Nemra

@r0ckyreed The above is from Wikipedia. Each of your sensory fields contains phenomena that are distinguished by distinct qualia from each other, which are what make your sensory phenomena actual. So, You will never find any 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 there is an actual external world outside your sensory field invalidates your sensory fields being a hallucination.

@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.

Gangsta's Paradise.

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.

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

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.

The problem is that materialism assumes it could describe reality by the interactions of matter, which makes God an emergent thing. It defines matter as an indirect, invisible thing that is beyond sensory experience and yet tries to find inside it, dividing the experience into subjective and objective. If you want to describe them as materialism, you would have to change what materialism is. Solipsism starts from the claim that only your own mind is certain to exist.

@Carl-Richard, for people, God is personal and biased towards their own culture and traditions. I think what's more powerful and dangerous is to have a biased idea of God. People already view God through an egoic lens. I don't think solipsism based on ego would survive on a large scale. Even though people are always in some sort of an ego-solipsistic bubble as long as they want to have a life. People can come to a solipsistic conclusion based on direct experience or could experience God, but their ego will try to hijack those.

No problem.

I purchased from there:

If you don't take too much, I think you can manage it by yourself. However, I would do it alone no matter how much I took. Considering where you live there, I think taking a low amount for the first time makes sense. You can take more after a few days.

Yes. I purchased the 15 grams. You might react to it differently and also the psilocin/psilocybin can vary. I ate all of it without following any ingestion method, but I would recommend you to follow one.