Nemra

Let's say that I constructed simple math with arbitrary rules. Because I constructed the rules, I know the truth of how to reach the result. My reasoning of how to do the math is by default truthful. Let's assume that people don't ever lie to each other. There are some people who don't know the reasoning but know the results of the math just by trusting people who trust me. Those people can correctly say what the results of doing that math are. Those people think that the truth of the math is obvious. The truth of my math is of course obvious because I literally constructed it. So, truth's properties are obviousness and existence. So, how is it possible that those people think that they know the truth without knowing the actual reasoning? The deception is that they confuse the trustworthiness of the people with the truthfulness of the math. It's obvious to them that people don't lie, but they can't see how that's not relevant to the actual reasoning of the math. So do they know the truth if they can correctly say the results of my math? Superficially, yes. It's logically sound. People don't lie to each other, and the results that I wrote for people to memorize would be true. But in a deeper sense, no—they don't "know-that"—because their reasoning is not relevant to what makes the math true. They don't understand that they assume that they know it. Their assumptions would not be viewed as assumptions if they think that they are true. Why does that deception exist in the first place? Firstly, the deception wouldn't be a deception without being a true deception. It exists in a form of a confusion here. Because those people think they cannot be deceived, the deception presents itself as truth. Truth being self-evident locks them into the deception. So who would actually know the truth? The one who knows what makes my math work. The other ones only know beliefs. So to find the truth they must be open-minded enough to think that they can be deceived about their reasoning.

Which is why God, as the creator of existence, is either false or existence itself. However, since nothing can be referenced outside of existence, God must be existence itself, given that God is the creator of existence. Because existence is truth, all existent things are self-caused; therefore, God creates by causing itself, as God encompasses everything that exists. Since you rely on your own experience to refer to what exists, your experience encompasses everything that can exist, which is why your experience is self-evident and direct. If God is existence, and your experience is what exists, you are God.

The illustrated illusion exists. It's obvious in two ways: You see two faces. You see the details that make you assume that the illustration is composed of two faces. Both exist. The falsehood about that illustration is thinking that there are only two faces, which is true for you before noticing the falsehood. After noticing, the falsehood exists as a falsehood, otherwise if it isn't recognized as a falsehood, then you still haven't seen through the illusion. If you define truth as a thing inside or outside of existence, your definition of truth will be arbitrary. If you don't equate truth to existence, you will slip into infinite regress.

The theories revolve around truth being existence. How can you talk about truth without existence? People are coming up with rules of what constitutes truth within existence. But that's question-begging. If people defined what truth is within existence, truth wouldn't exist, because everyone could make up what truth is and it would be contradictory, because you would be talking about truth without truth existing.

I answered in an abstract way. It's not difficult to understand. I didn't say that specific truths are obvious. I'm talking about truth itself. Why do you think that people believe that they have the truth? They are fooled by the obviousness of existence, so they think what they believe is true.

The only real criterion of truth is existence. Of course!!! Theories of truth are BULLSHIT!

@Leo Gura, your writing style is clear to me.

Inferences are not immediately known to be true or false because the reasoning can be flawed. However, even if an inference is invalid, it exists. Its existence is obvious. Also, the falsehood will appear as truth. So, you will already say that the "truthfulness" of the inference is self-evident. If you don't know that the inference is valid, not-knowing will be self-evident. The truth can't depend on inferences.

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

OMG, truth is the ultimate evidence for solipsism! Anyone who claims that solipsism is false doesn't understand that experience is existence and existence is truth. Non-existence is a category mistake. The existence of non-existence is true, and anything that non-existence refers to comes from existence, which is truth. Non-existence is an illusion of things not existing. Non-existence is falsehood. But for falsehood to be falsehood, it has to exist. Why is red red? Because red exists as itself, by itself. Red is not an electromagnetic wave. Red doesn't need physics to exist! Red is the truth! Red is absolute! The logic is beautiful.

That's why your experience has always been the absolute truth. Brilliant! That's the evidence! Everyone wants to find the evidence of what constitutes their experience, and yet they don't notice that it is literally in front of them.

This is why truth is self-evident. Anything that exists is self-evident by virtue of its existence.

Here's a nice trick. Entertain the idea that there is a thing called truth. The existence of that idea is true, thus making truth beyond idea. Whatever claim you want to make about truth, the claim must exist as a claim—its existence must be true. So, truth is existence. No human can really have a monopoly on truth, because their existence has to be true in the first place. No one can really dictate what truth should be, because their dictation couldn't exist without truth.

I have the desire to make fun of Christians because they think highly of themselves as if they know the truth. People that I'm surrounded by treat the Church as the highest authority. So, it feels good to me to mock their stupid seriousness. It helped me to focus to think independently in the past. Nowadays, it's more distracting than helpful.

Finding the truth of things beyond human constructions, or constructions by the parts in this reality, is more difficult because they cannot have a monopoly over reality by default. My analogy can be used to refer to reality as the biggest construction beyond human creativity.

If you could only choose to use one psychedelic for the rest of your life, which one would it be?

😁 I bet at some point you screamed, "OMG, this is beautiful!"

Yeah.

In the Neoplatonic metaphysics of Proclus, reality is organized in a fractal-like structure, where the role of the monad is to bind together each layer with the next, such that a monad at a higher level folds out into a multiplicity at a lower level; this lower multiplicity is itself a multiplicity of monads at the next level down. — Wikipedia article, Monad Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality. — Wikipedia article, Monadology These are one of the most intelligent things I have read. It aligns with my understanding of how my experience is constructed. Each layer of experience contains infinite layers of potential experiences. E.g., The visual field is a self-containing, absolute phenomenological reality with unique qualia due to being composed of layers that themselves contain layers ad infinitum. It has a fractal structure where each layer becomes self-evident when it's hallucinated. I had the insight that every layer of experience is one and contains one of everything that is self-evident. No duplicates. It's so genius! It's efficient as hell! The ontological structure of both your visual field and the visual representation of the Mandelbrot set are identical! Do you understand that, regardless of how limited your imagination might be, there are potential experiences somewhere within the fractal structure of your experience that are exactly as you imagine them?

Infinite love is what makes me more open toward the end of my life.

I'm scared of the end of my life, but I'm opening my mind towards it more. Like, it would be the ultimate letting go of this current experience. 🫨 My true identity cannot die because non-existence doesn't exist as an actual thing, and anything that exists would exist for me, as existence is immediate. 🙂

Also, your dream is a dream because it doesn't have an outside or an inside to cause itself to exist, due to being infinite. The implication of your dream being infinite is that there's nothing stopping dreamt POVs from existing in your dream. Those dreamt POVs are as solipsistic as your dream, but their existence is relative to yours because your dream contains those dreamt POVs. If only your dream exists, then those dreamt POVs would also claim that only they exist by default. So if you have access to those POVs, then those POVs become self-evident; otherwise, you cannot know what is actually happening from their POVs. However, those POVs would still be dependent on the existence of your POV, which is the largest solipsistic bubble. If they did exist outside of your dream, they wouldn't share any experiential resemblance with your dream, which would make them totally alien to your dream and not a POV that a form has. But because only the current dream exists, those alien kinds of dreams would just be potential dreams that you could have at some point. How is it possible that someone can have an awakening and tell you that you can have it as well, and then someday you have an awakening?

Your dream is the absolute POV. Read my previous posts again with that understanding without rushing.

@Inliytened1, the brian isn't constructing your experience because it is inside that experience. It's like a remote controller. As I've said in another thread, "outside experience" is a category mistake due to all phenomena you think are outside your experience necessarily having experiential properties. POVs inside your POV are hallucinated. If you destroy the structural organization of a form, its POV gets annihilated. So, the structural organization, which is also hallucinated, is fundamental to creating a POV inside your POV. You can read my previous posts to understand where I'm coming from.

Do you need to understand how atoms behave to build a chair? I think that the intention to understand the real causal relationship from scratch is the way to go, without depending on theories of how deep microscopic layers correlate with the brain's behavior.