Anton Rogachevski

The fallacy of thinking that if there's a word for it, then it must exist somewhere as category, object or as phenomenon. It plays somewhat with confirmation bias. If you think it's insignificant, just imagine for a second a word like "god". How many people actually falsely and blindly believe there must be an entity somewhere since all the religions are shouting this word. All Words are ape noises pointing nowhere.

@UnbornTao So my question for you is what is the difference between experience and direct experience?

Beautiful!

@Leo Gura Thank you for your response, I really appreciate that you try your best to answer all the comments. I hope you can see that this is debate and it seems that this process must be in debate form because that's how minds operate. They need to be convinced by a powerful and coherent argument. I do find your statements to be a bit optimistic about the scope of their application beyond Phenomenology, the field that I find most fascinating and it's quite enough for me to focus on and really dig deep into the basic epistemic tool that is the mind. I believe that this is foundational to any intellectual persuit. What is your vision for science? How would it look different if your insights are applied?

Do you know with a 100% certainly that this is the case? Where is this world? From what authority do you purpose these claims? Do you understand how extravagant your claims are? You talk as if you know actual Truth. Is it the case?

Haha yeah, but then we wouldn't have had so much fun playing around with these amazing and fundamental ideas. I feel most alive when I'm in such a conversation and deep contemplation. It's really a pleasure! So thank you again. When had "being" entered the conversation? What is that? How does it relate to experience? How does activity affect what "I actually am"? Isn't that a noise an owl makes? I don't know what that word signifies actually. It seems that it supposes a world where there are "beings" - when you think you are a "self" you imagine other "selves" too. I told you, presumably an ape like creature on a floating rock out in space. What did you not like about that answer? Of course there are accepted intersubjective ideas we all agree on and understand quickly and easily, that's not the point. We are not talking about being pragmatic here, we are trying to dissect phenomenon, and to see how "reality" is being constructed on the go, and how the brain takes that construction to be "real". I would give you that pencil in the physical realm, but what actually would occur there phenomenologically speaking would be ineffable. Think of them as two realities happening simultaneously: The physical occurrence of materials and biological creatures, and what those creatures perceive within their brain simulated experiences and the seamless way in which the brain is labeling all the objects and persons within that simulation. Can you see that in the physical there was an actual object, but inside the mind it's an experience shadow with an idea of a "pencil" attached to it? From a phenomenological perspective there is no "pencil", just experience: colors, sensations of touching, sounds, idea labels, "self" concept, "other" concept - these are the building blocks of experience.

@kbone We shouldn't compare ourselves to each other as every case is special in its own. Thank you dude, Cheers

@Leo Gura "Science" (I say it like that because there's no actual entity that this label may be sticked on) has made a very clever trick by separating itself from Philosophy entirely, it's own mother. On the other hand, it's not even interested in Truth, it's goal is accurate prediction and not truth seeking - So what do you want from it? It's not promising you Truth. Science doesn't deal with "what it is, but rather "how it is" - an accurate description of its behaviour. Please explain, what is your quarrel with Science exactly? You say that reality is undefinable, I agree, and so do they, so they just skip this step and go on with progress. I'm sorry, but to me it seems a bit like you are fighting with windmills.

Physics are important to phisicists, so I leave it to them. I look deeper into phenomenology because that I have true access to and that's the most important thing for an experiencing being.

Pure Awareness phenomenologically speaking, but presumably an evolved ape like creature that thinks it's a "human". You are just finding another synonym or a different way to say the same thing and pretend it's a new and separate phenomenon. It's a mind trick. You want there to be a "self", because it's scary to not exist. Various degrees of consciousness, but the substance is the same.

The brain learns to automatically layer language on top of experience so well that it seems like it's a part of the thing. If we go back to our other discussion we can see why: language is also made from experience! just like everything within experience. Yep it's funny how we automatically assume we all talk about the same thing when we say "love", but there are as many definitions for it as there are people. It's a process of deep learning. The first primate kept pointing at a thing, and said "uga buga" multiple times, and eventually the brain of the other primate understood finally that "uga buga" means the thing pointed at - or at least I presume as it's hard to tell really.

Yeah, thanks for the correction How are they not the same? How do you see the difference? Of course not. The one is happening now, and the other is a recollection. Conceptual understanding is happening so seamlessly it seems almost real. That's what is meant when saying one is "building castles in the skies", it starts to feel like ideas are coming alive and feel more real than the senses. Yes exactly! Phenomenologically speaking the thing we perceive as "ourselves" is another experience not different from a coffee table, but because of its proximity (a feeling of presence) and the bodily sensations we attach to it, we think it's a different or a more "special" experience than all the rest. There is no "perceiver" inside the simulation, we can't be aware of the True Perceiver which is our brain out there. (Not the idea of a "brain" within the simulation.) Because of how perception is built it cannot perceive the perceiver, but only experience. The same way the eye can't look at itself directly, but can see everything.

@kavaris I'm sorry but I'm not quite getting what you are trying to say.

Do you have access to reality? How do you know that? I think that only the mind's imagination can be infinite, and that has nothing to do with actual physical space.

@Reciprocality Presumably our experience feed is modeled online seamlessly immediately every moment by past experiences so yes it's very hard to not see a "chair" when looking at one. In that sense our brain is very much like a deep learning algorithm that just recognizes things.

Beautiful idea. It's ontology is unknowable in my view, as I only have access to the substance of experience and that is made of pure imagination. The process of forming memory is the conscious presence, usually emotional stimuli and openess to receive at that moment, or such a strong stimuli that simply leaves a scar. There is a function of the brain, that when functions healthily, puts a mental label that allows us to tell apart memory from present experience. This process is mixed well so seamlessly that the transition is not always obvious to the experiencer. Like you said intensity and the generated sane feeling of "realness" play a huge role here. We take memory so for granted, but without it we couldn't realize anything and much less communicate at such a level of abstraction. That said pure experience is still beautiful and mystical!

@Dodo They probably do, but if you look from within experience "Other" "different" "separate" "minds" theses are all ideas, and so it seems like only your mind exists and the "others" you imagine. (It only seems that way) That's what happens when you apply non-dual(phenomenology) insights to ontology. These two don't mix. We should leave ontology to physicists. Why do people still think that mystical experiences reveal the nature of reality? They only reveal the nature of personal experience. Before going into non duality I think we should get our epistemology straight. How do we know things? What does it mean to know? How can truth be accessed? What is Truth? What is real? A good ol' philosophical argument! Valid.

@Yeah Yeah Hey there, Thank you for sharing, I hope you can feel heard and understood by us, Reading your post hit really hard, and I really feel that, not just figuratively. I don't know but I assume most people here don't really know what depression and anxiety really feel like, and I'm very happy that they don't. I've had it since 18, and only now, at 35 I'm finally starting to see it lift a bit, and it's been such a heavy burden. So much so that suicide seemed logical and even pleasant at times. (Luckily my survival instinct didn't allow me to go through with it.) I've tried all this time to cure it first by medication, then by meditation and spirituality, with just a little success, but now after more than a year in CBT therapy I'm getting 10x the results compared to the 10+ years of personal development by myself. For example, the quiet mind everyone was talking about, finally I can tell how good it really is to have a truly quiet mind, and so much more. Seriously this shit is powerful and so potent, beyond anything I'd ever imagined. I also used to think it was a scam. As many here, I should warn you about the false promise of Enlightenment as a tool to solve all the problems, it just doesn't do that. All the life issues are a completely separate category of personal development. In fact Enlightenment work is highly dangerous and mentally destabilising. They are not joking when they say it is beyond sanity, because sanity also must go in order for Experience to fully absorb itself and realize it's own unity. I really hope you are well, Cheers

Solipsism is, quite simply, the experience of losing your mind—and by that, I mean the loss of connection to what we call “physical reality.” It occurs when you become so absorbed in your own experience, and so clearly see that what you once believed to be “reality” was merely a set of assumptions, that you can no longer believe in it. At that point, the only thing left to trust is your direct experience—the only thing you're ever truly conscious of—which turns out to be entirely made of imagination. Reality then becomes a pure hallucination. And at that point, you could say Descartes’ Evil Demon has fully deceived you, or that you’ve given up entirely on the world outside Plato’s cave—choosing instead to immerse yourself completely in its flickering shadows. I don’t recommend going that far. It’s wise to retain at least some belief in the material plane. Hold on to your sanity—it’s a precious gem, not something to sacrifice for a fleeting experience of “god.” After all, you won’t be there to enjoy it. That version of you dies in the process. I understand the allure—it’s intoxicating to peel back the veil. But the cost may be greater than you imagine. Must truth always be worth the cost of sanity? Or is mystery itself enough? Is it worth it? Really—think about it.

We couldn't really say But all the animals know for sure. I guess It might be some kind of simplistic pure sensual data and instinctive reactions to stimuli. No complex crystalized experience structures, no abstractions. You are onto something here. I guess pointing and referring might be the first idea a creature has and on this basis it builds a symbolic language. This shows the arbitrary nature of this process really well. We imagine there might be something and come up with an animal noise to signify it. But other creatures think that we actually know the thing we keep talking about, and so they use their imagination to fill in the gaps. It's quite interesting to think how is it possible that almost all of humanity can label their emotions and we seem to understand what they mean by "love" or "happiness". I'm amazed that it's even possible!

I hope you can see the oxymoron here. It can only be known through experience, just like everything else. If it is experienced it's substance is Experience. There isn't a substance that is "concept". It seems like you want them to be separate and different. ("Difference" and "Separation" "categorization" "conceptualization" "process" are concepts) Do you want to say one is real and the other isn't? They are both unreal phenomenologically speaking in the same way since experience is pure hallucination. (They still might represent something in the material world, but we can only assume that.) When I say "sensory feed" I mean exactly like a data feed input into a computer. Imagine a camera and a cable connected to a computer: The raw data that is transferred that is the feed. For me they are synonymous. It's just easier sometimes to refer back to the material in order to be more clear within the spiritual. A "sensory feed" is an idea that can only exist within a hypothetical "material 3rd person perspective", because we can't actually look at this process from the "outside" (idea) When directly experienced this sensual feed is what we are and what we see simultaneously - a pure undefined sensory data from "within" (Idea). ---- Extra fresh ideas by GPT: Modern neuroscience supports this: perception is predictive modeling, not passive reception. Your experience of “reality” is a controlled hallucination (Anil Seth), constrained by sensory input and shaped by prior expectations. You might assume experience is locked inside your skull—but Merleau-Ponty insisted: experience is embodied and relational. The world shows up through the body, not inside the brain. You are in the world, not observing it from a control room. Wittgenstein warned against the “private language argument”: if your experience were totally private, how could you even name it? Language—and thus meaning—requires shared experience.

Surely I'm not equating a recording of an event with the actual sensual event. They are two diffrent types of experiences. Their substance is the same, but the intensity and feeling of realness are different. I am under the illusion of being a separate self currently, that's a very good and sane mechanism that helps the body survive and function properly. The fact that it's illusory doesn't prevent it from being very useful and important. I do have memories of having the ego expend and merge with almost the whole of experience, but from my understanding which I call Post-Non dualism I can see clearly why experience must be like that. What point? You wanted to say that a concept of something is not directly in our sensual feed right now, but in a sort of recorded and crystalized form of experience? A recollection?

It's most basic building blocks are evidently at first completely meaningless noises and symbols, means visual data, and audio data, or even sometimes sense data. (braille) The linguistic model of the brain is taking all these symbols and constructing a meaning registry system by almost arbitrarily attaching meaning to each combination of noises, and eventually it can even play with logic and abstraction and reach very complicated ideas. By arbitrary I mean that sometimes the boundaries are not as clear as we think. For example: Where does the "neck" begin and end exactly? We can try to define that, but that definition is also a choice and not a given inherent truth. So it still doesn't point anywhere concrete. The notion may be false, like a conspiracy theory.

@Leo Gura Your post about Hitler, the best one yet. Very accurate. The question at the end is just Endgame. "What are the major flaws of Nazism and Communism?" Should be the first and most basic question any politician should answer to qualify.

@zurew "What is ultimately Real? or What actually Exists?" What an amazing question. I really don't know at all, and I'm deeply fascinated by it. Reality or Existence are interchangeable aren't they? I am not talking about the reality of the physical plane at all here, I say that we can't actually access it, but through ideas and beliefs about it. (And it's probabilistically alright and useful for sanity). So, yes I do believe in the physical realm and I'm not an idealist. Experience does seem to exist as pure experience and is real in that sense for us. In that sense Maths can exist as an experience of numbers and equations. Love exists for us. So all the most important things exist for us as experience, and it does seem to correspond with physical stuff so it's very practical too. You don't actually sit on chairs you imagine it phenomenologically speaking. There's no one to sit, and there's nothing to sit on. There's no such thing as "sitting" too. There is a belief of a "person sitting on a chair" and all the supporting notions, while the undefined and unknowable physical realm is doing its thing. The brain has to do that to keep us sane and functional.