Carl-Richard

Not at all. It's when said people open their mouths that they seem to be conceptually confused a lot of the time. You don't have to be insecure about whether you have direct experience or not and people denying this or not. That's not the issue. It's how it's being talked about and the implications that are being made. Implications like whatever is happening related to body parts, other human beings. If your idea of solipsism involves statements about what can or cannot happen in the reality of form, the reality of things, objects, states, activities, and that it's also supposedly absolute, you're already misunderstanding, you're already conceptually confused. Absolute consciousness, aside from being absolute, is neutral to whatever metaphysical model you want to impose on reality. Solipsism as far as you seem to be presenting it here is a metaphysical model, a conceptual framework. What is not conceptual is absolute being, and nothing, literally nothing, can be said for it other than it exists absolutely and there is nothing that will change this, nothing specific in formed reality being the case or not the case will change this. The states of other people, people's eyes, whatever form or configuration of relative reality you can think of, is irrelevant to the absoluteness of being.

The only reason you are using the word "solipsism" is because you're parroting Leo's vocabulary. Nobody else in the spiritual sphere (that I know of) has seriously used the word solipsism as an active part of their vocabulary to describe Absolute Mind / Universal consciousness, And if they did use it, it was as a passing remark or caveat trying to clear up a misunderstanding.

I don't need the term "solipsism" to entertain the ramifications of Universal consciousness. Ok, but nothing in here needs "solipsism" as a word. Distinguishing between Absolute Infinite Mind and limited finite mind, no "solipsism" needed. Even realizing that Universal consciousness is One and thus alone, does not need the term "solipsism". It's actually a completely unnecessary word. "One" and "alone" will suffice. Your one-sentence engagement contradicts this statement.

It's not my mind, it's Mind. It's not my dream, it's Dream. That's a distinction without a difference and it means you're not equipped to have this discussion and it explains partially the conundrum we are in; not seeing how some terms are effective or not effective by virtue of their commonly held definitions and cultural mileu.

So if most of them associate it with the ego and this is what has trickled down into the larger culture, why use the term if it is that poisoned? It's like using the term "pirate" to explain awakening and the spiritual path because you're sailing on uncharted seas of your consciousness plundering every spiritual ship you see for its treasures and loot. That's a perfectly valid and internally consistent description of spirituality, but is it a useful one for most people? Probably not. The issues we see with solipsism constantly, if we were to use "pirate" as a word for describing what is going on, we would probably get people who ask "but Leo, where is my pirate ship?".

Then why do solipsists continually want to talk about whether "other people" are conscious? Are you aware that many people think the first image is what solipsism means and not say the second image? Why do you think that is? Because they think the people in the image, the people that are not "you" in the image (the guy looking at the other people), do not have anything going on inside their minds (the white bubbles above their heads). Meanwhile you seem to treat "solipsism" as the same as Universal consciousness, which I think is a dumb use of the term, because again so many people don't know what you're actually talking about and assume you're talking about the first image. "Solipsism" is a loaded term that brings people to thinking about other people as in those images where there is nothing inside the white bubbles. This is demonstrably the case and your guys' decision to keep using the term is working against your intended message and is a painfully bad blindness to effective communication.

Ok, please explain.

"Follow your passion" does not mean abort any sense of responsibility and become a NEET. You can interpret any kind of advice in a black and white way and it will come shoot you in the ass just the same way.

What do you mean by that?

So this is that Ancient Egypt rizz they were talking about 3000 BC.

Omggg Steven Pinker is like the most retarded example of Stage Orange pop-science/scientism after Neil deGrasse Tyson. He is like so dreadfully contracted in the way he thinks. The way he used "Bayesian probability" there was sooo laughable and childish, pure sophistry.

How does a radio work? Be a bit more ambitious, materialists will easily shoot you down there.

(GPT-6 Astra doing work). Universal consciousness is compatible with whatever is happening and is not limited to whatever is happening (or not happening) inside people's minds. Universal consciousness doesn't give a shit about what is happening. Nothing at all could be happening and it would still be Universal consciousness.

Here is where your logic breaks down. "Seeing happens from nowhere" does not tell you anything about the structure of what is being seen. "Someone's eye" (a body part) is what is seen, it's not seeing itself. So you can't say anything about the state of body parts or any activity related to them based on the notion of "seeing happens from nowhere". It's a conflation of two different domains. This is the perpetual trap solipsists on this forum go into. They start wanting to talk about the absoluteness of seeing/being itself but then they want to use that to make very specific claims about what is being seen and what is possible within what is being seen. They're two different domains. The nothingness of seeing betrays nothing about the nature of things that are seen. It betrays exactly nothing. I couldn't bring a stronger condemnation about anything than mentioning the word solipsism in a discussion about absolute consciousness. It's a mind virus and toxin of language that reliably produces logical contradictions in people's thinking and poisons their relationship with epistemology and understanding of the world.

I think my answer to this ethical altruism conundrum is that we don't just value the sheer quantity of human life or even alleviating human suffering, but we value things like music, art, and we need different people to do different things to make society go around. We need air traffic controllers, train station workers, nurses, physicians, academics, politicians, etc. Even people who suffer, value music, art; they might go to those things to alleviate their suffering, and if you take that away from them but you assure their life through Malaria prevention, you might have made their life less worth living. So what to do?: Do what you feel called to do. A person who feels called to do something, who feels motivated to do it, will do it better than somebody else who does not feel as motivated. And that way you will contribute greater to that part of the world you choose to contribute to. If you feel very called to donate money to Malaria prevention programs, do that. If you feel very called to find a cure for cancer, do that. Charity is a way of using your time on something you think is valueable. So use your time on something you think is valueable. "But can't you donate like 5% of your savings to Malaria prevention and save a big chunk of lives that way and still do what you feel called to do?" Well, yes, but what about other programs like water sanitation, cancer prevention, other disease prevention? "Just choose one that has a high life-saving conversion rate". Well, why do you ought to use 5% of your savings on initiatives with high immediate life-saving conversion rates and not say finding a cure for cancer or just landing a recording contract?

No such divide in reality, only in language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphatic_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

@Basman There is also something I've not considered before which is botched executions. The woman below was attempted executed twice but they failed both times, and now she is in the hospital. "But she gets whatever is coming to her". Well, it's obviously still a part of the equation if you want to keep the guise as a civilized society and that you're practicing justice where punishments are performed as intended and that there is equality under the law, and of course it makes the prospect reality* of wrongful convictions even more daunting. 21 botched executions since year 2000 alone according to this list (seemingly only about the US): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_botched_executions "Rate of botched executions in the United States from 1890 to 2010, sorted by method": It says 0% for firing squad for this time period, however, recently there was also a botched firing squad execution: "Mikal Mahdi (2025) – Firing squad. The firing squad missed the intended target, resulting in a prolonged death." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_botched_executions In other words, supporting the death penalty in the form we know exists and is possible, also comes with supporting needless torture. (But I'm sure you will be able to "intuition hack" your way to some hypothetical ideal that you will not realize in concrete examples like "it should definitely be possible to make executions basically 100% successful; I don't know how, but trust me, I would support this, even if I don't know the difference yet").

You should be happy that spiritual teachers can get money for doing what they do and don't have to spend their time doing other things to get money.

Hahahahahaha

@JimMorrison I feel you need a good role model for grounding your logical mind as well as keeping your non-dual inclinations. Bernardo Kastrup (and Rupert Spira, and both together in dialectic is maybe even better) can help you there. Bernardo is a philosopher who arrived at non-duality (or idealism) through philosophy while Rupert of course arrived at it through spirituality and mysticism, and their views are essentially identical only formulated using a bit different metaphors and language, and they're both in my estimation very grounded in the world (Bernardo quite literally as he has an academic background and also a quite serious professional career in computer engineering). Especially Kastrup can help you reconcile the understanding of bodies and minds in everyday life with the larger universal consciousness (that's sort of his point).

Solipsism is crap. There, solved it for you. Not "my experience is the only one that exists -> instead "consciousness is all that exists". Not "other people don't have experience" -> instead "me and other people are one, the same consciousness". Not "other people is an illusion" -> instead "myself as the ego, and anybody else as an ego, is an illusion". Mods are not really smarter or more insightful, just better at or more concerned about following rules and being socially glib.

He is pro death penalty, go figure. Dream space is real imo, acting like a psycho in there hurts people.

Why does this read like AI... And what does that even mean? "Realizing you are a living cell inside the organism". How is that different from Yellow systems thinking? How is it such a big leap to realize that you are yourself part of a larger system?

That's a weird thing to remove the beginning of the sentence in the quote and then capitalize the first word.