Reality - thing or phenomenon?

You'd have to ask these questions to Ci, I only quoted him.

Living in an environment devoid of light and organic nutrients, cave organisms have evolved unusual adaptations to survive. Some species of fish are blind, and other creatures that still have eyes flee frantically from outside sources of sensory stimulation. Nothing is wasted in this environment -- for insects and many other life forms, bat guano is a dining option of choice.

Many others who lived during that time and now can confirm that Lincoln School was a "real" place.

What would light be to us if we were creatures without eyes?

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

My position is that I do not know what REALITY is. I am not wrong on that.

As for the position of any "eminent philosophers"...bring 'em on and I will discuss this with them.

Your position is that you KNOW reality is objective... even though you don't know the arguments against this and have not offered any refutation but have still 'told' others that they must hear you repeat yourself until they 'understand' your truth in the same way you do... ci for example.

Can you explain why you are doing this when there is a contrary position which is also plausible?

I will be delighted to explain...if first you explain what the "contrary position" is to...WHATEVER ACTUALLY IS...IS.

I have not heard a reasonable "contrary position"...and using my imagination, I cannot even dream up a "contrary postion" to that.

Whatever the truth about what IS....that is what it is.

You CANNOT be more objective than that.

Can't you see it's a gradient, a continuum between permanence and impermanence?

In order to be able to think the concept of "change", you have to be able to conceive of a counter-factual: permanence. Now, if you slow down change to 0, you have absolute permanence. If you accelerate change to infinite speed, you have a totally unstable reality. In between those two extremes, you have most stuff.

Most stuff change, some very very slowly, like a stone that may be affected by erosion, over thousands of years, and others very fast, like a liquid flowing. But they never change completely in a split second, and generally keep some characteristics pretty stable over time. Even water flowing does not change into oil.

How much has the sea level risen over the past century? A few cm or something. It does change, mind you, but so slowly that nobody in his lifetime will see a difference.

Did you ever come back at night to the apartment or house you had left in the morning, only to find it occupied by some other family or dude you've never seen before?

You never changed sex, have you? Did you ever become a horse or a bird? Did extra arms grow on your shoulders at some point, or an extra head?

When is the last time you surprised yourself? Or your wife?

When is that last time you changed your mind about something important?

Impermanence is largely a wish, a dream of infinite possibilities. Life is more complicated.

That doesn't prove that it is objective... what is... is (is fine) but it does not follow that it is objective…

…and it especially doesn't follow that you 'must' tell others that you are correct and they must be wrong and you will repeat yourself until they agree, even though many disagree with your position and have written academic papers on the subject.

Say you're just guessing…

…. and leave it at that or at least don't say you will repeat yourself a thousand times if you need to... in order to 'convert' others because... 'you know'... you're correct... it's plain silliness.

In case you didn't notice Frank he totally avoided my question...he deliberately confuses the contextual holistic effect on the perception of objects with the problem of identity without which there is no holistic view to start with...there is no degree of measurable change without identity being firmly established in the first place...it simply there is no referent...just saying don't get trapped in the confusion he sets up...