuality or directness, which is why people treat the internal experience of others the same as their experience. This, in turn, leads to believing that there are real, independent experiences out there that are not their invention. It's interesting that some people can claim that they are ultimately God and there are experiences outside of their own of the same quality which God has already created.

But when have materialism's core assumptions been different? Some thinkers may have used the word "matter" differently, but those definitions wouldn't conform within materialism. He wants to justify how solipsism is as bad as materialism and should be ignored, but doesn't want to admit that their structural asymmetry proves otherwise. I showed him how that is the case. Sure, he can invent a new thing and slap materialism on it, but that's because known materialism breaks when trying to make it logically consistent with God. He focuses on how people will abuse solipsism, which also works against him because God is way more abused than solipsism, and then he somehow is fine with people parroting words from spiritual traditions but not when it's from Leo. Somehow, appeal to authority is way more dangerous when people's vocabulary is similar to Leo's. 🤨

Established materialism will break if you try to make it consistent with non-duality and God. If you want to make it consistent, then you will be inventing a materialism that is structurally different from established materialism. With solipsism, you're not breaking the logic by equating mind to God. Think of it this way. Say, there is x. Solipsism says there is x and nothing exists or can be proven to be known outside of x. So when you replace x with God, solipsism doesn't break. Materialism says that there is x, where x is independent from qualia but qualia depends on x as it emerges from x, is reduced down to x, or is an illusion. So when you replace x with God, materialism breaks.

@JoshB, ok. That's what I noticed, that some people think that way. I was mainly talking about others' internal experience being imaginary relative to one's own experience. One time I was in a radically higher state, wherein my experience was revealed as total hallucination and changing limitations were possible. In my ordinary state that's unimaginable.

Don't Stop Believing.

Without Me.

@JoshB, you mean deny when people tell you the truth?

I don't get what you mean.

If you deconstruct your experience, you will understand how your experience, whatever that is, being the only one is not a limitation. You can view my previous posts to understand what I mean.

In the end, I won't really care what it's called as long as I understand what I'm talking about. I think if I don't break the logic, I still can use it and say that others aren't using solipsism correctly, like the word "God". If I break the logic, then I should either not use it or tell people my redefinition. Doesn't that say that the issue comes from people assuming that their ego is absolute? I agree with you in that solipsism doesn't go far enough to say what the mind means. Materialism establishes what matter is by making assumptions. Different types of materialism stick to the common assumption of what matter is, but different types of solipsism stick to the logic that there isn't stuff outside of the mind or that external minds cannot be proven, even if they disagree on what the mind is.

Because materialism is a bottom-up approach, you broke it when you equated matter to God. You can break it, but materialism won't stay as materialism. People would break the logic if they based solipsism on the ego. It would turn into some sort of narcissistic pseudo-solipsism. By that logic, "God" is not the best choice of word to use as well, as people have biases and dogmas about it.

@Carl-Richard, you redefined materialism by breaking the logic, but you wouldn't break the logic of solipsism when you refer to God or anything as the mind, as long as it doesn't imply independent existence to anything outside of it.

If that were truly the foundational claim, it wouldn't be an issue. Even if people conceived of matter differently, I would disregard that and define it as you did. In this case, I'm free to disregard others' conceptions of the mind and apply solipsism in my own way.