I think you are mishearing his premises...he is a scientist and not into sophistry at all....not a philosopher nor metaphysician..Well, got half way through this so far. Will come back to it later to see the rest.
But I detect a hint of sophistry. Basically he is suggesting, as others have, that if he isn't looking at something, it doesn't exist.
His example of the apple is rather weak. He asks if the apple he sees still exists if he can't see it. And suggests that, in this context, it doesn't. But this is quite easy to resolve. put the apple on a table. you see it there. It exists. Turn away, you don't see it. It doesn't exist ?
While still facing away from the table, ask someone else 'is there anything on the table ?' They will reply, 'yes, an apple'. But you are suggesting the apple no longer exists as you can't see it.
So, is the apple there or not ? Is it a collective delusion.
See what I mean, it's all sophistry.
Haha!...but there is I claim a chance for the paradox to be resolved into from whence it came, which is something beyond description...
We do look forward to your description of the indescribable.
And, yes, welcome .
They are all mad here, except me.
Also, for those who will come to dress what I mean with a Triangulation,Haha!
Well very nice to be Welcomed So, thank you You and hello to all you colorful souls
of course I mean that Reality which is You, as far as we are in some journey to find that it seems unmistakable, we just keep churning up more once-invisible parts of ourSelf like a gardener digging up jewels
we feel that getting “deeper” must go forever, the beginningless being so unbound as it is
a Persian proverb states “it is very difficult to pierce the veil of ignorance for their is a rock on the fire”
the question to be asked is whether or not the means you are using and going about searching for depth will assuredly bring you any
Limitations in our cultural psyches pin is in so narrow
Even the most Broad of them still pinning us in as some “Soul” (which even I referred to you as)
The dichotomy of subject-object seems irreducible, precisely because (and only when) one looks from the vantage of that mode (believing in “knowledge as an object”)
engaging in that type of intelligence will get you split vision, no matter where you look
the Void seems real empty but maybe is Intelligent all it’s own, .... no? Remember looking at the leaves or the clouds as a child?
Well..there are several schools of thought on this and one is 'materialist reductionism' (what you are prbably referring to) where one accepts that the particles we have 'seen' and 'discovered' at that level are all there is and there is nothing more...but many quantum physicists and others think it's not that simple which is why Hoffman and others are exploring other models. Where the problem comes in with all of this is 'hard consciousness' - how it exists, is it just a by product of the brain, and why we can't explain how it works. If you listen to some of these videos all the way through there are many many questions that cannot be answered simply by using 'material reductionism' only.One could reduce that to everything is made of quarks (and smaller 'thingies') and it would cover it all.
I agree that when he sees an apple he is not seeing the actual particle construction of the apple that would be as close to reality as we can imagine. But he is seeing what in everyday life we call an apple. And that apple will still be an apple whether or not he is looking at it.
That is preisely what Sadhguru has talked about in one form or another in almost all hs talks, he just says that reality is there for all to see, if only we take the time to look. I have had very very small glimpses over the decades and it has been life changingly profound. But I am no Sadhguru sadly, I practice, and try, but my life in the western way of thinking is like a boat anchor. But I do my best.If one is ever going to be able to accept the ideas of extra dimensions etc, then one is forced into looking way beyond the physical.