Why trust our direct experience?

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Fran11 said:

I know they're very similar. But regarding this specific point: do you mean we experience concemtional dreams from all POVs / the waking state only from one ? 

I mean both are subjective.  You are not consciously thinking "that guy isn't real" in a dream.  It's just happening from your perspective.

[Fran11]

28 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I mean both are subjective.  You are not consciously thinking "that guy isn't real" in a dream.  It's just happening from your perspective.

Right. It only makes a difference after you wake up.

Like you said before, awakening from the waking state makes you care and love more. 

But when you wake up from a dream you give a fuck about people's suffering, even if there was a genocide.

C'mon we all like to say mind-fucking things but be honest on this one  Unless you are into the one-POV version of solipism you have to admit it's not quite the same in that regard.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Fran11 said:

because your own direct experience is all you'll encounter by definiton.

Exactly!

What you have yet to realize is that Absolute Truth is a tautology.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Fran11 said:

No, I'm glad there are "other" conscious beings. 

Only in your mind

Reality is relative and imaginary. Which means that if you imagine other people are real, they will be real for you. But if you ever stop imagining they are real, they will stop being real.

Which is precisely why people are so insistent that others are real. That insistence is the very thing which makes them real. If you stop insisting, they will stop being real.

But you will insist this isn't so.

So there you go again

[Fran11]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Only in your mind

Reality is relative and imaginary. Which means that if you imagine other people are real, they will be real for you. But if you ever stop imagining they are real, they will stop being real.

God doesn't say either "the world is real" or "unreal", these are human labels, to God it is what it is. 

But the point is: are we experiencing the waking dream from all POVs or not? 

It's okay to not have decided yet, but let's say what we think without being ambiguous. 

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

God doesn't say either "the world is real" or "unreal", these are human labels, to God it is what it is. 

But the point is: are we experiencing the waking dream from all POVs or not?

There actually is no such thing as POVs. There is only your direct experience. All POVs are inside your POV.

The concept of Points of View is inherently dualistic. It too much collapse.

[Fran11]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There actually is no such thing as POVs. There is only your direct experience. All POVs are inside your POV.

The concept of Points of View is inherently dualistic. It too much collapse.

The concept is pointing to your indivual bubble of perceptions, call it whatever you want, I know you get what I mean.

Is the current you are experiencing the only one inside the Absolute?

It's impossible to confirm by experience, but I get the sense that not, by contemplation of the potentiality of the absolute.

What's your intuition about it?

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Fran11 said:

The concep is pointing to your indivual bubble of perceptions, call it whatever you want, you know you get what I mean.

Is the current you are experiencing the only one inside the Absolute?

It's impossible to confirm, but I get the sense that not by contemplation of tve potentiality of the absolute.

What's your intuition about it?

Become infinitely conscious and see for yourself what's up.

You are God, after all.

[Mu_]

On 8/28/2020 at 0:03 PM, Knowledge said:

Why trust it when we know that we can be tricked by a simple sleight of hand?

 

Why trust and take the "not trusting your experience" route?

[Fran11]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Become infinitely conscious and see for yourself what's up.

You are God, after all.

From my experience, I would say that all the dreams/perception that the mind thinks that exist, actually do exist. 

But it's not like you are being all of them at the same time like the mind thinks reality is like. They sort of exist beyond time and space as pure potentiality inside the Godhead. 

It seems we are "being God at the same time" but there is no time, its all total oneness.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Gesundheit]

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What if I never disagreed on any of that?

Good.

[Gesundheit]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

No. "I robbed a bank" is only true relative to the idea of English grammar and a certain interpretation of language; whether it's literal or metaphorical, said in context, and whether you're using coded language etc..

It also assumes that you believe in personal agency, that personal agents even exist, that actions exist, that banks exist, and so on... Your statement only makes sense relative to these presuppositions.

 

Depends if "me" and "you" are not the same people, and that isn't self-evident or obvious outside the given presuppositions that I've went through with you.

 

That depends on the pre-existing value system that you're using to interpret the story.

 

What is a bank? What is a robbery? What is a person? These things aren't written in stone. They're not absolutes.

I told beforehand that you can get technical however you want about the actual thing that happened, which is me robbing a bank. The actual event is part of the absolute truth, non-mediated by language or by any filters, direct absolute truth. How we think or interpret or talk about it is another thing, and it's under the mediated type of truth which you call relative.

[Gesundheit]

11 hours ago, peachboy said:

You're getting your concepts confused.

The issue concerning the tree falling in the forest relates (in its most basic analysis) to the subjective audible qualia that is produced by the mind.

There is no such thing as objective sound. Sound, by its very nature, is subjective.

Therefore if there are no conscious entities experiencing the phenomenon of sound then it simply doesn't render. Or in other words: the subjective psychoacoustic properties of sound, distinct from its objective causality.

At the very least, one might speculate that there was at first an objective kinetic event (the tree falling), that then created another kinetic event (the air molecules vibrating) that then was transduced by an ear-drum, into an electrical event through the brain that was finally converted into a qualia-istic event that is etched onto the canvas of consciousness.

Of course, even that isn't strictly true, but is a far better synopsis than the idea that a falling tree can make a sound if there is no awareness to observe it, which is patently impossible.

That's nothing to do with solipsism.

Yeah but this mode of thinking immediately stops working when you're talking to others and doing things in the world. It only feels correct in theory.

[gswva]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Reality is relative and imaginary. Which means that if you imagine other people are real, they will be real for you. But if you ever stop imagining they are real, they will stop being real.

If others aren't real, then who are you trying to help actualize? From my pov, your spiritual care is definitely reaching the thing labeled "me", so something is happening here, and it doesn't matter if I insist that it's real or imaginary. Why can't the same relationship be projected over all perspectives? Since the very act of giving up the idea of others is planned and constructed from the initial illusion itself, then there is no difference between lies and truth. But if I'm just caring about myself then everything is meaningless, nobody isn't doing anything.

[Leo Gura]

33 minutes ago, gswva said:

If others aren't real, then who are you trying to help actualize?

If others aren't real, then there is no me doing anything. There is only you imagining me.

Quote

From my pov, your spiritual care is definitely reaching the thing labeled "me", so something is happening here

What's happening here is that you are imagining duality because you are trying to keep yourself asleep. You don't want to wake up.

Quote

and it doesn't matter if I insist that it's real or imaginary.

It does matter, if you care about awaking up.

Quote

Why can't the same relationship be projected over all perspectives?

All perspectives are the illusion. There are none. Only you, sitting there, imagining stuff.

You see... you don't really want to fully wake up. You want a comfy partial awakening. Not a full one. A full one would annihilate the universe and everyone in it.

[Pateedm]

 

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura I'd love to wake up. 

and to not be human anymore...

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

I told beforehand that you can get technical however you want about the actual thing that happened, which is me robbing a bank. The actual event is part of the absolute truth, non-mediated by language or by any filters, direct absolute truth. How we think or interpret or talk about it is another thing, and it's under the mediated type of truth which you call relative.

You're underestimating the extent of relativity. Relativity doesn't just apply to the interpretation of something. The actual thing itself is a confinement, a label, a limitation, a concept, a fiction; which is relative. You're only talking about relative things here, not absolutes. The only absolute is God itself: pure, undivided consciousness. No "things" exist in an absolute sense.

This is why it's important to make the distinction between the relative and the absolute domain. In the relative domain, yes, you are robbing a bank. In the absolute domain, there is only God. However, if you're able to concede on this distinction, then you could technically say that it's indeed absolutely true that you're robbing a bank in a relative sense (but then the use of the word becomes redundant).

Edited August 31, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Gesundheit]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're underestimating the extent of relativity. Relativity doesn't just apply to the interpretation of something. The actual thing itself is a confinement, a label, a limitation, a concept, a fiction; which is relative. You're only talking about relative things here, not absolutes. The only absolute is God itself: pure, undivided consciousness.

No. Relativity is a child's play. What I'm saying goes deeper. I'm claiming that there's only one true set of thoughts that describe the absolute truth and therefore are true. And all other sets of thoughts are false, wrong, and delusional. One set is absolutely true because it emulates the absolute truth. The remaining sets don't represent the truth, and therefore they're not true, not absolutely nor relatively. They're necessarily false.

The actual bank robbery event is absolute truth. The thoughts describing it can be either true or false depending on whether they actually represent what happened or not. An apple is not a banana. An apple is an apple and not anything else. Again, you can get technical and dissect that statement however and as much as you want. The actual truth of the actual thing remains untouched regardless. It's just a statement that describes the truth, even if it does not capture the whole of it. Just because language and thoughts are limited does not make them irrelevant. The difference between saying that an apple is not a banana and saying that an apple is a banana is that the former statement describes less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% of reality, while the latter does not describe reality at all. The latter is 0% true.

[gswva]

@Leo Gura Not gonna lie, I don't want to wake up. Even though living through one of the comfiest dream should be a good incentive to stop fearing away, it's almost conceptually scary what "infinite love" is capable of doing. I don't understand why it is supposed to be easy to step into what could be the point of no return to eternal loneliness and purposeless madness, but I know this fear of solipsism has already been discussed before and always come down to "everything will be fine, there is nothing to think about it yada yada". I'm just taking the time. 

@Gesundheit I like the river analogy. What is a river exactly? We can isolate any chunks of water that constitute it, but would they still be called a river? If we assume water to be relative, then everything is absolute, and it somehow exists without existing at all.

I'm not sure if it's accurate at all though, it's just an idea.