Why I am proud to be a solipsist.

[Jon]

In the grand scheme of things, it seems we are all the same person. Even if all perceptions were to merge, the additional phenomena would still perceived as if they were other individuals within your sight and hearing. Through whatever means, the phenomena may be more quickly perceived and understood in the case that we were all to merge.

As things are now, it's essentially the same, just slower with some beings obscured through the obstacles of the perceived reality.

All life is one. Even the universe itself might as well be considered life and one with your own perception. The Buddhists appear to be right in that respect. It all makes sense now.

Hm, I would hope this realization would bring great pleasure but reality remains as dull as its always been. : \

[RandyFolds]

It's a way for you to bear the shame when you masturbate?

Well, you can't grow hair on your palms if your perception doesn't allow it, right?

[arsenische]

In the grand scheme of things, it seems we are all the same person.

I can't prove you exist and have your own perception. Maybe I create your image and projection of your perception "on-the-fly". In that case we are definitely the same person (in sense that thoughts expressed by you are in fact my thoughts). When I don't think about you, you do not exist. When I don't think about myself, I don't exist either. Or am I thinking about myself all the time?

[Jon]

In the grand scheme of things, it seems we are all the same person.

I can't prove you exist and have your own perception. Maybe I create your image and projection of your perception "on-the-fly". In that case we are definitely the same person (in sense that thoughts expressed by you are in fact my thoughts). When I don't think about you, you do not exist. When I don't think about myself, I don't exist either. Or am I thinking about myself all the time?

The only thing that exists is your perception. I can be perceived and all things that can be perceived can be perceived but, again, this is limited to your perception. All things that can be perceived may be able to be obscured: That means very little though.

The fact is there is little separating your perception and what can be perceived. You may as well consider it one. You are the world. We, or what you can perceive of us, is a part of it.

What does this mean? Anything you want it to be but it's fucking mind blowing.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I can't prove you exist and have your own perception.

Atlas doesn't exist. He's just a forum virus.

[arsenische]

The only thing that exists is your perception. I can be perceived and all things that can be perceived can be perceived but, again, this is limited to your perception.

I agree that my perception exists. However I don't know whether your does. I assume it is somewhere there, but this is just an assumption, whereas my perception is a fact for me.

Sometimes I see the following scheme:

1. The world exists because it is perceived by me.

2. The question "is the world objective, or is it just a product of imagination" doesn't make much sense since those 2 options are indistinguishable.

The true question is who I am. Either I am a particular human body (with particular brain molded in society), or am I some (non-material) observer.

2.1. If I think that I am a particular human body, then I accept the perceived world as the reflection of the objective one (because human body is the part of it), and there are about 7E+9 more reflections on Earth. So there are other people too with their independent perceptions.

2.2. If I am an abstract observer, then I can't influence this world because I don't have a body to act in it (the body I am tied to obeys the laws of the world it exists in). In that case I think I can be tied to any body (e. g. to a stone). But it doesn't matter, because I do not exist: I was killed by Occam's razor.

I neglect the possibility that I created this world deliberately and can create anything with my imagination. I failed to materialize one million bucks so far. So the world doesn't really depend that much on my consciousness. My experience shows me that it has objective nature.

[RandyFolds]

I only feel I truly exist while banging skanks on a pile of ill gotten cash, guns and chronic. Cogito ergo poontang...or something.

[ineededausername]

I believe a better observation is that IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER!
Does it really matter whether everyone's the same person?

[RandyFolds]

I believe a better observation is that IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER!
Does it really matter whether everyone's the same person?

I mean, I think it does...are you my bitch, or am I yours? If you are my construct, why don't you listen to me?

[NASDAQEnema]

Is it not a virtue to perceive yourself and others as one and the same?

...or would it be preferable to treat people as external, manipulable objects?

There is no difference between these two modes.

Once you have "perceived" another as yourself, you will panic when they do something you wouldn't do. You will then attempt to manipulate them into being as yourself much as you might pull your hand away from a hot surface.

Perception is unachievable. Per - is a prefix meaning one for each. Peroxide, one oxygen for every hydrogen. Percent, one for every 100.

In this model, perception would mean something like one for each notion. That is the ability to see all aspects of something.

Perception is impossible because we are limited (not flawed) species.

Instead we have reception dependent images. We also have the limit that we are convinced of the fullness or completeness of our awareness with only a few inputs.

Our so called perception is rarely more than the memory triggering of common previous perceptions.

It is therefore important to begin with acknowledgment of fragmented awareness and to retrain our survival oriented habits partially toward perceiving through fewer layers of unconscious choices already made. Also accept that a full perception may involve many rather than few interfaces. Simplicity is a convenience not a law of the universe.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Is it not a virtue to perceive yourself and others as one and the same?

...or would it be preferable to treat people as external, manipulable objects?

There is no difference between these two modes.

Once you have "perceived" another as yourself, you will panic when they do something you wouldn't do. You will then attempt to manipulate them into being as yourself much as you might pull your hand away from a hot surface.

Perception is unachievable. Per - is a prefix meaning one for each. Peroxide, one oxygen for every hydrogen. Percent, one for every 100.

In this model, perception would mean something like one for each notion. That is the ability to see all aspects of something.

Perception is impossible because we are limited (not flawed) species.

Instead we have reception dependent images. We also have the limit that we are convinced of the fullness or completeness of our awareness with only a few inputs.

Our so called perception is rarely more than the memory triggering of common previous perceptions.

It is therefore important to begin with acknowledgment of fragmented awareness and to retrain our survival oriented habits partially toward perceiving through fewer layers of unconscious choices already made. Also accept that a full perception may involve many rather than few interfaces. Simplicity is a convenience not a law of the universe.

Atlas. Pay close attention. This is how you get your point across, sound smart, be informative, and still keep your friends.