Major Premise: Reality Interdependent with Humans

[AlexW]

You can empirically prove yourself by direct/indirect experience of seeing, touching, smelling, listening, tasting, your own self to prove the existence of your physical self

No, all you can prove is that there is what we call "seeing, touching, smelling, listening, tasting", but that these smells, sounds etc belong to a self is a mental deduction (=thought).

You can also prove yourself as a thinker.

How?
Yes, thoughts arise, but no separate self as a thinker ever does (outside of the idea of it). All you will be able to find is one thought, and another thought and another...

There is not separate I that is a thinker.
It is the I-that-thinks that is thinking which can be proven.

Haha... I think we are talking in circles...
If there is no separate I/self that is a thinker, but it's the "I-that-thinks that is thinking" then what is this "I-that-thinks"?
If you cant find it in direct experience then all that it can be is... an idea/belief.

Before the prisoner is executed to death, s/he is the thinking self, i.e. a self-that-thinks. You can easily observe that self-that-thinks exists and is thinking and acting.
After the execution is carried out, there is no more self-that-thinks, there is only a corpse.
In this case you can easily verify a self-that-thinks exists before the execution and a self-that-thinks does not exist anymore after the execution.
QED.

Thats a nice story (or rather horrible), but it doesn't prove anything - at least not that there ever was a "thinking self". It might prove that there is thought arising when the physical body is alive and later on not anymore, but this doesn't prove a thinking self.
For all that we know the brain could as well be a very sophisticated antenna combined with a pattern matching algorithm (which created the concepts out of a stream of information) - not saying this is the case, but its just equally likely...

I cannot.

But you are claiming you can, i.e. there is a reality that is not thought-based idea.

Use your right hand and pinch the skin on your left arm.
Feel that? Great! You just experienced "reality"!
Disappointing? Thought might say "thats all"? Yes, thats all.

Still... This percept was not a thought, agree? Thought might call it "a sensation" or even "pain", but the direct experience can actually not be grasped by thought. It can only be interpreted and conceptualised. Still it is known, but who knows it? No one! There is only this knowing presence that is reality itself. You could say "reality knows itself" (or any other concept that points to this fact).

Your experience of non-duality or absolute and thinking/inferring there is an underlying absolute reality is an illusion.

You did feel the pinch, right? This was no illusion.
The idea that "I pinched my arm - I am the one who did it and feels it" is the "illusion" (or rather: convenient conceptual interpretation).

In contrast, Buddhism teaches one not to cling to such illusion so as not to induce dukkha [sufferings].

I don't cling to the idea of the absolute - its simply "my" direct experience and this is how it is conceptualised (we don't have to call it absolute or anything else, but there is no other way to talk about it...)
Do you maybe cling to the idea of an "I-that-thinks that is thinking which can be proven"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can empirically prove yourself by direct/indirect experience of seeing, touching, smelling, listening, tasting, your own self to prove the existence of your physical self

No, all you can prove is that there is what we call "seeing, touching, smelling, listening, tasting", but that these smells, sounds etc belong to a self is a mental deduction (=thought).

You can also prove yourself as a thinker.

How?
Yes, thoughts arise, but no separate self as a thinker ever does (outside of the idea of it). All you will be able to find is one thought, and another thought and another...

There is the basic physical self and there is thinking and thoughts.

The physical self and thinking self emerges out of 'all there is' which in turn is interdependent with the physical self and thinking self. There is a nuance of a spiraling loop in this case.

There is not separate I that is a thinker.
It is the I-that-thinks that is thinking which can be proven.

Haha... I think we are talking in circles...
If there is no separate I/self that is a thinker, but it's the "I-that-thinks that is thinking" then what is this "I-that-thinks"?
If you cant find it in direct experience then all that it can be is... an idea/belief.

The "I-that-thinks" is an emergence which existence I have demonstrated below.

Before the prisoner is executed to death, s/he is the thinking self, i.e. a self-that-thinks. You can easily observe that self-that-thinks exists and is thinking and acting.
After the execution is carried out, there is no more self-that-thinks, there is only a corpse.
In this case you can easily verify a self-that-thinks exists before the execution and a self-that-thinks does not exist anymore after the execution.
QED.

Thats a nice story (or rather horrible), but it doesn't prove anything - at least not that there ever was a "thinking self". It might prove that there is thought arising when the physical body is alive and later on not anymore, but this doesn't prove a thinking self.

For all that we know the brain could as well be a very sophisticated antenna combined with a pattern matching algorithm (which created the concepts out of a stream of information) - not saying this is the case, but its just equally likely...

The whole person of the prisoner is the "thinking self" as a holistic emergence which enable thoughts to arise and be organized.
That is the prove of the "thinking self" and the thinking self is no more after the prisoner has dies.
You yourself is an empirical holistic "thinking self."

I wonder why you insist this is not proof of a "thinking self."

Why do you need to speculate the brain could be a sophisticate antenna which is very wild?

The existence of an empirical holistic "thinking self" is so evident.

I cannot.

But you are claiming you can, i.e. there is a reality that is not thought-based idea.

Use your right hand and pinch the skin on your left arm.
Feel that? Great! You just experienced "reality"!
Disappointing? Thought might say "thats all"? Yes, thats all.

I have not disputed the above sort of empirical reality related to a "thinking self" or I will add an empirical-thinking self. This sort of reality can be verified empirically and rationally.
It is never 100% true with sensation, at times your brain can deceive you. A masochist may feel pleasure instead of a pain when pinched. A Synaesthete may see color when tasting sour with his eyes.
Note the experiment at the end of this post.

What I dispute is you are postulating is a reality that is beyond duality which cannot be put into words nor empirical-rational testing and verification.

Still... This percept was not a thought, agree? Thought might call it "a sensation" or even "pain", but the direct experience can actually not be grasped by thought. It can only be interpreted and conceptualised. Still it is known, but who knows it? No one! There is only this knowing presence that is reality itself. You could say "reality knows itself" (or any other concept that points to this fact).

What is sensation [via senses] can be conceptualized and verified empirically and rationally which can be tracked to the body, brain and thinking self.
What you are postulating i.e. "this knowing presence that is reality itself" is a speculation of pure thoughts [no sensation nor experience] by the thinking self that is beyond sensation and experience.
This is where Kant addressed the problem re the Critique of Pure [pseudo] Reason.

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397

It is not easy, but you need to get a good grasp of the above points.

Your experience of non-duality or absolute and thinking/inferring there is an underlying absolute reality is an illusion.

You did feel the pinch, right? This was no illusion.
The idea that "I pinched my arm - I am the one who did it and feels it" is the "illusion" (or rather: convenient conceptual interpretation).

This is a strawman as I had explained above.

The inference is based on your false inference of the empirical experience.

Here is one experiment I often used.
Note this experiment of how your brain/mind deceived you to think both images are of normal faces when that is not the truth.



I have posted this many times, I presume you know the purpose and rational of the experiment of how your mind deceives you in spite of the empirical experience. If not I can explain further.

[AlexW]

There is the basic physical self and there is thinking and thoughts.

The physical self and thinking self emerges out of 'all there is' which in turn is interdependent with the physical self and thinking self. There is a nuance of a spiraling loop in this case.

You are making this way too complicated.

Imagine you are a newborn child. You see, hear, feel. But you don't know any concepts.
For "you" (note: there is no "you" for a newborn) there is only pure sense perception (also the child doesn't even know what sense perceptions are).
There is only "all that is", the absolute, without imagined borders, without individuality, without "a self that thinks".

A couple of years later the "physical self and thinking self emerges", but not out of "all there is", it emerges as an idea - as such it never really emerges...

This sort of reality can be verified empirically and rationally.
It is never 100% true with sensation, at times your brain can deceive you. A masochist may feel pleasure instead of a pain when pinched. A Synaesthete may see color when tasting sour with his eyes.
Note the experiment at the end of this post.

I am not talking about the brains interpretation of a sensation, but about the sensation itself.
It doesn't matter what thought makes of a percept (e.g. if a face looks right or wrong) - its the experience pre-concepzualisaton that I am talking about.
"Face" is already an interpretation, a pattern matching output. Its thought, not the raw experience.
When you look at the face you have posted, the initial percept is simply color. Color=seeing, you can't dismantle the experience any further before you hit a border that thought can't cross. Try to go beyond color - not by thinking about it - what is really there in "seeing" that is beyond "color"?

What I dispute is you are postulating is a reality that is beyond duality which cannot be put into words nor empirical-rational testing and verification.

The reality I am talking about is the pure experience prior to thought. It exists without you thinking it into existence (like all the things and objects we talk about) - it is non-dual "by design", duality only gets added on by interpreting/conceptualising the percept.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is the basic physical self and there is thinking and thoughts.

The physical self and thinking self emerges out of 'all there is' which in turn is interdependent with the physical self and thinking self. There is a nuance of a spiraling loop in this case.

You are making this way too complicated.

Imagine you are a newborn child. You see, hear, feel. But you don't know any concepts.
For "you" (note: there is no "you" for a newborn) there is only pure sense perception (also the child doesn't even know what sense perceptions are).
There is only "all that is", the absolute, without imagined borders, without individuality, without "a self that thinks".

A couple of years later the "physical self and thinking self emerges", but not out of "all there is", it emerges as an idea - as such it never really emerges...

You argument above is deceptive.
You introduce the point in bold without any proof.
Your point in bold is merely a confirmation bias.

The fact is beside the physical self there is a hierarchy of thinking and reasoning selves. i.e. mainly,

• 1. the thinking/reasoning self that conceptualizes with empirical data, e.g. sensation;
  2. the thinking/reasoning self that idealize without empirical data.

Note my thread on Concept versus Idea
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25483

The thinking/reasoning self that conceptualizes in 1 above is always related to the empirical and the empirical possible, i.e. capable of empirical-rational proofs.

Your deception of introducing the bolded point above is activated by the thinking/reasoning self in 2 above. This thinking/reasoning self always jumps to conclusion without empirical evidence but by pure reasoning and speculation.

For example in the case of theists facing the infinite regression of cause and effect, that self [2] will jump to the conclusion of the First Cause or the Uncause cause. This is purely driven by psychology.
It is the same for those claiming a permanent soul that survives physical death exists to go heaven.

It is your thinking/reasoning self [2] that compelled you to make the following;
There is only "all that is", the absolute, without imagined borders, without individuality, without "a self that thinks".
You cannot prove this empirically and rationally.
The true reason why you jumped into this is psychological.

This sort of reality can be verified empirically and rationally.
It is never 100% true with sensation, at times your brain can deceive you. A masochist may feel pleasure instead of a pain when pinched. A Synaesthete may see color when tasting sour with his eyes.
Note the experiment at the end of this post.

I am not talking about the brains interpretation of a sensation, but about the sensation itself.
It doesn't matter what thought makes of a percept (e.g. if a face looks right or wrong) - its the experience pre-concepzualisaton that I am talking about.
"Face" is already an interpretation, a pattern matching output. Its thought, not the raw experience.
When you look at the face you have posted, the initial percept is simply color. Color=seeing, you can't dismantle the experience any further before you hit a border that thought can't cross. Try to go beyond color - not by thinking about it - what is really there in "seeing" that is beyond "color"?

My point here is;
even with empirical evidence, the brain will deceive you.

So with the thinking/reasoning self (2) that works without empirical evidence, it is much easier to deceive you with an illusion of the absolute.
When asked for proofs, your excuse is that is beyond proof or whatever proofs they are only stories. This is pure escapism from reality.

What I dispute is you are postulating is a reality that is beyond duality which cannot be put into words nor empirical-rational testing and verification.

The reality I am talking about is the pure experience prior to thought. It exists without you thinking it into existence (like all the things and objects we talk about) - it is non-dual "by design", duality only gets added on by interpreting/conceptualising the percept.

Note my thesis of the two main level of the thinking/reasoning self, i.e. one with empirical experiences in conceptualization and the other without empirical experience leading to idealization.

Here is Kant again re Plato jumping to conclusion without sense empirical data;

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.

He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.

All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
B9

Read the above properly.
Here Kant differentiated the thinking/reasoning self into
1. General Understanding - deal with concepts backed by the empirical
2. Pure Understanding - deal with ideas which are illusory without empirical backing.

[commonsense]

First of all, we must accept a priori that all reality is illusion. There is no proof that a physical world exists. Any who won’t accept this as factual should read Verytas Aequitas’ proof of such [I am not sure which post(s) of which thread, but Very could post a link if you need to review it].

Then, this will follow from the above:

I-am is a thought.
I-am exists in thought.

Others are reality.
Reality is illusion.
Illusion exists in thought.
Others exist in thought.

All is thought. Keep this in mind throughout this post.

"you cannot know whether you, Dear Reader, are the only actual person, the only actual thing, in the universe. Everything else might be an image of your own imagination’s making."

I know, as FACT, I'm not imagining reality.
Simply: I'm too dumb to be makin' all this shit up.

Mebbe you’re actually too un-smart to know that you’re not too un-smart to make all this shit up. Same problem Descarte had, but for different reasons: you can’t prove the existence of others because you might be making them up. And you can’t prove the existence of all this shit because you might be making reality up, i.e. getting fooled by an illusion. It seems to me that that was the point of Verys’ faces experiment.

What I am talking about is both the MAP and territory emerging spontaneously as reality.

So, the territory is an illusion that emerges from the map as soon as the map exists, am I right?

Yes, agree, its perfectly fine to say "there is the moon up there, its beautiful, isn't it..." - how else should we communicate?

Yes, it is fine to say and, yes, it’s the way we communicate, as long as we keep in mind is that what is happening is that I-am is imagining a conversation with an illusion (the listener or reader) about an illusion (the moon).

The death of the person (the end of the identification with the individual self) doesn't have to be the end of the body... (even in most cases the conceptual I doesn't leave before the body dies).

As with the prisoner earlier in the thread, the death of the person is the end of I-am’s illusion that the person was alive.

[Atla]

First of all, we must accept a priori that all reality is illusion. There is no proof that a physical world exists. Any who won’t accept this as factual should read Verytas Aequitas’ proof of such [I am not sure which post(s) of which thread, but Very could post a link if you need to review it].

Then, this will follow from the above:

I-am is a thought.
I-am exists in thought.

Others are reality.
Reality is illusion.
Illusion exists in thought.
Others exist in thought.

All is thought. Keep this in mind throughout this post.

Nope, the main illusion here is that the "thought realm" and the "physical realm" are two realms instead of one and the same. There is only one reality and it's not an illusion.

Descartes or Kant didn't really show anything, they were merely a little less wrong than Plato. And the entire last post of VA was a strawman.

[commonsense]

First of all, we must accept a priori that all reality is illusion. There is no proof that a physical world exists. Any who won’t accept this as factual should read Verytas Aequitas’ proof of such [I am not sure which post(s) of which thread, but Very could post a link if you need to review it].

Then, this will follow from the above:

I-am is a thought.
I-am exists in thought.

Others are reality.
Reality is illusion.
Illusion exists in thought.
Others exist in thought.

All is thought. Keep this in mind throughout this post.

Nope, the main illusion here is that the "thought realm" and the "physical realm" are two realms instead of one and the same. There is only one reality and it's not an illusion.

Descartes or Kant didn't really show anything, they were merely a little less wrong than Plato. And the entire last post of VA was a strawman.

But what proof do we have that a physical world even exists? My thought is there is naught, but I may have overlooked.

Who says that a physical world isn't an illusion, an image, a product of imagination? What's to say that our senses are not imaginary as well?

[AlexW]

First of all, we must accept a priori that all reality is illusion. There is no proof that a physical world exists.

Agree, there is no proof of a "physical world".

But, if "all reality is illusion" then thought is illusory as well. Thought is (a part of?) reality, no? And reality, as you say, is illusory...
I know you believe that "reality" exists only in thought, and yes, the idea of a specific reality is only a bunch of thoughts, but there is, what I call "reality" outside of the conceptual ideas that we love so much, it is prior to thought.

Thoughts come and go, right?
Have you ever experienced a gap between thoughts (if not, I recommend observing your thoughts and the more you observe the more gaps you will see)?
Besides all these thoughts there are also sensory perceptions arising - sounds, smells... - they are also "seen", just like thoughts are "seen". They are on the same level - this "level" is what I call "reality". The combined, direct experience of now.
Then there are interpretations of what is going on now, all these conceptual interpretations are essentially "illusory" - they are a convenient tool, but they create a dualistic overlay that is not in tune with reality.

Now... If what I call "reality" is illusory then also thought is illusory (as it is "part" of this reality), then everything is illusory - and the ideas and beliefs that thoughts "carry" are even "more" illusory as they are already built upon an illusion...
If everything is illusory one could as well state that everything is jelly-goo and we can stop talking and have a big laugh...

Or is this experience actually real (not physical, not material, but real in the only way it can be)? As this presence that is here/now.

I-am is a thought.
I-am exists in thought.

Others are reality.
Reality is illusion.
Illusion exists in thought.
Others exist in thought.

All is thought. Keep this in mind throughout this post.

Whats the difference between these two - which one is true?
I-am is a thought.
I-am exists in thought.

If "Illusion exists in thought." doesn't truth also exist in thought? What is this truth? If there is none, wouldn't this mean that everything that "exists in thought" is illusory?

As with the prisoner earlier in the thread, the death of the person is the end of I-am’s illusion that the person was alive.

Yes, it is, but it is also the death of the "I am". The "I am" is not permanent - it has spontaneously happened to "you" (to the absolute, to reality... whatever...). This can be proven as when you abide in the pure, word-less I am for some time it will actually dissolve on its own.

My point here is;
even with empirical evidence, the brain will deceive you.

So, you are saying that the brain messes with all of experience just to deceive you?
Why would this make any sense?

You seem to be very attached to your theory (and its not more than that) about a physical self, a thinking self that conceptualises sensory inputs and a thinking self that idealises without empirical data. But have you ever experienced any of these selves? Have you seen them, sensed them, or have you only thought about them?

Now, when you pinch your arm (or hear a bird, or taste an apple) isn't this actually real? When you bite into an apple, chew and taste its sweet, juicy flavours, isn't this experience real? When you only think about eating this apple, without actually taking a bite, this is what I call "story"/idea, its your conceptual interpretation of "eating an apple" - whereas biting into it, tasting it, is the real experience of "eating an apple".
Are you really saying that this experience is illusory while the thought based, dry and flavourless concept of "eating an apple" is actually real?

There is only "all that is", the absolute, without imagined borders, without individuality, without "a self that thinks".
You cannot prove this empirically and rationally.

Sure it can be proven, but one has to be willing to actually look at direct experience - not only think about it.
You will find that all the concepts one has about the experience actually do not apply - that they are all invented (and generally accepted), but that none of them is actually inherent in the experience itself.
You will find that there is actually no self anywhere that thinks or senses, you will find that a sensation is not a separate, standalone event, you will find that even the separation of this experience (of presence) into the five senses is actually a conceptual overlay. You will also find that this experience, this presence is teeming with life, with peace, love and joy.
When you really look, you will also find that you cannot say anything "true" about the experience other than that it simply is - and that there is nothing in-between "you" and "it" - no border, nothing that could separate you from it. You will find that "you" are "it" - its not the mind-made you, not the "thinking you" that realises this, its reality/presence that recognises itself in whatever there is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

First of all, we must accept a priori that all reality is illusion. There is no proof that a physical world exists. Any who won’t accept this as factual should read Verytas Aequitas’ proof of such [I am not sure which post(s) of which thread, but Very could post a link if you need to review it].

It is difficult to find the relevant post.

In the case of 'all of reality is illusion' there are many levels of illusion which are inversely proportionate to the degree of reality.
Note in
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

What I am talking about is both the MAP and territory emerging spontaneously as reality.

So, the territory is an illusion that emerges from the map as soon as the map exists, am I right?

Both emerge spontaneously in a spiral fashion alternatively with a speed of light thus it is difficult to establish which comes first.

[Veritas Aequitas]

First of all, we must accept a priori that all reality is illusion. There is no proof that a physical world exists.

Agree, there is no proof of a "physical world".

But, if "all reality is illusion" then thought is illusory as well. Thought is (a part of?) reality, no? And reality, as you say, is illusory...
I know you believe that "reality" exists only in thought, and yes, the idea of a specific reality is only a bunch of thoughts, but there is, what I call "reality" outside of the conceptual ideas that we love so much, it is prior to thought.

All of reality is illusion and all of reality is real, both relative to the relevant perspective.
1. Conventionally, if you are standing on a train track in front of an incoming train, the train has to real [relatively] and you better get off the track.
2. But in another perspective, the above is an illusion as argued within this,
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Thus thoughts are real in 1 above but illusory in 2 above.

There is no absolute reality that is prior or independent to thoughts. Reality and thoughts are co-dependent and emerges simultaneously and spontaneously.

Why you think there is reality prior to thoughts in the absolute sense is due to your own desperate internal psychology.

My point here is;
even with empirical evidence, the brain will deceive you.

So, you are saying that the brain messes with all of experience just to deceive you?
Why would this make any sense?

As I had stated there are many levels of illusion inversely to many levels of reality.
Conventional reality is hallucination/illusion [5%] but it is 95%-reality when justified. In this case the brain is operating normally.
However in certain situation, the brain deceives the person with a greater hallucination/illusion [80%] as in the 'normal' face images.

Not sure if you did catch the intention of the experiment?
Just in case, this is the truth of the face on the right which your brain has deceived you as normal,



Another of the same experiment - wait for 10 seconds for the image to flip.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point here is;
even with empirical evidence, the brain will deceive you.

So, you are saying that the brain messes with all of experience just to deceive you?
Why would this make any sense?

You seem to be very attached to your theory (and its not more than that) about a physical self,
a thinking self that conceptualises sensory inputs and
a thinking self that idealises without empirical data.
But have you ever experienced any of these selves?
Have you seen them, sensed them, or have you only thought about them?

I have seen my own physical self and had empirically-rationalize my thinking self exists, thus has experienced my own thinking self.

I was once a theist, so I am aware of my thinking self then idealizing a God without empirical-rational proof to justify its existence. I am now aware this idealization of a God was merely due to the inherent desperate psychology within me which I am tackling in a non-theistic approach.

Now, when you pinch your arm (or hear a bird, or taste an apple) isn't this actually real? When you bite into an apple, chew and taste its sweet, juicy flavours, isn't this experience real?
When you only think about eating this apple, without actually taking a bite, this is what I call "story"/idea, its your conceptual interpretation of "eating an apple" - whereas biting into it, tasting it, is the real experience of "eating an apple".
Are you really saying that this experience is illusory while the thought based, dry and flavourless concept of "eating an apple" is actually real?

In the convention perspective all the above experiences are real with the degree of reality at 90% if justified empirically-rationally but at the same time in another perspective they are hallucinations [5%].
When I am thinking about eating the apple, that is also real in the conventional sense but a hallucination is another sense.

There is only "all that is", the absolute, without imagined borders, without individuality, without "a self that thinks".
You cannot prove this empirically and rationally.

Sure it can be proven, but one has to be willing to actually look at direct experience - not only think about it.
You will find that all the concepts one has about the experience actually do not apply - that they are all invented (and generally accepted), but that none of them is actually inherent in the experience itself.

You will find that there is actually no self anywhere that thinks or senses, you will find that a sensation is not a separate, standalone event, you will find that even the separation of this experience (of presence) into the five senses is actually a conceptual overlay. You will also find that this experience, this presence is teeming with life, with peace, love and joy.

When you really look, you will also find that you cannot say anything "true" about the experience other than that it simply is - and that there is nothing in-between "you" and "it" - no border, nothing that could separate you from it. You will find that "you" are "it" - its not the mind-made you, not the "thinking you" that realises this, its reality/presence that recognises itself in whatever there is.

• There are two points re the above..
  1. The thought of "it" - the Absolute
  2. The state of in it -no thinking, no thoughts, "you are it" or just "IS".

There is no issue with 1 because that is just thinking about it.

Even if you have "direct experience" whatever is 2 above, it is still a mental process.
But this mental process is not of the conventional empirical thinking-self but rather involving the Minimal Conscious Self.
The Minimally Conscious State [MCS]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25317
You need to read the above OP.

What happened is when you have an "altered state of consciousness" your conventional empirical-rational self just switched off temporary leaving the MCS to allow you to "experience" that no-border, no ego, etc. state which invoke a generally blissful state thereafter.

Then your thinking-self-that-idealize is triggered to idealize [no empirical element] that is something Absolute that is the real of all reality. This is actually a hallucination/illusion of the higher levels.
Theists will generally believe in this idea as propounded by a founder who claimed to have that "experience" via an altered state of consciousness in experiencing contact with God.

What you think or idealize as an Absolute which is has no borders, beyond thought is actually an illusion.

[AlexW]

In the convention perspective all the above experiences are real with the degree of reality at 90% if justified empirically-rationally but at the same time in another perspective they are hallucinations [5%].

Where did you find these numbers? 90% real, 5% real... etc...
Sounds pretty random to me...

Having a perspective = having an opinion or belief about something
A belief cannot change a direct experience like taste or smell - yes, it defines your thinking about it (and potentially your reaction), but the experience is as it is - it is prior to thought, it doesn't happen simultaneously or even after - you seem to mistake a concept with the raw experience.
Experiencing happens no matter if thought arises or not, no matter if one conceptualises it or not.
Yes, a concept could be classified according to your percentage values, but not a direct experience.

I have seen my own physical self and had empirically-rationalize my thinking self exists, thus has experienced my own thinking self.

You mean you have looked in the mirror and seen a body and then a thought came up stating "This is my physical self!" Is this how it worked?
Where exactly is the experience of this "own thinking self"? Are you sure this is not just simply the experience of a thought stating the above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the convention perspective all the above experiences are real with the degree of reality at 90% if justified empirically-rationally but at the same time in another perspective they are hallucinations [5%].

Where did you find these numbers? 90% real, 5% real... etc...
Sounds pretty random to me...

Nope it is not random but some relative estimations.

I mentioned this;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

I don't think you have grasped the principles of the above.
If the brain hallucinates our conscious reality, there is always a range of degrees to it.
If you compare the hallucination of schizo and that of the conventional reality one can relatively rate the hallucination of the schizo at 95% while that of what is normal at 5% on a relative basis to denote the contrast.
In the reverse, our normal reality is say 95% [JTB] degree of reality while that of the schizo would be 1-5% reality.

Having a perspective = having an opinion or belief about something
A belief cannot change a direct experience like taste or smell - yes, it defines your thinking about it (and potentially your reaction), but the experience is as it is - it is prior to thought, it doesn't happen simultaneously or even after - you seem to mistake a concept with the raw experience.
Experiencing happens no matter if thought arises or not, no matter if one conceptualises it or not.
Yes, a concept could be classified according to your percentage values, but not a direct experience.

What is exactly "direct experience".
No I have not mistaken a concept with raw experience.
What I view as raw or direct experience is the neural activities of whatever the experience and this is different from the intellectual concept of it.

Your issue is to interpret this raw or direct experience as an experience of something independent and absolute. To insist this is real is an illusion.
This is the same as accepting the right face as normal in the above example as really normal when the truth is not the case.

I have seen my own physical self and had empirically-rationalize my thinking self exists, thus has experienced my own thinking self.

You mean you have looked in the mirror and seen a body and then a thought came up stating "This is my physical self!" Is this how it worked?
Where exactly is the experience of this "own thinking self"? Are you sure this is not just simply the experience of a thought stating the above?

I can see my physical directly [except the back] without the mirror. I can complete the full picture with a mirror.
If I cannot see my back, I can feel [touch] all of it with my fingers.
This is direct empirical evidence and not a thought.

Where?
Why should it be a 'where'.
The experience is holistically with the brain, mind and whole body in interaction and co-dependent with everything else.

To assert there is something more than the above, i.e. the absolute reality is a 99% illusion. That is more like a thought by the thinking-self-that-idealize without an empirical basis.

This is like a theist believing in an illusory God by a leap of faith and driven by desperate psychological impulses.
Have you explore and consider this psychological perspectives in compelling you to arrive at your conclusion of an absolute reality which can be directly experienced?

[AlexW]

I can see my physical directly [except the back] without the mirror. I can complete the full picture with a mirror.
If I cannot see my back, I can feel [touch] all of it with my fingers.
This is direct empirical evidence and not a thought.

All of the above is a thought based deduction - not direct empirical evidence.

I don't really want to go back to the "young child" story again, but here we go anyway
When you were about one year old, the empirical evidence was exactly the same as it is now, right?

The only difference to now is that, at the time, you didn't have the slightest clue what you are looking at when stepping in front of a mirror.
Agree?

There also were certain sensations, certain shapes and colours on a reflective surface, but "you" didn't know that this is you...
Agree?

Well, now you know... so what has changed? Nothing but the conceptual structures and ideas that have been put "in your head".
Agree?

So what is it that defines a separate, thinking "you"? The empirical "evidence" or simply what thought makes of it?


I don't know how to make this any clearer... I am sure you will find some argument against it, but it really doesn't matter.
As long as you are happy with your belief system and you enjoy living with it, so be it
I rather live in a world where sense impressions are real and alive, in world of direct experience, where thought is a great tool but not the master.

[AlexW]

What is exactly "direct experience".
No I have not mistaken a concept with raw experience.
What I view as raw or direct experience is the neural activities of whatever the experience and this is different from the intellectual concept of it.

..."the neural activities of whatever the experience"... Why so complicated?
Pinch your arm and feel the sensation - its not that difficult.