Critique on "Life is a Dream" Video

[StrangerWatch]

 

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.

Edited February 12, 2018 by StrangerWatch

[Shin]

Quote

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

Exactly

[Joseph Maynor]

I like the idea that it's tongue in cheek.  Leo is basically showing us how absurd belief is by lampooning reasoning.  That's how I read it.  Pounds fist on table.  

Edited February 12, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[LastThursday]

33 minutes ago, StrangerWatch said:

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?

That's a great question. Why doesn't it? I would really really question that.  A good place to start is this: what has changed over the course of your life? Is there any one thing that has stayed rock-steady constant and unchanging throughout that time? Is there anything that hasn't fallen apart?

Edited February 12, 2018 by LastThursday
Typo.

[snowleopard]

52 minutes ago, StrangerWatch said:

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?

@StrangerWatch In Bernardo Kastrup's version of idealism, the 'dream' allegory is a way of pointing to a Cosmic Consciousness being that within which everything is possible, and so the phenomenal cosmos of apparent physicality, with all of its laws and conditions, would be, in essence, the ideation of that Consciousness -- and thus it can be called dreamlike in that it has no mind-independent existence. Of course, this is an extremely simplified nutshell example, and there's much more to a comprehensive metaphysics of idealism that Kastrup does also address. I'm not sure that Leo is making the same point, but that's how I would interpret it.

Edited February 12, 2018 by snowleopard

[StrangerWatch]

38 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

That's a great question. Why doesn't it? I would really really question that.  A good place to start is this: what has changed over the course of your life? Is there any one thing that has stayed rock-steady constant and unchanging throughout that time? Is there anything that hasn't fallen apart?

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. 

[snowleopard]

@Monkey-man  Leo clearly refutes materialism, so whatever he's getting at is at least anti-materialism. And since it's being expressed in ideas and words, then it clearly qualifies as some kind of 'ism' ... Maybe 'Leo-ism'?

[LastThursday]

31 minutes ago, StrangerWatch said:

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?

I know, it seems absurd. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What's realistic is based on what, you personally, have experienced so far to be real. And what you've experienced so far is only available in your memories, and science tells us memories are unreliable. And the reports of people around us are unreliable, people lie and manipulate. And the laws of physics are constantly changing and being revised (is Gravity Newtonian or is it the bending of spacetime? Is light a particle or a probability wave or electomagnetism?).

What I'm getting at, is that you can trust nothing, and anything you do trust you ought to be very suspicious of. That's the scientific method.

[StrangerWatch]

59 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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.

59 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

What I'm getting at, is that you can trust nothing, and anything you do trust you ought to be very suspicious of. That's the scientific method.

So healthy skepticism constitutes evidence for idealism?

Edited February 12, 2018 by StrangerWatch

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, StrangerWatch said:

 

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?

It’s not a belief. It seems so ‘real’, we believe it is until we investigate the word ‘real’. 

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?

Very loosely speaking, our path is working backwards through this...

Being..> aware..> awareness..>thinking...> seeing, hearing 

Kind of like     Electricity..>flashlight...>light beam...>light on wall 

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?

There’s no such thing as physical. Kind of a shocker, but that is the case. 

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.

Have to self inquire into awareness. Reasoning is keeping in thought, keeping in the 3 cups game. Reality could be reasoned a million ways, but experienced only one.  Go ‘behind’ thought into that which is aware of the thoughts, with practices. Without thoughts is a still pond without waves, it becomes clear.  Saying we’re all solipsists is in the right ballpark, though that sounds dumb, I know. 

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? You’re already in that state, with an illusion that you’re not in that state. 

After all, the idea of death as the end of experience only makes sense in a physical context; 

Right! Neither are true. 

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.

The further you go into awareness, the less terrifying it gets. The terrifying factors are the letting go of beliefs, mostly about the self. It is well worth the work, and ends very pleasantly. 

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?

He’s suggesting you keeping doing what you’re doing here, asking, inquiring, practices, psychedelics. 

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?

It will if you hang out long enough. 

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.

I would through that suffering on a post, investigate it, do breath focus meditation every morning, and be done with it. I say this with a distinction between suffering and pain. 

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.

The suffering is self imposed illusion, so is the pain, but that is the One self. Leo does not believe in a reality, you do. I know that’s direct and sounds crazy, but it’s true.

 

[StrangerWatch]

@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.

20 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Leo does not believe in a reality, you do.

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.

20 minutes ago, Nahm said:

I would through that suffering on a post, investigate it, do breath focus meditation every morning, and be done with it. I say this with a distinction between suffering and pain. 

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.

Edited February 12, 2018 by StrangerWatch

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, StrangerWatch said:

@Nahm No offense, mate, but you did a shit job with your quotations and responses. I’ll try to respond as best thanks! I can. 

What you seem to be doing is making outrageous truth claims without providing ANY basis for them.

You are the proof. There is no other proof. You’re the loop, so you have to look within yourself. Self inquiry is best for this. And psychedelics, but get a solid foundation in place first with meditation to ensure a good trip.

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.

Christopher is well aware of this. Love that guy! 

I believe in reality, but don’t make the mistake of thinking I draw a distinction between dreams and waking life. Ok. 

Where there is experience, there is reality (illusion), because experience is by definition empirical (illusion). "I think, therefore I am," said Descartes. Maybe he should have said I am, that’s how I can think.  Thinking is actually illusory. You can become aware of this, with practice. Even breathing slowly from the stomach and mindfulness can be highly effective. 

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.

Yeah, for sure. The illusion is relativity, you are the absolute center of the universe. In the illusion, or dream, there are relative actions and relative consequences, but in reality, there are not. I’m not under any allusion this is easy to grasp, right now, without months or years of practices. Took me around 20 years of daily practices. (Way too long in hindsight, but it was one of many ventures) From what I hear, 5meo will get this done within an hr. 

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?

Possibly the most important practice in revealing the illusory truth, in distinguishing direct experience from a thought. This will ease a lot of mental suffering. When I think of being tortured continuously for eternity I would feel bad, but when I realize that’s just a thought, and thoughts are of the illusion, I feel fine about it. Unless you’ve experienced that. I guess it’s possible. I haven’t. 

I don’t see a distinction between suffering and pain. Please explain.

Pain is felt stubbing your toe. Suffering is “what if I stub my toe again!?” “OMG, what if people I love stub their toes!?” “Isn’t anyone else worried about this!?” “I’ll look online and find a group who are concerned about this toe stubbing, maybe look at some pics of the worst toe stubs!” Etc

On a personal note, it can be a fun adventure, the realization of these things. Doesn’t have to be serious. ???

 

 

[Nahm]

@StrangerWatch A ridiculous riddle attempt at lightening the thing up a little....

 

Imagine you’re trapped in a concrete room, no windows no doors, and the room is slowly filling up with water and will eventually drown you. How do you get out of this?

[Galyna]

That's impossible because to be trapped in such room, as it needs to have something to put me there in the firSt place.

[StrangerWatch]

10 hours ago, Nahm said:

@StrangerWatch A ridiculous riddle attempt at lightening the thing up a little....

 

Imagine you’re trapped in a concrete room, no windows no doors, and the room is slowly filling up with water and will eventually drown you. How do you get out of this?

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.

[LastThursday]

19 hours ago, StrangerWatch said:

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.

And Leo has presented plenty of 'proof' in his videos. Ironically, it's not scientific proof I grant you. But a talking head can only do so much. He advocates that you do the 'experiments' yourself and not just trust his word.

19 hours ago, StrangerWatch said:

So healthy skepticism constitutes evidence for idealism?

No. It constitutes evidence against dogma. Your argument against 'living in a dream' is done by asserting that science and materialism are true.  But how can you trust that truth if there's even one iota of doubt?

It's a matter of perspective.  On the scientific/materialist side:

Your subjective experience is not to be trusted, because the 'real world' is 'out there'. To reduce self bias (delusion), experiments are carried out by many different people. marks (mappings) are made, and those people agree amongst themselves that those marks constitute reality, by building conceptual frameworks which are themselves just made of words, thoughts, speech, arrangements of marks (mathematics) etc. For a scientist the map is the territory.

On the spiritualist/idealist/dream side:

Your direct experience (a.k.a. subjective) is the only thing to be trusted. To reduce delusion (self bias), you strip away the equivalences between appearances (experiences or perceptions or qualia). In other words thoughts, words and other forms of indirection (pointing) are not reality. Basically, the word 'dog' is not a dog, only the direct experience of a dog is a dog - so the map is not the territory. 

It says the ego is a sham, because it's a mapping onto itself, like two arrows pointing to each other. Like the definition of 'Recursion' in a dictionary saying 'see Recursion'. It's self supporting, but groundless, a map without a territory.

It then goes deeper by saying that even the appearences are delusion, because there are really no boundaries between them and they're in constant flux in any case, they can't be 'caught' and examined.

So you are not your ego and you are not your appearences. So if even appearences are delusion, then what exactly is left? Nada, zip, nothing. Nothing exists. You don't exist. Everything you think you experience is a dream.

 

Edited February 13, 2018 by LastThursday
Typo

[Nahm]

@Galyna @Galyna Just stop imagining.  ?

[Timotheus]

@NahmIs this the same as self inquiry and or surrender?  ?

Man, life is too simple ?

[Nahm]

20 hours ago, Nahm said:

@StrangerWatch A ridiculous riddle attempt at lightening the thing up a little....

 

Imagine you’re trapped in a concrete room, no windows no doors, and the room is slowly filling up with water and will eventually drown you. How do you get out of this?

 

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

@Galyna @Galyna Just stop imagining.  ?

I hear ya. Too simple to let it be simple. lol.  

I just meant it as the answer to the joke/riddle. But, it seems like a metaphor for making the distinction between experience and thinking too.