Carl-Richard

Gary Weber does not get talked about much, but he brings an important perspective on enlightenment that integrates modern neuroscience and it allows him to make very precise distinctions about how the enlightened mind functions. Very insightful interview.

Don't you have a girlfriend?

The emotional sensitivity and range. And that it feels like they can sometimes literally see things that most men can't see.

Bruh.

Wuuut. You did the C-word self-nuke? 🙂‍↔️ When was this?

I'll take Gary's word for it, he gives me that energy. I don't really need a brain measurement, I have my own device 😆. It's just the brain measurements seem very convincing and insightful, in that they seem to actually be measuring the thing we're talking about quite accurately. Do you see that exponential graph? It's like flat lining. "Alright I'll do nothing" -> *brain goes wooooom*. @Inliytened1 Bruh am I trippin, where's your green text.

Awakening you return to normal. Enlightenment you stay expanded. If you were to just sit and do nothing right now for four minutes like those in the study above, will you have thoughts about self, thoughts about the past, the future, or will there be complete silence, being? If the former, you'd expect your brain to look something like the novice meditators above. If the latter, you would expect to look like Gary Weber's graph.

Bro you're talking about awakening. In enlighenment, you crack. You can literally read this off the person's brain. When they're sitting doing nothing, their default mode network is seemingly completely shut down. When a non-enlightened person sits and does nothing, their default mode network is still active. Novice vs expert meditators DMN activation during meditation (span of about 4 minutes, red means increased activation, blue means decreased activation): Gary Weber's DMN activation while doing nothing: https://youtu.be/QeNmydIk8Yo?t=1962&is=2iySu3EnTc_exrNH Look at the smooth exponential curve compared to even the 10,000-hour expert meditators. It's just complete cessation of mental activity.

I've said exactly why I don't think it's effective (it's a culturally contaminated word). If you have a problem with that argument, you can say what that problem is.

I don't deny being God, I don't deny God is alone, I deny the word "solipsism" is an effective way to communicate your understanding about God. That's what the argument is about. And if you have no arguments about that, we're not discussing the same thing.

So do you have any arguments or are you just going to shitpost?

Uhm yes, that's the title of the video. But do you know what that means?

You are too by making a thread where you try to go through a logical deduction of why solipsism means why other people cannot see. You are being logical, so you might as well try to be rigorous in your logic. That's sort of the point of logic, and it's also what you think you are yourself (you think you are rigorous), until of course somebody calls you out on it, then it's suddenly not good to be rigorous.

Or they realize it's completely demented to use the word considering the cultural poisoning of it for centuries.

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 ultimately 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.