since that depends upon whether or not a being exists states of coniousness included. — TheWillowOfDarkness

i have direct evidence right here now of 'state of consciousness' and therefore i need no argument to show their existence as merely probable. which is all the mind can do.

i have no, and never had any, evidence of matter, world, or universe

look up the word qualia and you will see its a more accurate definition of reality

there is also no objective evidence of consciousness in the brain. look in there and see there is nothing in there but more brain. so science has no right to claim anything without any evidence, otherwise its doing philosophy and peddling it as science.

looks like you did some real fancy mental gymnastics there to try and prove something that i already know is absolutely impossible. — OmniscientNihilist

You clearly didn't read my post. You didn't even have time to do so. If you read it, you might find that I agree with you. But I won't blame you if you don't. It is long and attention spans are small. I was just articulating my own thoughts, not really expecting an audience. But you might like what I have to say. It fits your handle.

You clearly didn't read my post. — petrichor

if so then your preaching to the choir

its often not helpful to delve into big mental constructions to try and asist the proof of an absolute truth. because the confused will often becomes even more lost, or find little things within your constuctions to pick at and side track from the point

i am too busy atm, perhaps i will skim through it after dinner if im listening to music

or i will reference it if someone really presses me for some mental constructions backing that absolute truth

I agree you have understand states of consciousness are present. My point wasn't to suggest we didn't know they existed.

Rather, it was about what their existence entailed. If I am speaking existing experinces, I am no longer in the space of imagined definitions.

Yes, I might imagine a definition of consciousness and who has it, but this is not how any state of conciousness
exists.

If we are dealing with existence, something more than our imagination is involved. We are speaking about a supposed presence in existence. A truth determined not by our imagination, but by existence of one state or another.

Let me show you are example. I can imagine definitions where you think the world is without consciousness. Does the fact I've imagined thus make it true?

No, it does not. Since your understanding of consciousness is an existing state, that I've imagined it doesn't make it true.

You exist with states of consciousness that hold the world has consciousness. What I imagined is false by what exists.

but rather is an artifact of the way our brains organize perception — petrichor

the only thing the brain orders is electrical impulses, not perception. the mind organizes that.

its impossible to experience anything other then consciousness. and you cannot even imagine unconsciousness/nothingness. for even empty blackness is still conscious or you wouldnt be able to experience blackness.

the idea of anything existing outside consciousness is an idea that happens inside consciousness. and anything that really was outside would have to transform itself into consciousness upon entry into concsiousness for it to be known and then again it would be nothing but consciousness.

consciousness is the black hole of every idea youve ever had. wiping you clean and leaving you with nothing but your meditating self.

solipsism refutes everything. get used to it. build upon these absolutes. dont fight them

Whatever is ultimately real is eternal, is permanent, always-already-the-case. It cannot be created or destroyed. It isn't self-caused. — petrichor

Great post! Plus it agrees with my first post today, a ways back. It also agrees mostly with Gevin Giorbran's 'Everything Forever', in which the 'Everything' is total blend symmetry of balance, pulling time forward from the only way time could begin as asymmetrical, such as a severe grouping order imbalance of matter and anti-matter which then pushes time forward.

The 'Everything' can be a multiverse as taken from the wave function being actual as well as being such because the ultimately real is permanent, with no start, and thus can't have any particular solution put to it and so thus must contain the 'everything' of all solutions.

For those not liking eternalism, the One of presentism can be seen to be continually transmuting into topological temporaries that can never last as anything particular, the One ever remaining as itself overall as the 'wax'.

:up: A gloriously *Omni-symmetrical* ramble! Well done. :cool:

The Ultimate is beyond subject and object, here and there, something and nothing (taken conventionally). — petrichor

Something has to be because 'Nothing' cannot; however, they both have an information content of zero, if that's kind of what you mean. Or that a perfect blend of symmetry is not anything in particular, like the colors hidden within white, and approximates a new kind of 'Nothing' as a minimal something. The 'white' would be like the permanent something and the colors would be as but temporaries and thus akin to 'nothing'.

The 'Everything' can be a multiverse as taken from the wave function being actual as well as being such — PoeticUniverse

you will never find reality using your mind, only more and more mind. science and philosophy knowledge explore the mind, nothing more. the map is not the territory

you will never find reality using your mind, only more and more mind. science and philosophy knowledge explore the mind, nothing more. the map is not the territory — OmniscientNihilist

Luckily, the Fundamental must be simple; no map but logic is required. The real fun with da mental concerns the temporary complexities above and beyond.

Actually, no. If multiverse then the universe is in the multiverse. Either way, as defined we live in a (the) universe. — tim wood

"Universe" signifies the complete whole of all that exists. It's contradictory to say that the universe is in something else (multiverse), because this implies that there is something outside of, therefore other than the universe.

Acceptance of multiverse as an ontology leaves the concept of "universe" as incoherent.

Does a rabbit not live in a rabbit hole if his rabbit hole is on a mountainside where conjecturally at least there might be other rabbit holes? — tim wood

How is this relevant? "Rabbit hole" doesn't signify the complete whole of all that exists, so of course there might be more that one rabbit hole. But this doesn't justify the contradictory notion that there could be more than one universe.

To say that there is more than one universe requires changing what "universe' means. How would one define "universe' in this case?