Reality - thing or phenomenon?

@fresco,

Quote:

But remove physiology from the picture and the word "reality" becaomes vacuous.

Physiology is life. Remove physiology from the picture and we're all dead, rats and squids included, but why would the stones and planets and stars and galaxies disapear??? They commit suicide because they're pissed off nobody sees them???

You realise of course that life cannot appear out of a non-existing universe. ... Thus your theory of the primacy of perception over "things per se" implies the existence of one or several gods creating the universe and observing it so as to keep it existing, until the first life form appears somewhere. Then and only then can your gods go to sleep, since now the first bacteria are doing the heavy observational lifting for the universe to keep existing....

Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@fresco,

I think earlier in a similar silly thread it was pointed to you a genuine problem of infinite regression that you insofar have been ignoring and that concerned how problematic it is to hypothesise observers observing observers ad eternum on which you would need an infinite amount of time with infinite many steps to get to the point we are today...as I explained you in that thread I rather deconstruct time as a non essential feature itself so an object is left out of the loop of space time as means of solid explanation...and what have you done about that ? as usual you bypass all counters n go on repeating yourself...I've told you already the idea of observing is dynamic it requires relations but it doesn't explain relations themselves, it only works in time...so it begs for ground !!! Without a final object not contingent to time you have nothing, no functions, no relation, no phenomena, no comparative measurements, no perspective, no emergence of subjectivity, no observers...had you been an honest gentleman truly concerned with such problem and truly in search of a better model and you would have abandoned the hypothesis long ago, after all you already abandoned the idea of "I" for far less so without surprise you should drop animism just as well as there is simply no way any dynamic system can explain its dynamic...objects conceptually are there precisely to ground dynamic relations to eternity. They point us to loops and to the insufficiency on the idea of "causation". Philosophers with the idea of "Being" know this from ancient Greece. As I said before, Reality it is what it is, from top to bottom n back, literally !

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You realise of course that life cannot appear out of a non-existing universe

No. I realise that this is an anthropomorhic picture based on an analogy with human manufacture of artifacts out of raw materials. I also realise that the concepts "life", "universe", "appear", "materiality", "cause", "gods" and "time" are predicated on human functioning.
And for those that ask "whence comes X", where X is a concept of structure, the answer is, from the communicative needs of humans.

4 Replies

@fresco,

That is no less then straight out comic...so you question all the terms to stick you neck out of the water but don't question the assertion "communicative needs of humans"...what you saying is that you don't have any explanation nor the words "humans" or "communicative" are worth a dime...

0 Replies

@fresco,

In the least if you truly want to be coherent in your claustrophobic avoidance of closure pay the price for the liberty you reclaim to the full...drop explanation !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

My problem with you is not that you have a different view then mine...I am not a Taliban of reason...my problem with you is about coherence...given the intellectual distinction you possess in relation to your peers in A2K, you ought to be far more honest...this is not a provocation Fresco..I am just plainly speaking my mind.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Your requirement for "coherence" involves a totally self consistent system. But as you well know, Godel more or less said that this is impossible.
Add to that the fact that that Godel was a (Fields Medal) referee for Paul Cohen's simultaneous discovery that an intermediate infinity (between Cantors two specified) both DiD and DID NOT "exist" and you get an even better idea about the problem of "coherence".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Agreement on "mental representations" may be largely due to common physiology, and in the case of humans, a common language. But remove physiology from the picture and the word "reality" becaomes vacuous.

I doubt that, but I can see that you want gratuitously to assert that, because not to do so would be not defending your belief system.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
You realise of course that life cannot appear out of a non-existing universe

No. I realise that this is an anthropomorhic picture based on an analogy with human manufacture of artifacts out of raw materials. I also realise that the concepts "life", "universe", "appear", "materiality", "cause", "gods" and "time" are predicated on human functioning.
And for those that ask "whence comes X", where X is a concept of structure, the answer is, from the communicative needs of humans.

Boy, could the Catholics use someone like you to help explain the Trinity...and transubstantiation.

You are a gem!

0 Replies

@fresco,

You are assuming Infinity is a fact...but it can be just a loop...if anything there is no reason to assume the aberration of infinity at all. Take examples of symmetry in nature starting for instance with our face n body mirroring from left to right n you will see that self consistent looping symmetry may well be our best chance.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You miss the point. Its not about infinity per se, its about your inclination towards a foundational mathematical type substrate and the difficulty of establishing such."Violation of the law of the excluded middle" is not uncommon in quantum mechanics for example. (Note that to be a member, and not a member of "the set of infinities" is a mathematical example of such a violation)

1 Reply

@fresco,

The problem I see in the way the question is framed is that the problem tries to justify its dynamic...it shouldn't.

Seen from the inside sub-sets properties are dynamic, Set of all sets must not. Set of all sets is different in nature from having sub-sets. Set of all sets does not belong to itself it cannot contain itself. it rather IS itself. Containing is a property inside the set of all Sets n not something defining "behaviour" in the Set of all sets...It does not move...there is no belonging. A Triangle of triangles is a triangle of triangles and not just a Triangle...my point is that quantity of the same thing makes it not be the same thing...in this problem this issue seams be central...Overall I just feel sorry for not being a mathematician to deal with this more conventionally...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You wrote,

Quote:

I think earlier in a similar silly thread it was pointed to you a genuine problem of infinite regression that you insofar have been ignoring and that concerned how problematic it is to hypothesise observers observing observers ad eternum on which you would need an infinite amount of time with infinite many steps to get to the point we are today

Your imagination exceeds your ability at "reality." The very fact that some of us are engaged in this discussion "should" be evidence that some form of reality does exist.

Otherwise, our computers and our form of language would not exist; it's all part and parcel of our "reality."

What are your plans for today other than spending a couple hours on a2k?

Do you have any reality in your life?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Set theory is based on at least one assumption (axiom) that is unprovable in order to overcome an inherent paradox in the theory, therefore your theory if based on set theory is just an assumption which can never be proved. It's a nice mindgame but that only makes it equal to all such mindgames and doesn't add anything to what... reality is.

1 Reply

Ah yes . . . equivalent to unsubstantiated beliefs such as that there is a process of enlightenment, that it can lead to "higher" states of consciousness, and that there ever was anyone who deserved to be described as "the buddha." Yeah, those word games a pretty insidious.

0 Replies

@igm,

Wrong...true it cannot be justified (describing what itself is) but it is asserted in the very exercise of doubt through us ...X is X, although we cannot describe what X corresponds to.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Wrong...true it cannot be justified (describing what itself is) but it is asserted in the very exercise of doubt through us ...X is X, although we cannot describe what X corresponds to.

There has to be someone who knows they are doubting... then that has to be known... that leads to an infinite regress or alternatively an axiom that cannot be relied on to be true. It is all problematic mindgames.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Wrong...true it cannot be justified (describing what itself is) but it is asserted in the very exercise of doubt through us ...X is X, although we cannot describe what X corresponds to.

There has to be someone who knows they are doubting... then that has to be known... that leads to an infinite regress or alternatively an axiom that cannot be relied on to be true. It is all problematic mindgames.

I am not saying that there has to be someone who knows in order for something to exist, that is inverting the order of things, we can only say that because "we" exist existence at large is a given, even if we try to doubt it...but ultimately we cannot characterize nor the "I" nor the "we" or anything else, we simple say there is existence, its a god damn fixed object per se...Reality is whatever it is ! We cannot compute it or describe it...
Time n space is inside it not outside it n looping, Reality itself as a thing it does not move, rather things move n relate inside it...think of it as a damned frozen 4D film, n if you want complicate it reduce it to dots n not dots in a 1 dimension loop of order, where there is not even geometry n all other dimensions are inside the 1D description. Of course this last part is how I subjectively think of it...
If I want be precise I only say, there is X !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You've contradicted yourself by implying

Quote:

..but ultimately we cannot characterize nor the "I" nor the "we" or anything else, we simple say there is existence, its a god damn fixed object per se...Reality is whatever it is ! We cannot compute it or describe it...

.

If you can't compute it or describe it, how you you say there is existence?

It's a direct contradiction in terms.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You've contradicted yourself by implying
Quote:
..but ultimately we cannot characterize nor the "I" nor the "we" or anything else, we simple say there is existence, its a god damn fixed object per se...Reality is whatever it is ! We cannot compute it or describe it...
.

If you can't compute it or describe it, how you you say there is existence?

It's a direct contradiction in terms.

What makes a normally intelligent, reasonable individual like you, ci, assume that if a human cannot compute or describe "IT"..."IT" cannot exist?

How can you possibly be of the mind that humans OF NECESSITY have to be that important to REALITY, for instance?

Humans may be an insignificant blob in the greater REALITY...of no consequence whatsoever...not able to access it or describe it or comprehend it...and certainly not able to impact significantly on it.

I am not saying that NECESSARILY is the case...but I cannot understand what evidence is available for you to decide so certainly in the other direction.

2 Replies

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know