Religion Makes Complete Sense

In your example, it would be the motion of water relative to the surface the water is moving over...and it could also be the motion of water relative to a human being.

Agreed.

I think all well educated people understand Mame why you would wish control eradicated.

fresco is one of those people who love postulating the notion that nobody knows whether anything exists or not outside of his own head. And it's true.

It's just that you end up catatonic if you believe it even though it is true.

I said

You said


quote]Motion exists without sentience to observe it.[/quote]
...hence your statement above is vacuous.

But we are vacuous. Did you not know fresco?

And when in Rome--ya know.

I'm surprised you resort to insults Fresco.

From my perspective, you've done the maths of 1+1=5 (or similar)

The likely fact that we cannot help but put aditional meaning/associations to an occurrence does not mean that the occurrence/motion/interaction cannot exist without us to observe it.

In fact, motion/interaction occurs all the time that's not observed by us, or any being of sentience. Does it then not occur?

I assure you that the use of "vacuous" was not meant as an insult.

If you cannot see that "motion" is an "event observed" (even trivially by you in your mind) then we fail to communicate. You are clinging to a vestige of "ontic reality" even though you have agreed elsewhere that reality is constructed by observers. It is meaningless to talk about "unobserved occurences".

Human nature explains all events. It can be no other way.Religions prophecy is human natures past, present and future happening over again.

... We can talk about "postulated occurences" provided that it is undertood that such postulations are constructions with a particular explanatory objective in mind

Our objective could be to bring you into the land of ordinary people fresco. It must be lonely up there in that rareified atmosphere.

Has no lady had the nerve to laugh in your face when you go past the point of no return on the vinegar stroke?

You can observe the motion of an atom in another galaxy? Yes or no.

No idea about ontic reality. Happy to admit that 'a persons reality is created by that person', but not that 'reality' is created by each person. If I've used the generic 'reality' before (in terms of reality being created by people), I've meant it to mean 'a persons reality'.

Why does it need meaning? Can we not just admit that motion exists, and we observe some, and don't observe others?

Possibly not, spendy. Or, if so, he had not the fortune to observe it.

To say nothing of the necessary prerequisites for such a situation to even occur, which seems a mite unlikely.

Only in "my mind's eye, as indeed is "the existence of atoms" per se.

"Ontic reality" corresponds with Kant's term "noumena" which he considered to be the inaccessible basis of "phenomena" or mental events. I am taking Maturana's position that there is no such objective basis.



Because "existence" and "non-observable" are oxymorons with repect to the view of reality I have just stated. Note also that "we" itself is subject to analysis in terms of common purpose and common language. If for example "we" were companions of Einstein in his thought experiment travelling alongside a photon then that photon would "not be moving".

Vikkorr's "objectivism"--the view that things exist independent of our observation of them (or our conceptualization of their class of things)--is very irresistable. It's very difficult to deny (Naive Realism) that the objects of experience do not exist apart from our experience and serve only as stimuli for our experential responses. Neitzsche's notion that only appearances exist (that there are no "things in themselves") wins out for me--even though I also resist idealism in its strict sense. But ants, cats, and extraterrestials must exist in "different" worlds than I. And "my" world is a world of things that I presumably share with other humans, like Fresco, because of our shared species and cultures (the Pond does not divide us that much).

JL, my point is, and always has been, that objects exist outside our experience. Objects move/interact outside of our knowledge/observation/experience.

JL/Fresco, the point is, I don’t think that my reality encompasses the whole of existence, whereas, apparently, Fresco, you do. It seems very ‘I’m the whole world’ kind of view. It seems odd compared to Fresco’s view that we are all connected (I probably agree with this) " which seems contradictory because all people have different realities...and if motion/concepts outside the scope of one persons reality doesn’t exist " then it can’t exist in another persons...meaning all minds would have the same reality.

It’s also like saying “I just am” and then saying ‘but nothing else just is’ " it doesn’t make sense.

Vikorr,

You may be overlooking our (inc JLN) position that "self" (and in my case "selves")is evoked by language. In that sense "reality" is always communal yet subject to negotiation regarding its functionality. Perhaps functionality should replace "sense" in your evaluation.

Thanks, that's a clarifier for your belief of self.

Btw, while I understand that self is greatly influenced by language, I don't think that's the be all. Language itself represents concepts (which is why you can have different languages - because words are just representative of a concept). So people who have been deaf since birth can still have a sense of self (as they obviously do) because concepts are natural to us (while language isn't).

I think there is general agreement that "being human" and "language user" are synonymous, irrespective of whether the language is vocal or otherwise.

Presumably then, you mean body language...and the 'language of the mind / concepts / visual / emotions'

Your two quotes would raise an interesting point, especially in relation to body language (the easiest one to discuss in this scenario), much of which is universal the world over (eg. Clenched Fist for Anger, more rapid breathing when anxious/angry)

[plus others which are culturally influenced but adhere to the same principles (eg personal space), and others which has purely cultural meaning (eg raising the middle finger at someone).]

If self (ie instinct / DNA / genetics, whatever) evokes body language, then how can body language evoke self (it would be saying 'genetics evokes self' - which is obviously not entirely the case)? Now there's no denying that by modifying your body language, you can modify what is happening in your mind ...therefore, wouldn't the truth (in relation to body language) be one of balance, rather than 'language defines self'? I personally extend concept to oral language, and all other forms of language.

My personal belief is : Body affects Mind affects Spirit affects Body (and visa versa). It can be drawn as a circle that runs in both directions, with each word written on a separate point in the circle, equidistant from each other.

I am using "language" in the sense of sets of symbols (oral, tactile, written) which can be used in potentially infinite rule structured combinations to give different meanings...not "body language" which we have in common with other species.