there is a fundamental reality

...what is relevant is that "minds" deal with "worlds", and that worlds are bigger then minds, as I suspect we all agree, that qualitatively, minds don´t just talk about minds, but that "minds" talk about "things"...to my view where these "things" lay, are sustained, or simply justified is in mathematics...and "minds" as a specific typology of systems, well...they are just things among other things...

I do not share your assumption. I find it much more likely and sensible to say that "world" is only as big as "mind" can conceive of. Anything beyond that is speculation without merit.

I find it strange that those who advocate a fundamental reality also discard the relevance of consciousness itself to what the word "reality" means. I find it strange to believe that something we know is real and exists is irrelevant, while something we can only speculate about is given so much weight.

...its funny your signature, au contraire, says otherwise !...

You see a "world" is a collection of "things", of quality's...and minds don´t just talk about minds...this is not a time question upon what came first !...ontologically speaking time is irrelevant for Truth when regarding what in itself is possible in the first place...(not what we think/believe its possible)
Instead of Time, what matters is what fits what, what is bigger and what is smaller...again, as minds qualitatively speaking don´t just deal with minds which set is bigger ? the world or minds ?
...The idea that minds bring about "create" the world is no different from the childish belief that something came out of nothingness...but hey, I suspect I am talking to myself here as you probably don´t have a clue on what I intend to explain you...no worries I am used to it.

In his celebrated work "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature", Richard Rorty gives a lengthy and thorough exposition of the failure of philosophers to find any agreed "fundamental substrate" on which to based epistemology. Irrespective of this failure by philosophy, just over the last century or so, physicists have agreed on a pragmatic listing of what they utilize as "fundamental particles", but we should note that their theoretical "status" is forever subject to revision.

So the question boils down to whether the term "fundamental reality" has any value at all, since it is undefineable either philosophically or scientifically. IMO such a term is merely a marker for a hypothetical metaphysical position...a "God's eye view"... which endeavors to ultimately transcend observer and observed. As such it carries all the religious baggage of "absolutism" without actually evoking a deity. The alternative term "relative reality" is the pragmatic and possibly the only viable alternative.

Excellent exposition of some difficult notions, Fresco. I've frequently felt that any attempt to find and describe a "fundamental substrate" upon which to base philosophical inquiry is bound to fail because, frankly speaking, we are only humans. And our pragmatic solution in physics is, I think, a recognition of this limiation in practice.
The only way we can glimpse the bottom--the "ground" of all being--is by means of mystical "methodology." I believe we can, by such means, realize, if only briefly and vaguely, this foundation, but we cannot describe it because it is so private an achievement it must be ineffable. As such it is of little value for philosophy a necessarily public journey.

Silence may indeed speak volumes !

Never mind, Fil.

I think it was sufficiently clarified over and over again that you cannot doubt without immediately asserting a fundamental reality per se, say fundamental reality is for instance doubt itself...how can you doubt, or doubt alone, never mind "you", to be possible if nothing is fundamentally true ?
Either you reply to this counter explained to you over and over or your position is unsustainable...THAT SIMPLE !

...it does n´t follow that I have to describe any fundamental reality other then X exists to be able to assert a fundamental reality ! Anything I say or think immediately asserts it ! You remind me of D. Quixote, full package with Sancho n all, fighting windmills and imaginary foes...

(Signature for the day) > ...I am not extraordinarily over impressed with Joe with Farmer or Setanta imagine then Rorty !...

...It seams clear as water that to doubt means nothing if doubt itself is not substantially true !
(and this is the only argument that must be understood by those who follow the thread)

...another thing that must be ever more clarified is that mind and experience even if mental experience are not the same ! Granting for the argument sake that concepts of mind itself are experience, makes it clear that the "World" will keep on being the world with or without minds...

Perhaps! The world-in-itself (like Kant's Noumena) is by definition independent of human consciousness. But the phenomenal world as WE live and experience it cannot, again by definition, exist without our participation. Indeed, THAT world (and the noumenal world) IS us--as the mystics might say: (tat Tvam asi).

...well on that regard maybe "us" has nothing to do with "minds"...

I was treating "consciousness" as I would 'minds."

true



are you on about cultural again JL ?

if so , I am beyond cultural

How do you define culture?

How do you define culture?

this is your idea JL not mine " YOU " apparently constructed and referred to culture

@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.

I guess this is a dead end for us.

I guess this is a dead end for us.

I guess