and i am arguing that the reason to take everyday reality as existing is because if you dont then everything else becomes meaningless and absurd. that is not the case with hyperspace.

I need the context of 2 for the concept of 1 being true or not to even make aany sense. otherwise it is just gibberish

and i am arguing that the reason to take everyday reality as existing is because if you dont then everything else becomes meaningless and absurd. that is not the case with hyperspace.

i need the context of 2 for the concept of 1 being true or not to even make aany sense. otherwise it is just gibberish

In this conversation, my beliefs are irrelevant. I’m not pushing one belief system over another. In it’s simplest form, what I’m saying is this:

1. There is no proof that hyperspace exists.

2. There is no proof that everyday “reality” exists.


You demand proof for #1, yet offer no proof for #2.

and i am arguing that the reason to take everyday reality as existing is because if you dont then everything else becomes meaningless and absurd. that is not the case with hyperspace.

i need the context of 2 for the concept of 1 being true or not to even make aany sense. otherwise it is just gibberish

Now I agree with you perfectly well that no one can ultimately prove our everyday reality exists, it's just logically impossible. "Proving" or demonstrating hyperspace being some kind of "real" place is not, however, impossible - just in the same way as we can "prove" or demonstrate that close to the surface of the earth things will fall with approximately 9.81m/s^2. So for all practical means the existence (in a meaningful use of this word) of hyperspace is simply untouched by the stance of solipsism or other deep metaphysical considerations, just as the existence of fundamental forces, the earth, our sun and so on and so forth is untouched by these things.

With all that said I am certainly not claiming hyperspace is false, I am simply saying that metaphysical musings, semantic loops and solipsism and the like will not bring us any further. Moreover, there is simply such a huge lack of evidence for hyperspatial beings and hyperspace (as of yet) that there is good reason to be skeptical, but still room for enjoying the experiences and learning what one can.

I think I understand what you’re saying: If we could, for example, ask a hyperspatial being to factor a large product of two primes and it provided the correct answer, then you would conclude that hyperspace is real.

But you’re not really proving that at all. All you’d be doing is showing that there is a particular kind of relationship between hyperspace experiences and everyday experiences. You would be showing that hyperspace exists within the context of everyday reality, but nothing more.

I’ve noticed the word “solipsism” has been thrown around in the last few posts, and I’m wondering why. What in recent posts do you consider to be solipsistic?

Well, the recurring argument that all you can be sure of is that consciousness exists is, at least for me, a type of solipsism (hence why I keep writing "solipsism and/or the like".

Okay but you arent really saying much in support of your take on the whole thing here. All you just said is that you bascially giving in on the idea of this reality being "real" becasue things would seem anbsurd otherwise..except there is no way for you to prove this at all. It is like believeing something becasue otherwise you feel insecure. Your whole opinion here is only valid as a truth" really if we assume that your belief in this reality as more real than anything else is correct, and use that reference point at a sort of pre-set to then relate everything else to..

The arguments I raise (I hope) are epistemological ones rather than solipsistic ones. They are arguments about what we can know and what we can’t know. That’s what this thread started out about.

The primacy of consciousness paradigm does not take a solipsistic stance. It states that matter is a consequence of consciousness. It does not deny the material world or claim that the material world is “all in my head”.

It just seems to me that materialists, when backed into an epistemological corner, shout out “Solipsism!” and “Semantics!” as a last ditch effort to fend off the possibility that the material world may be nothing like what they imagine it to be.

you aregument was a classic brain in a jar argument and it very closely related to solipsism. and your arguement takes us to the logical end that we cant know anything not even whether we exist , there is no meaning and destroys any f further communication because we no longer have a basis upon which to communicate.

not it is not quite the same. if we take the brain in the jar hypothesis to be real or solipsism or simulated reality then we loose the basis for all communication, and knowledge and truth. to do so renders everything meaningless even my existance

The arguments I raise (I hope) are epistemological ones rather than solipsistic ones. They are arguments about what we can know and what we can’t know. That’s what this thread started out about.

The primacy of consciousness paradigm does not take a solipsistic stance. It states that matter is a consequence of consciousness. It does not deny the material world or claim that the material world is “all in my head”.

It just seems to me that materialists, when backed into an epistemological corner, shout out “Solipsism!” and “Semantics!” as a last ditch effort to fend off the possibility that the material world may be nothing like what they imagine it to be.

So what? That is not an adequate arguement against the idea IMO. All that tells me is that you dont like the idea becasue it would shatter your concept of knowledge and make you feel meaningless. I am not saying you are wrong or anyone here is right, just that you arent putting forth a better arguement in my opinion than anyone else here.

Personally I dont feel there is any paradigm that could make me feel meaningless. I am here and real enough in my world, illusion or not I am still part of some universal drama so "I" have a role to play. Nothing is meaningless.

At the same time the whole idea of "meaning" is something I have thought about alot..and I came to the conclusion that the meaning of life must be to find some sort of meaning, whatever that means to you.

no what you dont get is that if you take that route you have nothing to base any further arguments or discussion upon. language, experience, knowledge thoughts etc etc all becomes meaningless. so if that is what you believe then fine but then the discussion ends here for you. because to have any sort of rational or meaningfull discussion past that point then it cannot be taken as the truth

[
Exactly.

As usual, G2... you are the voice of reason. Kudos on your patient elucidation of slippery stuff.

Solipsism, btw, is not some preclusion of rationality. It was birthed by none other than Descartes who is considered by most to be the founder of scientific thought.

I... as usual... want to take the matter well past reason, though.

My original point on this thread was a string theory argument for the implicit nature of Hyperspace (or something that resembles it exactly). Despite the flag waving for science, none of the scientific materialists here have even broached that topic.

My secondary interjection into this argument is even more controversial it seems. Not trying to convince anyone, and not claiming anecdotal subjective experience as any sort of humanity-wide proof... I have claimed that my experiences lead me to lean heavily towards the entities being real.

If all they could do was complex math problems, I would be far less convinced. Afterall, Rain Man could do that. There is plenty or reason to imagine our subconscious minds are capable of such idiot savant parlor tricks. The information that SWIM gets from his entheogen journeying, as well as that which I receive from lucid dreaming, deep meditation, astral projection etc. is of a much higher order.

An example of some "objective" proof SWIM had early on in his psychonaut career (I won't try explaining any heavy duty shit for now):

SWIM was meditating on LSD late one evening and stimulating his pineal gland. After perhaps 3/4ths of an hour, he developed the ability to see his environment with closed eyes. He could see the activity of the house in time lapse and even began to be able to read the thoughts of the people as they looked at him, turned off the lights and went to bed. After a couple hours, his consciousness expanded to include about a 4 square block radius around his physical body. This was incredible, of course, but not completely unprecedented (even in those halcyon collegiate days).

His skepticism of the experience caused him to seek confirmation, even though the experience was mindblowing regardless. He decided to focus within his now huge awareness for things he could not otherwise know, with the idea to check up on them later. He went into the rooms of sleeping friends of his, some of which he had never physically entered... mentally jotting down some seemingly striking features, poster content & placement, and whatnot. (Trying not to infringe too deeply on their privacy)

At this point, he became aware of a young woman wearing a flimsy nightgown riding a white horse down the residential street, and approaching the domicile he was in. This image made him completely doubt the entire event, and he felt the need to break off this gift of consciousness and go outside to see for sure that no such image would be there in reality. (Such sights are beyond rare in cities... even freaky University towns)

His legs were stiff and sleeping from such a long meditation, and by the time he could compact his gargantuan consciousness back into his body, and get it up off the cushion... rubbing his legs furiously to wake them up... a number of minutes had past, and the apparition would have surely been gone, even if she had been real.
Still, he walked out into the stillness of night, kicking himself for blowing such a wonderful trip. He wandered a bit down the street, with no hope of confirmation, when he saw, spotlit under a streetlamp, a steaming pile of HORSESHIT. He gaped at it for a while, and then a guy appeared out of the shadows, and said to him cryptically "Yeah dude, that was weird."

As the guy walked away, SWIM registered what he said, and chased him down. "What was weird?" "Umm... that freaky blonde chick riding the white horse. Duh? Isn't that what you were tripping on?"

Not willing to try and explain to the guy that SWIM had seen this in his cosmically expanded mind's eye... he just nodded and smiled.

Needless to say, he snuck into the rooms he had scoped previously, and managed to confirm each and every detail he had seen in his "vision."


*************


Now I don't expect anyone to believe this horse story. Why should you? I wouldn't.

However, if something like this happened to YOU... what would you think about this "evidence?"

Furthermore, SWIM has had confirmations like this (and even more intense) literally dozens of times. Nearly every one of his many spice adventures has garnered him some such "proof." Some of them have been so extreme, that even putting them into print would seem like a psychotic act.

To wind this up, SWIM believes that it IS possible to prove these seemingly supernatural events to oneself. In fact, not believing such proof would take a kind of hard headed stubbornness that could be considered a form of insanity.

Proving such things to random people on a forum? Or to the notoriously closed minded scientific community at large? What on Earth would be the point?

Mate how do you know that what you thought you experinced, the getting up and checking, wasnt just a part of your hallucination. i have had my alarm clock go off in the morning, got up had shit shave and shower, ate breakfast, caught the bus to work only to have my friend wake me up because i was actually still in bed.

and dont say "r to the notoriously closed minded scientific community at large? What on Earth would be the point?" do you have any clue on how many tests havew been done trying to prove remote viewing and all sorts of other psy phenomenon. and every single time it has failed when done under proper conditions

So what? Just becasue you feel there is no use in trying to have a rational discussion past a certain point still does nothing to support the position you are taking.

Well..I mean maybe he never woke up again? it is quite simple..how can you be sure you arent sleeping right now?..or that yesterday was just a dream? I think the reason you realized you dreamed that you got up and got on the bus to work already is becasue YOU WOKE UP AGAIN IN REAL LIFE. I have never met a person who dreamed of doing something and then led the rest of they're life thinking they actaully did such a thing while wide awake not realizing it was a dream. That is like grapsing at straws IMO when you resort to such conclusions.

Anyway you seem so set in your way of thinking without any room to concider other possabilities so I dont see the point in discussing this any farther.