9
   

there is a fundamental reality

 
 
north
 
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2012 02:49 pm

fundamental reality is based on the periodic table of elements

as well of space

so we have space and matter which make up this fundamental reality

comments

 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2012 03:07 pm
@north,
Can we get more "fundamental" than that? To what extent are the elements and (our perception of) space (and time) our constructions?
Let me just add that I have no existential doubt about the experienced existence of my "being", but I don't have a satisfactory intellectual understanding of what I mean by my Being (notwithstanding Hiedegger's contributions) or--especially--the so-called Ground of my Being.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2012 03:22 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Can we get more "fundamental" than that? To what extent are the elements and (our perception of) space (and time) our constructions?
(Let me just add that I have no existential doubt about the experienced existence of my "being", but I don't have a satisfactory intellectual understanding of what I mean by my Being (notwithstanding Hiedegger's contributions) or--especially--the so-called Ground of my Being.)


how though would you construct the elements and space ?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2012 08:06 pm
@north,
THAT"S the problem. I don't trust aprioris and presuppositions as ontological realities. They are no more absolute and certain than Kant's thing-in-itself; they reflect the logical compulsions generated by our neurophysiological limitations.
JLSceptic
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 02:03 am
@JLNobody,
Quote:
they reflect the logical compulsions generated by our neurophysiological limitations.


...its amazing how many times you speak uncertainty through certainty...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 02:38 am
@north,
...my comment is simply that you must be the worst materialist in the entire forum ! Its hard to stick on your side when you speak...your problem is almost ironic, you like better definitions then you like substance, you could n´t be closer to those you aim to fight...the small difference being that their favourite definition to circle around is "uncertainty" while yours is "matter"...at least they have the merit of being coherent, as they fight substance and they lack substance all in a row !
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 03:36 am
@north,
There is a "fundamental REALITY"...no matter what it is. It may be "elements and space"...or it may be something else.

But whatever actually IS...IS.

There are lots of humans who want to think that humans and the so-called "human mind" is important to determining WHAT IS. They may be right...but if they are, then THAT is what is.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 09:34 am
@Frank Apisa,
Hold on to that principle, Frank. It may not take us very far, but it certainly keeps us from going in the wrong direction. Exclamation
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 09:34 am
@Frank Apisa,
Hold on to that principle, Frank. It may not take us very far, but it certainly keeps us from going in the wrong direction. Exclamation
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 09:48 am
@Frank Apisa,
I suppose that in the very least such "small step" as acknowledging that there is a fundamental Reality has the merit of being the first necessary agreement for starting a dialogue upon anything else...so obviously I appreciate the outspoken honesty of your approach, as it produces a healthy contrast with everything else around it...
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 10:54 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
And we must remember that it is not a conclusion so much as it is a beginning, a presupposition, but one that is more solid than Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum".
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 10:54 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
And we must remember that it is not a conclusion so much as it is a beginning, a presupposition, but one that is more solid than Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum".
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 07:19 pm

JLNobody wrote:

Quote:
Can we get more "fundamental" than that? To what extent are the elements and (our perception of) space (and time) our constructions?
(Let me just add that I have no existential doubt about the experienced existence of my "being", but I don't have a satisfactory intellectual understanding of what I mean by my Being (notwithstanding Hiedegger's contributions) or--especially--the so-called Ground of my Being.)



Quote:
how though would you construct the elements and space ?


no answer to that yet people
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 10:00 pm
@north,
I don't at the moment have ideas on how we construct "the elements and space", except to suggest that it is a complex cultural process.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 10:04 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I can't say what is "fundamental" about fundamental reality. What is, is, no doubt, but will we ever come to it consciously? Isn't that the kind of "foundationalism" criticized by philosophers like Rorty.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 10:04 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I can't say what is "fundamental" about fundamental reality. What is, is, no doubt, but will we ever come to it consciously? Isn't that the kind of "foundationalism" criticized by philosophers like Rorty.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 10:53 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:
I don't at the moment have ideas on how we construct "the elements and space",


I'm sure you don't

since everytime you try , every thought you have about this construct gets more complex all the time

how did you even concieve of Hydrogen , and why ? what of its properties ?

Quote:
except to suggest that it is a complex cultural process.


oh.. its beyond cultural JL , since the construction of the elements and space is what allowed you to exist in the first place

its a bit of a complex conundrum for you and any that think like you do ....

JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 11:08 pm
@north,
I'm not saying that there is no reality beyond my thoughts. I'm only saying that the way reality makes sense to me is by means of my constructions of it. I live in an ever growing and changing "meaningful" reality and its meanings are created (i.e, culturally constituted) by humans, including the notions of "space" and "the elements." Remember, Science is a cultural process. Culture is, I suspect, far more than you understand it to be.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Apr, 2012 12:41 am
@JLNobody,
My comments was not about the specifics in your statement...and you know it.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Apr, 2012 12:56 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

I'm not saying that there is no reality beyond my thoughts. I'm only saying that the way reality makes sense to me is by means of my constructions of it. I live in an ever growing and changing "meaningful" reality and its meanings are created (i.e, culturally constituted) by humans, including the notions of "space" and "the elements." Remember, Science is a cultural process. Culture is, I suspect, far more than you understand it to be.


...oh you see but you have a problem of regression there unless you can make a stronger case...whatever we interpret from reality was given to us by nature and can perfectly be equally argued that our mediums are not our own but nature´s own processes working in us...in fact we have no good reason to believe otherwise...so when you loosely use the expression we "create" we "invent" you are begging the question are n´t you, after all how can you be certain that whatever we build and interpret does not correspond, as much as knowledge can, to reality ? If you posit a Reality and accept that such reality is shared by minds plural and not by a single mind then necessarily you must conclude that reality precedes mind and establishes the conditions from where mind arises.

One thing is to acknowledge that we have a specific form of displaying reality as humans and quite another to posit that we are the ones who build it...

...so when I am confronted with the choice, the hypothesis, on whether I believe that we build reality or that reality build us, I don´t buy the top down argument not because it does n´t apply, but because such as nothing to do with minds...for that purpose mathematics suffices just as much it suffices to dissolve the "materialistic" approach regarding what matter is...(matter is matter sounds just North style but unfortunately is how most people go about it, no comments...)
Consciousness is just a complex form of interaction, of relation, a closed loop, there´s nothing special or particular in consciousness ...time is irrelevant on the issue...its almost futile to quest on what comes first if complexity or simplicity, if "mind" which is a synonym for system, or if is matter that progresses in complexity, by the way towards were if no place yet, if no being ? The point being that Mind is no more mental then matter is material...there´s no first or second when we address the ontological status of what is the case to be Real regarding what is the case to be possible in the first place, whether we know it or not its also not important...
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » there is a fundamental reality
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/19/2020 at 04:14:03