Carl-Richard

I've read that quote before. He is not ignorant of the possibilities provided by different views, but when he is pressed, he capitulates to materialism.

Well... did you really?

That's online Green I agree with your points, but generally when we speak, we speak comparatively while using single word abstractions. It's just the case that Vaush and the boys are more Green in comparison to other online figures, and we say also "Green", not "50%/30%/20%" of whatever stage they're truly at. You always evaluate and represent data based on something else (a contrasting example, an icon or objective standard), and there is always room for a more detailed analysis. There is also a selection bias in that we tend to highlight some domain over others in different contexts.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

...ok

It's not ridiculous when most people spend all their waking (sleeping) life outright denying it. The dream of life is not trivial like the dream of night.

Matter is something that is not mind. That's the entire materialist conundrum. They literally invented the mind-body problem simply by defining matter. It's actually ridiculous In your own words: can you not dream of a wooden chair?

No. I think it's a Spira made out of mind that buys things. Spira is a formed being (he is not formless), but form is not matter.

I believe that all experiential phenomena, whether it be conceptions or perceptions of Sam Harrises or Rupert Spirases, is all mind, yes.

Oh stop it. He was selling materialism, and Spira didn't buy it. Am I selling materialism to you now?

I think this is more useful for people who struggle with embodying empathy and sensitivity

Do you see that speaking is different than confronting?

Don't tease me like that . At least mention some of the concepts you had in mind.

Well let's say both of us started confronting Rupert Spira by saying "surely you must agree that 1st-person experience/introspection can't tell you anything about the nature of the universe" (which Sam did), that would surely be a bit more indicative of a materialistic bias than merely talking about it.

He isn't a naive realist. All neuroscientists have to concede to some level of constructivism (it's in their models). Still, constructivism is compatible with materialism, and from the way he talks about the brain (at least most of the time), he sounds like a materialist.

From the locked duplicate thread: If you were a true fan of the flawed Occam's razor, you would choose ontological idealism over ontological materialism and treat the brain as just qualia ;D But having such a duality (as ironically opposed to non-duality) of mind and matter does not automatically prove all that other spiritual stuff. Bruh. Idealism is non-dual (in the monistic sense which you're referring to). It says everything is mind. Materalism says everything is matter, but it has problems explaining how mind arises from matter (the "mind-body problem"), and it appeals to things like strong emergence, which goes something like "we believe that matter somehow produces a completely new substance called mind, but we don't exactly know how", which doesn't really convince anybody. Occam's Razor favors idealism over materialism mainly because of the assumptions of things like strong emergence.

Bruh idealism is non-dual. Occam's Razor favors idealism over materialism because it skips strong emergence (creating mind from matter).

If you were a true fan of the flawed Occam's razor, you would choose ontological idealism over ontological materialism and treat the brain as just qualia ;D

The light technician knows all the songs down to each instrument, and the band is tight as a neutron star. This is synesthesia incarnate.

Seems like that's the answer to your question.

Try to not breathe and see how your stomach reacts.

Do you like your life to follow strict routines?

Does form have desire?

Do you think God is a person?

Hints of Yellow, far from solid Yellow.