You see why there are no other people, don't you?

[OldManCorcoran]

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

what you are saying is that only direct experience exists and that the self is a part of that direct experience, not the perceiver of it. that's how it is. you are the experience that is occurring, within which there is an apparent you that is the center of it

The self is also an experience and does tend to appear alongside every occurring appearance. In many ways like a parasite which has attached itself to an appearance. There is heard music by itself, then appears this parasitic thought of "I am hearing this music". Over time it builds coils and coils of itself by its constant insertion of itself (thought-appearances like "I am _" "last week I _") into the fact of something's presence, like the presence of the color purple, which can in fact exist entirely absent of the self.

Over time it becomes so strong that it becomes almost impossible to conceive of existence without it. It will comandeer everything. The question of death and deep sleep and various similar topics becomes a question of what will happen to it. Will it merge with some big Self? Will there be nothingness forever? It becomes so strong that it becomes impossible to comprehend that it can completely stop existing, just like any other appearance can, and nothing will change at all. You can be dead and hearing your favorite piece of music, because there wasn't any you ever hearing it full stop. The music appeared and that was it. It is one of many shapes existence takes. Never with a self involved. Only the appearance by thought that there is such a thing there.

If you find some old obscure Victorian piece of music and listen to it, every long dead person who was alive and listening to it way back then, is there hearing it again. Because in actual fact nobody ever heard the music, the music appeared way back then and the music appears now. The hearing of the music is exactly the thing which is present and each time it appears it is exactly the same. Regardless of who apparently seems to be hearing it or who appears to be dead and buried or even if every living being in existence was dead. If there were no conscious beings in the entirety of existence, the heard music could still appear and it would be heard just the same. Because the hearing of the music is exactly what is present. And in fact there are no conscious beings, this is the way it has always been and always will be.

Edited March 24, 2023 by OldManCorcoran

[OldManCorcoran]

1 hour ago, MisterNobody said:

when I said this, I was referring to the idea of Advanced Solipsism, which states that you are the only conscious experience, all other people are deterministic natural robots, there is no God inside of them, they do not hear, feel, see etc. they have no qualia

That includes me and you also. We are dead matter with no God inside of us, we don't hear, feel, or see. Neither of us have qualia.

You don't have it and nor do I.

In actual fact, observed phenomena exists in complete absence of any such things. There could be absolutely no conscious thing in existence and observed phenomena appear just like they do now.

In the statement "I am seeing" you will never find anything in that seeing except for the fact that what you are seeing is present. That the seen object itself is present. To be conscious of it or to be seeing it means nothing at all except that the seen object is present. The pure fact of its being.

That pure being can exist as qualia, it can exist as both your perspective and as my perspective. It does not necessarily have to even exist as qualia, there is no such thing as a category and qualia as well as atoms in galaxies far away are of the exact same category. Neither thing is actually observed but both can "be". Existence takes the shape of qualities and also of things without any perception-based qualities.

There is nothing to individual perspectives except for the existence of differentiation. If there is an appearance of pure white light and pure red light, existence is appearing as multiple forms. Individuals are created from the egos which attach themselves to these different appearances. The appearance of you seeing pure white light (in actuality no you seeing it of course) does not necessarily mean there is not also the seeing of pure red light.

And if both of us see pure white light at the same time, and there is no other perception in our heads, we are literally then the same person seeing that white light. Even though the egos after the experience will assign the event to itself so it will seem to both of us that we separately saw pure white light. Because in actual fact there is neither of us seeing white light, only the existence of the perception which is the white light itself. If I was seeing pure red and you were seeing pure white, and I stopped seeing pure red and saw pure white just like you, because neither of us exist there is ONLY the seen object, then there would ONLY be the seen pure white light... And then if every living being in existence saw that pure white light, and everything else ceased to exist, then all differentiation in existence is gone and the pure white light is then the only thing existent. Not you or me or any conscious being. The white light would exist and that's it.

Then other appearances and multiplicity can happen again.

[Breakingthewall]

53 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

. If there were no conscious beings in the entirety of existence, the heard music could still appear and it would be heard just the same. Because the hearing of the music is exactly what is present. And in fact there are no conscious beings, this is the way it has always been and always will be.

Conciousness and experience are the same, that's what we are. awakening is realizing what that experience really is, that is, you, are.

That saying that there is no self is meaningless redundancy. there is existence, that's what you are. many claim to know a mysterious secret saying that there is no self. it is obvious that there is no perceiver and separate perceptions but there is existence, then it is said: I am that, since it is so. 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[OldManCorcoran]

22 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Conciousness and experience are the same, that's what we are. awakening is realizing what that experience really is, that is, you, are.

That saying that there is no self is meaningless redundancy. there is existence, that's what you are. many claim to know a mysterious secret saying that there is no self. it is obvious that there is no perceiver and separate perceptions but there is existence, then it is said: I am that, since it is so. 

Why do you think so many people go on about subjective solipsism (which means they think if they're seeing white, the seeing of white is happening, but no other seeing like the seeing of red can possibly be happening). Why do you think people talk about dying and going into the source like an octopus retracting its legs, or whirpools in rivers, like Bernardo Kastrup does? It's a result of a self based framework.

That's why it's not redundant. It is redundant to be adding youness to the fact of existence, or adding consciousness to it, when there is pure being and that's all.

Existence can exist as perceptions, it can exist as unobserved matter galaxies away. The categorical divide between those things being a thought in the mind which does not exist outside of it. It is easy and not confusing at all when the idea of consciousness or self is untethered from the fact of existence.

There is absolutely nothing to consciousness except the fact of presence (you will not find anything to "I am conscious of purple" except the fact that purple is present). Consciousness and awareness are conceptually tied to the appearance of perception while pure being (the same pure being in the fact of purple appearing when we say "I am conscious of purple") does not necessarily have to be. That is why it is a better top down framework.

[Breakingthewall]

@OldManCorcoran

the thing is that the direct experience that is happening right now is the reality. there is nothing outside of it. it is absolute. "outside" does not even exist as a conceptual idea. If you don't understand this, you live in fantasy. this direct experience is of unlimited depth, you can dive into it to infinity, but you cannot get out of it, since there is nothing else. this infinite depth is what you are. It's quite simple, change perspective. do not look outside, there is no outside. everything is inside . only you are 

This is awakening. You don't need aliens for that

Edited March 24, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[OldManCorcoran]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

@OldManCorcoran

the thing is that the direct experience that is happening right now is the reality. there is nothing outside of it. it is absolute. "outside" does not even exist as a conceptual idea. If you don't understand this, you live in fantasy. this direct experience is of unlimited depth, you can dive into it to infinity, but you cannot get out of it, since there is nothing else. this infinite depth is what you are. It's quite simple, change perspective. do not look outside, there is no outside. everything is inside . only you are

 

What are you trying to say? Are you implying subjective solipsism, or tethering existence to perceiving like existence necessarily exists as perceptions only?

In any given perception (experience), there is nothing to the perceiving of it except that the perception is present. To say you experience the seeing of purple is nothing but a verbalization that the seen color purple is present. That is pure being. Consciousness is nothing but the fact of something's being. But consciousness is considered tied to perceptual experiences like seeing and hearing.

Perceptions are just something existence appears as from time to time. Like the experiences referenced, I am experiencing seeing purple. Experiencing seeing lurple literally means nothing but "purple is present". It's presence itself.

It's not a me or a you or an experience, adding elements to it like that is obscuring that it is sheer existence and nothing else. Whatever you equate it to, you limit it to. The experience of seeing purple appears, the seeing of red appears. They appear because existence takes the form of perceptions. Which it does freely and readily. It does not necessarily have to be a perception, if you see that the only thing to the seeing of a color is the presence of the color, i.e. the sheer existence of it. Then it is no longer at all confusing to envision that sheer existence does not necessarily need to exist as a perception. But it can. It can be anything... No categorical divide between perceptions and unobserved particles, the divide is a thought perception. No such thing as something or nothing, because something and nothing is an idea of the mind which would not exist in the absence of the mind which invented those labels... Hence why it so easily and readily could bleed between these apparently categorically different things.

Perception are one form existence takes. It could be the only form, it would not be a problem. It could also not be, and that would also not be any problem. It can appear as your perspective and everyone else can be a dead robot, but it could also not be like that, and that would also not be any problem at all. This is better isn't it?

[MisterNobody]

@OldManCorcoran man you are obsessed with "you dont have qualia, you ARE qualia". I get that. When I use words like "they dont see/ hear/ feel" I mean there is no feeling there, no sight, no hearing. If you are in a room full of people and music is playing, there is only one audience, that is you, your conscious experience. Other people do not hear the music. Consciousness doesnt inhabit them. Now as a note, cause I know you're obsessed, YES of course there's no you there who hears the music, there is just THE hearing, the music itself. I called it advanced solipsism because it's not your conventional concept of solipsism. You're getting too hung up on words. It would be impossible to explain complex concepts without using subject-object language, so be understanding. 

as I said before, terms like consciousness, awareness, conscious etc should not be used. 

The moving images, the sounds, the feelings only happen from "your" "pov". 

It's hard to explain. I hope you get what Im trying to say

 

[OldManCorcoran]

2 hours ago, MisterNobody said:

@OldManCorcoran man you are obsessed with "you dont have qualia, you ARE qualia". I get that. When I use words like "they dont see/ hear/ feel" I mean there is no feeling there, no sight, no hearing. If you are in a room full of people and music is playing, there is only one audience, that is you, your conscious experience. Other people do not hear the music. Consciousness doesnt inhabit them. ,Now as a note, cause I know you're obsessed, YES of course there's no you there who hears the music, there is just THE hearing, the music itself. I called it advanced solipsism because it's not your conventional concept of solipsism. You're getting too hung up on words. It would be impossible to explain complex concepts without using subject-object language, so be understanding. 

as I said before, terms like consciousness, awareness, conscious etc should not be used. 

The moving images, the sounds, the feelings only happen from "your" "pov". 

It's hard to explain. I hope you get what Im trying to say

Oh, yeah I do understand that indeed. I just seen many people say you are a dead robot but they are not. It is not easy to discern who is talking about their ego (which can even be expressed as a "Self" many refer to).

Like at the start I thought you meant something different. But when you put it in different language ("Now as a note, cause I know you're obsessed, YES of course there's no you there who hears the music, there is just THE hearing, the music itself") I then knew what you mean.

My mind went away once, it frightened me. If it happened again now I would be okay to sit with that for half hour or so. I wouldn't want to be like Frank Yang who just exists that way permanently.

[axiom]

2 hours ago, OldManCorcoran said:

Oh, yeah I do understand that indeed. I just seen many people say you are a dead robot but they are not. It is not easy to discern who is talking about their ego (which can even be expressed as a "Self" many refer to).

Like at the start I thought you meant something different. But when you put it in different language ("Now as a note, cause I know you're obsessed, YES of course there's no you there who hears the music, there is just THE hearing, the music itself") I then knew what you mean.

My mind went away once, it frightened me. If it happened again now I would be okay to sit with that for half hour or so. I wouldn't want to be like Frank Yang who just exists that way permanently.

Ah… well… when the plug is pulled in the way you describe, eventually all the water drains away. 

Again, I love your articulation of this. True no self is an extremely, extremely rare understanding, especially around here.