Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

So divided awareness is a 'reasonable working assumption' as well.

Undivided. Not so much. That's just a bald assumption.

I agree that divided awareness is a 'reasonable working assumption' and does work on the practical find your trousers or making babies level.
But we are not working on that level.

Either undivided awareness contradicts known facts or it does not.

I claim strongly that undivided awareness does not contradict any known facts but does contradict appearances and working assumptions.

Shoot the idea down if you can.
Why is no one willing to address that claim directly? By which I mean identify any known facts it contradicts.
The obvious answer is that it does not contradict any known facts, can we agree that and I move onto the next piece of evidence?

Although I agree I have not attempted to prove this from first principles, we are not at that stage.
mentalism stands or falls on this single fact.

Of course it contradicts known facts. Namely that our awareness (you know, out subjectivity, our private experience) IS divided.

Which of course is not a known fact ...

It's as much a fact as your premise about having experience.

LI, It is a known fact you have not shown ‘undivided awareness’ exists beyond your language logic.

newolder wrote:LI, It is a known fact you have not shown ‘undivided awareness’ exists beyond your language logic.

And I don't claim to have done so, yet, because the first step is to show the concept 'undivided awareness' doesn't contradict any known facts. The first step, even if shown would not show the concept 'undivided awareness' represents anything.

I think I have made that clear enough.

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

I agree that divided awareness is a 'reasonable working assumption' and does work on the practical find your trousers or making babies level.
But we are not working on that level.

Either undivided awareness contradicts known facts or it does not.

I claim strongly that undivided awareness does not contradict any known facts but does contradict appearances and working assumptions.

Shoot the idea down if you can.
Why is no one willing to address that claim directly? By which I mean identify any known facts it contradicts.
The obvious answer is that it does not contradict any known facts, can we agree that and I move onto the next piece of evidence?

Although I agree I have not attempted to prove this from first principles, we are not at that stage.
mentalism stands or falls on this single fact.

Of course it contradicts known facts. Namely that our awareness (you know, out subjectivity, our private experience) IS divided.

Which of course is not a known fact ...

It's as much a fact as your premise about having experience.

It's as much a fact as I have experience of something, which of course assumes the 'I'.
Unlike 'my fact'
There is experience of something, which does not assume the 'I' nor the reality of the something both of which could be an illusion. Even if something is illusion, there remains awareness of the illusion appearing to be something.
But that's another story, for another day, I think.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

So divided awareness is a 'reasonable working assumption' as well.

Undivided. Not so much. That's just a bald assumption.

I agree that divided awareness is a 'reasonable working assumption' and does work on the practical find your trousers or making babies level.
But we are not working on that level.

Either undivided awareness contradicts known facts or it does not.

I claim strongly that undivided awareness does not contradict any known facts but does contradict appearances and working assumptions.

Shoot the idea down if you can.
Why is no one willing to address that claim directly? By which I mean identify any known facts it contradicts.
The obvious answer is that it does not contradict any known facts, can we agree that and I move onto the next piece of evidence?

Although I agree I have not attempted to prove this from first principles, we are not at that stage.
mentalism stands or falls on this single fact.

Of course it contradicts known facts. Namely that our awareness (you know, out subjectivity, our private experience) IS divided.

Which is the next topic. Now that we know mentalism stands or falls on this single fact.

I have no reason whatever to think my awareness is connected to yours. I recently spent ten thousand dollars to go to England and connect with some of the other awarenesses around here. Damned if I could find a cheaper solution.

Skype, phone, mail....

Little Idiot wrote:

newolder wrote:LI, It is a known fact you have not shown ‘undivided awareness’ exists beyond your language logic.

And I don't claim to have done so, yet, because the first step is to show the concept 'undivided awareness' doesn't contradict any known facts. The first step, even if shown would not show the concept 'undivided awareness' represents anything.

I think I have made that clear enough.

I think we can agree that a meaningless concept does not contradict any known facts, but that really doesn't help you.

BlackBart wrote:It's Matrixes all the way down!

Whoah man. This just blew my mind.

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:Either undivided awareness contradicts known facts or it does not.

I claim strongly that undivided awareness does not contradict any known facts but does contradict appearances and working assumptions.

Shoot the idea down if you can.
Why is no one willing to address that claim directly? By which I mean identify any known facts it contradicts.
The obvious answer is that it does not contradict any known facts, can we agree that and I move onto the next piece of evidence?

I haven't been paying enough attention to everybody else. but I did offer that you seem to face a combination problem similar to the one that plagues panpsychism. You can't really combine subjects.

Meh. When you're not bound by prediction, anything is possible. I see the god in you man

This impersonal experience is entirely abstract hypothetical. We know of no such thing.
I.e. npt a fact.

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

newolder wrote:LI, It is a known fact you have not shown ‘undivided awareness’ exists beyond your language logic.

And I don't claim to have done so, yet, because the first step is to show the concept 'undivided awareness' doesn't contradict any known facts. The first step, even if shown would not show the concept 'undivided awareness' represents anything.

I think I have made that clear enough.

I think we can agree that a meaningless concept does not contradict any known facts, but that really doesn't help you.

If you agree the concept 'undivided awareness' doesn't contradict any known facts, then I would have to demonstrate that it is a concept with meaning, which would be a different and subsequent task, of course.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
...
Now that we know mentalism stands or falls on this single fact.
...

What I mean by that is that if you were to show undivided awareness did contradict any known fact, then mentalism would fail as a metaphysical model. I do not mean this one point alone would prove mentalism.

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:Either undivided awareness contradicts known facts or it does not.

I claim strongly that undivided awareness does not contradict any known facts but does contradict appearances and working assumptions.

Shoot the idea down if you can.
Why is no one willing to address that claim directly? By which I mean identify any known facts it contradicts.
The obvious answer is that it does not contradict any known facts, can we agree that and I move onto the next piece of evidence?

I haven't been paying enough attention to everybody else. but I did offer that you seem to face a combination problem similar to the one that plagues panpsychism. You can't really combine subjects.

Wouldn't it be a reverse of that combination problem (and didn't you say so yourself when you first mentioned it)?

I'd consider the combination problem something like how do 'micro-experiencers' combine to subjects like a human.

I don't see that mentalism has a combination problem, getting to human level.
Some may say there is a separation problem getting down to human form undivided awareness?

Are you saying 'my' problem is combining humans into an undivided awareness?
(which isnt what undivided awareness is, its not the sum of all individuals)

BWE wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:Either undivided awareness contradicts known facts or it does not.

I claim strongly that undivided awareness does not contradict any known facts but does contradict appearances and working assumptions.

Shoot the idea down if you can.
Why is no one willing to address that claim directly? By which I mean identify any known facts it contradicts.
The obvious answer is that it does not contradict any known facts, can we agree that and I move onto the next piece of evidence?

I haven't been paying enough attention to everybody else. but I did offer that you seem to face a combination problem similar to the one that plagues panpsychism. You can't really combine subjects.

Meh. When you're not bound by prediction, anything is possible. I see the god in you man

I-I see the god in you too, man, but I see the god in everything, even SoS, even Sendraks.

Little Idiot wrote:
(which isnt what undivided awareness is, its not the sum of all individuals)

Can you get past what it isn't to
say what it is?

Well it is all the way back here at post 380 (almost 600 posts back - keeping track of the meta FTW) where you asked these two questions and this line of exchange started.

My evidence (i.e. supporting argument) for undivided awareness is the answer to question 2.
It may be post necromancy, but I believe it is an important point and I came back to it after answering point 1 about individual perspectives (and a long de-tour into S, S' notation).

I pulled this up in response to the suggestion of starting again fresh from the ground up.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
...

If you can tell me what other evidence you have for the WM besides this FAILURE to account for an ordered PW, then I will retract.

So two things here and you should split the post to keep track of the threads.

1. How are ia's counted and how are these individual perspectives tracking an imaginary world?
2. What other evidence or reasoning do you have for there being a WM at all, BESIDES, needing it to make sense of order in the world?

Little Idiot wrote:

newolder wrote:LI, It is a known fact you have not shown ‘undivided awareness’ exists beyond your language logic.

And I don't claim to have done so, yet, because the first step is to show the concept 'undivided awareness' doesn't contradict any known facts. The first step, even if shown would not show the concept 'undivided awareness' represents anything.

I think I have made that clear enough.

Not clear at all...
"The first step, even if shown would not show the concept 'undivided awareness' represents anything." Can you rewrite that in English, please?

Known fact: 'undivided awareness' does not exist beyond the two words 'undivided' and 'awareness'.

If you show the idea 'undivided awareness' exists then you will have contradicted the known fact. "Is that what you want? 'Cos that's what'll happen."

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
...
Now that we know mentalism stands or falls on this single fact.
...

What I mean by that is that if you were to show undivided awareness did contradict any known fact, then mentalism would fail as a metaphysical model. I do not mean this one point alone would prove mentalism.

Showing me a pink unicorn will change how I feel about them.

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
(which isnt what undivided awareness is, its not the sum of all individuals)

Can you get past what it isn't to
say what it is?

It is absolute reality, I said that already, many times.
We all know (rough versions of) the story, no need to start right at the beginning, lets cut to the chase. If mentalism has it wrong about reality, mentalism is just another S' system like any other.

But I am on a mission to establish that mentalism is the metaphysical system not a metaphysical system, and this is the very first step.

The whole story involves metaphysics and going beyond metaphysics to applying the conclusions to activity and merging the metaphysics (thought) with mysticism (feeling) and activity (action) in a synthesis greater than the sum of the parts. I spelled that out too in the overview. If we finish the course we will end with 'insight into reality', which I say is a latent capacity we can deliberately activate, but again, I have said that already.

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
(which isnt what undivided awareness is, its not the sum of all individuals)

Can you get past what it isn't to
say what it is?

It is absolute reality, I said that already, many times.
We all know (rough versions of) the story, no need to start right at the beginning, lets cut to the chase. If mentalism has it wrong about reality, mentalism is just another S' system like any other.

But I am on a mission to establish that mentalism is the metaphysical system not a metaphysical system, and this is the very first step.

The whole story involves metaphysics and going beyond metaphysics to applying the conclusions to activity and merging the metaphysics (thought) with mysticism (feeling) and activity (action) in a synthesis greater than the sum of the parts. I spelled that out too in the overview. If we finish the course we will end with 'insight into reality', which I say is a latent capacity we can deliberately activate, but again, I have said that already.

Hmm. So we can prove physicalism by this same combination of thought, feeling, and activity as well. I can use the same to prove the mind is all brain all the way down as well. Goose to the Gander.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
(which isnt what undivided awareness is, its not the sum of all individuals)

Can you get past what it isn't to
say what it is?

It is absolute reality, I said that already, many times.
We all know (rough versions of) the story, no need to start right at the beginning, lets cut to the chase. If mentalism has it wrong about reality, mentalism is just another S' system like any other.

But I am on a mission to establish that mentalism is the metaphysical system not a metaphysical system, and this is the very first step.

The whole story involves metaphysics and going beyond metaphysics to applying the conclusions to activity and merging the metaphysics (thought) with mysticism (feeling) and activity (action) in a synthesis greater than the sum of the parts. I spelled that out too in the overview. If we finish the course we will end with 'insight into reality', which I say is a latent capacity we can deliberately activate, but again, I have said that already.

Hmm. So we can prove physicalism by this same combination of thought, feeling, and activity as well. I can use the same to prove the mind is all brain all the way down as well. Goose to the Gander.

Yes, in principle you can.
I would not rule it out in practical terms either, although you'd have a pretty far off-the-norm understanding of the physical by the time you applied insight to that metaphysics.
As I have suggested previously, mentalism isn't the only way to model non-duality.

Its a field, an empty field which can manifest as literally anything, you see. But the field is both self-aware and aware of the manifestation(s), and even when non-manifest the (self)awareness is ever present.
But that's from a certain frame of reference, for a certain set of genes and a certain up-to-date-conditioning called LI. Since you have differences in frame, conditioning and genes thus you may interpret 'the field' in another terms, I really cant tell you how you would interpret your insight, only you could answer that. And even then almost certainly you can't answer it until you have your insight, at which point you will not have any more questions, only answers.

I hope one day you will tell me, and when heart speaks to heart words will not be needed.