I hope it’s clear to you that you’re talking to yourself here. The answers you got here came from yourself.

“I hope it’s clear to you that you’re talking to yourself here. The answers you got here came from yourself.” — I didn’t understand what that means.

I don’t accept that interpretation of the razor principle.
The principle says: “There is no need to posit something unless a reason has been given for it, unless it is self-evident or known from experience…”
Since there is no reason at all to posit the existence of matter outside consciousness—that is, in my view it adds no explanatory power whatsoever—and as far as I’m concerned it is certainly not self-evident, and by definition not known from experience,
that means that according to the principle there is no need at all to posit the existence of matter.

Thanks,

You have no reason to assume that I exist. So apparently this correspondence here is with yourself.
What you brought regarding the razor principle does not contradict what I said about it. I (sorry: you yourself) remind you of the examples I gave.

Is the Rabbi hinting that I am arguing for solipsism?
I completely believe that other people have their own inner consciousness, and that I am not the only being, heaven forbid.
What I am claiming is that just as blue and green are two different kinds of possible consciousness, so too you and I are two different kinds of possible consciousness. (And in my opinion that’s the whole idea of breaking the ego in Buddhism—separating the experience of the self as a kind of thought/experience from being itself. In Judaism too people speak about different levels of the self, and also about a collective self in the style of Carl Jung.)

I’m claiming that there is no need at all to assume that there exists some entity that exists in some form called matter. Rather, we should treat matter as a useful abstraction in different contexts. (For example, when doing science we assume as if atoms, quantum fields, forces, and so on really exist, and that it’s not just a model; or when one says a person is materialistic, one means that he is drawn to “lower” manifestations of consciousness.)

But to me, claiming that matter really exists sounds absurd. The only kind of existence we know is existence that can be grasped and identified as existing within our field of experience. Matter is a useful abstraction that we invented in order to describe part of the world of phenomena.
For example, when we dream a dream about a table, nobody would say that that table is made of matter/atoms. To me it is the same with the table in reality when we are awake.

Thanks,

I’m not hinting; I’m saying it outright. Just as there is no reason to assume the existence of the table you see, there is no reason to assume the existence of the person you are talking to. Everything is nothing but a collection of phenomena in your consciousness, meaning that you are talking to yourself.
All right, I’ve exhausted the issue.

Too bad you’re fighting a straw man; I expected a more serious answer.
I didn’t say that the table doesn’t exist outside my private consciousness. Of course it exists, because both of us see it.
It exists as part of another conscious reality that is expressed in my consciousness as a table. The same for you.

So far you haven’t found any flaw in my arguments, as opposed to the claim that these mental abstractions exist outside consciousness without any proof.

I can’t even understand your words. I hope you can. I explained my position היטב, and with that I’m done.

It seems you also don’t want to understand.
Thanks for your time.

It seems to me that what noama was trying to say is that the existence of something outside my private consciousness does not indicate that it exists outside consciousness altogether, in a completely independent way.