Why solipsism is not Absolute

[zurew]

12 hours ago, Razard86 said:

As such if something doesn't appear before you, it doesn't exist. 

Can you justify this in a non-questionbegging way? (without pressuposing the validity of the metaphysics that you try to justify)

[Razard86]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Razard86 "DisCoVer WhAt ReaLIty Is"?

Are you kidding me ? We don’t even know for certain if the earth is flat or spherical.we don't even understand how ancient Egyptians made the pyramids in Giza . Science says 70% of the observable universe is dark energy which we don't know nothing about .

...and you telling me you've figured existence out ?

Cool story bro .

LOL Science is imaginary. You literally don't get it. Imagine writing a story where you created a world. And in that world you have scientists that believe everything comes from something and they deny you as the creator and claim that they will discover what is going on.

How can they discover anything within the dream world you created of them? You created that whole world in your mind, and they deny that you created them and that they exist in your mind but instead they believe they exist in a physical world. LOL that is how laughable science is.

Close your eyes, imagine a bird. That is the same creative power that spawned everything. It's that simple.

[Someone here]

1 minute ago, Razard86 said:

LOL Science is imaginary. You literally don't get it. Imagine writing a story where you created a world. And in that world you have scientists that believe everything comes from something and they deny you as the creator and claim that they will discover what is going on.

How can they discover anything within the dream world you created of them? You created that whole world in your mind, and they deny that you created them and that they exist in your mind but instead they believe they exist in a physical world. LOL that is how laughable science is.

Proof ? You just reviewed Leo's deleted video ? Do you know that what you're saying is literal insanity and 180 degree backwards?   Yes, You can Imagine that you've imagined the world into existence just like In a dream but notice that as long as you are dreaming or existing inside the dream then it does appear objective and independent from your mind until you wake up .so solipsism might be true ..it's technically unfalsifiable...but as long as you appear to exist as a limited creature within a larger objective universe that you don't fully understand then it's wise to assume that what you describe here is precisely backwards . 

I'm more flexible than you .I've changed my mind on the topic of solipsism a billion times .you didn't change it .I have higher chances of arriving at truth more than you .

[Javfly33]

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

Happened 2 years ago. What you don't understand is there is no difference between beginning and end. The start of the Universe is completely identical to the end. If its Gods will you can live in any time period, in any universe. You can even relive your current life if its God's will.

2 years ago I lived and you didnt had access to my Life experience.

So something outside you existed. 

Gotcha. 

[Ishanga]

31 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

2 years ago I lived and you didnt had access to my Life experience.

So something outside you existed. 

Gotcha. 

but this is just in your Imagination, this is the fall back response to anything that defies their belief system or logic, Experience seems to mean nothing to them, as that is imaginary too, but what is Imagining things in the first place, and why is my imagination bring up different things than You, lol, it all circles back to each of Us having Individual experiences and understandings which indicates Individuality on some level exists, so therefore Solipsism as an Absolute is not so Absolute, its true in an Experiential way only, but other beings and bodies and minds and experiences exists totally on some level, this level we are living on...

[Princess Arabia]

8 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

but this is just in your Imagination, this is the fall back response to anything that defies their belief system or logic, Experience seems to mean nothing to them, as that is imaginary too, but what is Imagining things in the first place, and why is my imagination bring up different things than You, lol, it all circles back to each of Us having Individual experiences and understandings which indicates Individuality on some level exists, so therefore Solipsism as an Absolute is not so Absolute, its true in an Experiential way only, but other beings and bodies and minds and experiences exists totally on some level, this level we are living on...

This doesn't sound like magic to me, sounds logical. Linear. It makes sense. No, no, you have been fooled.

[zurew]

Here is the claim that Leo or Leo copycats should justify in a non-questionbegging way: All possible (including all types of materialistic and non-materialistic metaphysics) pressupose the validity of Solipsism.

Go ahead justify that, im sure we will see a lot of non-question begging arguments here and we will have big brainblasts. Until then - I will take Solipsism to be fallible.

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Here is the claim that Leo or Leo copycats should justify in a non-questionbegging way: All possible (including all types of materialistic and non-materialistic metaphysics) pressupose the validity of Solipsism.

Go ahead justify that, im sure we will see a lot of non-question begging arguments here and we will have big brainblasts. Until then - I will take Solipsism to be fallible.

I don't get you ..you are essentially saying  prove that solipsism is true without presuppositions?  Aren't you the one begging the question? Or maybe I misunderstand you ..can you phrase it in a different way ?

[zurew]

38 minutes ago, Someone here said:

you are essentially saying  prove that solipsism is true without presuppositions?

No, I didnt say that you cant use any presupposition to establish that Solipsism is true.  The claim that some people on this forum make is not just that Solipsism is true, but that Solipsism is necessarily true and cant be false (in an infallible way, where there is no room for error).

Which is a claim that has never been substantiated ever and that requires an argument that we will never get. Making a claim like "Solipsism can be true" is not an interesting claim and thats not what people here make. People here wouldn't ever bite the bullet that "Solipsism can be true" or that "Solipsism is likely (probabilistically) true"  - They want to say that Solipsism is necessarily true.

But its not just that we wont get an argument for the strong claim (that it is necessarily true), we won't even get a non-question begging argument for the weaker claim (that Solipsism is likely true).

38 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Aren't you the one begging the question?

That doesnt make any sense. Question begging is a property of arguments, not questions.

You can make an argument where none of the premises assume the conclusion to be true (non-question begging); and you can make one where at least one of the premises assumes the conclusion to be true (question begging).

Edited Monday at 06:21 PM by zurew

[Jirh]

@zurew It is both right and wrong at the same time to hold the view you're holding. From a logical perspective, your questions are valid, yet from a non-logical, and more intuitive perspective, they are not. The ability to see this paradox and tightrope it is required here. From my understanding, it seems the others here don't see the logical perspective, or don't acknowledge its validity, and you're doing the same in the opposite way.

Edited Monday at 06:54 PM by Jirh

[Someone here]

28 minutes ago, zurew said:

No, I didnt say that you cant use any presupposition to establish that Solipsism is true.  The claim that some people on this forum make is not just that Solipsism is true, but that Solipsism is necessarily true and cant be false (in an infallible way, where there is no room for error).

Which is a claim that has never been substantiated ever and that requires an argument that we will never get. Making a claim like "Solipsism can be true" is not an interesting claim and thats not what people here make. People here wouldn't ever bite the bullet that "Solipsism can be true" or that "Solipsism is likely (probabilistically) true"  - They want to say that Solipsism is necessarily true.

But its not just that we wont get an argument for the strong claim (that it is necessarily true), we won't even get a non-question begging argument for the weaker claim (that Solipsism is likely true).

I see . The arguments are usually appealing to a dream analogy . They say in a dream ..does the dreamworld exist on its own  independently from the dreamer?  Are "other people " in a dream experiencing the dreamworld dreamt by the dreamer or are they just mere inert appearances within the dreamer's dreamworld? 

And of course the answer to both questions is that no .there are no reality to other conscious minds in a dream . Then they jump right away that shouldn't you suspect that the same could be applied to "real life "? Given that you don't even know for certain whether you are in a dream world or a "real objective " world right now ?

That seems to be the line of reasoning. 

What are your thoughts on this ?

This doesn't prove that solipsism is undebately true ..but like you said that it is likely true .

[UnbornTao]

Nobody questions the self that is believing in solipsism.

[zurew]

13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

What are your thoughts on this ?

This doesn't prove that solipsism is undebately true ..but like you said that it is likely true .

I don't think, that line of reasoning establishes that Solipsism is likely.  First, I can just deny some  of those  premises (that dream characters are not conscious or that a dream cannot exist seperately from the dreamer or that reality is a dream in the firstplace) and that will destroy this whole line, unless there is an argument that can establish each of the questioned premises. Usually on this forum all of those premises are taken for granted and almost never challenged.

But even in the context where I accept all those premises - That line of reasoning is still compatible with a lot of different kind of metaphysics that are not Solipsism . This will include atheistic and theistic views as well, and when it comes to theism the number of possible views you would need to deal with is still incredibly vast.

The dreamworld not existing seperately from the dreamer -  is compatible with a God that is not you. It is also compatible with making dreamcharacters that are actually conscious.  And we can go down more on the list that are all taken for granted by the Solipsism bros/sisters here.

[Someone here]

11 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Nobody questions the self that is believing in solipsism.

Seriously?  Is that how you refute solipsism?  By saying there is no self in the first place which is said to be the only real self in existence?  Do you really think nobody has ever brought up this objection before in the countless solipsistic debates on this forum ?

And Besides..I call this intellectual suicide. There is no self ..no others ..then there is what ? Pure unbroken impersonal consciousness floating around in the middle of nowhere.....?

What to make of this ?

[Someone here]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

I don't think, that line of reasoning establishes that Solipsism is likely.  First, I can just deny some  of those  premises (that dream characters are not conscious or that a dream cannot exist seperately from the dreamer or that reality is a dream in the firstplace) and that will destroy this whole line, unless there is an argument that can establish each of the questioned premises. Usually on this forum all of those premises are taken for granted and almost never challenged.

But even in the context where I accept all those premises - That line of reasoning is still compatible with a lot of different kind of metaphysics that are not Solipsism . This will include atheistic and theistic views as well, and when it comes to theism the number of possible views you would need to deal with is still incredibly vast.

The dreamworld not existing seperately from the dreamer -  is compatible with a God that is not you. It is also compatible with making dreamcharacters that are actually conscious.  And we can go down more on the list that are all taken for granted by the Solipsism bros/sisters here.

OK. So you are challenging the view that other apparent conscious entities In a nocturnal dream are unconscious..and you're saying "who the fuck knows .they might be conscious ".  That's a premise that is  indeed is arguable. 

However..here's a premise that isn't negotiable...you cannot ever be certain of anybody's else consciousness as you are certain of your own consciousness...whether it's a dream..a world ..a computer simulation..etc..

So you might call this agnostic solipsism. 

Imo solipsism cannot be proven nor disproven .

[UnbornTao]

10 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Seriously?  Is that how you refute solipsism?  By saying there is no self in the first place which is said to be the only real self in existence?  Do you really think nobody has ever brought up this objection before in the countless solipsistic debates on this forum ?

And Besides..I call this intellectual suicide. There is no self ..no others ..then there is what ? Pure unbroken impersonal consciousness floating around in the middle of nowhere.....?

What to make of this ?

What I'm saying is that this debate is intellectual. As such, it is superficial compared to getting the one who is asking the question. 

I felt "zenny" today.

[Razard86]

4 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

This doesn't sound like magic to me, sounds logical. Linear. It makes sense. No, no, you have been fooled.

What he doesn't understand is an individual experience is absolute onto itself, unless it is expanded upon. When he goes to sleep he cannot take anyone into his dreams with him, hell sometimes he cannot even take his human self with him. This is what is meant by it being Absolute. 

How it is relative is, it can create another absolute onto itself, and allow it to both share its absoluteness, but also retain it. A blind man lives in a blind reality. He cannot see what you and I see. But how we are able to relate to the blind man is the blind man can still hear, taste, touch, emote, etc. So through this we are both the Absolute, and are able to share this Absolute with another Absolute. But you can break that boundary and if you do then there is no more Relative. 

Every POV is Absolute onto itself. To deny this people on this forum have to deny what is true. Each POV lives in their own deluded world because we all have to be deluded to be what we are. The whole point is to be aware of our delusion, but some people on these forums think the delusion is real. LOL. 

God is that which creates REAL FICTIONAL UNIVERSES. All that we think is real, is only real according to this reality, and that real....can break if you lose your egoic constructions. Many people here are too afraid to investigate and explore their imaginations.

[Ishanga]

4 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

What he doesn't understand is an individual experience is absolute onto itself, unless it is expanded upon. When he goes to sleep he cannot take anyone into his dreams with him, hell sometimes he cannot even take his human self with him. This is what is meant by it being Absolute. 

How it is relative is, it can create another absolute onto itself, and allow it to both share its absoluteness, but also retain it. A blind man lives in a blind reality. He cannot see what you and I see. But how we are able to relate to the blind man is the blind man can still hear, taste, touch, emote, etc. So through this we are both the Absolute, and are able to share this Absolute with another Absolute. But you can break that boundary and if you do then there is no more Relative. 

Every POV is Absolute onto itself. To deny this people on this forum have to deny what is true. Each POV lives in their own deluded world because we all have to be deluded to be what we are. The whole point is to be aware of our delusion, but some people on these forums think the delusion is real. LOL. 

God is that which creates REAL FICTIONAL UNIVERSES. All that we think is real, is only real according to this reality, and that real....can break if you lose your egoic constructions. Many people here are too afraid to investigate and explore their imaginations.

I do understand this, all Experience happens only within Me, I've never experienced anything outside myself because it all is happening within Me, no matter what anyone says here or ever says anywhere, its all happening and interpreted and experienced within Me once it comes into my Perception, what does not come into my Perception on a certain level does not exist for Me, and its the same for every other Body/Mind/Ego complex on the planet.. We are micro Universes/Absolute onto ourselves..

 

[Carl-Richard]

On 2.12.2024 at 2:33 PM, Razard86 said:

Explain a paradox, Carl. Explain a contradiction. Explain how appearance literally is spawning from nothing. What is the mechanism? Since you are saying I lack clarity. Lets hear your logic.

Clarity of thought and language most fundamentally boils down to making distinctions. Tearing down distinctions while still being clear is a luxury and has to generally be preceded by a long accounting of other distinctions. Constantly putting equation signs between words and moving quickly from one concept to the next is not that.

Here is a distinction: reality "is". That is the Absolute. Anything else is relative. While what is meant by "reality is" can be unclear and easily misunderstood, it can be elaborated on with more distinctions. So making distinctions is the basis of making something clear, and elaborating with more distinctions is the process of making something more clear.

 

On that, this is a good example of the power of making distinctions and elaborating on those distinctions. Notice how rich the examples are of each distinction, notice how illustrative it is, how it leads the person from confusion to clarity:

 

Edited 17 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

16 hours ago, Jirh said:

@zurew It is both right and wrong at the same time to hold the view you're holding. From a logical perspective, your questions are valid, yet from a non-logical, and more intuitive perspective, they are not. The ability to see this paradox and tightrope it is required here. From my understanding, it seems the others here don't see the logical perspective, or don't acknowledge its validity, and you're doing the same in the opposite way.

Its not a matter of being logical, its a matter of being aware of and being honest about limitations and its a matter of substantiating one's claims. 

There are genuine and complex arguments that can be made about why and how inferences are limited. Thats fine, but on the other hand, there are genuine arguments can be made how and why exclusively relying on seemings (intuitions) is also limited and problematic. But the issue is that we are not having any of those substantial conversations. What some people do here is, they assume that their seemings are true (in an infallible way) and they go on from there. 

 

Its also about saying something meaningful vs just gibberating. Not using language in a consistent and clear way is not about being intuitive, it is just obfuscation. Its easy to obfuscate the fuck out of everything and make it seem like there is something profound there, just because its impossible to understand or make sense of  what is said there.

There is a reason why there is such a big resistance to clarification. Sometimes when one is pressed on a given term's meaning, it sometimes turns out that one haven't said anything profound at all, but either its something completely trivial that everyone with different positions can agree with or it turns out that its something incoherent. For example, once you define the term Absolute as  'all encompassing', and relative as 'not all encompassing' from that on if you are consistent with it,  you won't be able to say stuff like "the relative is the Absolute" and from that on, you can be further pressed on your positions (for example on Solipsism).

But if you can engage in an endless amount of obfuscation and gibberation, there won't be any attack surface on your position, not because your position is so good and infallible, but because there isn't really any real position to attack in the firstplace, since you have an amorphis position thats labeled as "Solipsism" that you yourself don't even know what it means or you constantly change what it means and you flip-flop between different postions.

Edited yesterday at 11:40 AM by zurew