The Unveiling

Update: I’ve released my new book called “Refuting the external world.” If you like these articles, you’ll love my book. It’s much more comprehensive and in-depth than these articles. It’ll blow your mind – guaranteed.
Click here to get the book.
This post is the last in a four-part series. Please read The veil of perceptionConcepts, and The major fallacy first.

There never was a veil of perception. Nothing was ever covering up the external world because there is no external world. There is nothing out there existing outside of experience. There’s just perception. And the substance of perception is consciousness itself; it is what perception is made out of. Consciousness is the reality in which all experience happen and is all there is to existence as such. It is the substance of life.

Consciousness is what life is.

Our human lives are composed of experience. It is all there is to life as we know it, it is all we ever encounter and it is appearing in Consciousness.

What we thought of life, how we live on this blue planet in a universe external and independent to us, how our bodies are physical entities subject to decay, and how the world will continue its journey around the sun when our 80 years have passed and we go out of existence, have now turned out to be nothing but a dream – a movie that is being played out on the screen of Consciousness. There are many dreams of course, billions of them, each having a unique perspective of the world; but they all appear to the one and only dreamer, the consciousness that created them.

The beliefs about the external world are so deep-rooted and ingrained in our culture that it can be extremely difficult to let go of them. People generally do not want their version of reality challenged and to accept this new knowledge is to completely reorient your world view. Not only that, but what you thought yourself to be, this human body of flesh and bones is now in question.

If you are still having doubts or are still under the belief that a external world exist independent of us, contemplate this:

If an external world does not exist, we would have exact the same reasons to believe that it does as we have now. The objects of our experience would still behave in accordance to the laws of physics. There would still be the regularity and predictability we are used to, because that is how the dream is designed.

We believe that somehow the world would appear differently if an external world wasn’t out there. That the external world must exist and be the cause for our experiences, otherwise things wouldn’t have the behavior they do. But it is because things behave the way they do, that we infer the existence of an external world in the first place. In fact, our thoughts and beliefs about the external world are not separate from the dream – we are not outside the dream looking in – but our thoughts and theories are part of the dream. The illusion of the external world is part of the design. If things in this dream behaved in any other way, then our theories about the laws of physics would have been different. If object would fall upwards, then we would have our theory of gravity conform to that.

At first, it may appear as if the discoveries of science contradict the notion of consciousness as reality. However, what we’ve been examining so far is metaphysical truths about reality – and metaphysics is beyond the scope of science, which is limited to the realm of observable phenomena. The problem with science is that it makes unjustified inferences regarding the relation between phenomena and reality, namely that what we observe is basically what objectively exists. Scientific discoveries and scientific “facts” only relate to observable phenomena. The view that the world described by science is the real world, and the view that scientific theories can reliably approximate true knowledge of reality, is merely unjustified beliefs. In science, what underlies the nature of things is only inferred. No one has actually seen an atom. Subatomic particles, gravity and radioactivity have no existence other than as theoretical thought-models for describing phenomena. Space and time, whose objective existence these models depend on, are not out there, and consequently, neither is matter.

We have many electronic devices today that all seem to presuppose the existence of atoms. Electricity presupposes the existence of electrons. If you think about how the concept of electricity manifests in your experience, you’ll see that it is as perception. If you dream of a shining light bulb at night, does it mean that electricity is a powering force operating within your dream? No, electricity is just our name for a certain phenomenon. If you open up a computer you’ll find a bunch of circuits. What are they? Perceptions. If you perform experiments on them, trying to measure or ascertain their function, the result will come to you as perception. If you turn on the computer, booting up the operating system, what do you see? More perception. Let’s say you know the inner workings of a computer. You know the ins and outs of digital circuitry, the mechanics of memory modules and communication between internal devices. In short, you know all about what makes a computer a computer. Now, if you see a computer in a night dream, you will naturally assume that what’s powering the machine is electricity and it’s the digital processing going on inside that is the cause for the images on the screen. But once you wake up, you realize that none of these things were what constituted the computer; rather it was your all in your mind. It was Consciousness that manifested it. Likewise, this is the case of the waking state.

Questioner: But dreams and the waking state are different!

How are they different really? All they both are composed of are experience. Only the content differs, the substance of both the dream and the waking state are consciousness itself.

We can observe biological processes going on in the brain using high tech scanner equipment, but both the instruments and the measurements of brain activity it produces are made up of perception. They only exist as dream “stuff.” The correlation between the brain activity and the activity of the test subject is only inferred from the experience of these dream images. While the conclusions may be convincing, they collapse when we realize that it is all part of the dream. The scanning equipment, the test subject and the results of the measurement is all dreamed up, manifested as experience by consciousness. Likewise, the image of cells, bacteria and other biological entities under a microscope are all just perceptions; observed phenomena; dream dust.

The point that is being made is that scientific discoveries don’t themselves stand in opposition to our metaphysical claim that consciousness is reality. It’s only when scientists are trying to explain the world rather the describe it, that they slip into the realm of metaphysics and the stance of scientific realism is a slippery one, resting on assumptions and mere beliefs.

The illusion of individuality

The belief that there are many different beings in the world comes partly from the illusion of physicality. We think of ourselves as experiencers of the world. We believe ourselves to have a location in the world and that each and every one of us has a private consciousness, located in the body, with which we experience ourselves and our surroundings.

From images that arise in consciousness, we make the inference that there is a solid physical space in which we exist. But the images are just images. They aren’t images of reality. They are images appearing to reality. What they are representing have no real existence independent from experience. Yet, our conception of a physical reality is based on the contents of those images. For example, there’s an image of a room. The assumption is that there actually is a room there, and that I, the center of experience, is located inside the room. We think the room is the reality, when in fact it is just an image. It’s of course very convincing; if you start moving around inside the room, looking at it from different perspectives, it will seem as if you are in the room; not as a number of images that appear in succession in consciousness. And it’s not only visual images appearing, it’s also other perceptual imagery such as of balance and the feel of the draft against your cheek. The notion of physicality is derived from the experience of these perceptions, and thus physicality as such, is nothing more but a judgment about the contents of experience. This judgment is a thought – and thoughts, as everything else, are just another perception arising in consciousness. We believe thoughts to be private, that they belong to me, when in fact they are co-arising out of the one Consciousness with the rest of the perceptions that make up the apparent world, body and mind.

The different perspectives of people are just perceptions arising in the one Consciousness. It may seem as if you are one experiencer, located in the world, and I am another. However, physicality is just an illusion. Consciousness is reality, and thus does not have any location. Location is just a judgment from perceptual imagery. All there is to locations or different centers of experience are images arising in the one Consciousness. Your perspective and mine, the totality of our experience, arise to the same consciousness, the one and only experiencer. In fact, the notions of “Yours” and “Mine” completely lose their meaning in the light of this; for we are in essence, one and the same.

There is only one Being. The fundamental intuition we have of one’s own existence, this I-ness, is the perfume of the self-conscious underlying reality that manifests all of experience. It is the sense of Being and it is always present in all of us; it is that which experiences – Consciousness, reality. And what you are, the real you, your true self, is that.

You are that which experiences. You are not the body, nor the mind. Those are experiences appearing to you, to Consciousness itself, the only Being there is. The body, which you’ve come to know as “yours”, appears as part of the view, part of the landscape. Like other experiences such as trees and the sky, aches and pain, and thoughts and feelings, they are appearing to you as the content of the dream. But you are not the content; you are the witness to it.

And I am that too.

The experience of me, my thoughts and feelings, my good deeds and my bad actions, is witnessed by the same Consciousness that is the witness of “you”. This character that is now typing these words, which in conversations refers to himself as “me”, is just an experience. It’s an actor starring in the movie of “My Life”. But the character isn’t the one who experiences, it is experienced. It is experienced by the one Being, this I-ness, to which all of experience happens.

Questioner: But if your life arises in Consciousness, and your consciousness and my consciousness are one and the same, why don’t I see what You see? How come I don’t remember the experience of “you”?

You are trapped under the belief that the one that experiences should be able to remember all previous experiences. Consciousness doesn’t remember anything. Memories arise in consciousness, they are created and witnessed by it, but the memories pertain to the experience, not the experiencer. A memory is just a perception, not a faculty of consciousness. An experience is generally from a point of view of a body, with all its thoughts, feelings and memories. They are what constitute the human experience and it is created and witnessed by consciousness. But the next experience may be of a completely different body, with different thoughts, emotions and memories. Between those, there aren’t any remembering going on.

Think of a night dream, in which you experience from the eyes of a character, let’s say a farmer, with his own set of thoughts feelings and memories. Your dream is progressing from this point of view and you believe that you are this character. The next moment you dream yourself to be a completely different person, a king, him also with complete set of thoughts, feelings and memories. Having this experience of the king in no way entails that the memory of you being a farmer is arising as part of this king-experience. The farmer-experience is gone without a trace. What stays the same though, through both experiences is the sense of I-ness, the sense of Being.

When you wake up you realize that you experienced both the lives of the farmer and the king, that you saw from both points of view; and that the essence of them, their being, were one and the same: You. The king and the farmer, two completely different persons are both experienced by the same conscious witness. Although the example was of a night dream, the same principle applies in reality. All persons, and their lives, are experienced by the one Consciousness.

In the example of the night dream, the experience of the farmer preceded the experience of the king. In reality, persons exist simultaneously. The individual lives of people are all going on at the same time. And what makes a person’s life separate from another’s is the continuity of experience. The content of personal experience varies all the time; not only the view of the world, but the sensations of the body, the thoughts of the mind and the emotions inside us are constantly changing. But there is a continuity to it. The moments of our lives are connected; an uninterrupted flow, a stream of experience, coherent and in which experiences are causally linked. It starts at birth and ends in death. It is this continuity that the term “My life” denotes. This stream is seen through my eyes; and this point of view is what I consider myself to be; and what I’m seeing, the content of the stream, is “My life”.

This continuity however, is an illusion.

It is memory that gives the impression of continuity. Memories seem refer to the past, but they don’t; their content is in fact complete experiences in themselves. They are independent; their content is fresh, unique and as original as all other moments of experience. The nature of the memory-thought is what gives this impression of pointing to the past; in fact, the existence of the past is solely inferred from the presence of memory. But previous experiences do not cause memories, for there is no past, and thus there are no such things as previous experiences.

Time doesn’t exist. Consciousness is timeless. So how can we even have experience if time isn’t real? The answer is that all experience, all moments, exists simultaneously. Just as you can see all the frames at once on a rolled out movie roll, the experiences that constitute the lives of all people, animals and other conscious beings, in fact all of possible experience, is contained within timeless consciousness. And experiences doesn’t lie dormant, waiting to be experienced; all moments of experience happen simultaneously. While “simultaneously” is in fact not a good word, for it presupposes the existence of time, it is pretty close to describing how experience can happen outside of time. But it can be put differently: All experience is experienced in one single timeless moment.

Experience doesn’t happen in time, but time happens in experience.  The sense of time arises in each moment, or to use the movie roll analogy, it arises in the frame. It only seems that moments are occurring in a specific temporal order, but in fact, the order in which they are experienced, the sense of this order, is itself co-arising together with any individual frame of experience. There is no temporal relationship between experiences – the experience of your birth co-exists alongside the experience of you dying. And part of the experience of dying is the memories of your adult life and your childhood, giving the impression that they occurred previous to this moment, but memories doesn’t refer to other experiences; they and their content are part of this experience.

Memories give the illusion of succession, of passing time. The memory of the alleged past co-arises with the content of the present moment and creates the sense of continuity. But just as every single frame on a movie roll is independent in the sense that it has no causal relationship with the one before or the one after, likewise, is this the case with experience. Continuity isn’t inferred from experiencing multiple frames of experience, but the sense of continuity arises in the moment; it is independent content of each frame. If you look on a single frame of a movie, the characters may be in the middle of a conversation that seems to have lasted a while. However, the actual frame has no causal connection to the previous frame; it could very well have been depicting a completely different scene. It is just in the content of this frame that suggests that the conversation has been going on a while.

So, there is no “stream” of experience, only individual independent frames of experience. Each frame contains content that alone is enough to convince us that it is causally connected to other frames. Furthermore, causality too is just an illusion. First of all, the notion of causality presupposes time and space, which have no objective existence. Secondly, causality is never taking place in our experience to begin with. Causality is just an after-thought, claiming that “event A caused event B.”

From each individual frame of experience arises the sense that it’s part of a stream, a person’s life. But the content of each frame is unique. The convincing continuity, connectedness and flow that is suggested by it isn’t real. And this means that the experience I had one moment ago and the experience I’m having now, is just as different as the difference between your life and my life. Thus, individual lives and indeed personhood as such is just an illusion – for there is only one Life and every moment of experience is a unique expression of it.

Further reading:

22 Responses to The Unveiling

  1. Lydia Davis says:

    Thank you Goran. You have presented a very insightful and thorough analysis of reality. I especially appreciate the step-by-step process that leads the reader to inevitable logical conclusions. I can’t think of any other writing that I encounted that analyzes Consciousness with such thoroughness.. However, I will need to read it again to digest all the subtle points.

  2. jaya says:

    Goran, Excellent breakdown of what we refer to my as life and Reality which we as experience can’t know. I will need to re read it to absorb more deeply your expression of the subject. Thank You so much for your putting this out into the public domain where my experience was able to be exposed to it…Be well in your dream….jaya

  3. seeker says:

    how does one break out of this illusion? if someone is trying to ‘see’ the non separateness of the self, or the illusion of I, and trying hard for very long and still failing..what is he doing wrong?

    • Göran Backlund says:

      There is no short answer for that, but having a solid understanding of what I am trying to convey in these writings is a good start. The belief in an external world is the very basis for the belief in ones own separate existence.

      I will extensively cover how to actually break out of the illusion in future posts.

  4. Rich says:

    Hello Göran,
    Nice article, however I have one question, You say objective reality is false, the sensorially perceived immediate reality is the only one there is, right?? If I read you correctly.
    Okay, if that is the case, as I am typing these letters, do you or do you not exist in other part of the world? I mean, since objective “external world” is unreal, then are you just a figment of my imagination, a thought, my belief that someone called Göran is out there?


  5. Barrie says:

    I have just finished reading this last article in the series and am blown away. It is by far the most comprehensive and clear expression of reality that I have ever read. Thank you for taking the time and care to make this available. I am inspired to re-double my efforts to seek the Truth and look forward to future posts which might help me on the path.

    with gratitude


  6. Javier says:

    Great post. Finaly someone that talks about this in clear language.

    I have read the 4 articles. If there is ONLY witnessing going on (consciousness) then there are also no perceptions. It is One, right?
    You say ‘the witness of it’. It implies that there is a Witness (something that knows) and a ‘it’ (sensing). I don’t understand how to see that all there is only witnessing. Not sure how to merge the witnessed (colours, sounds of music, feelings of tapping) with the witness. How it seems here sometimes is that all there is is Life (sensing) happening by itself.
    Perhaps I live in the illusion to be the witness watching what the bodyly senses are doing in the brain. The witness sees from HERE. I can’t witness the lower bottom of the foot. THe witness doesn’t reside under the foot. So the witness is something HERE (Javier) and the witness is also something THERE (Goran). Too difficult to understand with mind.

    Same with the continuity ilusion you talk about. Death and typing these words while alive is not happening simultaniously. Although the thought of death of lying in a tomb is happening now as I type the words. So it seems that death has to happen yet, otherwise it would allready have happend now. So now seems like…….now this, now this, now this….it is a stepping machine into a timeline. Sleeping in bed is not happening at the same time (the same moment) as being awake in front of a pc. There is sensing for sure.

    Well gonna look for more similar stuff online to understand these 2 illusions that ar going on.

    • Göran Backlund says:

      You say: “If there is ONLY witnessing going on (consciousness) then there are also no perceptions. It is One, right?”

      Yes, that is absolutely right! The witnessing model is not the complete picture. Consciousness is non-dual! Further breakdown of this is my article “Consciousness is non-dual.”

  7. Gachchy says:

    Dear Goran,
    Your articles are simply Amazing and Earth shattering. I love it. Great Work! I am simply not able to grasp the point how all events can exist simultaneously in the Now! Does it mean that everything is predestined? How does continuity happen if events are independent of one another? Please enlighten me!


  8. Darko says:

    Hey Goran,

    So, all is illusion, all is a dream. Right? But: If all is an dream-illusion then this means that there is no real reality. So if all that is, is an illusion, then this is the only reality.

    If there is only one illusion, and nothing else, then this is the reality.

    If you have on side a) illusion and on another side b) something that is real, then you could day that side a) is an illusion. But if you do not have anything apart from the illusion to be inherently real, then this illusion is the only true reality.

    The real is illusion but this illusion is real as it is the only reality. They are not different. Illusion and reality are Not-Two. Non-dual. A-dvaita.


  9. latiff says:

    Thanks for the articles.

    As the saying goes, there’s no seer (as an objective reality) , there’s no seen (as an objective reality), just the seeing. If you take out the seeing, what remains is the pure consciousness which the hindus call sat-chit-ananda.

  10. Daniel Poissant says:

    Thank you Goran for sharing these wonderfully clear articles.

    I’m seeing a lot of similarities with the teachings of Greg Goode, Rupert Spira as well as traditional advaita. If you don’t know Greg already, I suggest reading “Standing as Awareness” and/or “The Direct Path”.

    One of my all time favorites, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, used to summerize the refutation the external world with “nothing exist”.
    Stephen Wolinsky, Nisargadatta’s disciple, used to summerize it by “everything is a representation of nothing”…

    Pretty close isn’t it.

    Thanks you again

  11. Peter Kruty says:

    It seems to me you made a logical error and I’d like to know if I missed something. You claimed at one step that we have no way of knowing reality as we have no access to it. You claimed that there is experience which is not same as reality. For example space. You said that we cannot say there is space as that what we call space is only an experience. That however doesn’t mean there can’t be a space. That would be logical error to conclude that. However you do that later where you are showing that there is only one consciousness because there is no space. That is wrong reasoning. Have I missed something?

    • Göran Backlund says:


      1)space is a concept derived from experience, and
      2) experience is non-dual, that is, nothing but experiencing,
      3) then our only conception of space must be in terms of experiencing as such.

      How would there exist an ‘x’ out there that is ‘like’ what we conceive of as ‘space’, when what we conceive of as space is nothing but experiencing as such?  How could something, x, ever be ‘like’ ‘space’ when what we mean by ‘space’ is nothing but the ways in which phenomena is rendered apparent in terms of width, breadth and depth?

  12. Valdi Sabev says:

    Spot on Goran! Damn brilliant insight into reality!

  13. JS says:

    Hi Goran,

    I am fascinated to find someone who has had much the same thoughts about reality. Virtually everything I read in this four article series is stuff I have also thought up and became almost convinced of.

    What follows is one of the snags I feel I encountered with this viewpoint. I would love to get your thoughts / possible solution. I’ve felt like I’ve reached a dead end for now.

    Perhaps you address this issue on your site somewhere, but I have a question about the particularity of existence. I find it hard to believe that the totality of the One experience consists of a very specific set of ‘frames’, and just those frames, and nothing else. Just those frames with their apparent continuities, but not a different set of frames that is perhaps slightly different or very different, with different continuities. To use your movie analogy, suppose the One experience we live in is the movie The Matrix. Why wouldn’t there also be another One experience following a different ‘story’ — say, Ghostbusters?

    My tendency is to think no, there isn’t just one very particular set of experiences forming just one continuous story of our specific universe. I tend to think that all possible ‘frames’ must actually exist. I can’t prove it, but somehow it just makes much more sense to me.

    Once I reached that step, then I encountered an apparent problem. If all possible frames exist, then surely there’s an infinite number of frames which contain experience continuous with the experience of me-here-right-now, or I’ll just call it ‘my present moment’ even though I am tracking with you about time actually being only an aspect of experience. And some of those frames continuous with my present moment ought to be really weird. For example, why shouldn’t there be a set of frames continuous with my present moment that include something like my child’s toys standing up and dancing a musical number while a showtune suddenly plays from the walls? Why shouldn’t a dinosaur walk down the street?

    Why is this continuous experience-set that I am ‘living’ in not filled with all those surprising things? Why is my perceived life always much more ‘normal’? Are there not infinite ways that it could be weird? One might say, yes but there are infinite ways for it to be ‘normal’ too. I’m not sure I’m sold on that line of thought… it seems to me that something is keeping the ‘universe’ I’m ‘living’ in on a fairly logical track. It contains lots and lots of continuity, and I don’t see how that should be the case if every frame exists independently of every other frame, with no causal connection. What dictates that all the continuity of my frame-set needs to follow strict rules of physical laws, consistently?

    I’ve been surprised by unexpected things countless times in my life, but never are those surprises of the super-weird character I think they could so easily be, given their infinite variety.

    One might also say, “Yes infinite ‘weird’ frames exist that are continuous with your present moment, but a ‘normal’ set of frames still exists as well and is also still a valid and true continuity of experience. So don’t be confused why you’re ‘here’ instead of ‘there’ because you are also ‘there’, in a sense.” Hmm… I don’t think that really answers the issue either. I’ve seen people term this a ‘problem of induction.’ It seems I can trust that the future — ‘my’ future — is going to be quite stable and won’t include these bizarre scenarios fit for a dream. I am counting on that being true. And you do too, I’d imagine. But how can we count on that? How can we be so sure that in the next moment of this frame-set, things are not going to get really weird for us?

    There must be a reason for this stability — but what? This line of thought actually gets me questioning whether all possible frames do indeed exist. But I don’t feel the snag actually explains why not all seemingly possible frames don’t exist or aren’t actually possible.

    Different question — is there a reason to think that all these frames of experience really are part of One experience? If there is no causal link between any two of them, then what reason is there to think there is any link between them at all? Why not say that there are [however many] frames that exist ‘simultaneously’, and they are all completely separate from each other? Isn’t the only thing that makes a set of these frames ‘One’ simply the perceived continuity between them? Instead of saying that you and I are part of the same One thing, why not say that, not only are you and I not part of the same thing, but all the frames that make up ‘you’ are in fact not part of the same One you-thing?

    And another question, why should you believe there is anything except this one instant for you, right now? You may refer to past moments you remember experiencing, but you said that in fact all memories of past experiences are just content of the present frame, and therefore they are no evidence whatsoever that those ‘past’ frame-moments exist at all.

    Thanks for reading! Thoughts?

  14. Lorenz Steiner says:

    I love how you refuted our mistaken everyday concept of reality and the fallacy of concepts itself! Great work!

    But: You should be very careful yourself when describing an alternative “true” world view (let’s call it: The World Dream) – because for this you inevitably make use of concepts too! The picture you draw of the world sound very attractive to me, but when you say: “Everything is just an illusion – and there is only one Life” you use concepts such as “Illusion”, “Life” or “one” which are ungrounded, as you have explained.

    So, eventually, we cannot construct a reliable concept of the world AT ALL. I know we always want to fill the gap that has opened when our world view changes, but we have to accept that we cannot imagine the world as it is.

    Let me put it like this: The Absolute Truth would be the complete deconceptualisation of the world, the singularity of meaning – the meaningless. Your conceptualisiation of the world as a dream is just as right or wrong as any other conceptualisation – because it contains some degree of meaning and it therefore still infinitely far away from singularity.

    The goal is not to find a world view that is “closer” to truth but learn to live with the fact that if truth exists, it will have no meaning to us. You will be a happy person the moment this realisation does not sound sad to you any more.

    PS.: Would love to hear you opinion on my thoughts.

  15. Warren says:

    “People generally do not want their version of reality challenged and to accept this new knowledge” implies that this is “new knowledge”. Knowledge is a body or inventory of propositions we hold to be facts and fact correspond to truths. To claim this is “new knowledge” implies that this is true and yet there nothing is provided to support the claim or to prove it’s probability or even its usefulness.

    “Nothing was ever covering up the external world because there is no external world” is an unsubstantiated claim with a number of issues:

    1. There is only enough evidence to make claim a possibility. The existence of an external world in not only just as possible, it seems more probable. There is certainly no way to prove that it’s not real and no good reason to believe the view put forward on reality here.
    2. If this “no external world” claim is a possibility, which it may be, it would be associated with a probability and a truthlikeness. “We believe thoughts to be private, that they belong to me, when in fact they are co-arising out of the one Consciousness with the rest of the perceptions that make up the apparent world, body and mind.” is just another version of the Brain-in-a-vat thought experiment. It doesn’t matter what the underlying mechanism is that creates our conscious individual experience, we have no way of discovering that unless we break out of the illusion we’re claimed to be in. Whether we’re living in a simulation generated by some fantastical supercomputer or a world imparted to us as participants of a mystical “the one Consciousness” in some base reality somewhere, the fact is, experience happens, and it happens to us in our individual experiences.
    3. This “experience” monism thought experiment is interesting to contemplate but it doesn’t say much about the consequences of my actions on my continued experience. If I step off a 20 story building, a very short while later my experience ends. Why would that be if it was only experience that existed? So my perception of the imagined concrete was hard enough to destroy my perceived brain and stop my experience completely and forever. Seems unlikely.
    4. Given there is no way to prove this claim, or to even make it likely, (and let’s not even begin to talk about the usefulness of the claim) why would anyone believe it, what’s the value in it?

    In my humble opinion, this is just another piece of philosophy porn that’s unverifiable, useless and unhelpful. These ideas belong in academia, blowing them out like this just gives philosophy a bad name. We can do better.

    • Göran Backlund says:

      Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I will direct you towards my book, “Refuting the external world” which is an evolution and refinement of these articles. My claim is that I have proved the inexistence of the external world. That is, beyond any probability. I say it IS possible to know whether there’s an external world or not. And I outline the whole thing in the book, in much more detail than in these articles.

  16. Warren says:

    Apologies Göran, but you can’t prove anything of the sort. As a philosopher, you should know that. Making an emphatic claim like that greatly undermines credibility, and then on top of it making a “oh by the way, you need to buy my book” moves you into the realm of religion, not too far from the Christian evangelist with a profit ministry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *