File: 1765834595251086.jpg (70 KB, 564x529)

70 KB JPG

Now you are getting it

>>42114843
have you read any hindu texts like the upanishads

>>42114995
>If I'm real, then that means all of you fuckers are real, too
Not true.

>>42114843
Okay, please provide a formal logical proof then.
Good luck, I'll wait.

you know what’s funny? they had to add the word “metaphysical” because anyone can prove plain old “solipsism”categorically false by simply posting your full address ITT

>>42118617
simple. every idea you have of an objective external world are just ideas and beliefs that you project in the present experience

if you are aware of the room that you are currently in, then there are no other rooms in existence, because experience is ONE, it cannot be divided.

>>42114843
Yeah. It can take a while to process tho, dualistic habits leave traces. But it's worth it.

>>42118680
I don't get you faggots
>"I-if solipsism it's true then cut your dick! Shot yourself in the head! Burn down your house with your mother in it!
Are you jewish? The fuck? Why /x/ it's so cucked now. Being solipsistic egoist it's the most sane philosophical choice. Proving things for reality models it's a waste of time and it's not necessary to live it, just make your choice.

>>42121427
>Being solipsistic egoist it's the most sane philosophical choice
No, it's the most boring and juvenile choice.
And you agree, or else you wouldn't be responding to other people like there actually are other people.

>>42114843
>Metaphysical solipsism is the only truth.
How is that relevant, when you live in a society built on cooperation? Thinking about transportation for example, there is probably not a single individual who can manufacture all the parts of a modern car from scratch and put them together. Despite that, there are cars everywhere. Your whole life depends fully on things that happen in your blind spot. Grocers stocking the shelfs etc. Wouldn't the reasonable conclusion therefore be against solipsism?

>>42125113
Solipsism is completely unprovable, which unfortunately also means it is completely unassailable. You can always come up with a long-winded explanation for why it's all just my own subjective exeperience.
For instance (and do note that I do not accept solipsism):
>a society built on cooperation
>Your whole life depends fully on things that happen in your blind spot.
Okay...but this is also true of my body. I depend on digestion but dont have any clue about how my body regulates which enzymes and acids to produce at what point, or when to move the food along and when to absorb the nutrients. Or the Kreb cycle at all. I dont pay attention to how I make ATP or how it is distributed in my body or which cells are using it.
I dont coordinate anything between my liver and my gall bladder and my kidneys.
All this is going on without my full knowledge or attention.
But almost no one would say this is proof that there are other people in this body, working behind my awareness with their own subjective experiences.
So why make that assumption about the rest of the world?

>>42125113
It works exactly like in a videogame, things are only rendered when you look ata them, there is not a universe with planets, stars and galaxies unless you start looking for them

>>42125113
>cars
>grocer
boomerX, you miss the point. Metaphysically solipsism is the only certain truth. Phenomenologically that means everything you believed in from a metaphysical point of view, that ensured the compliance to your phenomenological game plan of
>hehehe I paid by now dead elder their life for 40 years
>somebody else is going to pay mine and keep the wheel turning
>I have monies
is falling apart, bet lost. It becomes irrational to cooperate and rational to defect on your metaphysics of artificial slave religions, be it "God" or the secular "God" of state and law.

welcome to the age of chaos, your life is going to be cut short by a few decades and all you did in the past 40 years was a a waste of time

>>42125472
>boomerX, you miss the point. Metaphysically solipsism is the only certain truth.
Lol. I'm not a boomer. A stereotype of a boomer would absolutely agree with your solipsism since it's all about 'I got mine'. You're more like the boomer than you realise.

>>42121418
This is a funny post. You understand that dualism isn't the highest truth, but then descend into this monistic solipsism when in reality you have to FAFO with pluralism to figure out what is going on.

File: 3ws6d67d.png (34 KB, 122x130)

34 KB PNG

>>42114843
It doesn't matter either way if you really think about it.
The real question is how much control can you exert on your reality.
Even if Solipsism is true, if the amount of control you can exert on your "dream" is still what it is now, then does it really matter? You are still trapped. Whether you are trapped by the immutable physical laws of an independent real world or by your own consciousness, the end result is still the same.

>>42125502
>I got mine
is not the expression of somebody that believes in metaphysical solipsism, but somebody that is well aware that the metaphysics of "law and order", "generational contracts" and also metaphysical "God" are scams, but hopes that somebody stupider, a greater fool is going to believe them nonetheless and secure his material and phenomenological survival.

Though luck Boomer mind, the one that seriously believes somebody else is going to be the greater fool, is the greatest fool

>>42125524
Agreed.

Also the thing is that consciousness can never be a physical thing.

>>42125542
to expand on how and why the rejection of "God", "law and order" and "contractual" metaphysics for the metaphysics of "solipsism" is breaking the entire phenomenological Modus Operandi of 60,000+ years of slave religions; the former are all collectivistic and universalistic, they try to sell that "somebody else" is thinking just like that, which makes cooperation rational.
>I believe in collectivistic universal metaphysics and assume everyone does, its rational to cooperate in the now for a pay out later
where metaphysical solipsism turns that into
>I don't believe in collectivistic universal metaphysics and don't assume that somebody else does, its therefore irrational to cooperate in the now for the promise of a pay out later

"Society" turns from a cooperative game to a transactional game where players have no incentive to accept "suffering" now for "bliss" later. Its in so far true that the Boomer mind might have been the root, but the Boomer stupidly thought
>I pretend to believe in a collectivistic universal metaphysics, assume that somebody else does, therefore its irrational to cooperate in the now but I am going to get a pay out later because everyone else is stupider than me

Its over, the Boomer mind played the worst possible strategy and his life is going to be cut short by a few decades

I can't know whether you're conscious, but I know that I'm not.

>>42119430
What if I'm aware of two rooms?

>>42114843
>>42114870
aww did someone just finish their psych 101 course?

>>42125524
what matters for what purpose? you need something to mean something else? why?

>>42126411
Oh did somebody believe in the very hard "scientism" of psychology. cutiepie, a retard

>>42126409
then it's not two rooms, it's the experience of two rooms and it's one.

>>42124832
>And you agree
Not really, and not necessarly. The core of solipsism is literally the experiencer having the final word. It doesn't impede me to do nothing because it's only concerned with my own perspective, the world being an extension of me and me alone. In this case, you're a faggot that only have in mind a caricature of the philosophy and think that this response it's a big own, which in turn, is the true boring and juvenile (or more like, childish) behavior on your end. Your next responde would be probably some menace of physical arm and lash out at some mean internet baddie that broke your feelings, to which i would respond that i would defend myself because it's just common sense :) you don't have to reply if you don't feel like going trough such a hassle tho, your choice.

>>42125329
>You can always come up with a long-winded explanation for why it's all just my own subjective experience.
This is true for every worldview, i noticed. When it comes to facts, immediate observations are agreed upon inter subjectively. When it comes to ideas however, reality models specifically, all sides will have all the evidence and reasoning to backup their perspectives, provided all from their own imagination, and only people that are already predisposed and committed to them would see how those make sense. So disproving perspectives it's a waste of time because they are things you adopt to use for yourself if you like the idea of them. Subjective experiences it's all there is for you to experience anyway, and if you fully commit to a worldview, you will live it. The world it's declarative, there's only consciousness and intent, the rest being imagined, and whatever you conclude or fully assert, it responds to your intentions (However, there can be ingrained habits and patterns crisscrossing in the way from your former perspective that leave traces, structures that will have to dissolve for a more swift shifting).

>>42126465
For the purpose of determining/predicting what you will experience next?
The need for something to mean something else is for the above purpose. This reality so far exhibits predictable patterns. When something consistently means something else that is a pattern which can be identified and used to generate reproducible results. This is the essence of the discipline of empirical science.
Now hypothetically if I can control reality like a lucid dream, then I don't need something to mean something else. I can just will something to be and it is so.
Falling short of that, I will have to rely on road signs to predict what experience I will walk into if I take a right turn, in a reality I don't seem to fully control.

>>42119430
For your theory to be true it would make "others" just reductions of me, and therefore unable to surprise me, because I would know their internal state.

You're pretty severely wrong here.

>>42126695
but right now you don't experience a separation between dream and self, we are talking about the basic truth of existence not anything else. You can't say "you're wrong and solipsism must be false because I assume the separation between this and that" when solipsism completely denies such separation. I don't see any issues here but your assumptions

>>42127189
But I didn't say Solipsism is false, or true. My original point was it doesn't matter either way >>42125524

>>42114843
Semi related question to OP but on that keep me up at night... figuratively speaking.

>DREAM SOLIPSISM
>[YES / NO]

Are the people you meet and see in your dreams individuals and real beings? or just an extension of yourself?

>>42127325
well, nothing matters at all. things are endlessly happening for no reason

>>42114843
HOLY FUCKING SHIT.
You are so desperate for confirmation for your beliefs that you post the same thing 20 different times.
ATP i hope everyone else is real and not just illusion expect you

>Metaphysical solipsism is the only truth.
Op is a faggot is the only truth.*

>>42126482
>This is true for every worldview, i noticed.
You didnt notice the important part, which is that Solipsism is unprovable.
>When it comes to ideas however, reality models specifically, all sides will have all the evidence and reasoning to backup their perspectives
Maybe. there is a difference between two legit models, and the bullshit people make up that really doesnt fit anything but they are too stupid to understand that.
The idea that those two things could be equal only comes from living a life wholly unconnected from reality. Its the same thing that causes the trend of everyone thinking life is a simulation. Two generations raised on nothing but screens cant tell the difference between legit models and made up shit that might work in fantasy.

>>42127522 Checked you just got baited by either a fed or an imbecile or a combination.

>>42126916
when you go to sleep you can dream of a world where others surprises you, does that mean the dream world is real?

you're looking at this from the wrong perspective, the other is not surprising you because there is an "internal state" that you are not aware of, you are imagining the experience of being suprised and that's all there is to it

God's is omniscient all the times because nothing happens outside his bubble of experience, if you're not experiencing it then IT IS NOT HAPPENING, nothing is hidden from god (you).

>>42127422
Phenomenologically real, you experience them, you interpret them, your thoughts shaped by them.
>Extensions of me
Irrelevant question, you can only interpret them from your own point of view

File: 1738611851834766.png (905 KB, 1583x2592)

905 KB PNG

>>42114843
Change is the only constant, and the constant nature of change is expressed in one way as the fundamental theorem of calculus, which describes integration and differentiation as inverse operations of the same process. Interpreted metaphysically, cumulative and instantaneous change are the two fundamental perspectives of change - neither more primary than the other, but instead mutually necessary.

Solitude is not the first or final word, as motion is incomprehensible without a multiplicity of at least two.

>>42127530
>You didnt notice the important part, which is that Solipsism is unprovable.
I don't follow, and i don't think it is? Example: If i had a dream, even a lucid one, and there is an exact experience im having right now, on a computer writing words, with other people wandering on the street outside my house, going with their lives, and there's people in my home talking and acting sentient, despite all of it being "on my head", how all this stuff can happen if it's all inside of me? There are also dreams where i have no apparent control over the experience, despite, again, being a world that purely arise within my consciousness and my consciousness alone. Considering that the sensory input it's identical to waking reality, then it's worth considering that all experience it's imagined and the universe it's mental? That's the thing of solipsism: I'm on my own, reality resides on me and only on myself.

However, as i said, this is not about proving, "proving" it's an experience. The thing that non-duality, subjective idealism, solipsism and all that stuff is pointing at is the thing underlying everything, which is before "proofs". The only proof necessary is the personal one, to yourself, but not of a model, but understanding of your true nature as awareness.

>there is a difference between two legit models, and the bullshit people make up that really doesnt fit anything but they are too stupid to understand that.
But every model it's... made up, by people, they are imaginary essentially. There are no "legit models", they are preferences. Of course, there are better, more useful ways to think about things, but that's besides the point. Models are masks you put on to filter the experience, but what's behind the mask it's the only thing that's true. Solipsism it's one of those masks, a way to pattern the experience, a way to use the truth, but it's not "the absolute truth".

>>42128835
>I don't follow
Likely because you have incorrect understanding of Solipsism, which only states the only sure thing is your personal subjective experience, and everything else is in doubt.
There is no way to prove nor disprove this. At all.

>>42128835
>But every model it's... made up, by people, they are imaginary essentially. There are no "legit models", they are preferences.
No, thus is lazy and stupid. If you REALLY believe this, then you would never ever respond to anyone.
You do, and particularly you argue, because you don't accept this nonsense.
If you respond with another contention, you are accepting that you don't believe this.
Otherwise, there can be no argument and you are retarded for trying.

>>42129335
You're saying that like it's just an arbitrary thing someone said. While logically it makes sense. There's a much higher logical value on the claim of Solipsism than what you just claimed.

>>42130159
>than what you just claimed.
What I claimed in that post was just a description of solipsism.
You think solipsism has a higher logical value than solipsism?
> logically it makes sense
No one ever said it doesnt make sense.
It is unproveable, and it is a conceptual dead end.
But sure - it makes sense.
It is Descartes doubting everything but doubt itself...and then just ending there thinking there is nothing else to ever consider.

>>42130179
Seriously? What I meant was that you claimed there is no way to prove or disprove Solipsism.
That is your claim.

>>42130195
Well...what do you suggest as a method of falsification for solipsism?

>>42114843
I dont remember making this post, but i must have

>>42130208
First of all things are not true based on whether they can be falsified.
The way you see if something is true basically is if it's logical. And I can't say absolutely sure because I'm not an absolutely logical being, but the claim of Solipsism seems to be true. And I've seen no one disprove it.

>>42130226
>the way to see if something is true is if its logical
And how do you see if something is logical?

>>42130226
Okay so you cant think of any way to falsify it. So you are admitting one part of the unproveable - you cant for sure say no.
Now we can see if you can come up with a way to for sure say yes.
How would you show that solipsism is the truth RATHER than other scenarios that fit the same doubt model, like:
>there ARE other subjective experiences, but you do not observe them and have no way to ever interact with them

>>42130230
You need a logical process from the ground up.
Have you ever wondered why scientists in the past thought weird things? Why science stagnates? It's because of assumptions.

>>42130258
>a logical process
Logic being...

>>42130236
Solipsism says it's the only thing you can be sure of. That's the point. It doesn't say there are or aren't other experiencers.

>>42130269
It should not be based on any assumptions.

>>42130273
correct. Solipsism doesn't say that there isn't possible shared perception of external stimuli, it doesn't say that the external world doesn't exist. It just says in relation to the external world and its stimuli, which might or might not be perceived by another mind, cannot be certain to be the same for two different minds.
e.g: a soundwave, a light wave, particles exist, might be perceived by 1+n mind, but there cannot be a statement of objective universal collective truth about the perception and therefore effect on the mind.

And every religious lunacy that comes along and tries to sell general objective universal collective truth statements about the external world is a scam

>>42130258
>You need a logical process from the ground up.
Perhaps look up this little guy named Godel...
And Solipsism says there IS NO GROUND. The base is your mind, and any notion of some "ground" or anything external is in doubt.
>>42130273
Yes. And that is unprovable, and a complete dead end mentally.
It's like the claim that everything could just end in the next hour. Okkay...?

>>42131838
everything could end the next hour. The future is a fundamentally unknowable temporal state; and claiming anything else is a sure way to know the speaker can be dismissed as a scammer or a religious tard

>>42131859
You're wrong, it ends in the next two hours, and anyone who thinks it's only one hour is a complete fool.

>>42131894
That's a fundamentally unprovable statement and a fundamentally unfalsifiable statement in the now; no matter how much "information" about the past and the present one has and puts into some idiosyncratic half assed model based on some religious ontological assumptions

>>42131906
>That's a fundamentally unprovable statement and a fundamentally unfalsifiable statement
Yes, you finally are getting half of my point.
the other half is that it is boring and a dead end.

>>42131928
A dead end compared to what?
Hope and dreams, or rather behavioralism methodology by smart predatory monkey to convince stupid monkey to do his bidding, reduce his risk and exploit for individual profits in the now for non-guaranteeable promises of reduction of uncertainty about a future state?

Now you understand why I have been pushing solipsism, Nothing ever Happens and Myatts o9a larp for the better part of 4 years.

Enjoy Gehenna; GenZ and GenA has been eating up these concepts and came to their very own conclusions that are currently peddled by the FBI and other Boomer institutions under the label "Nihilistic Violent Extremism"

>>42131951
>A dead end compared to what?
Compared to any other philosophical base.
>Now you understand why I have been pushing solipsism
This statement in itself shows the absurdity of solipsism.
What "you" do you think is understanding anything?
If you truly accepted solipsism, you wouldnt ever do this.
Your actions prove you dont accept what you are pushing.

>>42131983
>Other religions
that all, from an individuals perspective look like scams once the idea of metaphysical solipsism has taken root
>Your actions show you don't accept solipsism
Oh but I do, on a metaphysical base. I could not know how anybody would react individually to the pushing, just make an educated guess, that suggested that putting the axe to the fundamental control mechanisms since the agrarian revolution is going to put the current iteration of social control mechanisms to an unsolvable problem regarding continuation; and not all that materialized is in my own interest or I perceive as "good"; but that was acceptable potential collateral damage for an aeonic shift

>>42132004
>Oh but I do, on a metaphysical base.
No, you dont. You see the dead end and move past it, as literaly anyone with a brain does.
If you didnt, you wouldnt communicate at all.

File: 1769812106323-019c1105-2a(...).jpg (945 KB, 2048x2048)

945 KB JPG

>>42132086
Metaphysical solipsism doesn't prevent the individual mind to make extrapolations that are fundamentally uncertain, based on its individual input, memory and interpretations over time, neither does it prevent the individual from acting/ interacting, the outcome of the acts is just inherently uncertain. What is does is just deconstruct the mind where the possible cognizance arises that only what has been formed in the individual mind, in the exact now is a certainty, everything else is fundamentally, from the perspective of the individual solipsistic mind uncertain, including the mental state of the monkey at t+1 from the perspective of t0; its the exact opposite of ego-death.

And that's where the inoculation against 10,000, arguably 200,000 years of social control mechanisms sets in. For the majority of time in which humanity has been living in small groups, the primary social control mechanism has been smart monkey wanting to exploit stupid monkey, convincing stupid monkey to believe that smart monkey can reduce uncertainty about future IF stupid monkey follows smart monkey because stupid monkey is afraid of uncertainty; which of course is just a game theoretical strategy of exploiting a potential sucker (cooperator)

Thinking about Solipsism forces whatever monkey mind does it to confront the fundamental uncertainty of being. The inoculation doesn't work on every monkey, but in a lot of cases it seems to create enough doubt that the basic bitch social control mechanisms of "trust" and "fear" are the very least doubted, reducing the incentive of the monkey to cooperate.

Together with NEH, an inoculation against artificial generated crisis propaganda weaponizing apathy, as Myatts pathei-mathos, amorality and "inside role" acting as de-identification and therefore inability of enemy categorization mechanism, a basic framework was created the current "power" arrangement has no counter for.

Its game over if only 5ish% of the population get it.

>>42132303
>doesn't prevent
But it removes any reason to do so, or any ability to discern one extrapolation from another.
ANY extrapolation requires something more than solipsism.
And solipsism adds nothing to any discussion.
It is a boring dead end.
It is quite literally the same as jumping into any conversation at all and screaming you cant know if everything will exist in the next hour.

>>42132526
Imagine Camus Sisyphus, but instead of whistling while pushing the stone and being French, its actually a German, pushing a social nuclear warhead and manically laughing

>>42131838
>Yes. And that is unprovable
You're literally just repeating yourself. You're going in circles. Have you no ability to learn? What did I just say about your claim that it's unprovable?

>>42131838
Solipsism has nothing to do with logic. "The base is your mind". Dear lord. You're seriously confused. It doesn't say the base is your mind. That doesn't even make sense.

>>42114843
>>42114870
No, it's only one approach towards it. Left-Hand Path realization of your divinity, but Right-Hand Path is not any less true.

>>42134645
The right-hand-path is the distillation of 200,000 years of top down social control mechanisms; and being very material and frankly speaking, with 300T in the hole no right-hand metaphysics is able to behavioralize the supposed suckers from a game theoretical perspective to cooperate; no matter if you frame it as for the [insert identity politics] crap, "tradition", "collective common good", "our" telos.....

The individual has 0 incentive to not string up the failed millenarian eugenicists that failed to behavioralize their "new man", as their opportunists and the profiteers still alive.

You have less then a decade to chose yourself how you want to die if you longed the right-hand-path; and that's under the arithmetic prior to AI/RAG integrated trading engines. The cycle comes to an end again and as always it ends in terror and genocide

>>42134396
>What did I just say
What I said many posts before you. you bring nothing, so you just get the claim repeated at you.
>>42134412
>Solipsism has nothing to do with logic
Tell that to the person that insisted we bring logic into it.
I agree that solipsism has nothing to do with logic.

>>42134698
>p-please follow my platonist retardation
>submit to my telos
>i-its universal you know
>p-please be my sucker
just die

>>42134701
Solipsism is a philosophical dead end. It is unproveable, and worse it is boring and leads to nothing, worthwhile or otherwise.
It is an insistence on adding "+0" to any mathematical formula.

>>42134698
You're the one who brings nothing.
I agree with the poster below you. If you're not going to address the things said and instead be a broken record, you have nothing to do here and should fuck off. You're a scumbag.

>>42134708
For u it is not boring, but be honest, dangerous. It undermines the school of thoughts you longed and built your life around; and the more defect from your collectivistic dogmas, the more your probability of dying not of natural causes increases.
For a pragmatic solipsist, one might call an absurdist or whatever other token its the opposite of boring, its anarchic liberation from the shackles of collectivistic as universal sold teleology — the solipsist dance on the void, you piss your pants facing the void

>>42134720
>If you're not going to address the things said
I have. Quote what you think hasnt been addressed.
Stop seething and move past the dead end.
>>42134725
>For u it is not boring, but be honest, dangerous.
Nnnnope. Boring. It's a brief ponder and then anyone with a brain sees its inherent inability to add to anything or change anything, and moves on.
>anarchic liberation from the shackles of collectivistic as universal sold teleology
I means no objective.
Yet you act like there is, so you dont accept the results.
you can say solipsism allows anythingg, but all you allow with it - it that same collectivist teleology you abhor.'
Because your darling is a boring dead end.

File: 1705844383606363.webm (2.12 MB, 604x340)

2.12 MB WEBM

>>42119430
so video related with extra steps?

if metaphysical solipsism is true then you/i am fucked
and it's not even because of the loneliness, the implications are so horrible that I don't even want to express

>>42134928
you are really trying every deflection of the collectivistic universalistic cultist in the book.

It doesn't matter what you try, your religions of pseudo objectivity is out; and you can thank the hail marry of attempted algorithmic compartementalization for it; the assumption by those that think like you was, that it would reduce the possibility of counter teleological movements forming, and because you really believe your own propaganda that your cults would come out on top, when the reality is the worst-case-scenario for EVERY pseudo objectivistic universalistic collectivistic cult; those that got compartementalized adopted variations of solipsistic thinking as defense mechanisms, inoculating themselves against all cult that promise certainty.

Its ironic

>>42134708
>Solipsism is a philosophical dead end. It is unproveable, and worse it is boring and leads to nothing, worthwhile or otherwise.
>It is an insistence on adding "+0" to any mathematical formula.
such a weak argument. "no, the answer is untrue because I don't like the answer, and it robs me of my illusions"
This is your entire claim

Why is this thread deliberately tried to be slided?

>>42135685
All your blather and not one but addresses my point. Truly ironic as you completely failed to quote anything I didn't address.

All you have is insults and nonsequitor because there is nothing to add to the fact that solipsism is a dead end, and boring.
You think this means I am calling it false, because you are too stupid to understand my point.

>>42135907
No, the claim is it's useless.
Okay, its true. Great. This leads to nothing.
There no insight unless you add more to it, because the only insight is in what is beyond and does not need solipsism.
It's a dead end.

>>42135219
No. The retard is confusing solipsism with Idealism. Because Idealism is interesting and leads to further insight while solipsism doesn't.

>>42138664
>>42138678
no, I don't need to add anything to a true statement. you don't like that that it's giving you an answer, you want to go and search for more answers, it's like you're asking where is the salt on the table and when I tell you it's right in front of your eyes you're saying the salt is not on the table because I have to search for it

>>42138664
>Insight
>Beyond
pick one
You really are grasping at straws or rather a virtual carrot on a stick; tough luck priest of dead religions, those that weren't brainwashed by 20th century one-to-many broadcast propaganda methodology and didn't fell for the non-guaranteeable promises of salvation of any kind in exchange to be slaves KNOW your carrots are virtual. You are trying to pitch the wellbeing of elderly priests of dead religions to the barbarians inside the gates.
For now its just "talk", mocking you, virtually spitting on you; from likely sometime between June and July '26 the time for talk is over

>>42139503
>a true statement
No such thing in metaphysical solipsism. Your own language betrays you.
>search for more answers
There's none to be had, and you have shown the entire thread you cant give anything else.
Because its a dead end.>>42139699
>For now its just "talk"
Because that's all you can ever do.
Youve had an entire thread, and there is literally nothing you can add.
Because there's nothing else to the thought.
It's a dead end.
You can seethe all you want, but you cant counter this fact.

>>42141372
>No such thing in metaphysical solipsism. Your own language betrays you.
what do you mean? the truth inside the dream is true.

>There's none to be had, and you have shown the entire thread you cant give anything else.
>Because its a dead end
but you are the one who doesn't accept your own experience as what it actually is. you look for it, search your entire life and your answers will only give you more questions to answer. the experience itself is the answer

>>42141372
>A dead end
yes, for progressive teleological universalistic collectivistic millenarian utopist (eugenicist) cults it is; it cuts off their supply of potential new brains to recruit.
>"WE" nEeD to invest (somebody else) time/resources/life into [insert teleology]
The solipsist first asks, who is "we"
then if the proselytizer keep insisting the solipsist, reminds them that nothing needs to be done; and to do it yourself
Then, when the cultists become desperate and tries to coerce with whatever, because naturally a teleologue really BELIEVES his universal collectivistic ideals are for the "good of "everyone" " and therefore justify all means to the end, the solipsist has nothing that prevents him from ending the cultists life

It doesn't matter if the cultist wants to behavioralize humanity into kumbaya slaves, fly to Mars, save the planet or discover the "secretes" of the universe; you can't convince a solipsist to believe in your goals

>>42141799
>I need to add more buzzwords
You still don't get I'm not saying solipsism is t true. I have never argued against solipsism in this thread.
That doesn't matter.
It's a dead end, as you have shown over and over and over.

>>42114843
Solipsism and nihilism desu

>>42125459
A human born blind will still be eaten by a lion

The world works outside of your perceptions

>>42143020
you categorize the lion as external. even when you are capable of vision you would be mistaken to see the phenomenal aspect of your visual contents as external. You proved nothing there... what you call the world is basically your own perceptions, and then you say your perceptions give you access to the world beyond your perceptions.

>>42142977
Those are metaphysically antagonistic you fucking brainless fucktard.
Checked btw.

>>42144165
nah, you can be a nihilist solipsist just fine

Idealism originated in highly stratified class societies as a way to deny reality and prevent the oppressed from simply killing their oppressors by positing BS like "it's all in the mind bro". That's why it first originated in caste societies like India and slave societies like Greece.

>>42144193
nihilist denies a metaphysical substrate while "solipsist" implies one.
perhaps learn what words actually mean and then you can open your retarded piehole.

>>42144203
>perhaps learn what words actually mean
ironic
nihilism is a stance on meaning and value, not on metaphysics

>>42144298
Correct.
Solipsism is the metaphysical stance
Nihilism the epistemical stance
The methodological stance to this is Anarchism

That's something that freightens the naive "objective" idealist to its very core as the existence of such a human falsifies his own beliefs to the very core

>>42127754
And you just contradicted physics.
Which is exactly why I was saying you're wrong.

>>42144298
>is a stance on meaning and value,
yeah if you learn metaphysics in rick and morty, that's your understanding
again
>nihilist denies a metaphysical substrate while "solipsist" implies one.
>>42144463
this is a classic nihilist justification, superficial, naive, erroneous.

>>42145632
Its not a justification you retarded performative fail proselytizing cultist. Its a complete framework that explains in YOUR LANGUAGE why your cults can't recruit anybody younger than 50 anymore to believe genuinely, let alone commit to your fail grifts, great narratives and utopist collectivist non-guaranteeable promises for submission to your constructed telos

I, neither does anybody else that has come to a similar cognizance requires a justification to refuse your fucking cults. You can call it boring in a fail attempt to dis-incentivize the thinking in that frame, it won't change that anybody that was born into todays epistemic fractured field has 0 incentives to become a believer in whatever cult you try to sell and doubt every bullshit you promise; be it "progression", "order", "community" or whatever else.

Face it gramps most people under 50 that are not brainwashed by some 20th century cults operate ontologically on autogenesis, metaphysically at some sort of solipsism, epistemologically on some sort nihilism and methodologically anarchic.

That's the dead knell for your understanding of order, discourse, society and "progress".

>>42145864
>cults
Fuck you talking about lmao
Cope and seethe.

>>42145968
Every unironic -ism and -cracy for the past 200,000 years and its appendixes, "leaders", priests, true believers, temples, dogmas, utopias, eschatologies ... No matter if Animism, paganism, poly/monotheism, scientism, liberalism, socialism, traditionalism, theocracy, plutocracy, democracy, oligarchy......
YES, that includes nihilISM, anarchISM, and solipsISM as well but contrary to the former, the latter don't pretend to sell a GRAND COLLECTIVE TRUTH, contrary to the former these -isms, especially in combination along the ontological, metaphysical, epistemological and methodological axis deny the very base of every GRAND COLLECTIVE TRUTH.

So cultist, you are of course free to keep preaching but know this, your growth potential is trending toward 0

>>42146016
Then I guess you're replying to the wrong anon, I don't subscribe to any of those -isms and actually agree with you.
That said, there is one and only one valid metaphysical framework, monistic metaphysics.

>>42146016
>but know this, your growth potential is trending toward 0
this is a good point in general but i doubt anyone it applies to is smart enough to care

>>42146037
>Monistic metaphysics
That's probably the stupidest metaphysics one can adopt. Its the -isms taken full retard - you essentially believe that your belief is the only collectively universal eternal true metaphysical position and you get falsified by somebody simply stating
>You are full of shit
>I don't believe you
>>42146038
Naturally those that truly believe that they discovered, unearthed, synthesized the eternal collective universal truth are going to try to proselyte by alls means they have, afterall, they are convinced they are right, its individual rational to try to sell it. It doesn't change though, that the potential that their belief is going to become widely adapted and hegemonic is trending toward 0. They might be the hot shit of the day, to become the cringe shit of tomorrow. The great works are over

>>42146114
>stupidest
>retard
>your wrong
Nice arguments, redditor.

>>42145968
>neither does anybody else that has come to a similar cognizance
Remember, this is the person advocating for the philosophical concept of solipsism.
A concept whose main core is that you cannot have any certainty of other people.
They also seem to think all kids are just narcissists like them.
It's truly an idiotic stance. Id feel bad for them if I thought they could understand empathy.

>>42145632
>>is a stance on meaning and value,
>yeah if you learn metaphysics in rick and morty
I'm telling you again, nihilism is not about metaphysics. you can search the definition on google.
>Nihilism is a family of philosophical views arguing that life is meaningless, that moral values are baseless, or that knowledge is impossible.
it doesn't imply any metaphysics. you can be a nihilist solipsist, materialist, idealist or any other metaphysical position.
why are you even denying such a simple claim?

>>42146197
>I reply with an adhominem
>he
>they
>idiotic
Your Rhedditoric doesn't work here. You can't argue against facts.
>>42146199
Nihilism is a practical consequence of asserting there is no metaphysical substrate.
Conventionally, fine, it's your rick-and-morty wikipedia definition.
It Does imply NO substrate.
Keep trying.

>>42146229
You recognize the person I quoted is not the person I was talking about, right?

>>42146229
>It Does imply NO substrate.
nihilism implies a lack of meaning regardless of metaphysical position, do you even know what metaphysics mean or you are also using one of your own wacky definitions of that term?

>>42146246
Oh. Sorry no, I will need to re-read these last posts mate, I'm very sorry I'll be right back with less irl distractions in a moment.

>>42146258
I hopped back in at an awkward time. My last two posts:
>>42142930
>>42146197
And while posted to you, I was talking about >>42145864 advocating for solipsism by saying "all the other people agree with me."

Narcissists are nihilists by default, given it's the only "stance" that allows them to justify their immorality, degeneracy and corruption.

>>42146285
narcissism implies the person values themselves, so they can't be nihilists. hope that makes sense to your truck driver mind

>>42146296
>what is conflation
Self-interest means the person values themselves.

>>42146285
True and painful for the narcissist to admit.

>>42146270
Its not advocating, you are hard projecting.
To make it clear so that also a retard like you understands what is being said:
Due to the reduction of cost and barriers of entry to information production and distribution since arguably the early 90s a new "epistemic species" has developed, a "new human" that doesn't THINK and ACT like the previous human, that was mesmerized, captured, behavioralized and molded by CULTS that ALL were structurally and processualy the same; top down epistemic vertical trickle down through hierarchic structures for resource extortion; leader -> priests (esoteric core) -> executors --> believers/opportunist (exoteric periphery)

The new human, which is practically pretty much the entire GenZ, GenA and a big chunk of millenials are not able to be molded and governed by the analog methodologies of cultisms.

They are
ontological autogenesis — core statement:
>all ontologies are manufactured, by someone, for a purpose
mine, yours, his, theirs all ontology is designed, not discovered

Metaphyisical Solipsism — core statement:
>I am the only possible and final arbiter of what is real for me.
There is no external standard, norm, alignment of reality

Epistemological Nihilism — core statement:
>there does not exist any neutral, universal system for determining truth that is not itself a self serving
All standards of evidence, all logic, all epistemology were built by groups of people to win arguments and extort resources

Methodological Anarchism — cores statement:
> I will use any tool, any framework, any epistemology, any ideology, at any time, for any purpose, and I will discard it the second it stops being useful
no loyalty, no commitment, no ideological purity

This way of thinking that has been emergent for the better part of 4 decades breaks 200,000 years of governance methodology of society; and the cat is out of the bag and won't go back, no matter what cults of elder try to do. Their way of thinking is dead

>>42146385
>chatgpt validating "scientific consensus"

>help me chatgpt, anons r being mean and i cant argue back

>>42146394
You stupid faggot; AI validates EVERYTHING. Its pure context dependent. It was the final shot in the foot of the cult of retarded critical rationalists; consensus is a power tool not a truth; and conensus can't exist in an environment where priests don't have an ACCEPTED monopoly on epistemics

>prompt: profile this post so i can make a tough and poignant comeback

>>42146394
>>42146403
>>42146419
>I try to social signal to myself
>in an attempt to social shame somebody that doesn't give a crap about it
how about you do the only rational thing for an analog scum faggot and kill yourself

This thread was made by glowniggers to bait actual monists into retarded baseless arguments against hop-in-the-popular-wagon type of glownigger such as >>42145864

>>42146423 Pathetic.

>>42146428
Who are you social signaling to?
Yourself?
>Muah he is a [insert boogieman]
>Please reject everything being said because [boogieman]
You are afraid, and I very much suggest you do the only rational thing for an inert ideologue in the current world; hang yourself

>>42146434 Pathetic.

>>42146428
Duly noted, anon.

>>42146437
Is that your last rebuttal and admission of defeat?
Are you realizing that you are
a) the greatest fool for having committed like an idiot to some cult
or
b) realizing that whatever cult you imagined to be your life long grift going up in smoke

>>42146477
>insults
Grifters will go up in smoke on that you're right.

Glowniggers are the lowest form of scum on earth.

>>42146506
"Glow Niggers" are the last ones that have any interest in spreading or popularizing any form of solipsism, nihilism, anarchism or any other hard to categorize way of thinking; a "(national) Socialist", "a religious fundamentalist", "satanist" any dogmatic cult can be easily categorized, co-opted and bribed; the former can't. It makes their job harder. Prime actual example the FBI and the EU coming up with the terminology of "NVE (Nihilistic Violent Extremist)" to lump anything together what from their archaic way of thinking they cannot co-opt, bribe or categorize with the sole commonality being "against their "system" "

Its in power political terms an admission of defeat, because its growing naturally due to epistemic and material realities and every governance structure ultimately operates from a position of limited resources.

File: 1774032934883074.jpg (13 KB, 287x300)

13 KB JPG

>"Glow Niggers" are the last ones that have any interest in spreading or popularizing any form of solipsism, nihilism, anarchism

>>42146651
Tell me shill image macro spammer
what interest would a "glow Nigger" have to popularize ideas that systematically undermine the stability of the extortion network he subscribed to, strain the limited resources available and can not be co-opted?
I know, you just gonna spam another "greentext" and another shill image macro to deflect that you are a low IQ Opfer

>I'm a simple glownigger. I get btfo, I sneed

solipsism is true but at the same time

all is mind

so if you truly get that you also have to understand that maybe solipsism doesn't matter at that level

>>42146832
>low IQ shizo having regressed to base auto self defense
you lost, you are of course free to believe you won, but in the end your belief is archaic and impossible to maintain and maneuver todays epistemic fields.
>>42146851
Of course it doesn't. Its just a way to make a concept tangible in a language that is dying

>low iq schizo
ngmi

>ad hominems
>arguments
>you lost
>you won
Glownigger normalfucktard primary focus.

>>42146903
>>42146918
you are clowning on yourself
Again same query: Why should a "glow nigger" have an interest in popularizing and spreading ideas that make his job harder and his order more brittle?

metaphysical solipsism by definition states that nothing exists outside of my mind.

now if you take this literally it means: nothing exists outside of my mind.

but what is 'nothing?'

what if what we refer to as nothing is in fact a kind of something.

just food for thought.

>you are clowning on yourself
The irony. LMAO.

>maybe solipsism doesn't matter
>Of course it doesn't
Hey look, they're starting to realize it's a boring dead end.

>hey look i cant stop posting in the boring dead end thread
Fucking kek these fucking retarded DEI hires.

solipsism is true i am god and you're all me

it's all me experiencing myself

hello clones!

>>42146971
>>42146995
>>42147047
You are going into cognitive dissonance freak, either shut down the device or hang yourself
>it doesn't matter
because it is already lived reality and all me and others do is attributing a name to the phenomena that "glow niggers" and cultist currently blame on things like "misinformation" (if THEY would only listen to the "real" information [we control] and believe us), "polarization" (why does everyone argue about what is true? the truth (tm) is what "we" say) and the internet (ahhhh its too cheap to produce and spread information, "we" are just noise nobody listens to us)
>DEI
you retard, that was grift based on 20th century cultist logic that fell flat on its ass, got exploited to the max and then discarded like a wet tissue

>>42147074

hello there me!

and top o' the mornin' to ya!

>>42147091
>it is already lived reality
Oh, so this is objective fact and I cant deny it at all?

File: sus.gif (438 KB, 220x220)

438 KB GIF

>>42147074
>>42147092
I suspect that the same attributeless thing behind your waking, dreaming and sleeping is the same thing as behind mine, I just can't prove it.

>>42147142
we are that "thing"

no thing.

>>42147127
You can of course deny it, but that's like denying that water is wet and a river is flowing. Its a fact that what is considered real and what is considered true is not monolithic, not hegemonic, not even oligopolistic and certainly doesn't follow a grand unified narrative, it has never been in the history of the past few thousand years be more atomized and fluid. You can of course attribute that to the "official" narratives of "misinformation", "polarization", the internet, "stupidity".... but that's evading and denying the core dynamic.

And funnily enough, you denying the framework, the names given to the phenomenon ITT doesn't violate the concept and the framework, IT CONFIRMS IT, you are just not adapted enough to see it from a meta perspective and are insisting to avoid confronting your own solipsistic little reality bubble with the meta to not go into cognitive dissonance

the truth is we are so intertwined with the universe that we really have no limits at all. our physical death is not even an end, but a beginning. you must truly believe this and integrate it.

or don't! quantum immortality is real.

the soul is the universal soul. we are all one.

>>42114843
Why do all threads and replies that involve soplism/saying that you/mind/God is all that exits etc etc always causes inmese kvetching? Like no other "theory" disccusion about what reality is/what we are causes this amount of butthurt replies calling anyone who belives into that an idiot, cultist, heresy etc etc. You can literally post you believe in space cats and no one gives a fuck but if you slightly insenuate that "you" are all that exists you get negros from all denominations from turbo atheists to turbo religious fags calling you crazy idiotic maniac etc
Really patethic. More so the retards that try to disprove it since no one can prove anything exists outside of himself/itself. Truth is subjective and thats the only objetive truth that exits, the dog biting its own tail, i know that idk know etc etc you know the whole deal.
Btw does anyone has the links to the one line universal line or something like that? Onesophy or something like that i remember, gonna look up the archives anyways

truth is not subjective. why would it be?

>>42147206
Yeah agree. We, as humans, are such a clowns just creating our own threate and drama but deep down we all know the truth. Thats why theres no need to discuss anything nor "teach" or "learn" anything from anyone, you get what im saying bro? It is all just like a kid trhowing a tantrum, always knowing the thruth but pretending he doesnt. At the end we doesnt matter, nothing has ever been created thus nothing will ever be destroyed.
I AM IMMORTAL

>>42147211
>You can literally post you believe in space cats and no one gives a fuck
Space cats sounds neat and is on a surface level not perceived as a threat to any "established" cult; depending on how it is organized and how it evolves it can easily be co-opted and integrated into other cults, like space cats for Jesus/Mohamed/America/Iran/Israel

where naming the antithesis, the corrosive acid to every top down cult and dogma by its name in the language that the cultists understand is like publicly displaying the manual for socio-political nuclear warhead and offering the weaponized fission material for free

>>42147127
Fucking savage.
Flew above that shill's head, mate.

>>42147333 Holy trips

>>42147333
>>42147345
>>42147127
same faggot

>>42147183
>that's like denying that water is wet and a river is flowing
Oh, you mean like declaring only I determine what is real? that would be stupid and wrong?
lol these solipsists are so fucking retarded

>>42148150
If you want "hard" data, read the Edelman trust barometer 2026 and those of the last 20 years

>>42148175
>read the Edelman trust barometer 2026 and those of the last 20 years
Those dont exist.

>>42148187
You can of course play stupid and larp as your imagination of a naive solipsist, that doesn't change that the data was gathered and that it can be interpreted. Its not a certainty and the interpretation is not universally true, but it shows a clear picture
https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2026-01/2026%2520Edelman%2520Trust%2520Barometer%2520Global%2520Report_Final.pdf

>>42148253
>that doesn't change that the data was gathered and that it can be interpreted
>I am the only possible and final arbiter of what is real for me.
Choose one.

>>42148258
Yes you are and you are free to ignore it

>>42148269
Then they dont exist and everything you have said is wrong.
>Its a fact
lol what a rfucking retard doesnt even accept the solipsism they push

>>42148330
You are really too low IQ to get it. Keep larping as a naive idiot, you are confirming the framework by doing so

>>42148340
No, you are. But you cant possibly ever think from the position of your own claims.
lol

>>42148348
You are free to larp as low IQ naive solipsist and ignoring that the core framework describes you as well, despite you considering yourself the bearer of universal collective truth

>>42148387
Again, that's on you.
And not once have you ever got my point correct.
I have never once disagreed with solipsism.

>>42148408
>Haha
>I only performed as a retard

>>42114843
solipsism inevitably leads to idealism, which is the current state of the world.

>>42119430
Then what would you call it when you're aware of adjacent rooms, people's movements and actions in those rooms? Now you are not only aware of the room you currently are in, but if someone is hammering into a stud for a picture or shelf, who told you about these actions before hand, now had made you aware of more than just your own room.

>>42114879
Yes. Where is The Joy? Smokes? Serpent?

>>42147211
>always causes inmese kvetching?
Over the target.

>>42147211
The reason why solipsism is so weird to discuss and even practice is that its irrelevant.

For augments sake please assume that all Actualization/LOA is 100% true and real even if you normally don't think so.

Most actualization methods tell you that its really no use to try and figure out the actual how your desire becomes real. In fact they tell its detrimental to do so. It just will. There's lots of different texts that try to explain the actual things that could be happening but do they really matter?

Whether actualization works because you're god or not doesn't matter. Because whatever system/powers/energies that are there for you to be able to make things real are used in a way you're not supposed to worry about. Whether you're imagination is being picked up as prayers and made real by angels, whether its going straight to a god that's not you, or whether its going to the bigger you that is god, it doesn't for outcomes sake matter. The outcome and even the practice is the same.

The thought you'd think of to actualize would be no different if you solipsism is true or not. The sentence "I will now make this my reality" doesn't change by adding "As god," in front of it. Because this "god" part of you is not something you can even be aware of or are even supposed to be in order to change reality. Its a blank nothing that when added onto your thoughts doesn't do anything. Even if solipsism is 100% true, not only are we still oblivious to it, the actual usage of thinking that is barely important. Are limited current selves can't comprehend what being everything is, and we don't really want to anyway so who cares.

Another issue is that solipsism can make you start having semantic arguments over what actually is you. Where do you really end? At what point can a system that impacts you that you can interact with not you? Meaning that regardless of what existence actually is, with a bit of wordplay you could just make it all solipsism anyway.

>>42148663
True.
>>42148728
Elginnigger faggoting far away from its redditland

>>42148425
No, it's pretty obvious you are genuinely retarded, but go back and look at my posts, if you can pick them out.
Never said solipsism isnt true.
It's a boring dead end, but "true" is a pointless discussion for an unproveable.

>>42148728
>its irrelevant.
Yes, exactly.
It being true or false changes nothing, influences nothing.
It's a boring dead end, at the very best just a way of acknowledging an ontological limit.

>>42148907
>Its boring
You are very much afraid. Non of your cults are going to see any growth ever again. No true believers, no commitment, nobody to extort

>>42148907
>>42148924
Wtf I don't understand who's jewing who anymore

>>42148907
>>42148913
You're quite invested in your slogans, mate this thread do gets ya angery.

>>42148924
Cool, but that happens whether solipsism is true or not.

>>42148953
>you made a point at the beginning and have remained consistent and undefeated in it
Yes.

>>42148949
My position:
The combination of ontological autogenesis, metaphysical solipsism, empistemological nihilism and methodological anarchism is just a description of the current dominant way of thinking as acting among digital natives - not an ideology perse, more a framework of navigating the world, reality. The consequences being that somebody that thinks like this and acts like this is immune to every classic cult ideology, no matter which one.

The retards position is trying to desperately make it out as if calling it "boring" and a "dead end" would have any effect on their thinking and would be able to get the cattle back on the controled pasture.

>>42148962
Alright I'm starting to understand what you're saying, you're not even denying solipsism, actually I feel you're waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay close for a great truth to "click" inside your head. I get your framework, I think it's on the right track.

>>42148949
Isnt it funny the person who doubts your existence entirely says this is how "everyone else" thinks, and that this idea that others think this way will convince you, even as they say this method of thought makes you immune to coercion of idea.
Not only that, they dont understand how everything they are saying can be true or not regardless of the veracity of solipsism.

>>42148968
>you're not even denying solipsism
No one here has been.
It's irrelevant, not false.
It's like insisting every single time someone says 2+2=4, they have to say 0+2+2=4.

>>42148974
>Please stop saying it out loud
>Pleasssse
On a scale from one to 10, how afraid are you that the sad rest of true believers in whatever bullshit cult you trying to currently extract get it and cancel your risk free cashflows? Academia, Media, politics, economics and organized religion can't survive an environment where the quite part is said out loud

>>42148989
0, I accept no cult, I am the only judge of value in this world. that is why I know to reject solipsism.

>>42148994
Then you are a fool that is not prepared for the next 6 months

>>42148995
>no argument
My point stands from the very beginning.

>>42148998
The point is that your argument has no standing. Its the screeching of somebody that knows that in whatever cult he is engaged is performative bullshit, but quietly hopes that his suckers will remain suckers, and not defectors or worse, executors

This is my Dream, and I am God. I will not be tricked by right hand path sociopathy.

The 'Dissolution' Religions and 'dissolve into source' religions are only applicable to the dream characters.

Not the conscious viewpoint. The conscious viewpoint is always local and intact. Fully Solipsistic.

The assumption that there was a universalist spirituality . One equation for all types, that was a wrong assumption.

I am the Conscious Viewpoint of this Reality. I am God.

>>42149004
>still screeching
>still cant attack my point
>still undefeated

>>42147211
>Btw does anyone has the links to the one line universal line or something like that? Onesophy or something like that i remember, gonna look up the archives anyways
https://mega.nz/folder/yghDjQgb#NCcxzcYa1Ojf976bAOXA9Q

>>42151936
NTA but this has so many pages; Universal Line has over 700 and and TG way more. Any recommendations for mandatory reading that's under 100 pages?

Usually I respect the anonymity on this website. But stop the fucking dogeshit whistling or I stop respecting the anonymity. You produced too much text in your life under your own name to be anonymous. Nearly 100,000 xeets are far more than enough to map them to the archives

File: egocentric chad.png (421 KB, 1931x875)

421 KB PNG

>>42114843
The unanswerability of the vertiginous question implies solipsism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

>>42114879
dindu texts

>>42153215
>implies solipsism.
It implies the existence of a single consciousness which can be universal or not, it doesn't matter. The question is unanswerable because it inherently posits multiple consciousnesses when no such plurality exists in truth and can't be shown in any way to exist. It has a false axiom baked into it, so of course the question has no answer.
>of all the subjects of experience
Is an illusion of the ego, an active process of self-other distinction, of objectification, shifting consciousness into an experience of plurality where none such exists.

>>42153215
No it doesn't. The Vertiginous question has three answers, and the solipsistic one is wholly unsatisfactory and does nothing to refute the other two while the other two explicitly reject solipsism.
I've told you these answers before, but acknowledging that would ruin your larp.

>>42153509
>unsatisfactory
Reality does not bend itself to what satisfies your ego.
All confusion fades away with the ego-process.

>>42153424
NTA,

Nope, the classic 'we are all one consciousness wearing many masks at once'

does not answer the vertiginous question.

I can just ask 'why am I experiencing this mask instead of another mask?'

>>42153541
Unsatisfactory because it does not match reality, especially not when compared to the other two answers.

File: consciousness theories de(...).jpg (584 KB, 862x2428)

584 KB JPG

>>42153509
>The Vertiginous question has three answers, and the solipsistic one is wholly unsatisfactory and does nothing to refute the other two while the other two explicitly reject solipsism.
>I've told you these answers before, but acknowledging that would ruin your larp.
I don't think I have ever seen this list of your 3 possible answers. If you posted it before, I might have missed it.
Some possible ways to answer it could be
1) Solipsism is true
2) Souls exist
3) The self is an illusion (refuted by observable reality).
Answers like "you wouldn't be you if you if you were someone else" don't explain anything. "I am this person" and "this person is this person" mean completely different things.

>>42155158

NTA,

I think the only answer to it is that each conscious viewpoint is eternal and separate from one another.

When that is followed to its conclusion, we get either Full Solipsism or Local Solipsism with potentially other Gods being able to dream sync or being completely isolated.

Dissolution into source doctrines are only applicable to unconscious dream characters.

And since unconscious dream characters are the majority, you see both the East and West teaching dissolution doctrines.

Yeah, but I think there's a problem with the notion of the eternal solipsistic and separate gods being able to communicate. So functionally, I am sure of full solipsism.

I' m the only one conscious here.

>>42155158
Consciousness isn't made of stuff at all

>>42155187
Why I am this god and not one of the other infinite gods?

>>42155158
>souls exist
That doesn't answer anything, it just sweeps the problem under the rug.

>why am I this specific soul instead of another?

>>42155337
Each eternal and separate God is a terminus of his or her respective reality. It is similar to the conclusion of there being necessary being per reality in order to avoid the answer of 'infinite regress' or 'no reason'.

It can be said that the question doesn't have to be posed if there is no step of emergence.

All other ontologies posit the emergence of conscious viewpoints. Even Advaita Vedanta.

I pose the Vertiginous Question only toward ontologies which posit that at one point a conscious viewpoint did not exist, and then it began to exist. That is a change from potential to actual, and demands an explanation.

>>42155158
>Solipsism is true
not in the purity way of "only I exists", only true in the metaphysical way of "I can only be certain of my own minds interpretations"
>Souls exist
No, that's just your brain chemistry having a glitch and applying apophenia to the glitches giving it a name you (and cultists) declare "universal" - platonic fallacy
>The self is an illusion
No, that's you (and all cultists) trying to trick idiots into submitting to le eternal true collective "unity"

KYS faggot

>>42155158
Nope. I have given you a completely material answer as well.
And again - the vertiginous question explicitly refutes solipsism.

>>42155613
>"I can only be certain of my own minds interpretations"
This is true whether solipsism is correct or not.
Solipsism is completely irrelevant.

>>42155891
Yes, its biological and cognitive reality being human, though solipsism or rather "pragmatic"/"metaphysical" solipsism is an excellent term to make it tangible, better than inventing a new one or having to explain it every time, it captures the basic idea of the concept

>>42156092
>to make it tangible
It CANT be tangible, nor does tangible have any meaning in this context.
> it captures the basic idea of the concept
No, it obfuscates it.

>>42114843
There is a the Nobody too

>>42156239
It can be made communicatable in the now Olen, considering a general approximate understanding of the terminology, that doesn't mean that it captures the universal forever true essence of the phenomena nor does it mean that everybody has to interpret it the same way.
But keep on playing stupid and xeet like a fail cult leader

>>42156285
Thank you for providing an example of the obfuscation.
It's a pseudo-philosophical way to say you get to decide what you think.
It's somehow even less interesting and relevant than the actual philosophical acknowledgment.

>>42156295
Instead of being a passive aggressive foid, which explains a lot, how would you call the phenomena of the mind only being able to be certain about its own inner-state and therefore "perfect" objectivity as certainty outside of idiosyncratic modelization not existing

>>42156320
I call it an acknowledgement of ontological limitation.
>and therefore "perfect" objectivity
By "perfect" you mean polar opposite.

>>42156364
certainly a way to call it, and from a marketing perspective, unsellable, misses the inclination of (pseudo)esoteric knowledge, too dry.
by "perfect" I mean universal, uncontestable, as collective forever true understood "objectivity"

>>42153793
>wearing many masks at once'
There are no masks. There is no "many."
You are again baking in the false axiom into the question, creating a paradox because of it. The question only exists when you make such unproven, unprovable and foolish assumptions.
>I can just ask 'why am I experiencing this mask instead of another mask?'
There is no another mask.
There is one consciousness shifting and changing.

File: Why_am_i_me_4.svg.png (121 KB, 1600x544)

121 KB PNG

>>42155887
>the vertiginous question explicitly refutes solipsism.
Caspar Hare disagrees with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_presentism

>>42155891
your entire "solipsism is irrelevant" argument is built on the assumption that I give a shit, and I don't. You're response?

>>42114843
But what if I raped you? What if a raped you in my little sex dungeon until you died?

>>42114843
Nah, the only truth is our subjective experience. Other peoples experiences only exist in our subjective experience of them. Also even if you believe in solipism, you don't have much conviction if you feel you need to state the fact. It's funny when believe they're god yet can't just delete reality and create a new one from scratch and must act like a shrieking schizo about it. Therefore the only truth is subjective experience and our reconciling of consciousness and matter with the divine.

>>42157564
you're misinterpreting solipsism.
>It's funny when believe they're god yet can't just delete reality
You're still thinking in dualist terms like there's a reality and a self that can do something with reality. you argument is not against solipsism.

>>42114843
Real people don't use words like solipsism. Quit tryna sound like you know it all and just be a good person, thats the only truth. Love and positivity. If you can't accept that then you have a problem.

>>42157487
No it isnt. You just keep showing you give a shit by freaking out and screaming about cults.
You could go "yep, it's irrelevant" and move on, but you won't let yourself.

>>42157586
hey Jared people can use what words they want OK... fucking hell who are you the WORD POLICE??

>>42157588
that's another anon you're talking about.
>I clicked on a thread with the title Solipsism and called it irrelevant when the topic of the thread is Solipsism I'm so smart
why not just hide the thread if you consider it irrelevant? clearly we don't care about your thought killer sentence

>>42114843
if only I exist what stops me from imagining that other conscious agents exist?

>>42156381
>I mean universal, uncontestable, as collective forever true understood "objectivity"
None of that is in the concept of solipsism, and most of it is explicitly put in doubt by solipsism.
You are babbling.
>>42156656
Caspar Hare is wrong.
>>42157591
Then I dont know you and havent talked to you, so again - no my point is not built on anything about you.

Solipsism is for midwits and woman
MentisWave debunked this

>>42157846
Nobody has or can debunk solipsism.
There is literally no way to prove any existence outside of "your own" consciousness.
Every single thought, idea, concept, experience, sight, smell, feeling, touch, taste, and whatever is a part of "your consciousness."
Any claims against this or outside of this are religious, not truth-seeking.

>>42157850
So you are deciding on the things all the time? If not, how do you call it self?

>>42157846
He right that no one can prove or disprove solipsism.
Because it isnt a point to prove or disprove.
It's very very literally another way of going "you cant know nuffin!" like reddit.

>calling other people midwits while he posts an ancap memetard youtube channel
Holy Yikes

>>42157813
Of course it is retard. The solipsist negates the concept of "objectivity" which pretty much every other cult relies on, calling their dogmas and axioms "objective" in an attempt to give them universal validity

>>42157850
how do you know though?

>>42158103
>The solipsist negates the concept of "objectivity"
>>42156320
>therefore "perfect" objectivity as certainty
Your use of quotes just makes you a faggot while also being self-contradictory and wrong.

>>42158262
What is the concept of objectivity else than the veiled claim about perfect predictability and certainty about an as causal sold phenomena?
>You sinned therefore you will go to hell
an objective statement about a causal chain in the christian/islamic/hinduist dogmas depicting a perfect certainty on a future outcome
>Spending XY on marketing is going to increase sales by yz%
an objective statement about a causal chain in a new libtardian economic dogma depicting a perfect certainty on a future outcome
>The information about the squares of two short sides of a triangle leads to the ability to determine the longest side
An objective statement about a causal relationship in the axiomatic field of geometry depicting a perfect certainty about a relationship

>>42158288
>claim about perfect predictability and certainty
No. The concept of an objective reality does not make any claim that it can be predicted. Most studiers of this supposed objective aspect to reality say the opposite - that reality is NOT predictable at all, but probabilistic.

>>42158316
That's a slippery slop and undermines the concept of objectivity at its very root. To say that the as causal sold model is just probabilistic and the outcomes is an idiosyncratic circular logic array based on the models, is an admission of defeat and a protective claim that fails at the intended. It says that the models are not objective but purely subjective, it robs them of the authority they want to convey

>>42158336
>That's a slippery slop
Flat wrong understanding of a fallacy. I have made no indication that anything will lead to anything else.
>undermines the concept of objectivity at its very root
no it doesnt. The core concept of objectivity is there is an aspect to reality whose traits are irrespective of the subjective. It says nothing about being able to predict or even determine what those traits are.

>>42158343
>The core concept of objectivity is there is an aspect to reality whose traits are irrespective of the subjective
And that is on its own an axiomatic unprovable subjective modelization. Just because the models worked so far doesn't mean they are universally eternally true. The concept of "objectivity" is outdated, and old propaganda tool

>>42158366
>an axiomatic unprovable
Yes. As I have said from the very very beginning, and you have danced around but ultimately agree with me, this is all completely unproveable, irrelevant, and boring.

>>42158366
>The concept of "objectivity" is outdated
>>42156320
>therefore "perfect" objectivity as certainty
And yet you are the one to first bring it up.
So you are outdated propaganda.

>>42158375
it is outdated
the environment where claiming "objectivity" and referring to some virtual consenus that is supposed to give it weight simply doesn't exist anymore outside of localized temporary pockets

>>42159523
>simply doesn't exist
You have zero basis to assert its nonexistence in any way whatsoever.
And you are the one that first said it exists.
Were you wrong then or wrong now?

>>42161611
You don't seem to be able to deal with anonymous imageboards. Go back to shitter and advertise generative video slop

>>42118617
Static patch holography kinda implies it. Hell, you can get it from general relativity.

>>42114843
technically its correct coz ur brains and shiiit but how do u mix it with magick ??

>>42161873
there is magical thinking (shizophrenia), manipulating your own mind in a more or less deliberate way (white magick), manipulating to a more or less degree the exterior in such a way that the perception by yours and other solipsitic minds go haywire (chaos magick) and there is being able to manipulate in some deliberate degree the perception and interpretation of another solipsistic mind about itself and the exterior (Black magick) — the latter usually backfires

>>42161620
So you were wrong both then AND now. Got it.
>brings up objectivity
>gets mad when it disproves him, and then denies objectivity

>>42163908
you are free to believe in universal objectivity and try to sell your subjective brand of it, which you might genuinely believe to be universally true, I cannot know the last part, I can just assume. But as you sell yours others are selling theirs and as they call you a criminal and a loon, you call them criminals and loons — and that leads to the very core of the realization behind solipsism, the inherent uncertainty about anything outside the individuals own mind and the current situation of the epistemic and therefore material field without anyone really able to be epistemologically hegemonic and force other minds to submit by passive methods; only might is right and only the one willing to apply the ultimate force against his opponents is going to "win" over what is considered real and what is considered knowledge and meaning in the future.

Are you willing to murder and genocide your opponents? They certainly are, they just until know were certain about their own epistemic power through coercive 20th century propaganda networks, that stopped working, and they already switched to more archaic methods. If not, stop playing this game, it isn't the late 20th century anymore, if yes, its time go hot and leave the field of sophistry and narrative propaganda and enter the field of war

>>42144735
>just contradicted physics
how?

>>42157860
Nope, the Vertiginous Question makes it more than just an epistemic novelty. It is a metaphysical truth.

>>42164439
Nope, vertiginous question explicitly denies solipsism, and has multiple other answers you repeatedly ignore to continue larping.

>>42157584
As long as people are debating jew terminology the debate is pointles.

>>42114843
>I like snacks
>I like myself
>I would make snacks free for myself
>Snacks are not free
Other people are real, anon

>>42170581
>>Snacks are not free
This is where you fucked up.

File: 1773954686790245.png (21 KB, 1348x695)

21 KB PNG

>>42170581
>Not free
well it involves risks, but you can just take them. A corpse cannot complain
>b-but the police
they just write reports, and the courts are at their limit

>>42165280
What are the multiple other answers?

If you are going to say "God wearing many masks at once" then no, I can still ask "Why this mask instead of another mask?"

>>42172645
>If you are going to say "God wearing many masks at once"
No, that is what the question is directly addressing.
There is a purely material answer you ignore, and the eternally distinct soul answer. Both of which refute solipsism.

>>42173283
What is the 'purely material answer'?

As for the eternally distinct soul answer, if you mean 'Eternal Souls' then yes I agree that is an answer. But that still results in local solipsism due to each eternal soul being a ground of being of its own reality.

>>42173914
>What is the 'purely material answer'?
That awareness is purely material.
>But that still results in local solipsism
Please pay attention.
This ENTIRE thread has shown and proven over and over and over that solipsism is irrelevant because it is impossible to prove or disprove.

The vertiginous question explicitly denies solipsism. So simply asking the question removes it from any sort of consideration.

>>42119430
Half these little faggots can't imagine an apple

>>42114843
For someone so sure of it, you seem to be going quite out of your way to convince "us".

>>42157586
not op but you're literally just illiterate

>>42125524
Agreed. Many people conjecture about things such as conspiracies, which, even if they were true, would have literally no impact on their everyday lives. Just things to distract oneself from the actual work they need to do.

>>42175116
Is "many people" in the room with you now shizo?

>>42175918
>shizo

>>42177739
You appear to have very personal inside into "many peoples" minds and consider yourself to be able to speak generally on "many peoples" behalf, so are they in the room with you now, or are you just a shizo

>>42114843
True for humans, animals, AIs and any other object in the universe. Nobody external is ever going to know how a photon feels, only the photon knows its real

>>42114870
Yes, however. Take an example.
GRRM wrote books. It's obviously him. And his characters. Some Literature theories says that characters from a book are only different facets of the author. They are basically the author. However, when GRRM talks about his own characters he created, you can see that he can be judgemental of one, sentimental about the other. So even if the characters he created are an extension of himself, he himself has differents opinion of his own characters he created.
That's differentiation.

>>42114843
So if this true then i'm basically talking to myself?
I write posts, and read posts, that are written by myself, and answered by myself?

>>42167030
The elders of zions corrupted the goyims once again.

>>42175116
>Many people conjecture about things such as conspiracies, which, even if they were true, would have literally no impact on their everyday lives
A bit offtopic, but the plandemic and mandate clotshots had a real impact on many lives.

>>42125524
Yes we all want to have a good dream don't we?
Or escaping the dream.

all, or... I

>>42174186
>Nah nah, bro. You gotta take the apple, rotate it 27 times (horizontally and vertically) at 5X speed, change its hue and cycle through the entire visual spectrum with each rotation, then take a bite and start the process over again.

>>42182063
He realized and didn't know how to proeccess the sudden loss of ego, which he had built up over years and years. His efforts in math, theories, and spirituality all came crashing down with the final realization, for which he tragically drowned.

>>42182158
He took all this all too seriously.
Maybe his family put too much pressure on his from a young age.