StrangerWatch

I checked in on his RationalWiki page, and the first section ends with this: "Thankfully, Gura has recovered to the point where he no longer believes this." (This is talking about his views on consciousness, enlightenment and arguably solipsism). What could the article be referring to? Anyone have any links or sources they'd be willing to share with me? Thank you.

People assume there is an experience and a conscious experiencer. But the experiencer can't logically exist without the experience. So it would seem the experiencer is just another part of the human experience. And when the human experience dies, the experiencer dies with it. Death is very real, folks. People like Leo telling you there is a "true consciousness" transcending the one nature gave you may be soothing, but it isn't true. Peace out. Enjoy your lives, and make others happy while we're all conscious.

Lol.

Answer to Question 1: No, but there's no reason to think experience started before life began. Answer to Question 2: Those are not stories. The first two are undisputed facts about life. Are you implying that consciousness transcends human life? Answer to Question 3: I use the words "experience" and "consciousness" interchangeably. Do you still require a definition?

That was my point all along...

I've actually had a meditative experience of "no-self", and indeed the feeling of a separate experiencer dissolves into the experience. To be fair, subjective experience should never be used as proof of how life and death works. I would rather say that my logical reasoning above is what can prove that there is no self or experiencer that transcends the experience. Many of the people on this forum, including @Leo Gura, believe that the self is an illusion, as I do. But instead of identifying with the experience as a whole, they replace their old illusory self with the entire universe. To me, this is missing the point. There are philosophical ways of saying that we are everything, but when many people say this, they are specifically claiming that all of existence has a single consciousness and that this consciousness is their true self. In summary, many people here don't seem to truly grasp the idea that they have no "self". Instead they replace it with a new self: The spiritual self called God, the Universe, Absolute Infinity, etc..

Don't know if you noticed this, but Leo is still alive. If he was dead, I'm pretty sure his feeling of being an aware experiencer would be gone. When Leo says he became infinite, he's referring to hallucinations he has had, often on psychedelics. Hallucinations are based on pre-conceived notions in the mind, and manifest accordingly. Therefore, they cannot constitute scientific proof of how reality or humans work.

My mother's womb? Billions of years of evolution? The big bang? I don't know how specific the question is. Presumably there was no experience (or experiencer) before birth, so there's no reason to think any of it persists after death.

The one most humans believe in. What we call self. It is an illusion, of course. There is no self to transcend experience after death.

Anyone here agree on his antinatalism theory? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar

What do you guys think of this quote? Is this person right or wrong? Both? In what ways?

From what I understand of the video, @Leo Gura is basically saying that idealism (the belief that all of reality is fundamentally a form of experience/consciousness) is true, because reality is groundless. What kind of leap is that to make? So we agree that reality is grounded in nothing, where anything is possible. Then why is it suddenly such an obvious thing that physical reality is an illusion and that brains do not generate consciousness? If literally ANYTHING is possible within this nothingness, why is a physical reality — where dead things eventually merge to become what we call awareness or consciousness — suddenly not possible in this context? Leo uses unfalsifiable inductive reasoning of the kind you see solipsists use ("you can't view the brain outside the brain") to claim that human consciousness is not generated by the brain, and that's just not sufficient to constitute a logical conclusion. You only have to refer to the "Russell's Teapot" thought experiment to prove how unfalsifiable claims are insufficient by themselves. Even if we grant Leo's assertion that what we call "our universe" is physics within consciousness and not the other way around, we now run into some problems: What happens after death? After all, the idea of death as the end of experience only makes sense in a physical context; if consciousness is generated by the brain. If we were to take seriously this extreme skepticism to what our "minds" tell us, we would have to go through life completely agnostic about what happens after death. Suddenly reincarnation seems plausible — if reality is a groundless "dream machine" that just churns out one groundless experience after another, as Leo also claims. A terrifying scenario, indeed. I have always found comfort in the fact that I know my existence is finite. Becoming an idealist completely shatters this notion. Is this what Leo is suggesting, or have I missed something? Believe it or not, there's an even bigger problem with dismissing all of physical reality as an illusion grounded in experience: Suddenly, everything can fall apart any minute. Why doesn't it? What reason do we have to be shocked if a UFO comes landing or the moon suddenly develops a face that talks? I imagine that the response would be: Because it would all be a dream and it wouldn't matter outside that context. But what about those "dreams" in reality that never end? Dreams featuring infinite lives of suffering? Surely the existence of such "dreams" is unacceptable? I know that my moment-to-moment suffering — whether in a dream or in waking life — is undesirable and would be unacceptable if it were to last for an infinity. This is the reality Leo seems to believe in, and I find it to be not only an amazing leap of logic for an otherwise smart individual, but also a deplorable demonstration of apathy that he seems completely fine with this. He's effectively dismissing all forms of suffering, no matter how gruesome or everlasting, when he admits to believe this suffering actually exists.

Well, I hope that death exists in this "reality", and that I don’t have to endure my lungs being torn and then healed for all of eternity.

@Nahm No offense, mate, but you did a shit job with your quotations and responses. I’ll try to respond as best I can. What you seem to be doing is making outrageous truth claims without providing ANY basis for them. You’re basically claiming that the afterlife is true, which is the single most extraordinary claim ever. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," said Christopher Hitchens, and you’re not doing that. I believe in reality, but don’t make the mistake of thinking I draw a distinction between dreams and waking life. Where there is experience, there is reality, because experience is by definition empirical. "I think, therefore I am," said Descartes. Even as a dream, life has consequences. In fact, if I were to literally become stuck in one of my own bedtime nightmares for all of eternity, that would constitute a real problem. Tell that to the bloke in some alternate dimension who’s being tortured 24/7 for all of eternity. What chance does he have to awaken? I don’t see a distinction between suffering and pain. Please explain.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim; the absence of evidence for Russell’s teapot is not evidence of its absence. Leo is making an outrageous truth claim, and thus the burden of proof lies on him. So healthy skepticism constitutes evidence for idealism?

Nothing. My life has so far transpired exactly as I have been led to believe it would based on the laws of physics and the reports of the people around me. According to this metaphysical multiverse of experiencial illusions, it is just as likely that my current existence will continue to operate as predicted (until death, also as predicted) as it is that it will all break apart in a metaphysical explosion of flying semen. How realistic does this seem? Here’s the conclusion: "I will definitely die or grow old and then die" is an accurate statement UNLESS you grant the existence of this infinity where anything can happen.

1. If nothing exists, why should I care? 2. Does everything literally exist within the nothingness — from heaven to hell and everything in between? 3. Is there any escape from consciousness/experience if it becomes too miserable?

Why do you need an experiencer to validate an experience?

What about the infinite hell you just stated exists within the nothingness? It is an infinite experience of suffering for which there is no room to transcend experience.

I understand the value of enlightenment, for the most part. All IS one, "forms" are a product of "the whole", everything came OUT OF being and not INTO being. Enlightenment entails an intuitive understanding of this. I get it, and I’ve had a few direct glimpses of this as well. My moral ego, you could say, is protesting all-the-while. The ultimate message of mysticism and spirituality seems to be: Everything is fine just the way it is, and the only TRUE problem lies in your perspective of whatever is. This becomes a problem, when you consider this: The universe is riddled with constant suffering across all of time. Evolution, the process by which we humans evolved, entails building new experiences upon heaps and loads of unacceptable suffering. Everywhere you turn there is suffering, and a lot of it unavoidable. Add multiverse theory into this, and suffering increases ad infinitum. I can’t accept that existence is like this. Ultimately, I have reached the conclusion that I wish nothing existed. Enlightenment entails loving the whole and not the form. Well, I say fuck you, some forms are better than others and the whole should fucking die because of it. How d’ya like that, mystics? In all seriousness, I would love to hear some voices here respond to my concerns.

You misunderstood my statement. Other animals do suffer, and it's important to consider their suffering as well. But they are not as important as humans, because our data suggests that humans are capable of more suffering than other animals are (with some possible exceptions, like whales and other ape species). Now, this might be wrong, but it's better to act upon what seems true rather than not acting at all. For starters, @Leo Gura (I single him out because he runs this forum and people often look to him for advice). If you ask him, he'll say that nothing exists/matters and that all pain is an illusion. Meaning there is no difference between "heaven" and "hell" in his view. Let me clue you in on my view: If there is a God who's responsible for all of this, that being should be destroyed along with its creation. This is not a reflection of my own life and suffering (I quite enjoy my life), but a calculation I have deduced based on all the suffering that has occurred throughout the millennia for other beings, and which is occurring right now in other places. Couple this with the very plausible multiverse hypothesis, and this suffering increases ad infinitum. If every being in existence was enlightened, this wouldn't matter. But alas, they are not. People's morals can change, but they often change based on the same principles. Say I suddenly become a vegan out of sympathy for other organisms' suffering. This would be according to principles which I had previously held ("suffering is bad"). Most people operate like this. We start off with "suffering is bad" for ourselves, and in most instances we realize that if suffering is bad for ourselves then logically it's the same for other beings. This explains the Nazis, for example: They believed that what they were doing would be in their personal interest (they'd avoid personal suffering by doing their state's bidding), but many of them also believed that in the long-term they would create a society with less suffering. They were led to believe that minorities such as the Jews, the gays, the disabled, etc. were contributing to the suffering of the world. So you see, "suffering is bad" is almost ALWAYS the basis for morality, and since this is an objective statement and suffering itself is empirical, this means that it is possible for someone to be wrong about morality. If "suffering is bad" isn't the basis of someone's morality, is that really true morality? Say someone believes "getting obese is healthy" or "being dead is the healthiest thing in the world". Would they really be as right about health as the doctor who tries to warn them that eating at McDonald's everyday will kill them? Of course. Just because I believe that moral truth exists, doesn't mean I know what that truth entails. Notice that we both argue about morality under the same assumption: That suffering is bad. Has he? From how I have understood his statements, he views life as a game: There may be winners and losers, but none of it ACTUALLY matters. You can still play the game to fill up your time, but know that the consequences are superficial. There's no TRUE reason to prevent suffering. If this is the majority view of the enlightened man, I am very happy to live in a society he doesn't run. Let me put it this way: If every rape victim could be enlightened before getting raped, that would be awesome. But since most rape victims are not enlightened, the suffering they experience during and after such a heinous act is very real. Self-deception, in other words. Sorry, but I care very much about honesty and truth, and erasing double-think. I also deny that the forms are innately bound to cause pain. That was never my point. I do believe enlightenment is the end of suffering, but that doesn't mean pain and suffering are inconsequential. I rest my case.

Correct so far. Mostly right. Insofar as an experience in the universe can be better or worse: Person X having a good time is objectively having a better time than Person Y having a miserable time – that's where the objectivity comes in. Whether Person X is feeling good or not is not a matter of opinion, because whatever Person X feels is what he/she objectively feels. Now, if we grant that good experiences are objectively better than bad experiences in the context of consciousness (and there is no other relevant context), and that morality relates to the quality of these experiences, then we have an objective basis. Just as we grant that a healthy body is better than a dead one in the context of biology (and there is no other relevant context), and health relates to these qualities, health therefore becomes objective. A person who thinks being dead is healthy is no more wrong about health than a person who thinks eternal suffering is good is about morality. The causes of bad or good experiences are not what makes the experiences objective; the experiences themselves are objective. Just as I explained above. If a person suffers immensely over his/her lost arm, that person is objectively suffering. On the other hand, if an enlightened person loses his/her arm and doesn't suffer, that person is objectively NOT suffering. If we grant the assumption that good experiences are preferable over bad experiences in the context of consciousness (which I see no reason not to; even enlightened people generally chose to become so because they sought freedom and well-being), then the balance of pleasure and suffering becomes something that actually matters. Not an illusion or something we're stupid to fret over. That's an irrational view. Humans have more capacity to suffer than most animals, so if your concern is about well-being then you should shift your priorities. I wouldn't go that far, LOL! This thread has given me tons of great arguments. Even if I'm not convinced, these are some of the best counter-arguments I've heard. Thank you, to all of you. If I was a total solipsistic egomaniac, then that would definitely be the solution. However, I acknowledge that there are experiences all over the world (and probably all over the universe) which are objectively bad and no amount of paradigm shift can erase that. Just think about it: Many say enlightenment is the end of suffering because of a shift in perspective on said suffering. But wouldn't they still admit that the suffering they experienced BEFORE they could view it in this manner felt objectively bad? If they can, then they can't really write off everyone else's suffering as a complete non-issue. I wish I could say nothing truly existed, but then I wouldn't be here saying it to you :-P Something clearly exists, and if you are unenlightened then that something DOES matter. "Nothing exists" is a metaphor enlightened people use because they are speechless about their experience. There are no words to describe the (admittedly short and few) enlightenment experiences I've had, and I am EXTREMELY careful about describing them to other people because I know the kind of anxiety that can bring them. More importantly though, it's a danger to society for humans to think that life has no consequence. And this is important, because in most cases you can't meditate and do enlightenment work without society providing for your basic needs. Insofar as enlightened folks care about what happens to society, they want a society where more people are enlightened. If that is their goal (or the closest thing they have to one), then the dynamics of morality and well-being are definitely in their interest. Suffering is a product of the mind, like everything else. And it can be erased through enlightenment work. Don't think for a second that means it doesn't exist, or that people who are suffering 100 times more than you ever did are a non-issue. You're almost implying that pain is people's own fault. Say that to poor people in Africa, South Korea, etc.: "You're causing your own suffering; it's all in your mind." That may be true, but it still doesn't mean the suffering isn't a problem. If you were suffering immensely everyday, wouldn't you want to become enlightened to avoid that suffering? I rest my case.

That question makes as much sense as: To what extent is my conception of physical health MY conception of physical health? As long we agree that morality relates to the well-being of conscious creatures, I see no reason to make morality any less objective than health.

I see your point, but I would argue that even those who claim to be moral but are not in practice would still agree on the definition: That morality relates to the totality of well-being. Whether they stay true to this belief or not has nothing to do with the definition of said belief, just as the US government often claims to be democratic yet fails to meet those defined standards. Instead of saying "without ego, there is no such thing as morality", I would say: Without experience, there is no such thing as morality. Ego death is a good experience, yet it is entirely without ego by definition. I never said that, and indeed quality is better than quantity in my opinion. But again, that's just how I view it. What I think is undeniably objective is that it is more moral to have 100 people with "10 well being" than to have 10 people with "-100 well being". Let's say we did a poll where we asked people if they were feeling good, bad or somewhere in between. Assuming they're not lying, this would give us an objective graph of well-being at three general levels (good, bad or somewhere in between). In addition, if we could accurately match up brain scans with the reports, we could create a pretty accurate measure of well-being, similar to how we measure physical health. The Matrix is an exception when it comes to relationships, since the classic simulated prison thought experiment is more solipsistic in nature. As for truth, I assume you're interested in maintaining your own right to freedom and truth? Why do you care about your rights, if not for your own well-being? Do you? If you don't, why are you so skeptical about the simulated prison? You're shifting the debate from "does the simulated prison prove that hedonism is wrong" into "does truth relate to well-being", which is another question entirely. Improving subjective experience is by definition moral as long as it doesn't conflict with any other subjective experience. Which brings us to... What you're raising here are ethical questions about whether or not humans were morally wrong in their actions. Funnily enough, you're arguing about it using objective facts and examples. This does not undermine my claim that morality is about the balance of well-being, and therefore objective. Whether or not they are egotists has very little bearing. What matters is that as many subjective experiences as possible are good. That is the goal of morality.

The counter-argument here is simple: People are egotistical, not moral, when they fight for their right to well-being over others. The outcome where the most amount of individuals experience the most amount of well-being is the most moral, objectively. Glad to meet another Matrix fan. The simulated prison thought experiment is a common argument I hear, and all it does is over-simplify the definition of "well-being" into instant gratification. For starters, the simulation closes off a bunch of experiences which generate well-being; relationships and truth, for example — possibly two of the greatest sources of human well-being — would be neglected in such a simulation. You mention how some greater forms of well-being are neglected by instant gratification. How does that prove that well-being is not the focal point of morality? Just because I view well-being as the center of morality, doesn’t mean I reject any sort of nuance. As for Cypher, his actions were entirely of an egotistical nature. He doomed his comrades by backstabbing them just so he could live peacefully in the Matrix. A moral hedonist considers the experience of all, not just their own. They would see that liberating humanity from the eternal cycle of the machines would ultimately be a greater source of well-being than the mundane Matrix lives that most people lead. Freedom, as it turns out, is another essential source of human well-being.