Well if nothing we feel is genuine then why bother living?

I suppose that's the point I take issue with, then.

Though, if we're just taking that definition as the rule -- then your conclusion does follow. You and everyone else is disingenuous, as they are, in fact, influenced by the things around them.

Only God could claim to be authentic under such a criteria, though. — Moliere

And that's the problem.

This, or something like it, I know from experience. There are different methods - solitary contemplation works for me; for someone I know who suffers from depression, it's analyzing dreams, or it might be writing poetry or keeping a journal. Basically, the process boils down to: See it, name it, accept it, own it. Then it can't own you. — Vera Mont

This is more like denying reality though. You don't genuinely feel anything so those emotions are more or less a lie.

Being under any sort of influence automatically makes it disingenuous as the original quote I cited said.

Alleged Buddhism expert since I have asked other Buddhism people and they say she's wrong. But that quote from the Tao Te is more about just letting things happen rather than fight them, which is supported by psychological research. Resisting a negative thought or idea, etc, ends up building a stronger association to it, rather than just letting it come and go. So actively trying to force something out of your mind does the opposite

So I feel empathy for Darkneos's thoughts. There's a sense in which it can feel like you're being controlled, that there is no escape, and that the people around you don't even acknowledge the propaganda around them.

But that's actually because the best propaganda doesn't look like propaganda to its target audience -- the crudity of propaganda is only apparent upon being perceived as propaganda, upon being able to reduce it to a command. And if you're just putting the glasses on for the first time, it can seem like nobody else has "figured it out" -- but the truth is, just enough people have "figured it out" that it's still effective. (And, as the movie more or less preaches to us, those alien persons who see the field of desire as a machine to be manipulated for their own ends -- They Live! :D) — Moliere

not quite what I'm getting at here.

Try unenlightened's advertisement meditation: whenever you see an advert, analyse it carefully and you will find in every case that it will first seek to provoke in you a negative feeling, and then offer you a solution to make you feel better. — unenlightened

Advertisement doesn't work on me so...

more like you don't understand what solipsism is and likely are making it out to be more than that.

That's not even close. It's literally what it says on the box, nothing else. That you are the only thing that exists, or only person.

Other forms say you can only be sure that you exist and everythign else is uncertain but this is the same thing and just splitting hairs.

I appreciate the thought.

It’s given me some to ponder on. I’m getting a sense of how my mind works and how I seem to judge things. A lot of the metrics I use to judge truth are bullshit and part of me knows it but like you said ego plays a big role in it. Through suffering I can tell myself that I see the world as it truly is, the cold and painful reality that people will ignore and lie to themselves otherwise. But that’s a trap.

The other trap I have is that I follow something if I don’t have an alternative explanation, which is just bad. Just because I don’t have an answer to something doesn’t mean they’re right.

I’m starting to see how much work goes into thinking for yourself but also realizing that doing so means conflicting with others. It’s unavoidable and I guess that means I have to grow out of being a people pleaser.

I think part of me already knows what I think and that I’m capable of it too. It’s just a lack of self esteem or fear of failure (one and the same) that keeps me locked into stuff that hurts.

Letting go of the pain feels like losing and giving up, which isn’t logic. Pain and struggle don’t always mean you’re right, and in my case I’m often in the wrong. I can ask the same question on different platforms, get the same answer each time (that I’m wrong) and then insist that they’re the deluded ones because they choose comforting lies over truth. Though now I see that’s stupid. Even more idiotic is believing something just because it hurts, there’s no logic to that. At least you can make a case for believing something if it’s comforting or soothing from a utility perspective.

Though I think my ego is so wrapped up in being the suffering genius, even though that trope is only in books. That to let go is to be normal and stupid like the unwashed masses (even though I’m in the wrong and other people can read what I read without suffering).

I guess writing it all out I see that I rely entirely on emotions or vibes and not reason or logic. Even though I’m capable of thinking for myself I don’t in order to avoid upsetting people or run the risk of being wrong. You know something’s wrong when you believe someone solely based off the perception that they seem like they know what they’re talking about (story of my life and it always it me in the ass).

Any way to make it stop?

It’s actually debilitating because my metric for what’s true has nothing to do with content or utility and everything to do with ego.

It’s the only reason I would hold on to something that hurts me, because letting go is weakness.

It’s a long standing issue I have where I can’t disagree with something someone says because I don’t have an alternative to what it could be, either that or they don’t admit they’re wrong.

So whenever I try to move on from what people say that I don’t agree with in my mind it’s like I’m denying truth to be comfortable. I associate the pain something brings me with truth, which is stupid. But I can’t stop it and it’s led to a lot of suffering in my life because believing something because it’s beneficial, helpful, or soothing to be is running from truth, lying to yourself, being stupid, insert terrible thing about you.

And I guess by extension I attribute being happy or at peace with lying to yourself (or insert bad thing). So I’m stressed 24/7 believing things that cause me pain because to let them go is to lose, or be willfully ignorant, loser, etc.

That’s what I mean.

Every time I email him in response to it his replies don’t really explain it:

I was wanting to emphasize that we are more than that-much more-not just what we perceive

If his goal is to say we are more than that he failed quite miserably at it. Though looking through his articles on psychologyToday I’m a bit skeptical of him.

Not to mention nothing he cites in there would really prove his point either. It’s weird now that I reflect on him. Didn’t help each time I ask him for clarity I get nothing in terms of a solid answer

Oh?

I guess that makes sense. Personally though even though I know it's mistaken or nonsense I can't let it go because it feels like denying the truth.

I mean that's what my instincts thought when I read it, usually trying to mix science with spiritualism and philosophy turns out badly, and I knew enough about BUddhism to know this guy doesn't understand Maya or illusion at all. It doesn't mean not real in BUddhism, it's more complicated than that.

BUt I guess I believed him because he graduated top honors and won awards like it mentions in the link:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/authors/srini-pillay-md

That's not actually what it was about...

Well judging from his reply to me I don't think even he really knows what he's talking about, not truly from everyone else I've asked about this:

I think this paradox holds true.

While we are connected to the form of our bodies, there are things we can do to change this. Yet, as we connect more deeply with what the body is,
we recognize that we are really more than just the way we appear through our sense organs.

Thanks.

This is from the guy in the first link, the quote in my OP is from a Quora user but you have to have a plus subscription to read it, which i think is nonsense.

I think the "new age wisdom" part detracts from his point rather than enables it. Just because new age wisdom thinks so doesn't make it true, and I agree. A lot of things in new age wisdom is...well nonsense. Top that off with wishy washy interpretations of science (especially quantum physics) and well...

Not to mention I asked and the Buddhists I talked to say he misunderstands what is meant by Maya in Buddhism, which doesn't surprise me.

But his "evidence" isn't really proof of his point either. It's more like he just interprets it to mean that this is an illusion. The part about us being mostly water is iffy. Sure we are mostly water but call it a bag of water is way too reductive. Like Ice is water frozen solid, the water in our bodies is a part of everything else in us that leads to things being solid.

It's hard to believe he's highly regarded when he makes wacky takes like this: https://www.health.harvard.edu/authors/srini-pillay-md

I mean in a way that can be understood. 5 dollar words made that unintelligible.

English?

It's not me saying that I'm just asking if that view is valid.

I personally am leaning towards no, because if there's one thing I've learned is that existence is complicated.

Nope. It’s impossible because there is no way to get outside of your perception. Ironically getting outside your perception would disprove it immediately. So in order to test or prove it it would have to be wrong.

There is no other angle. Sometimes people trying to make a distinction can't see the forest for the trees. Like when you break it down there is no distinction between metaphysical solipsism or epistemological.

I don't see what there is to be confused about. There is no real difference between metaphysical or epistemological solipsism, it's just splitting hairs when it's ultimately the same thing it's talking about.

But the more you think about it the more of a nothingburger it is. I mean you can't test it, you can't even know, or feel the difference if there even is one, and if there was you'd never know since all you have is your perception so you can't validate it. You'd have to be able to get outside of your perception to do so but that would be invalidating solipsism as soon as you do. So.........................................................

I don't know. I just thinking about it I have to wonder why even think about it?

I don't it just honestly sounds like splitting hairs to be honest since it's not knowing if there is anything else but you. Though that would raise the question about why are you even talking to other people or posting on the internet. The response they get is "they're going along, they're playing the game" which is just absurd, honestly.

Yeah but that's not what we're talking about.

Seems like same thing as far as solipsism goes.

They can’t. You can’t refute god, simulation, etc, or anything metaphysical really. There’s no way to really test it, just like you can’t prove solipsism.

There’s a set of assumptions you have to make about the world, without which you can’t do any thing. Even solipsism assumes the subject or mind exists, well that and a lot of other things like assuming the area around them isn’t real, that other people don’t have minds. It assumes too much that it breaks Occam’s razor

Except you can’t be sure of the existence of your own mind. Hence another argument based on nonsense.

You write that "and to be frank we can't be sure of anything", but that is exactly the metric to make the jump to epistemological solipsism.

Your position that "we can't be sure of anything" is the point of epistemological solipsism.

Wrong again bud. Can’t be sure of anything just leaves you stuck then. You can’t be sure you exist or your mind, you don’t jump to solipsism from there. YOU CAN’T. At least not without leaps of faith like any other philosophy.

The position of “not be sure of anything” isn’t the point of epistemological solipsism (which let’s face it is just splitting hairs from metaphysical solipsism). Solipsists are at lest sure they and their mind exist, and yet have no basis for thinking so. They just assume that to be the case.

So still not correct there.

how is it moot, the guy tried to prove solipsism.

I still want to know about my orignal post though

Well the Video I linked to aruges how you can't even know if you're thikning or if there is a you.

SO while it appears to be skepticism it's really just fantasy it's doing.

Not making and checking unfounded (which is already a red flag as what is considered unfounded is debatable) assumptions while in the process using unfounded assumptions.

They don’t even know if they’re thinking or if they exist, both of which are unfounded:

https://youtu.be/SRwMFjCoOUc

It's actually skepticism's greatest failure, since in trying to winnow it down to what can be known for certain ends up making a TON of other assumptions in the process to get there to the point where it gets absurd. It would in fact be less skeptical to assume an external reality.

Again solipsism fails Occams Razor.

Not true, those facts don’t matter philosophically, it’s all in the present and all these things are happening outside your mind as you’re taking things in (by your admission). You would have to prove your mind is the maker and receiver of these stimuli and I know you can’t, nor can anyone.

But again as stated you can’t be sure of your mind in the present let alone “you”. The fact you’re using leaned language that you got outside you is enough to blow that claim away. Try making any argument without language let alone the concepts to argue for solipsism, you can’t.

The past does exist, just not in the way you think. The present is also not an inference either. It exists apart from you. The only way for your argument to make any sense is to axiomatically claim that your mind and you don’t need a cause, and at that point you’ve already lost as that would violate Occam’s razor. Why assume you and your mind are cause less when it’s more logical to go with realism or the default view.

There really is no logic that can reasonably jump to solipsism. Just because we can’t be “sure” (and to be frank we can’t be sure of anything so that’s not a metric to use) doesn’t mean it’s all in your head or you’re the only conscious thing. That’s not what explains our observations so it doesn’t logically follow.

Like I said, faulty premises that assume too many things they can’t prove.

To repeat, arguments for solipsism eventually boil down to nonsense. And it’s why it’s pure faith, nothing more.

That doesn’t even follow…

Like I said, pro solipsism arguments are nonsense.

That and this reply under it:

Solipsism is not a choice, human beings or a human being is even in strict scientific terms a subjective entity, a subject, everything that happens to me is in my own subjective bubble. But, this is not where i see where the problem is at. The problem comes when, if you even come to the realization that solipsism is true, and that no event can exist without you consciously being subjectively aware of it, why would a solipsist or any person, put himself inside a simulated reality that basically restricts him in his wishes, fantasies, and absolute freedom. If you are infact first and foremost, outside of the simulated reality and have absolute freedom to do with yourself whatever you want, restricting yourself to a simulation even if it is self imposed, inside one’s own mind is really hard to understand. Because you would basically go into a span of about 80 years, experiencing even suffering, physical or psychological, being restricted in what you can do, example, no absolute control or freedom over matter, or the mind-matter relationship, i agree that it is hard to understand subjectivity and its logic that way. But, still, that does not negate solipsism. Because you also get to experience amazing beautiful things and extend your freedom further to the point of physical liberation or end which results in death, but you only end your own mind simulation. The whole process of solipsism is that every minute, date, month, year and second is a carefully planned event that must ultimately lead to absolute freedom, that is the end point of solipsism, to be able to do whatever you want, and without your subjectivity in that state ever ending.

As for denying any simulation hypothesis from the soul to mind to computer does not cause someone to doubt what is real, compared to direct realism then perhaps Plato and Decartes are not as adept as you. — introbert

There's no reason to take it seriously. Unless they can demonstrate said alternate reality it's junk. Even then it wouldn't make this less real. You'd just have two realities. I mean alternate realities are a common trope in media today, even cartoons do it, so I don't see why it would make you question anything. Seems interesting rather than scary.

Technically it is not considered a "mental disorder" but it is part of diagnostic criteria like introversion, nihilism, antagonism, paranoia etc. That it is not a "mental disorder" doesn't negate it as mental disorder. Someone would hold their semantic ground that a mental disorder is the name of the phenomenon, but if someone can be diagnosed 'schizo' for being antagonistic, nihilistic, introverted and having solipsistic delusion it is mental disorder. — introbert

You're getting off track...again. It's far from my original post.

simulation hypothesis doesn’t cause us to question what is real. It’s an assertion with nothing to prove it, ergo junk.

Plus unless you can show a clear difference between a simulation and the real thing then they’re the same and the point is null.

Solipsism isn’t a mental disorder either. Again you are inventing things to make it other than it is.

I don’t I’m well aware of his position and how he’s wrong given modern science discoveries. There is a reason idealism fell out, part of it being that it always leads to solipsism, ie “you’re all that exists”. He could only get around that by asserting some god mind which isn’t convincing.