Why do I see from my eyes and not yours? Why am I me and not you?(answered )

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

There is no way to disprove solipsism, because anything that is non- contradictory is logically possible. So unless there is a contradiction in solipsism, it's possible that only you exist.

Why limit yourself to logic? Why not approach it experientially? You seem to be very worried about fine conceptual distinctions but not so much about what the concepts are actually referring to. I propose that this is the crux of the issue.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Gesundheit2]

14 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The point is that if you change your pov to another pov, it will remain your pov. You can't get out of your pov, ever. your pov is absolute. If you reach god pov and access infinite povs simultaneously, it will still be your pov. By definition, only your pov exists.

At that point, it would be silly to think that it's my pov. How could it be mine if I'm moving in and out of it without personal agency or decision?

[Breakingthewall]

24 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

At that point, it would be silly to think that it's my pov. How could it be mine if I'm moving in and out of it without personal agency or decision?

true, calling it "my" pov is confusing, it alludes to the self that is a construction. The question is: can experience exist outside of this experience? The answer would be, no, since another experience is this experience. this experience is the eternity and the infinite apparent experiences have been experienced infinite times. ok ok, and then, why am I only seeing the screen of my phone? I really dont know. it is very challenging trying to understand how infinity works. Without psychedelics I would say it's impossible, because our mind works in a linear dimension.  with them... maybe

Edited January 9, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[Osaid]

Quote

Why are  you ,you ? And not me ?

What's the alternative to being me?  "Not me" is an imaginary distinction you're making.

"You" only exists within me. People underestimate how subjective and personal their experience is. Everything you perceive is biased and anthropomorphized by your specific psychology and the human condition in general. When you're viewing a table, that's not some strictly objective and impersonal thing. That specific angle, that specific interpretation of the colors, the way you categorize the object as "table" in your head, these are all things specific to you.  Even your own physical biology limits your perspective. For example, certain animals can perceive ultraviolet colors floating around us, whereas you can't. My experience of "you" is intimately tied with my experience of "me." This is exactly why people are able to have different opinions about the same person, it's because they are literally perceiving different versions of that person.

Also, as a thought experiment, consider that I am already you. But, in order for me to be you, I can't be conscious of my experience as "Osaid", otherwise you wouldn't be "Someone here" anymore, you would become a combination of "Osaid" and "Someone here", which would be an entirely new entity.

For example, in order for me to become a kangaroo, I can't have memories of myself as a human while I am a kangaroo, otherwise I wouldn't be a kangaroo anymore. I would be a combination of a human and a kangaroo.

If you follow this line of reasoning, you'll realize that my identity is basically cancelled out by your identity in order for you to exist. And this is exactly how all finite forms exist. In order for one finite form to exist, every other possible existence must be exempted from it, because that is what it means to exist as something finite, it exists through exemptions and limitations. Otherwise, it would be infinite, and not finite.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Osaid

[Someone here]

7 hours ago, Osaid said:

Also, consider that I am already you. But, in order for me to be you, I can't be conscious of my experience as "Osaid", otherwise you wouldn't be "Someone here" anymore, you would become a combination of "Osaid" and "Someone here", which would be an entirely new entity.

For example, in order for me to become a kangaroo, I can't have memories of myself as a human while I am a kangaroo, otherwise I wouldn't be a kangaroo anymore. I would be a combination of a human and a kangaroo.

If you follow this line of reasoning, you'll realize that my identity is basically cancelled out by your identity in order for you to exist. And this is exactly how all finite forms exist. In order for one finite form to exist, every other possible existence must be exempted from it, because that is what it means to exist as something finite, it exists through exemptions and limitations. Otherwise, it would be infinite, and not finite.

Great stuff .thanks for sharing .This is akin  and reminded me about  the measurement problem in quantum physics. You can't measure the state of a system without disturbing the system. More accurately, whenever you measure a system, you are merging with it, to create a hybrid system. You can't disentangle the observer from the observed. It's all tangled up in itself lol 

[Carl-Richard]

@Osaid In other words, the consciousness is the same but the sense perceptions are different

Edited January 10, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Someone here]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

@Osaid In other words, the consciousness is the same but the sense perceptions are different.

Dude ,look ..What you call “ sense perceptions ” is just the conscious awareness of the body. Conscious awareness only perceives through the senses of that body.

There is only one Consciousness and all bodies are in it and not other than it. Just like when dreaming at night, a dream character has its point of view due to its senses…and yet the entirety of the dream is you and there is no one else there. If the dream is about being chased down an alley, it is you chasing yourself…there is no one else there.

Each body has its own sensory awareness and conscious awareness, but it is all of one Consciousness.

[Carl-Richard]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Dude ,look ..What you call “ sense perceptions ” is just the conscious awareness of the body. Conscious awareness only perceives through the senses of that body.

There is only one Consciousness and all bodies are in it and not other than it. Just like when dreaming at night, a dream character has its point of view due to its senses…and yet the entirety of the dream is you and there is no one else there. If the dream is about being chased down an alley, it is you chasing yourself…there is no one else there.

Each body has its own sensory awareness and conscious awareness, but it is all of one Consciousness.

If consciousness is all there is, it's redundant to say "consciousness of" something. Everything is "consciousness of" something. Just say what it is. If there is a body, there is a body. If there is a thought, there is a thought. It's all consciousness anyway. Then, you can make a category that describes these things, e.g. sense perceptions. A body, a thought, an emotion, a memory, an identity; anything that can be experienced as a form: all of it is sense perceptions, and consciousness is that which is even beyond sense perceptions. You can use different words than sense perceptions (e.g. "experiences of form"), but just call it what it is.

[Someone here]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If consciousness is all there is, it's redundant to say "consciousness of" something. Everything is "consciousness of" something. Just say what it is. If there is a body, there is a body. If there is a thought, there is a thought. It's all consciousness anyway. Then, you can make a category that describes these things, e.g. sense perceptions. A body, a thought, an emotion, a memory, an identity; anything that can be experienced as a form: all of it is sense perceptions, and consciousness is that which is even beyond sense perceptions. You can use different words than sense perceptions (e.g. "experiences of form"), but just call it what it is.

Nope . You got it wrong Again . Everything is consciousness but we can still differentiate between different objects . A cat is consciousness. And a dog is consciousness. Yet the cat and dog are obviously different. So they are the same and they are different simultaneously. 

The truth is, consciousness and perception are two sides of the same coin. They are directly proportional to each other, when you understand their true meaning.

Consciousness means; “ the fact of awareness, by the mind of itself and the world.”

Consciousness is fluid, malleable and changeable. You can be more conscious or aware in one moment and far less conscious or aware in another.

The whole universe is contained in a field of consciousness. This consciousness of the universe, is itself fully aware and intelligent. The "sense perceptions" you are talking about are part of consciousness. They are not something else entirely different from consciousness (because consciousness is all there is ).

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

The "sense perceptions" you are talking about are part of consciousness. They are not something else entirely different from consciousness (because consciousness is all there is ).

Bro, I've said 10 times in this thread that everything is consciousness. How did you miss it? 

 

3 minutes ago, Someone here said:

They are not something else entirely different from consciousness (because consciousness is all there is ).

I'm saying it's a distinction.

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Bro, I've said 10 times in this thread that everything is consciousness. How did you miss it? 

 

I'm saying it's a distinction.

You said there is a difference between consciousness and  what you call "sense perceptions ". Are these two separate things ? If not then what's your point exactly?  Because you brought this point to @Thought Art when the guy asked you about the "illusion of solipsism ".

OK..take your time ..fully express your point..so that I can understand it fully ..and then I will see what's up .

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

You said there is a difference between consciousness and  what you call "sense perceptions ". Are these two separate things ? If not then what's your point exactly?  Because you brought this point to @Thought Art when the guy asked you about the "illusion of solipsism ".

OK..take your time ..fully express your point..so that I can understand it fully ..and then I will see what's up .

Again, I'm making a distinction (a conceptual one, merely for utility) and again, everything is consciousness, so the distinction technically happens within consciousness. In other words, you can have consciousness either with perceptions present, or you can have consciousness without perceptions present.

It's just easier to say "perceptions vs. consciousness", because "consciousness with perceptions present vs. consciousness without perceptions present" is a mouthful, and it logically follows if you already know that everything is consciousness (which I've said 12 times now).

And what is a perception? It's anything that has a form that you can experience, and it's generally very humancentric and linked to your sense organs: sights, sounds, smells, sensations, thoughts, feelings, emotions, colors, objects, etc.

Again, consciousness can exist without perceptions present, like in cessation, and it can exist with perceptions present, which makes the distinction useful for differentiating between these two things.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Thought Art]

I think Carl is a materialist, even if he is closeted hehe

You know Carl, when I read you telling someone how many times you’ve told them something it’s rather off putting and unfriendly. We are all trying to understand one another. I read it like “because you were too stupid to understand me the first 13 times I’ll repeat myself”… but, we aren’t asking you to do that. We have different metaphysical understanding than you and it takes time to understand one another. 
 

I personally don’t think “Sense perceptions” exist. But, English doesn’t have the words.

It is confusing in that, each of us have different understandings of this subject. Let’s be patient with one an another and I’ll work on that too.

Like, when you see a fridge… it’s just absolutely there. No eyes or sense organ needed. Consciousness. Eyes are just a back story to explain it. Like, in a video game it’s just code…. 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Thought Art

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

I think Carl is a materialist, even if he is closeted hehe

I guess you're a videos guy, so I'll let Rupert take it away:

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Thought Art]

@Carl-Richard Does he contradict himself by first saying there can be multiple minds and then saying that a penguin only exists when perceived by consciousness? But that it doesn’t actually exist? Ex it’s?

He seems a bit slippery here. With the whole sense perception, consciousness thing, hard to know if he things there is an external reality from one’s perception that could still be “consciousness “

Edited January 10, 2023 by Thought Art

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Thought Art said:

@Carl-Richard Does he contradict himself by first saying there can be multiple minds and then saying that a penguin only exists when perceived by consciousness? But that it doesn’t actually exist? Ex it’s?

I think you should focus on the last part where he said conceptual distinctions are ok to make for utility reasons. That solves everything.

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

He seems a bit slippery here. With the whole sense perception, consciousness thing, hard to know if he things there is an external reality from one’s perception that could still be “consciousness “

So I guess everything is slippery, heh? Want more videos?

[Thought Art]

@Carl-Richard I agree with that idea. Clearly I use these distinctions throughout daily life. Buuut. 
 

Reality is pretty slippery. 
 

But no, I mean specifically he was slippery. For one minute there’s different minds, then one mind idk. I haven’t listened to him or read him. I will buy his books for sure. I’ll consume everyone.

I don’t really know who he is so I might as well be taking to anyone on the forum when I here his opinion. 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Thought Art

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Carl-Richard I agree with that idea. Clearly I use these distinctions throughout daily life. Buuut. 
 

Reality is pretty slippery. 
 

But no, I mean specifically he was slippery. For one minute there’s different minds, then one mind idk. I haven’t listened to him or read him. I will buy his books for sure. I’ll consume everyone.

This video in general parses out a lot of the fine distinctions between things like "mind" and "Mind" (and in fact idealism and solipsism). The Kastrup-Spira combo is excellent for this.

14:49 is about perceptions specifically.

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Sincerity]

57 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

In other words, you can have consciousness either with perceptions present, or you can have consciousness without perceptions present.

It's just easier to say "perceptions vs. consciousness", because "consciousness with perceptions present vs. consciousness without perceptions present" is a mouthful, and it logically follows if you already know that everything is consciousness (which I've said 12 times now).

How do You know there can be consciousness with no content? From experience, theory or what?

I have no stance on this. I don't know. 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Sincerity