Видео

Borderline solipsism?

@@interiorerobore behaviorally he can appear to be. But he's basically some form of materialist, which is a religious ideology with just as much validity as other deity based ideologies. But while most are aware that they hold to a belief system, Harris and the modern materialists are either unaware or deny that their world view is based on certain assumptions that do not align with actual experience. Harris not only ascribes to such a system, he seems to think he belongs to its priest class.

@@avinashjagdeo that’s a bit of a shame to hear, but then again it’s his story in this dream. So I suppose I don’t really feel bad about it, since he is precisely where he’s supposed to be at this stage. I can appreciate skepticism, but no one I have ever seen/read/heard has been able to come even remotely close to refuting the main points of the Non-Duality realization/remembering that Rupert eloquently explains in clear detail.

Really? I heard the exact opposite 😅

I wouldn't say it "proves" anything. Sam is certainly persuasive and makes an excellent case for the validity of GSC. And as I've said here and elsewhere, I'm certain it's true - albeit from having stumbled into the insight on my own over 20 years ago. But it's not like there's a formal proof the way there is in mathematics. Regarding the "better to not exist" idea being false, for me the whole asymmetry thing is academic precisely because of my certainty that's it's not possible to opt out of existence, however much one might wish it were. I actually just went back and re-listened to Sam's two-hour conversation with David Benatar. As is often the case in my experience, I found myself seeing validity in both sides of the argument, although this time I found myself leaning slightly more in favor of Sam's view, specifically around the antinatalist position giving disproportionate weight to suffering. On the other hand, I don't think that considering it "better" to not exist requires there to be someone for whom not existing is better. Yes, it's clear that many people tend to reify non-existence as either a state of deprivation (if they're afraid of it) or rest/peace (if they look forward to it), but a preference for not existing doesn't _automatically_ or _necessarily_ entail reification in order to have some validity, even if it's also true that many who embrace it do harbor such a reified view. (For the record, I don't think Benatar himself is committing the fallacy of reifying.) The reason I say that can be illustrated with an analogy I've come to on my own, but which Sam also uses (in the same context) in his conversation with Benatar: when I'm exhausted and achy after a long, hard day of work, I look forward to the oblivion of deep, dreamless sleep. I don't need the promise of waking up refreshed in the morning to goad me into sleep, or to make going to sleep seem more attractive. Nor do I need the promise that I will feel some relief happening in real time while asleep. Rather, _oblivion itself_ - i.e., the complete absence of "me" or any form of subjective experience - is actually what's sought. The fact that I will very probably wake up at some point more refreshed, as has happened countless times before, is perfectly fine with me, but is beside the point in this case - because the point is effectively to vanish, however temporarily. I think this can be extrapolated to wishing for oblivion at death, even if the principle of GSC suggests that any such oblivion (i.e., of personal identity and history) won't be what so many folk either hope for or fear.

@@_PL_ I don't see how not existing can offer anything if all life is what's desired to be avoided, but GSC doesn't allow for any life to be avoided. Remember that Benatar is saying that all life in general is "bad" and not worth it. So if no life can be avoided, then his AA is thawrted.

@@naturalisted1714 _"I don't see how not existing can offer anything if all life is what's desired to be avoided"_ The point is that for someone who believes in the unicorn of non-existence, the total absence of experience is the goal. The fact that the person who's presently desiring non-existence won't exist to know or enjoy their own non-existence is exactly the point and the goal for them, even if you and I agree that it's impossible (or, to state it more conservatively, highly unlikely). _"Remember that Benatar is saying that all life in general is 'bad' and not worth it."_ I know, and that's why I said previously that I sided with Sam in disagreeing with that sentiment. _"So if no life can be avoided, then his AA is thawrted."_ I think we might be talking at cross-purposes. It's already been established that you and I agree that experience can't be avoided, which I would say (and I suspect you would agree) renders his asymmetry argument moot. But for someone who doesn't see validity in what GSC is pointing to - that is, for someone who truly believes there is no subjective continuity and that absolute non-being is a real possibility - Benatar's asymmetry argument would not necessarily be invalid.

@@_PL_ That's the flaw in their thinking that they need to accept - if they're naturalists... But no matter their worldview, GSC would mean that not being born also makes life unavoidable. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't introduce them to GSC, so they can continue to believe in the unicorn of non-existence? Based on what I hear from most Benatarian antinatalists, they believe not existing is somehow peaceful or an unending perpetual lack of experience. So they're asserting things that aren't true, and spreading this delusional take. Benatar doesn't know it, but to say it's better to not exist is also saying that not existing is peaceful. I don't think they want what you say they want. They have been clear that the goal is absolutely no experience whatsoever. Many have conceded that reincarnation would make their version of antinatalism pointless. I have asked many antinatalists if they could have been/were born as anyone or anything else in the universe, would that be ok? They always say that, no, no life will do... Not even the best life in the world, since it too contains some suffering. They're being completely consistent with Benatar.

@naturalisted1714 _"Are you suggesting that I shouldn't introduce them to GSC, so they can continue to believe in the unicorn of non-existence?"_ Not at all. If that's what you think my replies were about, I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood me. I tried to be clear that my main point of divergence from you is this: _"...to say it's better to not exist is also saying that not existing is peaceful."_ I've listened to Benatar closely, and read a bit of him as well, and I never got the impression that his argument should readily lend itself to an interpretation that not existing is peaceful, or anything else in the realm of experience. If that's what people you interact with take away from the idea, that's due to their own failure of comprehension, perhaps coupled with wishful thinking. His analogy about how nobody feels bad about the lack of life on other planets should make it clear that a complete absence of something isn't the same an an experiencing of lack or voidness or whatever. So, in short, by all means keep plugging away at disabusing people of their confused reification of nothingness. My only pushback is about how you seem to think such reifying *directly follows from the asymmetry argument,* which I think is false for the reasons I've elaborated both immediately above and multiple times upthread. Moving on, you seem to be saying two contradictory things here: _"Based on what I hear from most Benatarian antinatalists, they believe not existing is somehow peaceful or an unending perpetual lack of experience."_ and here: _"I don't think they want what you say they want. They have been clear that the goal is absolutely no experience whatsoever."_ The latter is exactly what I was saying in both of my previous replies. Go back and carefully reread them. The former is the reified version of not existing that I've also acknowledged many believe in. I other words, some people want to vanish completely, and others want peace or rest. Incidentally, your most recent comment that I'm responding to now doesn't show up under the video or in the original thread we've got going here. It seems YT might have shadowbanned it (not the first time they've done that with one of your comments here). I'm only able to see it in my YT Studio. All the previous comments of yours in this thread show up as they should under the video and in my alerts. Weird.

You're correct but not for the reason you think you are.

Perhabs, but there is no evidence that anything exists outside consciousness.

You’re still assuming there’s a material world outside of consciousness, that’s your assumption.😂😂

@@scienceisthekey-bs2184 Ah, I see you are yet another random guy who has it all figured out

One can, you have never experienced anything outside of consciousness, that is a fact