7
   

What is the ultimate form of Existence?

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 02:29 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
If humans had no eyes, there would be no such thing as light...


...no Cyr no... what you would have would be a different experience or relation with light through your skin for instance sensing the eat of the sun...the reality of light of course being exactly the same thing it is now...
you see you must take responsibility for what you assert, and as far as I remember that was, that reality literally, is built by human mind...an absurdity all to amusing...
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 03:26 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
now from there to reality being dependent on the subject who observes goes another big step


Not really. However that observer wants to describe reality, that description depends very much on how the observer is. Anything we claim to be true about reality might not be true to an observer that has different conditions than humans.

I have little doubt that the universe would continue even if every human being vanished, but I am completely certain that we have no logic approach that can tell us what that universe would be like. It would not be as it is now, because that requires humans.

Quote:
You see the troubles is that you mess stuff up, lack of clarity


You always had a knack for accusing others for your own shortcomings. Forget naive realistic musings about disappearing cars. The only place a car is different from a bump in the road is in the mind of humans and other living creatures. That distinction, and all other distinctions, lies in the minds of us who perceive and experience. If you remove everyone who has any use of a certain concept, that concept no longer describes anything about reality. If humans had no eyes, there would be no such thing as light...


The only constant reality that effects all life is pain.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 03:44 pm
@Rickoshay75,
For a rock the ultimate form of existence is "rockness". For us it is simply being as we are each moment, without trying to be something else. That would be as stupid as the rock diminishing itself by want to be a flower.
0 Replies
 
galapod
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 05:37 pm
@Etherman50,
At the heart of creation? the crux of this metaphor, its elevated awareness and life diffuse at mortal cycle and changing rhythm. Hmm? A fish can swim in water its whole life and never know what water is. Fish are able sign readers the complex of a school of fish simply does not compare in the human domain. Yet it does. But humans despite their high intelligence rarely can stay a course and pattern as a school of fish. Humans perpetually fall from their polarity and flow or that their background knowledge yields them to a seemingly fallible course of inquiry, participation and group syncopation. Competition and other matters make a school of fish reality among people very difficult. Buddhists recognize this dilemma. Sometime back in a graduate class on educational philosophy I learned about this notion of transpection. Explained, the idea two unique people or species can arrive at mutual understanding without wholly knowing or understanding the other. Catharsis brought down to earth, one might say. By the use of signs and symbols, gestures and sound, what have you. When I lived with the Aborigines in Australia, I as an American had a few rare moments of transpection. In these moments I felt more connected to the earth. Not just with people but suddenly with many, many more life forms. Transpection can cultivate an awareness and choice setting that simply is hard to believe one is capable of. Through transpection much of the impossible thought and appreciation can be transmitted and acquired in the very important place of experience. After some transpection one is likely to give up on certain pre-concieved notions of the self. There are so many subtler affectations. I share this alongside these other fine great contributions...


0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 05:34 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
what you would have would be a different experience or relation with light through your skin for instance sensing the eat of the sun...


If humans had no eyes, we would indeed perhaps sense the sun by its heat on our skin, but what reason would we have to name that "light"? The word "light" refers to certain frequencies of radiation that are detectable by our eyes, and they wouldn't stand out from other frequencies if we didn't have that particular sense, and therefore there would be no light.

Quote:
the reality of light of course being exactly the same thing it is now


Light has no other reality than the relationship between source and eye. To a less discriminating consciousness light may be no different than any other energy, and thus deserve no further definition, in which case light would not exist.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 07:04 am
@Cyracuz,
...addressing, naming, and knowing light is not the same as being light...whatever we knew or not knew about light would not render the source any different....inverting the arrows from the source to the knower wont change any of that...

...you see your problem is that you always refer to the relation, to the experience while I always refer to the source...you keep on always addressing the phenomena while I stand for the base rock......both the knower and the thing need a common source...no common source, no hypothetical relation...
its useless to pursue any debate...I know your position, I think you know mine to...

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 07:48 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...what distinguishes a philosopher from a scientist is precisely the faculty of not being given or prone to the concrete in the experience but rather to the abstraction which makes it possible...without a source there is no experience, without a common ground there is no relation...both knower and thing need a source and none of them is alone the source or the ground of all being...
I cannot produce light, but I can relate with it...my relation is not the light, and its true that I can only refer directly to the relation, but still I can infer the need for a source...because I who thinks the light can only build my thinking upon somethingness not upon nothingness...thoughts are necessarily build upon things, and that is why we say thoughts are the product of interactions...we don't say that thoughts are the things but rather that they are those things that refer to the things...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 09:49 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
you see your problem is that you always refer to the relation, to the experience while I always refer to the source


That's not my problem, it's yours. You cannot have knowledge of the source without the experience, without the relation. Your "base rock" is a perception, and as such, it's validity can be doubted. But we cannot doubt that we experience something, which suggests that reality is the relationship, not this perceived source you imagine.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 12:34 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
you see your problem is that you always refer to the relation, to the experience while I always refer to the source


That's not my problem, it's yours. You cannot have knowledge of the source without the experience, without the relation. Your "base rock" is a perception, and as such, it's validity can be doubted. But we cannot doubt that we experience something, which suggests that reality is the relationship, not this perceived source you imagine.


Reality is not knowledge nor lack of it and that is why if you stand in front of a car in the road whatever is you are perceiving you will die mate... Laughing
Knowledge may or may not give you sufficient information on what reality is...but ITS NOT reality ! While one may doubt on whatever the source,X, may be, once knowledge is incomplete, one cannot doubt there is an X to which our knowledge may or may not correspond...
Reality can be inferred not directly experienced...but again such abstraction proves to be to much for some people...
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 12:57 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
You believe in something you can't prove the existence of... What do we call people like that?

Quote:
Reality can be inferred not directly experienced


And do you persist in your claim that when we infer what reality is, the resulting description is by no means influenced by our circumstance?

Quote:
such abstraction proves to be to much for some people


Another case of you accusing someone else of shortcomings you demonstrate in abundance. I am slightly amused.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 01:05 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
And do you persist in your claim that when we infer what reality is, the resulting description is by no means influenced by our circumstance?


There you go again, we don't infer WHAT reality is, we infer there must be an X...we may have or may not have sufficient knowledge on what reality is...what sounds amusing is that you still going from the same mistake after what I just said...

I am still waiting for an answer regarding the car in the middle of the road...if reality was whatever you imagine it to be why can't you prove it to us by making a car disappear in the middle of the road ?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 01:20 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...in fact this is a well know faculty that humans acquire around 3-4 years old...the ability to distinguish knowledge from reality...the test can be done by asking a child to hide itself from us...young children tend to cover their eyes hoping that by lack of seeing us we can't see them either...I wonder why is it that some adults pretend they don't know the difference..
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 01:23 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
There you go again, we don't infer WHAT reality is, we infer there must be an X...


You infer. Well, you and a whole bunch of others. But all who infer this are as clueless as those who persist in believing in god.

Forget the car and the road, will you? You brought that up, not me. I am not saying that the physical doesn't matter. I am saying that the conscious aspect of reality is more fundamental than the physical, because physical is only a perception made by conscious beings.
Your persistence in asking that question only shows that you are living in the previous century when it comes to questions about existence and reality.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 01:30 pm
@Cyracuz,
What "physical" are you talking about ? I don't know if reality it is physical or not physical, "physical" is just a form a process of description that may or may not correspond to what reality is...I posed you a question, yes I not you, you were only supposed to answer it which you didn't...if reality it is fundamentally perception then it should change when perception changes...that is to say, that you believe when you start perceiving yourself as a bird you should be able to fly, obviously that is not the case...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 01:49 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 05:31 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
that is to say, that you believe when you start perceiving yourself as a bird you should be able to fly, obviously that is not the case


Obviously... And yet you seem to think that I believe the opposite. That suggest that you think I'm particularly stupid. You always were an obnoxious little gnome. Probably easier for you to believe that than to try to imagine what I mean by what I say when you know that I do not mean that "when you start perceiving yourself as a bird you should be able to fly"...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2012 05:43 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
....I am saying that the conscious aspect of reality is more fundamental than the physical...


I will not endure you nonsense nor your insults, you as usual have no clue on what you are asserting, because if you did you would shut up idiot !
I am done with you...go seek attention within your breed...
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 01:56 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I am not here to "win" discussions, but I know you are, and in that regard, I think it is clear from your last comment that you lost this one...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 09:30 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
God is just as real, Her body the Universe and all its activity Her thinking


Well that's one possible definition of God that might appeal to some people and that all in all it is fairly reasonable...
I particularly approve the far connection in which you equate "thinking" with "activity" or interaction specially if with it you meant that it results in "work" or the production of order...
0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2012 02:04 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

What "physical" are you talking about ? I don't know if reality it is physical or not physical


Without physical reality, none of us would be here to debate --- do or say anything, be anything.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
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
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/27/2021 at 05:07:46