Whats your solution to the hard problem of consciousness?

[Jannes]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't think "other people" is direct. I agree If you're questioning whether or not other people are conscious, you're questioning things that are not direct. YES From the perspective of direct experience ("Absolute Truth"), other people don't actually exist. I agree Even questioning itself doesn't exist. YES Everything that is to know from direct experience is directly clear; no questions needed, no "other people" involved.

I completely agree. I am not sure what we are arguing about maybe the same understanding from a different angle? 

Yimpa might have the bigger picture. 

7 hours ago, Yimpa said:

 

 

[Leo Gura]

The solution is that there's only Consciousness.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Jannes said:

I completely agree. I am not sure what we are arguing about maybe the same understanding from a different angle?

In analytical idealism, Absolute Truth is transpersonal consciousness, which of course also includes all possible personal consciousnesses, but the distinction between personal and transpersonal is useful for describing the difference between our personal minds (particularly thoughts, emotions and feelings) and transpersonal mind stuff (shapes, colors, general phenomenal qualities). A good ontology (at least in analytical philosophy) is able to provide explanations for a wide range of phenomena while maintaining an adequate level of parsimony or elegance. Your idea of solipsism dispenses with explaining a huge realm of reality (the relationship between the personal and the transpersonal) in exchange for an increase in parsimony (which arguably leads to a decrease in elegance). No other ontology that is taken seriously in analytical philosophy (e.g. physicalism, panpsychism) does this. For them, the distinction goes something like "subjective vs. objective", "mental vs. physical", "mind vs. matter". The distinction between the personal and transpersonal is so central to how we understand the world as humans that neglecting it is in a sense inhuman (and we're all way familiar with this notion being applied to solipsism).

So in sum, if solipsism is not simply an inhuman way of conceptualizing the world, it's at least a poor ontology from the perspective of the values of analytical philosophy.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

In analytical idealism, Absolute Truth is transpersonal consciousness,

transpersonal consciousness can't be Absolute Truth because we can't be conscious of the consciousness outside of personal consciousness and therefore its a concept and can be doubted. Absolute truth can't be doubted. 

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

which of course also includes all possible personal consciousnesses, but the distinction between personal and transpersonal is useful for describing the difference between our personal minds (particularly thoughts, emotions, feelings) and transpersonal mind stuff (shapes, colors, general phenomenal qualities). A good ontology (at least in analytical philosophy) is able to provide explanations for a wide range of phenomena while maintaining an adequate level of parsimony or elegance. Your idea of solipsism dispenses with explaining a huge realm of reality (the relationship between the personal and the transpersonal) in exchange for an increase in parsimony (and arguably a decrease in elegance). No other ontology that is taken seriously in analytical philosophy (e.g. physicalism, panpsychism) does this. And for them, the distinction goes something like "subjective vs. objective", "mental vs. physical", "mind vs. matter". The distinction between the personal and transpersonal is so central to how we understand the world as humans that neglecting it is in a sense inhuman (and we're all way familiar with this notion being applied to solipsism).

So in sum, if solipsism is not an inhuman way of conceptualizing the world, it's at least a poor ontology from the perspective of the values of analytical philosophy.

Yes solipsism is not elegant, it's not useful, its inhuman but is it true? 

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, Jannes said:

transpersonal consciousness can't be Absolute Truth because we can't be conscious of the consciousness outside of personal consciousness and therefore its a concept and can be doubted. Absolute truth can't be doubted. 

But you're not the person. The ego is an illusion, don't you know?

 

15 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Yes solipsism is not elegant, it's not useful, its inhuman but is it true? 

It can't be true when you fundamentally misunderstand what a "person" is

[Jannes]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

But you're not the person. The ego is an illusion, don't you know?

 

It can't be true when you fundamentally misunderstand what a "person" is

Illusion is absolute truth because its true that I experience an ego.

What I mean is my POV.

[Carl-Richard]

13 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Illusion is absolute truth because its true that I experience an ego.

What I mean is my POV.

You're confusing Absolute Truth with Maya (illusion), which is a classic mistake solipsists on this forum tend to make. It's hard to grok what we're talking about conceptually, which is why mystical experiences are needed to actually grasp it. You have to die psychologically to see through the illusion (the illusion of your limited POV). Illusion can only ever be a subset of Absolute Truth, not identical to it; i.e., the personal can only be a subset of the transpersonal, not identical to it.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

15 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're confusing Absolute Truth with Maya (illusion), which is a classic mistake solipsists on this forum tend to make. It's hard to grok what we're talking about conceptually, which is why mystical experiences are needed to actually grasp it. You have to die psychologically to see through the illusion (the illusion of your limited POV). Illusion can only ever be a subset of Absolute Truth, not identical to it; i.e., the personal can only be a subset of the transpersonal, not identical to it.

But right now this is not the case. Right now my limited POV is all there is, everything else is concept. 

Of course in a mystical experience my limited POV could be stretched to even an absolute amount. (transpersonal consciousness) 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

But right now this is not the case. Right now my limited POV is all there is, everything else is concept.

Right now, you're dreaming, while realizing Absolute Truth would be like becoming lucid in the dream.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Right now, you're dreaming, while realizing Absolute Truth would be like becoming lucid in the dream.

But its absolutely true that I am dreaming..

Well I am open to the possibility that I will understand this differently when I have a mystical experience of that sort myself. I have to get my life in order first before going ham into spirituality unfortunately.  

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Jannes

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Jannes said:

But its absolutely true that I am dreaming..

No, it's ironically only relatively true that you're dreaming this finite dream. The finite dream is in the relative domain. The fact that you're a human being reading this sentence right now is only relatively true. From the Absolute perspective, you're God dreaming all dreams; an infinite dream.

 

2 hours ago, Jannes said:

Well I am open to the possibility that I will understand this differently when I have a mystical experience of that sort myself. I have to get my life in order first before going ham into spirituality unfortunately.  

You don't have to, but it sure is wise.

[Nilsi]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Right now, you're dreaming, while realizing Absolute Truth would be like becoming lucid in the dream.

In your analogy, what would be the equivalent to waking up from a nights dream?

[not-a-faerie]

my thought is, isn't here and now more important than coming up with ideas and beliefs?

 

not very good source of this thought though, as I'm blinded by ideas and beliefs. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

In your analogy, what would be the equivalent to waking up from a nights dream?

Reincarnation.

[Nilsi]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Reincarnation.

Why would one call the experience of becoming lucid in a dream „waking up“ instead of calling waking up „waking up?“

My „realizing absolute truth“ experiences were more like waking up from a nights dream.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Nilsi said:

Why would one call the experience of becoming lucid in a dream waking up instead of calling waking up waking up?

I don't know. Probably because it's catchier and more impactful. "Guys, I've awoken!" vs. "Guys, I see things clearly now!"

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

My „realizing absolute truth“ experiences were more like waking up from a nights dream.

The point is that despite the massive shift in perspective, the dream doesn't actually end. You're still a human being (in a relative sense). You've just opened yourself to a larger perspective.

[Nilsi]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The point is that despite the massive shift in perspective, the dream doesn't actually end. You're still a human being (in a relative sense). You've just opened yourself to a larger perspective.

In the actual experience the dream did end and I wasn’t a human being anymore.

That experience is what I think about when I hear „waking up.“

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

In the actual experience the dream did end and I wasn’t a human being anymore.

That experience is what I think about when I hear „waking up.“

Ah, formlessness. In that case, sure. Reincarnation would be the case where you don't return to the original dream you exited.

Nevertheless, "enlightenment" is often conceptualized as when you retain the realization of the formless while still being immersed in the "formful" (relative reality), i.e. being lucid in the dream. Awakening to formlessness is a taste of this realization; pure lucidity, but without the contents of the dream. The former (enlightenment) is of course much "harder" than the latter (awakening).

Edited December 21, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ah, formlessness. In that case, sure. Reincarnation would be the case where you don't return to the original dream you exited.

Nevertheless, "enlightenment" is often conceptualized as when you retain the realization of the formless while still being immersed in the "formful" (relative reality), i.e. being lucid in the dream. Awakening to formlessness is a taste of this realization; pure lucidity, but without the contents of the dream. The former (enlightenment) is of course much "harder" than the latter (awakening).

Why would you privilege one state („the realization of the formless while still being immersed in form“) over the other („formlessness without the contents of the dream“)? 

One could make a case either way, as far as I’m concerned.