The Half-life of Facts.

As the so-called “expert” originator of this thread I feel, rightly or wrongly that I should summarize what I consider to be the salient dynamic points about “facts” and “reality” which I have gleaned from my reading . Those who think I am a philosophical windbag should leave now, but those who stay may understand some of the issues better.

Quote:

Nothing, not even prediction, precedes experience.

This apparently is one of the tenets of Cyracuz's belief system. In any case, you replied:

[

Quote:

Of course things precede experience. Things exist before you experience it. Life is filled with multiple examples of people being surprised.

You gotta wonder what anyone ever experiences...if nothing exists before it is experienced????

What has gone on from your side of this thread is mostly vacuous waffle.

But I am not summarizing the thread. I will repeat my introductory remarks which you have ignored.

Quote:

As the so-called “expert” originator of this thread I feel, rightly or wrongly that I should summarize what I consider to be the salient dynamic points about “facts” and “reality” which I have gleaned from my reading . Those who think I am a philosophical windbag should leave now, but those who stay may understand some of the issues better.

Feel free to leave by all means.

Wrong ! You missed the phrase dynamic points .
Such points are rife in the literature as anybody with more than a superficial interest would know.

Shall I hold the door open for you ?

So I ask you, in a reality where everyone was blind, would rainbows exist?

Can you name one thing that has ever been predicted without having first been perceived in some manner or form?

I am arguing that an “absolute or ultimate REALITY” is a must. There is no way it can logically be avoided. Whatever IS…IS. That is the REALITY. There is absolutely no way to avoid it…because whatever the actual REALITY IS…that is what it IS.

In that hypothetical…our understanding of gravity would simply be wrong. Whatever is discovered new would be the REALITY.

That kind of stuff does happen in science. We think the world is pancake flat and at the center of the universe…and it is proven wrong. The REALITY was NEVER that the world was pancake flat and at the center of the universe…

Look at that sentence, Cyracuz, and see how close that comes to doing the kind of thing a theists does when cornered on some bizarre necessity of his/her belief system.

I am arguing that an “absolute or ultimate REALITY” is a must. There is no way it can logically be avoided. Whatever IS…IS. That is the REALITY. There is absolutely no way to avoid it…because whatever the actual REALITY IS…that is what it IS.

Frank it would have sufficed to say that the very reality of experiencing is required to be absolute, that is, not subject to the whims of imagination on what the experiencing itself can be said to be. Its not like I can experience non experiencing or even re construct the experiencing of experiencing...there is no need to social agreement or constructivism on experiencing, as intellectual agreement itself, requires experiencing so to come to any sort of agreement or disagreement on anything.
Fresco is full of bullshit. The existence of experiencing is not itself subject to language, nor to conceptualization, but rather is the basis, so language and conceptualization can operate in the first place.

I have state this very same thing in many occasions and in vary different ways, but Fresco seams to lack the intellectual capacity or honesty of character either to grasp or address the point.

You don't mean to tell me that you and Frank are communicating !

I suggest that "Fresco's talking bullshit" is the the only message Frank got because its the only one he wanted to get !

Without such attempts, segmentation of the world via language into “things” is meaningless because such segmentation could be limitless without the functional focus of the human involved.

Quote:

I am arguing that an “absolute or ultimate REALITY” is a must. There is no way it can logically be avoided. Whatever IS…IS. That is the REALITY. There is absolutely no way to avoid it…because whatever the actual REALITY IS…that is what it IS.

This doesn't mean much, Frank. Even if it was conclusively proven that REALITY is merely a perception known only to those who have experience, you would just say that THAT is "absolute or ultimate REALITY".

Quote:

In that hypothetical…our understanding of gravity would simply be wrong. Whatever is discovered new would be the REALITY.

Ok. So what is reality now then, if the hypothetical future understanding will would be REALITY?

Quote:

Are you suggesting that we are living in a fantasy world of our making, and that the world we are misunderstanding is more real than the reality we do know?

Quote:

That kind of stuff does happen in science. We think the world is pancake flat and at the center of the universe…and it is proven wrong. The REALITY was NEVER that the world was pancake flat and at the center of the universe…

So, again, the reality of those people who lived during the period of history when those beliefs were accepted as true was just a fantasy world?

I am talking about what they knew and experienced... that reality (as if there is any other kind...).

Quote:

Look at that sentence, Cyracuz, and see how close that comes to doing the kind of thing a theists does when cornered on some bizarre necessity of his/her belief system.

I could say the same about this:

Quote:

I am arguing that an “absolute or ultimate REALITY” is a must. There is no way it can logically be avoided. Whatever IS…IS. That is the REALITY. There is absolutely no way to avoid it…because whatever the actual REALITY IS…that is what it IS.

You name it "absolute or ultimate REALITY", and theists name it GOD. Their agenda is to establish the reality of GOD, to justify their entire way of thinking. Quite similar to what you are doing actually.

Your way of thinking isn't alien to me. I grew out of it, and know it intimately. What I am doing here is exploring alternatives.

But I don't need alternative perspectives to see that assigning the status of REALITY to the hypothetical "actual" rather than the concrete phenomenon we actually experience is backwards. It implies that the reality we experience is a fantasy world of our own making, based on our capacity to experience the "actual".
The conceptual meaning of idea is clear to me and entirely sensible. My only objection is that I would call what we experience REALITY, and the hypothetical ACTUAL the fantasy world.

Because that is the way it is. REALITY is what actually is, as determined by the immediate experience of being here. Even proof of what actually is in some far corner of space we can never experience directly cannot pass into our knowledge via anything but the immediate experience of reading the data on paper or pixels.
Even the concept "absolute reality" is only available to us through the immediate experience of thinking about it.
Even if it is there, just as you say, it does not merit the label REALITY. Even if it constitutes 90% of the whole phenomenon we know as REALITY, we cannot say that it is REALITY any more than we can say that air is BREATHING.