The Law of Mentalism, Reality begins with thought

[Gargantuan]

I’ve heard some pretty similar things. I don’t know how to describe it but it just feels like the universe is made out of puzzle pieces that match. Lately, I’ve been contemplating more and more the existence of a god. Things feel really ,,specific” which makes me think that a higher being exists. Do you think god exists?

Yeah, I do believe in God, just not in the religious sense. For me, God isn’t a being but rather the infinite consciousness everything arises from, the field itself. It's the set of all sets, the totality that contains all things, including itself.

You can feel it in the way everything fits too precisely to be random (sacred geometry, fractal patterns, the holographic structure of reality, etc.)

 

[Luca_.]

Yeah, I do believe in God, just not in the religious sense. For me, God isn’t a being but rather the infinite consciousness everything arises from, the field itself. It's the set of all sets, the totality that contains all things, including itself.

You can feel it in the way everything fits too precisely to be random (sacred geometry, fractal patterns, the holographic structure of reality, etc.)

That’s what I was thinking as well, I’m pretty certain of his existence. At the end of the day, I’m still young and I wanna be sure I dedicate my life to something I truly believe in. Thanks for taking your time to explain these things

 

[takethewhitepill]

To fail is a fact of life, to suffer is a choice we make. I think your idea that our reality is imagined by the universe and made is coming closer to the truth, but if a being was to imagine it would have to be personal in some sense. And that being would be above us in some way that it can imagine the whole of reality while we imagine within ourselves. Given that we are within this reality, it would mean He is all powerful over us. And He is a personal being. And if we exist within His imagining of the universe, He must know us by definition. So a personal, all knowing, and all powerful creator God. In this case, I know where the strongest evidence is and I bet with my life, as should you my friend.

 

[theRetard]

You’re mixing two different questions: what exists, and what can be known. Reality may well exist outside consciousness, that’s not what I’m disputing. I’m talking about knowledge. Knowledge is, by your own admission, a conscious attribute describing reality. That means every truth-claim you make, including “this system is wrong,” only ever shows up as a conscious state. You never get outside that to check your work.

existence and thought is literally the same thing, you cannot think about something that doesn't exist (because non-existence doesn't exist). Ideas we are thinking about exist outside of us, it's not a mental product

 

[Gargantuan]

existence and thought is literally the same thing, you cannot think about something that doesn't exist (because non-existence doesn't exist). Ideas we are thinking about exist outside of us, it's not a mental product

You’re collapsing two different senses of “exist”

When you say “you can’t think something that doesn’t exist” all you're actually doing is equivocating conceptual existence (a pattern inside minds) with ontological independence (a thing that persists regardless whether anyone thinks it).

Which hides the real question: how would we ever detect an idea that supposedly exists outside consciousness? Show me the operational test that lets a conscious agent access a mind-free idea, where is it?
Until you do, it’s not an actual argument, it’s just you talking to yourself and calling it truth.

So, in a nutshell, either demonstrate independent access (a method, observation), or admit you’re describing how thoughts appear inside minds, not proving an external realm of ideas.

Because you can’t use consciousness to point at something and then pretend that pointing proves the thing exists independently of the pointer, that is the whole point here.

 

[Luca_.]

You’re collapsing two different senses of “exist”

When you say “you can’t think something that doesn’t exist” all you're actually doing is equivocating conceptual existence (a pattern inside minds) with ontological independence (a thing that persists regardless whether anyone thinks it).

Which hides the real question: how would we ever detect an idea that supposedly exists outside consciousness? Show me the operational test that lets a conscious agent access a mind-free idea, where is it?
Until you do, it’s not an actual argument, it’s just you talking to yourself and calling it truth.

So, in a nutshell, either demonstrate independent access (a method, observation), or admit you’re describing how thoughts appear inside minds, not proving an external realm of ideas.

Because you can’t use consciousness to point at something and then pretend that pointing proves the thing exists independently of the pointer, that is the whole point here.

Is this similar to trying to imagine a new colour? Or am I just too dumb to understand

 

[theRetard]

You’re collapsing two different senses of “exist”

When you say “you can’t think something that doesn’t exist” all you're actually doing is equivocating conceptual existence (a pattern inside minds) with ontological independence (a thing that persists regardless whether anyone thinks it).

it's pure lie.
by existence i mean the same thing

Which hides the real question: how would we ever detect an idea that supposedly exists outside consciousness? Show me the operational test that lets a conscious agent access a mind-free idea, where is it?
Until you do, it’s not an actual argument, it’s just you talking to yourself and calling it truth.

alright, show me the operational test that proves that something needs to be proved through operational test

So, in a nutshell, either demonstrate independent access (a method, observation), or admit you’re describing how thoughts appear inside minds, not proving an external realm of ideas.

thoughts are always intentionally focused to something external, so there's external realm of ideas

Because you can’t use consciousness to point at something and then pretend that pointing proves the thing exists independently of the pointer, that is the whole point here.

why i cant?

 

[taai]

It's true. Only through CONSCIENCE we can use our HANDS to MATERIALIZE our REALITY

 

[LTNUser]

Is this similar to trying to imagine a new colour? Or am I just too dumb to understand

Yea I think it's similar to that

 

[Fusionxz]

so if the universe is mental then how come the things i never want to happen always end up happening; digital id, cashless world, mass surveillance, housing crisis, ai age verification

 

[Gargantuan]

it's pure lie.
by existence i mean the same thing

Then you’ve already folded your own claim. If existence means the same thing for both the mental and the external, you’ve erased the very distinction you’re arguing for, as I said earlier, you cannot have it both ways. You can’t insist on an independent realm and then define it in the same breath as the mental one.

alright, show me the operational test that proves that something needs to be proved through operational test

The reason for operational proof isn’t circular but pragmatic. It’s the only way to separate what’s demonstrable from what’s imagined. Without it, everything collapses into unfalsifiable belief, including your own statements.

thoughts are always intentionally focused to something external, so there's external realm of ideas

No. Intentionality points outward, but the pointing itself always happens inside. The sense of external is a content of consciousness, not evidence of an independent plane. If you say “I think of an apple, so the apple exists outside thought”, you confuse the direction of attention with ontological status.

why i cant?

Because you can’t use consciousness to prove its own irrelevance. The act of pointing, arguing, or doubting still unfolds within the field you’re trying to escape, but you can't.
To put it more simply: it’s literally no different than standing in the middle of the ocean whilst claiming you’re dry, and using the sound of your own voice as proof for that.

 

[Luca_.]

so if the universe is mental then how come the things i never want to happen always end up happening; digital id, cashless world, mass surveillance, housing crisis, ai age verification

You think in the present, not the past tense

 

[Fusionxz]

You think in the present, not the past tense

do you mind elaborating

 

[Luca_.]

do you mind elaborating

Sure, instead of saying my eyes will be blue, you need to think that your eyes are already blue. This is a very exaggerated example, and I’m not telling you to start manifesting a million dollars. It’s more so just increasing your chances

 

[Gargantuan]

Is this similar to trying to imagine a new colour? Or am I just too dumb to understand

Pretty much, it's actually a very good analogy because you can only rearrange what already exists within the spectrum of perception (and that’s the funny part, our perceptual bandwidth is microscopic compared to what’s actually out there, visible light alone is a sliver of the total spectrum)

The mind can point beyond its own field, but it can’t step beyond it. Every attempt to do so just reuses what’s already inside consciousness. That’s the same limit I’ve been describing in this thread all along: you can think about “outside” as much as you want, but the thought itself never leaves the inside.

 

[theRetard]

Then you’ve already folded your own claim. If existence means the same thing for both the mental and the external, you’ve erased the very distinction you’re arguing for, as I said earlier, you cannot have it both ways. You can’t insist on an independent realm and then define it in the same breath as the mental one.

i meant existence as such (in the most broad definition), of course mental and external exist in different ways

The reason for operational proof isn’t circular but pragmatic. It’s the only way to separate what’s demonstrable from what’s imagined. Without it, everything collapses into unfalsifiable belief, including your own statements.

why is that a belief? also your claim about something needs to be verified is also a belief (by your own logic)

No. Intentionality points outward, but the pointing itself always happens inside. The sense of external is a content of consciousness, not evidence of an independent plane. If you say “I think of an apple, so the apple exists outside thought”, you confuse the direction of attention with ontological status.

i will repeat, your thought is always focused on something that is not your thought, and therefore to something EXTERNAL.
otherwise if everything is mental (according to you btw) then this claim is also only mental so it's not the objective truth (like i said many times before)

Because you can’t use consciousness to prove its own irrelevance. The act of pointing, arguing, or doubting still unfolds within the field you’re trying to escape, but you can't.

what if me=my consciousness? then there's no such field, this field is ME

To put it more simply: it’s literally no different than standing in the middle of the ocean whilst claiming you’re dry, and using the sound of your own voice as proof for that.

false analogy

 

[Sadist]

good concept, except a huge chunk of my thoughts are involuntary and are usually not very positive, so you can kinda tell how my world is shaped..

on a second thought, its not THAT bad, and the thoughts are lowkey worse than the reality. its all in your head boyo

 

[Fusionxz]

Sure, instead of saying my eyes will be blue, you need to think that your eyes are already blue. This is a very exaggerated example, and I’m not telling you to start manifesting a million dollars. It’s more so just increasing your chances

so can all this bs go away if I think in the present?

 

[Luca_.]

Pretty much, it's actually a very good analogy because you can only rearrange what already exists within the spectrum of perception (and that’s the funny part, our perceptual bandwidth is microscopic compared to what’s actually out there, visible light alone is a sliver of the total spectrum)

The mind can point beyond its own field, but it can’t step beyond it. Every attempt to do so just reuses what’s already inside consciousness. That’s the same limit I’ve been describing in this thread all along: you can think about “outside” as much as you want, but the thought itself never leaves the inside.

Imo your imagination is limitless, but it’s limited by our sense. It’s like the fasted dog in the universe being held on a leash (weird comparison but it just came to mind)

 

[Luca_.]

so can all this bs go away if I think in the present?

There is no bs. I would put a wink emoji but I find it weird so just imagine it

 

[Primalsplit]

Spoiler: Thread Song

---

Remember that time, when you were a kid, and you thought that dreams were magical? That thought got shut down when you learned they’re just a byproduct of your brain’s overnight activity.

Well, the law of mentalism states that the whole world around us works similar to a dream.
Inside your dream, everything feels real, the people, the places, the scents. But when you wake up, you realise it was all in your head.

Everything that happens, and everything around us, starts as a thought in this universe. So just like you can imagine things in your head right now, the ,,universe imagined” everything that exists. You, me, the sun, the moon, the stars etc.
​

---

Take this into consideration, and you find out your thoughts are more powerful than you thought. You want to be happy, you alter your thoughts to make it a reality. You want to be sad? You focus on the negatives.
This also ties into the fact that your quality of life is mostly based on your perspective.
There are people who shouldn’t be happy, yet they choose to see the positives.

I’m not going to tell you to ,,just see the world in a better way” because it’s easier said than done

​

TLDR: The world is a projection of consciousness, shape your experience through thought and awareness

Take this with a grain of salt, Dont just listen to everything you see on a looksmaxing forum

Spoiler

@Orka @Daddy's Home @BigBallsLarry @AgentTenzi @kababcel

I'm thinking of your mother with my penis in her mouth right now.

 

[Fusionxz]

There is no bs . I would put a wink emoji but I find it weird so just imagine it

 

[Gargantuan]

i meant existence as such (in the most broad definition), of course mental and external exist in different ways

Then you’ve just admitted the distinction I was pointing at. If mental and external exist in different ways, then appealing to “existence as such” doesn’t save your argument, it actually erases it.

You started by saying thoughts aim at something external and tried to smuggle in “independent realm of ideas” from that. Now you’re saying existence is broad and the modes differ. That's all well and good, but that also means that intentionality alone can’t prove an independent realm. AT BEST, it describes how things appear in consciousness, nothing more.

why is that a belief? also your claim about something needs to be verified is also a belief (by your own logic)

No. The point about operational proof isn’t “my belief beats your belief” it is literally conditional because if you want to claim something as objective rather than imagined, you need a criterion that lets different observers converge on it. That’s what an operational test is.
If you don’t care about objectivity, that is also fine, but then we’re just trading stories, and none of this has any weight.

So it’s not about my belief vs yours, it’s this: either you accept the need for a discriminating method, or you admit your claim sits in the same bucket as any unfalsifiable assertion.

i will repeat, your thought is always focused on something that is not your thought, and therefore to something EXTERNAL.
otherwise if everything is mental (according to you btw) then this claim is also only mental so it's not the objective truth (like i said many times before)

Thoughts are always directed at something other than themselves, that’s just how awareness works. But that doesn’t mean what they’re directed at exists independently of mind. You’re sneaking in external as if anything a thought points to must be outside consciousness. It doesn’t. It only shows that consciousness can model contrast within itself.

what if me=my consciousness? then there's no such field, this field is ME

That's perfect, then you’ve just made my case for me.
If you are your consciousness and you are the field, you’ve explicitly conceded that everything we’re talking about since thoughts, ideas, truths, etc., all take place inside consciousness-as-field.

At that point, appealing to some external realm of ideas becomes meaningless since you’ve already identified the totality with consciousness.
Once again, you cannot have it both ways by saying you are the field on the one hand, and still pretending there’s an independent outside that your pointing somehow proves.

false analogy

The analogy is exact at the structural level.

You’re using a medium (consciousness) to argue that the medium is not fundamental, then claiming your use of it is proof of something beyond it. That’s like using waves to argue the ocean isn’t there, and saying “look, the motion proves it!!”
It's not about water vs dryness or whatever, it’s about self-reference: you’re leaning on the very thing you’re trying to deny.

You can keep asserting false analogy all you want, but until you show a way to actually talk, think, or know without consciousness, you’re still standing in the same ocean, insisting you’re dry.

 

[theRetard]

Then you’ve just admitted the distinction I was pointing at. If mental and external exist in different ways, then appealing to “existence as such” doesn’t save your argument, it actually erases it.

You started by saying thoughts aim at something external and tried to smuggle in “independent realm of ideas” from that. Now you’re saying existence is broad and the modes differ. That's all well and good, but that also means that intentionality alone can’t prove an independent realm. AT BEST, it describes how things appear in consciousness, nothing more.

no shit. mental and external BOTH have existence predicate, and it is in the most BROAD definition
you just claimed it to be some equivocation or smth

No. The point about operational proof isn’t “my belief beats your belief” it is literally conditional because if you want to claim something as objective rather than imagined, you need a criterion that lets different observers converge on it. That’s what an operational test is.
If you don’t care about objectivity, that is also fine, but then we’re just trading stories, and none of this has any weight.

by that shit that operational proof is also subjective cuz it's only your premise
and can you objectivly proof that objectiveness exists? (you cannot cuz by objectiveness you mean some empirical shit which is a narrow definition you chose because it's convenient for you)

So it’s not about my belief vs yours, it’s this: either you accept the need for a discriminating method, or you admit your claim sits in the same bucket as any unfalsifiable assertion.

my bro that claim that something can be unfalsifiable IS ALSO UNFALSIABLE in an empirical way. I'm a rationalist anyway so idc about some empirical bullshit, there's a truth that you can discover through reason with a simple thought without any observations (i think therefore i am)

Thoughts are always directed at something other than themselves, that’s just how awareness works. But that doesn’t mean what they’re directed at exists independently of mind. You’re sneaking in external as if anything a thought points to must be outside consciousness. It doesn’t. It only shows that consciousness can model contrast within itself.

if your mind=you, then if you think about something (intentional by definition), then it exists: independently from you!

That's perfect, then you’ve just made my case for me.
If you are your consciousness and you are the field, you’ve explicitly conceded that everything we’re talking about since thoughts, ideas, truths, etc., all take place inside consciousness-as-field.

At that point, appealing to some external realm of ideas becomes meaningless since you’ve already identified the totality with consciousness.
Once again, you cannot have it both ways by saying you are the field on the one hand, and still pretending there’s an independent outside that your pointing somehow proves.

i've never claimed that something except me doesn't exist, that's just some false predicate in your reasoning
and yeah ideas truths etc exist independently from my conscious (me), because i don't make them up but DISCOVER instead

The analogy is exact at the structural level.

You’re using a medium (consciousness) to argue that the medium is not fundamental, then claiming your use of it is proof of something beyond it. That’s like using waves to argue the ocean isn’t there, and saying “look, the motion proves it!!”
It's not about water vs dryness or whatever, it’s about self-reference: you’re leaning on the very thing you’re trying to deny.

You can keep asserting false analogy all you want, but until you show a way to actually talk, think, or know without consciousness, you’re still standing in the same ocean, insisting you’re dry.

nah this analogy is still false, i just said that consciousness=me (so it's not a field nor an ocean, in your analogy i'm literally THE OCEAN)

 

[Gargantuan]

no shit. mental and external BOTH have existence predicate, and it is in the most BROAD definition
you just claimed it to be some equivocation or smth

Then you’ve just described the problem in a single sentence. If both share the same “existence predicate” under a broad definition, you’ve erased the very difference you’re trying to defend. You can’t use the same word for two categories and then act like you’ve proven one over the other.

The breadth of your definition doesn’t unify them, it just dilutes meaning until distinction disappears.
Convenient, but not how it works.

by that shit that operational proof is also subjective cuz it's only your premise
and can you objectivly proof that objectiveness exists? (you cannot cuz by objectiveness you mean some empirical shit which is a narrow definition you chose because it's convenient for you)

Operational proof isn’t a belief or a preference, it’s a filter. It’s what separates intersubjective consistency from private imagination.

You can deny it all you want, but then you’re left with nothing except personal conviction. And if you throw out shared criteria altogether, you’ve forfeited any ground to call something objective.

Objectivity without a shared standard is just rhetoric in the end, nothing more.

my bro that claim that something can be unfalsifiable IS ALSO UNFALSIABLE in an empirical way. I'm a rationalist anyway so idc about some empirical bullshit, there's a truth that you can discover through reason with a simple thought without any observations (i think therefore i am)

"I think, therefore I am” proves there’s thinking, not that thought reveals a world beyond mind. Pure reason can trace internal logic, but it can’t conjure external ontology.

If you want to discover truth through reason, that’s also fine, but it only applies within the system of reason itself. Once you claim that those truths extend beyond mind, you’re smuggling in the very empiricism you just dismissed.

if your mind=you, then if you think about something (intentional by definition), then it exists: independently from you!

No, that’s exactly backwards. Thinking of something doesn’t make it exist independently, it makes it present WITHIN your experience.
Intentionality shows direction of focus, NOT independence of object.

You keep confusing “not this thought” with “outside all thought” the difference between contrast and independence is the crack running through your logic.

i've never claimed that something except me doesn't exist, that's just some false predicate in your reasoning
and yeah ideas truths etc exist independently from my conscious (me), because i don't make them up but DISCOVER instead

Then define discover.
If discovery means finding something that reliably appears across conscious observers, that’s still internal coherence within the field, not proof of a realm outside it.

You can call that independence, but it’s independence within consciousness, not beyond it.
Until you show an idea accessed without any conscious interface, discover just means recognized by mind. That's all it will ever be.

nah this analogy is still false, i just said that consciousness=me (so it's not a field nor an ocean, in your analogy i'm literally THE OCEAN)

Then you’ve admitted totality. If you are the ocean, everything, including your arguments about what’s outside, exists within you.

You can’t be the whole and still point beyond the whole. Saying “I’m the ocean” doesn’t fix the analogy, it completes it since it's the waves arguing with themselves about whether the sea exists.

 

[Luca_.]

Then you’ve just described the problem in a single sentence. If both share the same “existence predicate” under a broad definition, you’ve erased the very difference you’re trying to defend. You can’t use the same word for two categories and then act like you’ve proven one over the other.

The breadth of your definition doesn’t unify them, it just dilutes meaning until distinction disappears.
Convenient, but not how it works.

Operational proof isn’t a belief or a preference, it’s a filter. It’s what separates intersubjective consistency from private imagination.

You can deny it all you want, but then you’re left with nothing except personal conviction. And if you throw out shared criteria altogether, you’ve forfeited any ground to call something objective.

Objectivity without a shared standard is just rhetoric in the end, nothing more.

"I think, therefore I am” proves there’s thinking, not that thought reveals a world beyond mind. Pure reason can trace internal logic, but it can’t conjure external ontology.

If you want to discover truth through reason, that’s also fine, but it only applies within the system of reason itself. Once you claim that those truths extend beyond mind, you’re smuggling in the very empiricism you just dismissed.

No, that’s exactly backwards. Thinking of something doesn’t make it exist independently, it makes it present WITHIN your experience.
Intentionality shows direction of focus, NOT independence of object.

You keep confusing “not this thought” with “outside all thought” the difference between contrast and independence is the crack running through your logic.

Then define discover.
If discovery means finding something that reliably appears across conscious observers, that’s still internal coherence within the field, not proof of a realm outside it.

You can call that independence, but it’s independence within consciousness, not beyond it.
Until you show an idea accessed without any conscious interface, discover just means recognized by mind. That's all it will ever be.

Then you’ve admitted totality. If you are the ocean, everything, including your arguments about what’s outside, exists within you.

You can’t be the whole and still point beyond the whole. Saying “I’m the ocean” doesn’t fix the analogy, it completes it since it's the waves arguing with themselves about whether the sea exists.

I like how you guys actually hear each other out and not just spam the word ,,retard” and ,,dnr”. It’s a nice change from the usual debates on this forum

 

[theRetard]

Then you’ve just described the problem in a single sentence. If both share the same “existence predicate” under a broad definition, you’ve erased the very difference you’re trying to defend. You can’t use the same word for two categories and then act like you’ve proven one over the other.

The breadth of your definition doesn’t unify them, it just dilutes meaning until distinction disappears.
Convenient, but not how it works.

Operational proof isn’t a belief or a preference, it’s a filter. It’s what separates intersubjective consistency from private imagination.

You can deny it all you want, but then you’re left with nothing except personal conviction. And if you throw out shared criteria altogether, you’ve forfeited any ground to call something objective.

Objectivity without a shared standard is just rhetoric in the end, nothing more.

"I think, therefore I am” proves there’s thinking, not that thought reveals a world beyond mind. Pure reason can trace internal logic, but it can’t conjure external ontology.

If you want to discover truth through reason, that’s also fine, but it only applies within the system of reason itself. Once you claim that those truths extend beyond mind, you’re smuggling in the very empiricism you just dismissed.

No, that’s exactly backwards. Thinking of something doesn’t make it exist independently, it makes it present WITHIN your experience.
Intentionality shows direction of focus, NOT independence of object.

You keep confusing “not this thought” with “outside all thought” the difference between contrast and independence is the crack running through your logic.

Then define discover.
If discovery means finding something that reliably appears across conscious observers, that’s still internal coherence within the field, not proof of a realm outside it.

You can call that independence, but it’s independence within consciousness, not beyond it.
Until you show an idea accessed without any conscious interface, discover just means recognized by mind. That's all it will ever be.

Then you’ve admitted totality. If you are the ocean, everything, including your arguments about what’s outside, exists within you.

You can’t be the whole and still point beyond the whole. Saying “I’m the ocean” doesn’t fix the analogy, it completes it since it's the waves arguing with themselves about whether the sea exists.

tldr "everything we know,we know through consciousness then everything we know exists only in consciousness just because i said so"
and yet again it's by your own logic this shit about everything exists in consciousness ALSO exists only in your consciousness and therefore it's not the objective truth. every single antirealistic position debunks itself BTW.
also JFL at using empiricism WHILE you are literally a solipsist, external world (and so empirical things) shouldn't exist ACCODRING TO YOU

 

[Luca_.]

I like how you guys actually hear each other out and not just spam the word ,,retard” and ,,dnr”. It’s a nice change from the usual debates on this forum

tldr "everything we know,we know through consciousness then everything we know exists only in consciousness just because i said so"
and yet again it's by your own logic this shit about everything exists in consciousness ALSO exists only in your consciousness and therefore it's not the objective truth. every single antirealistic position debunks itself BTW.
also JFL at using empiricism WHILE you are literally a solipsist, external world (and so empirical things) shouldn't exist ACCODRING TO YOU

never mind……

 

[theRetard]

never mind……

no point to write essays

 

[theRetard]

Then you’ve just described the problem in a single sentence. If both share the same “existence predicate” under a broad definition, you’ve erased the very difference you’re trying to defend. You can’t use the same word for two categories and then act like you’ve proven one over the other.

The breadth of your definition doesn’t unify them, it just dilutes meaning until distinction disappears.
Convenient, but not how it works.

i can use the same word for two categories cuz they both exist

Operational proof isn’t a belief or a preference, it’s a filter. It’s what separates intersubjective consistency from private imagination.

You can deny it all you want, but then you’re left with nothing except personal conviction. And if you throw out shared criteria altogether, you’ve forfeited any ground to call something objective.

Objectivity without a shared standard is just rhetoric in the end, nothing more.

objectivity according to you exists only in consciousness so it doesn't actually exist (because your whole system makes that term selfrefuting)

"I think, therefore I am” proves there’s thinking, not that thought reveals a world beyond mind. Pure reason can trace internal logic, but it can’t conjure external ontology.

If you want to discover truth through reason, that’s also fine, but it only applies within the system of reason itself. Once you claim that those truths extend beyond mind, you’re smuggling in the very empiricism you just dismissed.

no, empiricism works with matter WHILE ideas i'm talking about are transcendent

No, that’s exactly backwards. Thinking of something doesn’t make it exist independently, it makes it present WITHIN your experience.
Intentionality shows direction of focus, NOT independence of object.

You keep confusing “not this thought” with “outside all thought” the difference between contrast and independence is the crack running through your logic.

if me is my consciousness, then everything that is not identical to me is thus external to me

Then define discover.
If discovery means finding something that reliably appears across conscious observers, that’s still internal coherence within the field, not proof of a realm outside it.

You can call that independence, but it’s independence within consciousness, not beyond it.
Until you show an idea accessed without any conscious interface, discover just means recognized by mind. That's all it will ever be.

again why do you think that something is within consciouis if only myself can be only IT
discovery means you are getting ideas from external world

Then you’ve admitted totality. If you are the ocean, everything, including your arguments about what’s outside, exists within you.

You can’t be the whole and still point beyond the whole. Saying “I’m the ocean” doesn’t fix the analogy, it completes it since it's the waves arguing with themselves about whether the sea exists.

NO never claimed that. only i exist within conscious because it's the same thing

 

[Laqi]

Is this not just another projection thing

First it was law of attraction

Then detachment

And now law of mentalism

is exactly that, all Projection

 

[Laqi]

None of what we see around us is actually real in any objective sense, it's all ideas. Literally every structure, symbol, object etc. began as an idea. Consciousness projected it outward, and we agreed to call it “reality.”

What you see around you only matters because we assign meaning to it. Strip that away, and all that remains is the field imagining itself.

Nothing is real?
More like everything is real but you are one who gave it objective meaning.
There is fine difference between meaning and Existence. Just because you don't perceive, doesn't means it doesn't exist or isn't real.
In real, whatever you can perceive is real, but Whatever you can't is also real.

Perception is the answer here and meaning is part of it

 

[Laqi]

People have no idea how powerful they actually are, if only they knew. Every moment, every encounter, every so-called coincidence (doesn't exist) is part of the same orchestration.
You’re not a passenger drifting through life, you’re literally the composer. If people truly saw how synchronised and responsive reality is to their own state of being, their jaws would drop.

But most will never realise this.

sorry but you giving out strong male energy who want to reproduce ain't doing shit if you are sub5 manlet, but will you be able to give such energy when you are one?

You are literally saying it, To be Perceived, you have to meet criteria, to meet criteria you need perception of oneself, Environment builds person
You can't be Chad energy, simply because you want it or try to be, first step is to have chad environment, which is impossible without people perceiving you as chad

 

[Laqi]

how to alter my mind to become a chad?

Based answer
Closes this argument

 

[Luca_.]

Based answer
Closes this argument

It goes way deeper than people think. I won’t say it publicly because people will doubt it and call me a schizo

 

[Laqi]

It goes way deeper than people think. I won’t say it publicly because people will doubt it and call me a schizo

Dm me, this seems interesting as it aligns but also somehow doesn't aligns

 

[theRetard]

It goes way deeper than people think. I won’t say it publicly because people will doubt it and call me a schizo

no no no no, say that here, i will not laugh

 

[Luca_.]

good concept, except a huge chunk of my thoughts are involuntary and are usually not very positive, so you can kinda tell how my world is shaped..

on a second thought, its not THAT bad, and the thoughts are lowkey worse than the reality. its all in your head boyo

Yup, that’s why I said I won’t tell people to just change their perspective. Most people know what they need to do, they just can’t

 

[Gargantuan]

I like how you guys actually hear each other out and not just spam the word ,,retard” and ,,dnr”. It’s a nice change from the usual debates on this forum

It is indeed rare on this forum to actually have a debate where both sides stay on-topic instead of hurling insults.

In the last few years, I've rarely debated anyone extensively here on this forum, but I had a good time here, so credit to him for that.

tldr "everything we know,we know through consciousness then everything we know exists only in consciousness just because i said so"
and yet again it's by your own logic this shit about everything exists in consciousness ALSO exists only in your consciousness and therefore it's not the objective truth. every single antirealistic position debunks itself BTW.
also JFL at using empiricism WHILE you are literally a solipsist, external world (and so empirical things) shouldn't exist ACCODRING TO YOU

i can use the same word for two categories cuz they both exist

objectivity according to you exists only in consciousness so it doesn't actually exist (because your whole system makes that term selfrefuting)

no, empiricism works with matter WHILE ideas i'm talking about are transcendent

if me is my consciousness, then everything that is not identical to me is thus external to me

again why do you think that something is within consciouis if only myself can be only IT
discovery means you are getting ideas from external world

NO never claimed that. only i exist within conscious because it's the same thing

You’ve mostly restated your frame. Calling a position self-refuting doesn’t make it so. Pointing out that everything we know passes through consciousness isn’t the same as saying nothing exists outside it, it’s identifying the condition that makes knowing possible in the first place.

You can label that solipsism if you want to, but that’s just semantics. The distinction between appearance and independence has been the core of this thread since the start, and it still stands. Your definitions keep shifting to keep the premise alive: “transcendent,” “external,” “same thing,” “different ways”, all are merely variations of the same escape hatch.

But at this point, we’re repeating first principles, not discovering new ones. I’ve clarified mine, you’ve clarified yours. That’s enough.
Respect for going the distance, I’ll leave it here

 

[theRetard]

It is indeed rare on this forum to actually have a debate where both sides stay on-topic instead of hurling insults.

In the last few years, I've rarely debated anyone extensively here on this forum, but I had a good time here, so credit to him for that.


You’ve mostly restated your frame. Calling a position self-refuting doesn’t make it so. Pointing out that everything we know passes through consciousness isn’t the same as saying nothing exists outside it, it’s identifying the condition that makes knowing possible in the first place.

You can label that solipsism if you want to, but that’s just semantics. The distinction between appearance and independence has been the core of this thread since the start, and it still stands. Your definitions keep shifting to keep the premise alive: “transcendent,” “external,” “same thing,” “different ways”, all are merely variations of the same escape hatch.

But at this point, we’re repeating first principles, not discovering new ones. I’ve clarified mine, you’ve clarified yours. That’s enough.
Respect for going the distance, I’ll leave it here

just claim it all semantics(without explanation) to make it seem like i'm some kind of sophist theory

 

[Luca_.]

just claim it all semantics to make it seem like i'm some kind of sophist theory

Gargantuan seeing ,,theretard quoted your post in…..”

 

[theRetard]

It is indeed rare on this forum to actually have a debate where both sides stay on-topic instead of hurling insults.

In the last few years, I've rarely debated anyone extensively here on this forum, but I had a good time here, so credit to him for that.


You’ve mostly restated your frame. Calling a position self-refuting doesn’t make it so. Pointing out that everything we know passes through consciousness isn’t the same as saying nothing exists outside it, it’s identifying the condition that makes knowing possible in the first place.

You can label that solipsism if you want to, but that’s just semantics. The distinction between appearance and independence has been the core of this thread since the start, and it still stands. Your definitions keep shifting to keep the premise alive: “transcendent,” “external,” “same thing,” “different ways”, all are merely variations of the same escape hatch.

But at this point, we’re repeating first principles, not discovering new ones. I’ve clarified mine, you’ve clarified yours. That’s enough.
Respect for going the distance, I’ll leave it here

alr i value your noble digression. i'm bored of that debate

 

[theRetard]

Gargantuan seeing ,,theretard quoted your post in…..”

shit made me cage

 

[Gargantuan]

alr i value your noble digression. i'm bored of that debate

Fair enough. It was a solid exchange while it lasted, respect for keeping it civil again

 

[Hunter]

Spoiler: Thread Song

---

Remember that time, when you were a kid, and you thought that dreams were magical? That thought got shut down when you learned they’re just a byproduct of your brain’s overnight activity.

Well, the law of mentalism states that the whole world around us works similar to a dream.
Inside your dream, everything feels real, the people, the places, the scents. But when you wake up, you realise it was all in your head.

Everything that happens, and everything around us, starts as a thought in this universe. So just like you can imagine things in your head right now, the ,,universe imagined” everything that exists. You, me, the sun, the moon, the stars etc.
​

---

Take this into consideration, and you find out your thoughts are more powerful than you thought. You want to be happy, you alter your thoughts to make it a reality. You want to be sad? You focus on the negatives.
This also ties into the fact that your quality of life is mostly based on your perspective.
There are people who shouldn’t be happy, yet they choose to see the positives.

I’m not going to tell you to ,,just see the world in a better way” because it’s easier said than done

​

TLDR: The world is a projection of consciousness, shape your experience through thought and awareness

Take this with a grain of salt, Dont just listen to everything you see on a looksmaxing forum

Spoiler

@Orka @Daddy's Home @BigBallsLarry @AgentTenzi @kababcel

Hey luca.
In gonna share some strange things that have happened to me which correlate to this topic.
1
When I was between the ages 5-12 I always had this strange dream that would wake me up in the middle of the night all hot and sweaty.
The dream is weird it’s like there is 2 groups of people fighting over something or just fighting but eventually it gets to a point where everyone stops fighting. (When I say everyone its not like its people or anything tbh ing its really weird. Almost like an object, Almost like a human)
When the fighting stops.
We all tower up to an object in the sky the object gets brighter and brighter and for some reason i'm at the top of the tower that is going up to the sky.
Eventually I start holding my hands up to the object as it is very bright.
Now i’m so close to the object/entity my hand doesn’t even block the light.
Thats when I usually wake up.

2
Very very rarely does this happen but I get this eerie Déjà vu feeling.
And its like the moment it happened was encoded into me the moment I was born/ first became conscious of my existence.
It always happens randomly but when I'm leading up to the moment, The Dèjà vu feeling is not present once the moment comes into play I remember it all and it feels extremely weird.
—The original moment (the one I feel was coded into me or I dreamt about)
When this happens all the people have a blank face and blank body no body parts or features are visible except the torso limbs and head.
But the actions they perform are completely the same and what they say only in my inner monologue.

​

 

[Gargantuan]

Nothing is real?
More like everything is real but you are one who gave it objective meaning.
There is fine difference between meaning and Existence. Just because you don't perceive, doesn't means it doesn't exist or isn't real.
In real, whatever you can perceive is real, but Whatever you can't is also real.

Perception is the answer here and meaning is part of it

Everything appears real because consciousness renders it so. Existence and meaning aren’t separate layers, they’re two ways the same field registers itself.
You can call that “everything is real”, but without perception, there’s no frame in which “real” has any function at all.

Unperceived existence is a theoretical placeholder, not an experience. It’s like claiming to hear a note that makes no sound. The field doesn’t stop when you look away, but the only way “existence” expresses itself is as perception. Meaning isn’t added after the fact, it’s baked into the act of awareness itself.

sorry but you giving out strong male energy who want to reproduce ain't doing shit if you are sub5 manlet, but will you be able to give such energy when you are one?

You are literally saying it, To be Perceived, you have to meet criteria, to meet criteria you need perception of oneself, Environment builds person
You can't be Chad energy, simply because you want it or try to be, first step is to have chad environment, which is impossible without people perceiving you as chad

Physical criteria are just the dense end of the same spectrum, signal precedes form. The whole looks/chad-subhuman hierarchy is just a low-res model of field dynamics, which mistakes outer calibration for the generating charge.
Environment doesn’t create coherence, it mirrors it. The hierarchy runs inward-out: first the field stabilises, then the reflection sharpens. People who wait to be perceived before embodying their signal invert causality and stay trapped in feedback.

On a deeper level/scale, what we call looks, status or whatever are merely karmic residues: temporary arrangements of density shaped by previous signal quality. They’re not determinants, they’re timestamps. The field restores balance through inversion: surface advantage decays fastest, while internal coherence rewrites reality from within.

Bottom line, the universe keeps its books. Excess in form is paid back in emptiness, whilst lack in form accrues awareness. Every imbalance finds its counterweight: beauty fades, coherence compounds.

This isn’t a bluepill, it’s universal law.

 

[Hunter]

I agree with everything gargantuan has said one night ages ago, I couldn't sleep whatsoever and It was weird, I didn’t sleep that whole night.
And all I could think of was that “everything is nothing” and My mind spiralled into hundreds and hundreds of possibilities. I got the sense that reality is truly meaningless.
But we give meaning to our life and thats what makes it worth living.
If I didn’t come to this conclusion, I think I would have went crazy

 

[Luca_.]

Hey luca.
In gonna share some strange things that have happened to me which correlate to this topic.
1
When I was between the ages 5-12 I always had this strange dream that would wake me up in the middle of the night all hot and sweaty.
The dream is weird it’s like there is 2 groups of people fighting over something or just fighting but eventually it gets to a point where everyone stops fighting. (When I say everyone its not like its people or anything tbh ing its really weird. Almost like an object, Almost like a human)
When the fighting stops.
We all tower up to an object in the sky the object gets brighter and brighter and for some reason i'm at the top of the tower that is going up to the sky.
Eventually I start holding my hands up to the object as it is very bright.
Now i’m so close to the object/entity my hand doesn’t even block the light.
Thats when I usually wake up.

2
Very very rarely does this happen but I get this eerie Déjà vu feeling.
And its like the moment it happened was encoded into me the moment I was born/ first became conscious of my existence.
It always happens randomly but when I'm leading up to the moment, The Dèjà vu feeling is not present once the moment comes into play I remember it all and it feels extremely weird.
—The original moment (the one I feel was coded into me or I dreamt about)
When this happens all the people have a blank face and blank body no body parts or features are visible except the torso limbs and head.
But the actions they perform are completely the same and what they say only in my inner monologue.

​

dreams are weird, beyond weird. And I also experience a similar Deja vu thing. I don’t have any believable explanation

 

[Hunter]

dreams are weird, beyond weird. And I also experience a similar Deja vu thing. I don’t have any believable explanation

Me to.

I agree with everything gargantuan has said one night ages ago, I couldn't sleep whatsoever and It was weird, I didn’t sleep that whole night.
And all I could think of was that “everything is nothing” and My mind spiralled into hundreds and hundreds of possibilities. I got the sense that reality is truly meaningless.
But we give meaning to our life and thats what makes it worth living.
If I didn’t come to this conclusion, I think I would have went crazy

so many misspelt words ive edited it now and fixed it tho

 

[Luca_.]

I agree with everything gargantuan has said one night ages ago, I couldn't sleep whatsoever and It was weird, I didn’t sleep that whole night.
And all I could think of was that “everything is nothing and My mind spiralled into hundreds and hundreds if possibility. I go the sense that reality is truly meaningless.
But we give meaning to our life and thats what makes it worth living.
If I didn’t come to this conclusion, I think I would have went crazy

Nothing matters like you said. But, that means you’re just looking at an empty canvas, so why not paint something truly beautiful?