Actual solipsism

[Reciprocality]

Major breakthrough on my part

The question of solipsism is not whether other people are conscious, but whether it is that identity which pertains to these people which is the conscious agent "on the other side".

Rationalism and therewith holism is your only hope for the possibility.

If and only if there is no self will other people, in the case they are conscious, be those that you think they are, because only if there is no self are you a perfect mirror of reality.

[Thought Art]

I have trouble understanding what you mean exactly 

 

[Breakingthewall]

Other people are you, and just like you, they are infinite. There is nothing finite, everything is real, since only one thing exists: reality, aka you.

nothing can be unreal if its substance is reality, it is obvious. We should not give importance to the awareness of reality, since it is limited and variable, therefore relative. The important thing is existence, it is always the same: infinite.

[Reciprocality]

27 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

I have trouble understanding what you mean exactly 

 

@Thought Art I am saying that the people that you love in your life are either 1. only physical bodies or 2. also someone you do not know unless the construction of the distinct concept you have of them in your mind is like a holon where the whole is "contained" in the part, that is, unless the identity or distinctness of that conception is actually who they are.

And this is only possible if in the formation of that conception you are not adding anything to what reality is on its own, in other words, if there is no self or ulterior motive to create false or fantastical concepts.

[OBEler]

53 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Major breakthrough on my part

The question of solipsism is not whether other people are conscious, but whether it is that identity which pertains to these people which is the conscious agent "on the other side".

Rationalism and therewith holism is your only hope for the possibility.

If and only if there is no self will other people, in the case they are conscious, be those that you think they are, because only if there is no self are you a perfect mirror of reality.

I also have trouble to understand these sentences. Could you elaborate?

[Reciprocality]

Just now, OBEler said:

I also have trouble to understand these sentences. Could you elaborate?

@OBEler I hope my last comment made it clearer. 

[OBEler]

@Reciprocality thanks for clarifying. It's very deep so I need to think about it 

[Osaid]

Solipsism can't be "actual" because it requires you to assume that consciousness is generated by a thing/person/entity. It's like a perversion of the mind-body problem.

59 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Rationalism and therewith holism is your only hope for the possibility.

What possibility are you hoping for? What does it actually look like?

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, Osaid said:

Solipsism can't be "actual" because it requires you to assume that consciousness is generated by a thing/person/entity. It's like a perversion of the mind-body problem.

What possibility are you hoping for? What does it actually look like?

@Osaid If anything besides this now exists consciously then solipsism is false, I am saying that even if the body of a person we talk with is conscious then it may be someone else than the person we think we are talking to, it is very hard for us to even imagine this possibility because of how strong and distinct the ideas in our minds are, cus of how unimaginable intelligent humans are.

The possibility that the person we are talking to not only is conscious but is actually the distinctness we think when we talk to them is conditioned on the same kind of thing that happens when a given tree is identifiable through its leafs, or when Trump is identifiable through his hair. The part must not merely imply the whole, but make it impossible that it pertains to something else than the whole, the problem is that when you talk with your mother you are creating the whole that you find the evidence for through perception, but just like someone could have the same hair as Trump without being trump so too could someone be the consciousness behind the appearance of your mother without that actually being the conception you have of them, a similar problem though far less problematic and easier to understand is that your mother almost certainly has a rather different self-identity than the distinct concept you think when you perceive her talk.

To solve this problem bolded above we must know that some of the identifiable traits of our mother could not fail to induce in a purely reflective mind the very thought we think when we think of her, that would be an impossible science to actualise (impossible to falsify), the only possibility is therefore that there is some kind of a-priori relationship between those parts and the identity of the whole, that we in other words did not construe the conception of our mother the way we construe the conception of Halloween by building it part by part, but that instead the whole is necessitated through the parts like when we are dividing 1 into 5 as opposed to count five objects.

I call it the actual problem of solipsism, as opposed to the false problem of solipsism, because it considers the problem at its roots as opposed to as a symptom of these roots.

I am sorry that I can not write it better than this currently, but maybe ill try tomorrow.

Edited March 11 by Reciprocality

[Osaid]

32 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

If anything besides this now exists consciously then solipsism is false

You are essentially saying "if something exists outside of existence then solipsism is false" which I disagree with. You are trying to turn existence/consciousness into an object which is separate from itself, which just wont work because it betrays its nature.

33 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

if the body of a person we talk with is conscious

Rather than assuming this "if", it is much better to just get to the root of it and ask: Can a thing be conscious? That should be the focus. Otherwise you will entertain all these imagined scenarios ad infinitum without even knowing if it fundamentally makes sense to begin with.

35 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

The possibility that the person we are talking to not only is conscious but is actually the distinctness we think when we talk to them is conditioned on the same kind of thing that happens when a given tree is identifiable through its leafs, or when Trump is identifiable through his hair. The part must not merely imply the whole, but make it impossible that it pertains to something else than the whole, the problem is that when you talk with your mother you are creating the whole that you find the evidence for through perception, but just like someone could have the same hair as Trump without being trump so too could someone be the consciousness behind the appearance of your mother without that actually being the conception you have of them, a similar problem though far less problematic and easier to understand is that your mother almost certainly has a rather different self-identity than the distinct concept you think when you perceive her talk.

To solve this problem bolded above we must know that some of the identifiable traits of our mother could not fail to induce in a purely reflective mind the very thought we think when we think of her, that would be an impossible science to actualise (impossible to falsify), the only possibility is therefore that there is some kind of a-priori relationship between those parts and the identity of the whole, that we in other words did not construe the conception of our mother the way we construe the conception of Halloween by building it part by part, but that instead the whole is necessitated through the parts like when we are dividing 1 into 5 as opposed to count five objects.

Your mind can certainly create distinctions that are imaginary. But there is existence which is not imaginary or distinguished. If you observe what causes separation in the first place, then you also see what is not separate, and thus you also see what is not imaginary. From there you can realize what the duality of "you" and "other" is actually made of.

[Reciprocality]

@Osaid That first sentence of yours is so full of shit it is disturbing.

[Reciprocality]

@Osaid The disturbing part is that the rest of the comment goes accordingly and so it could not have been by mistake, you are actively undermining the meaning of words to present your metaphysical perspectives, I don't hope these tactics are used often on this forum and don't want to think about the sorry fellers who it works on.

[Osaid]

Just now, Reciprocality said:

@Osaid The disturbing part is that the rest of the comment goes accordingly and so it could not have been by mistake, you are actively undermining the meaning of words to present your metaphysical perspectives, I don't hope these tactics are used often on this forum and don't want to think about the sorry fellers who it works on.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean

[Reciprocality]

5 minutes ago, Osaid said:

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean

@OsaidIt is rarely wise to speculate about others intension, but when it is unimaginable that something is done in good faith then it is also unwise to not call it out.

There is no possible perspective you can have where the meaning of the word solipsism changes because of it, and if you are a moderator on this precise forum then you know that definition. I said that if something exists consciously outside of this now then solipsism is negated, this is true because if the opposite is correct then that would affirm it, and you know but were trying to essentialise it into something entirely different and off the mark.

To be clear, your statement "You are essentially saying "if something exists outside of existence then solipsism is false" infuses a personal perspective on what is and is not true about reality into definitions of words only to make it appear that "You are trying to turn existence/consciousness into an object which is separate from itself, which just wont work because it betrays its nature.".

[Yimpa]

Lesson learned: talking about solipsism has a high likelihood of causing drama

[Osaid]

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

I said that if something exists consciously outside of this now then solipsism is negated, this is true because if the opposite is correct then that would affirm it, and you know but were trying to essentialise it into something entirely different and off the mark.

You are assuming that it is true by making existential assumptions about the properties of consciousness. I am saying those assumptions are ill-founded.

In philosophy, Google defines "solipsism" as:

the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

It does not say anything beyond that about consciousness or whatever else.

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

To be clear, your statement "You are essentially saying "if something exists outside of existence then solipsism is false" infuses a personal perspective

It directly addresses your own existential assertion that if something "exists consciously besides now" then solipsism will be true. 

Edited March 11 by Osaid

[Razard86]

*Sigh* Speculation ......

Consciousness/Awareness is fundamental. People are not Conscious. Conscious is appearing as people. People is a term, a label for a specific form in Consciousness. But that label is just pointing to the appearance of pure imaginary form. You can enter a state where the physical world will disappear because you will cease to imagine it and thus prove to yourself that it was all a dream. 

A very well constructed dream but a dream nonetheless. Aim to reach this state. This state is possible for any human being to reach. Anything else is just speculation.

[Jowblob]

5 hours ago, Razard86 said:

*Sigh* Speculation ......

Consciousness/Awareness is fundamental. People are not Conscious. Conscious is appearing as people. People is a term, a label for a specific form in Consciousness. But that label is just pointing to the appearance of pure imaginary form. You can enter a state where the physical world will disappear because you will cease to imagine it and thus prove to yourself that it was all a dream. 

A very well constructed dream but a dream nonetheless. Aim to reach this state. This state is possible for any human being to reach. Anything else is just speculation.

 

 

I have even experienced a state where i could imagine/unimagine people walking on the street. People/animals are nothing more then appearances in consciousness, when you lower your frequency your reality and theirs become stable. The people or the dream world is a product of a witnessing consciousness and your desire to be others. They however do have consciousness as everything exists of the same matter as you do.

How come at certain times they appear as not having consciousness? Because when you turn the knob and go to higher consciousness you change your own frequency and not theirs. So essentially solipsism and togetherness is contained in all. You have to remember that you're nothingness and potential , you can't stick or ascribe 1 term to yourself.

 

At the highest level , you're a witness of your nothingnese/potential/infinity and that you're a lone awareness desiring for there to be something. But it's just a frequency/direct experience and nothing more. I don't think it's possible to be aware of all there is because you're nothingness so everything contained within and out is equally valid.

Edited March 11 by Jowblob

[Breakingthewall]

5 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Consciousness/Awareness is fundamental. People are not Conscious. Conscious is appearing as people.

Everyone in spirituality say that but I see a misunderstanding there. Conciousness doesn't appear as anything, it's the reality that appears as people, and conciousness arises of this fact, because conciousness is inherent to reality but reality is more than conciousness. because, is there awareness if there is nothing to be aware of? Give just a chance to that reasoning for a moment even you think it's wrong.

5 hours ago, Razard86 said:

You can enter a state where the physical world will disappear because you will cease to imagine it and thus prove to yourself that it was all a dream. 

You can do that in part. As you said, reality, or consciousness or whatever we call it, appears as a human. Call it dream, creation or whatever, the fact is that it does. This human is a solid structure. if you want mental, but solid.

You can dissolve it momentarily and open yourself to the formless but then it will return exactly as it was. You cannot decide to transform into a bird and no longer be human. Why? because you are a human now, it is inevitable. If reality/consciousness is now a human, what does this mean? is it a dream? rather a creation, since it is stable, solid and cyclical, but call it dream if you want.

The substance is always the same, but the form changes. So, regarding solipsism, if this razard form disappears, what remains? the formless. and the other forms? were they imaginary? okay. but imagined by whom, by razard or by the formless? If it is because of the formless, then only Razard disappears, the other forms remain. Because the formless is unlimited, not limited to the form razard

Edited March 11 by Breakingthewall

[Reciprocality]

On 11/03/2024 at 3:22 AM, Osaid said:

You are assuming that it is true by making existential assumptions about the properties of consciousness. I am saying those assumptions are ill-founded.

In philosophy, Google defines "solipsism" as:

the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

It does not say anything beyond that about consciousness or whatever else.

It directly addresses your own existential assertion that if something "exists consciously besides now" then solipsism will be true. 

@Osaid

The properties of consciousness does not need to be assumed, the distinction between what is and is not conscious is conditioned on the properties we refer to if we want to use the term. 

When you say that everything is consciousness you have to undermine the meaning of the distinction, it is therefore a meaningless statement.

That which is non-conscious supplants your mind with the possibility for your statement "everything is consciousness" to have the meaning you yourself think when you say it, if your usage of the words are consistent with the natural language of english.

For solipsism to be false there must be other consciousnesses (even if something is identical to them all), though these too must be distinct from the kind of thing in opposition to which the word could possibly have a meaning, and indeed does have a meaning, to disagree with that is to want to change the meaning of words. 

Someone could in principle be conscious without a self, and so contrary to what you have been saying there does not need to be other selves for solipsism to be false, but in case you would want to make a philosophical argument for why all consciousness must form a self, which I happen to believe in myself, id definitely listen and you should do that instead of presupposing it.

 

However, if you want to question the initial distinction itself between what is conscious and what is not by suggesting some inconsistency then the burden falls on you and even if you could successfully show that the distinction has problems with it you contradict yourself when you assert that everything is conscious, because you could not do so without reinstantiating the distinction.

Edited March 14 by Reciprocality