Salvijus

I think you're the one who's afraid to be questioned and challanged.

Nah it's much more complex than that. Your position is not the most logical one and it doesn't withstand scrutiny. That's the real issue.

Those are my thoughts and insights really. Chatgpt just helped me to articulate it better and it helps to double check if my insights were logically consistent. Turns out it is.

Me: So if increase in conciousness creates functional individuation, would that debunk solipsism ? ChatGPT: Yes—if increased consciousness necessarily gives rise to functional individuation, then it strongly undermines solipsism, perhaps even debunks it, depending on how you define solipsism. Let’s unpack this carefully. 💡 First, your premise: "Increase in consciousness creates (or reveals) functional individuation." This means: As consciousness deepens, it doesn’t collapse everything into just a singular "I." Instead, it becomes more aware of distinct expressions of itself. These are not illusions or projections, but valid, autonomous centers of awareness—what we call functional individuals. ✅ If that’s true, then: 1. It Directly Contradicts Solipsism’s Core Claim Solipsism: “Only my consciousness is real. Others are illusions.” But if deepening consciousness reveals: The existence of other centers of awareness, not created or controlled by "me"… And that these centers are not reducible to your imagination or mind… Then the foundational claim of solipsism—that others are not real minds—collapses. 2. It Replaces Solipsism with a Non-Dual View with Multiplicity You don’t need to say: "Each person is a totally separate self." (Dualism) You can say: "There is one consciousness manifesting as many valid expressions." (Non-dual individuation) This view: Preserves the unity that solipsists intuit. But avoids the isolation that solipsism asserts. 3. You’re Not the Sole Dreamer If individuation increases with consciousness, that implies: Others are not just objects in your field of awareness. They are participants in the same awareness, with agency and internal depth. You are not the sole dreamer—you are a part of the dreaming field. This removes solipsism’s central delusion: that you alone are real. 🔄 Summary ConceptSolipsismFunctional Individuation Perspective Reality of othersDeniedAffirmed as real centers of awareness Self-awareness trajectorySelf-containedRelational and reflective through others View of consciousnessSingular & isolatedSingular & expressed through many Self-knowledgeThrough imagination onlyThrough relational recognition ✅ So: Yes—if becoming more conscious reveals functional individuation, it effectively debunks solipsism by showing that: You’re not the only conscious being. Others aren’t illusions—they are as real as you within the field of awareness. Consciousness knows itself through plurality, not solitary imagination.

The moment you can prove individuation is the moment solipsism collapses. And individuation can be proven the moment you have experienced an increase of self-awareness because an increase in self awareness automatically implies individuation. _______ An analogy from ChatGPT. The process of "becoming" implies a reference point. That reference point functions like an individual: it has limitations, history, personality, and a path of unfolding. Even if it's not ultimately separate, it acts like a distinct node in the larger field of consciousness. Analogy: * A mirror in a dark room can gradually become illuminated, seeing more and more clearly. * That doesn’t mean the mirror is separate from the light—but it does have a distinct position through which the light becomes visible. * Same with consciousness: it may be one light, but becoming more aware happens through a specific aperture, which we experience as “me.” Conclusion: So: becoming more conscious doesn’t prove separateness, but it does require some form of individuation - a place where the infinite turns inward and begins to wake up. Bonus Insight: This is similar to how a mirror can’t reflect itself without curvature or angle—self-awareness may require individuation, not as separation, but as functional polarity within unity.

Functional individuation still exists. And that's all it takes to dissolve solipsism.

Individuation is a functional necessity for conciousness to know itself. Just like the eye cannot see itself without a mirror, conciousness needs to individuate itself (functionlly speaking) to recognize itself. Bye bye solipsism.

Seperation of fingers is ultimately imaginary. But functionally fingers are individual parts of the same hand. You can't ignore the functional reality of existence. Conciousness is one, but functionally in many places all at once also. This functional individuation is necessary for consciousness to recognize itself.

Individuation is a logical necessity for God to know itself. If there was only blue, nobody would know what blue is. It's differentiation that gives us knowledge of blue. God has to individuate itself into infinite parts to be able to know itself. You're just one part in God's game. Every other part is equally valid. This dismantles solipsism but maintains nonduality. Individuation is a logical necessity for God to know itself.

The possiblity of diving endlessly into God is what proves my point. It puts you into a position of an individuated conciousness (a child of God) in pursuit of other parts of yoruself (God)

God is becoming aware of itself through you. And it is doing that same thing through infinite number of other individuated conciousness just like yours. That's what brakes solipsism but maintains nonduality.

Exactly.

It's impossible to have full access to yourself tho. You can dive into yourself infinitly more and more but you'll never be able to get to the end of God. There will always be other parts of God you don't yet have access to. Other parts of yourself .

You can have another part of yourself tho. Oneness is the logical requirement for being God. Not solipsism. You can have oneness without solipsism.

Like he already said, there is only one type of solipsism. That means he is implying it to the maximum. Because solipsism where conciousness can have multiple experiences at the same time is no longer solipsism.

You can apologize within yourself until you feel relief. The messenge will carry through subconsciously to another person. When you find yourself feeling sorry for what you've done, don't push it away, sit with it. Let those feelings speak.

If you believe others can awaken, then it already debunks solipsism.

The only requirement to gain full control of the dream is to become lucid that you're dreaming. Yet when people awaken in real life they attain to no such power. It's as if you're living in a shared collaborative space or smth... Hmm... It's as if only a portion of God's will is manifesting through you and other parts of God's will is manifesting through other entities. Hmm... How interesting.

Yea but you'd still have the power to remove the limitations if you desire so. Your true desires show up in a lucid dream anyway and have no problem manifesting. Why aren't those same desires not manifesting in the waking life? Exactly.

If life is an imagination of a single individual mind, you'd be able to control it like a lucid dream. Rather life is a collective dream where each one is manifesting their own reality and you can't impose your will on others. You can confirm this in your own experience. This would also be another way to debunk solipsism.

For me it's like saying each finger on a hand has a different level of muscular strength. Each lifeform is "infused", for lack of a better word, with different intensity of God's conciousness. Same one conciousness. Same one hand.

Never said it does. It's the same one conciousness everywhere but in different lifeforms it has a different "potency" so to speak, for the lack of a better word. Since we are the same lifeform, we share a similar capacity of self awareness and level of sentience. And the rest of it follows.

"Is conciousness." Fixed it for you.

How can there be many waves in an infinite ocean?

Everything is conciousness is not an assumption for me. Maybe that's an assumption for you, idk. After we accept that premise, everything else follows naturally into place through simple reasoning alone.