morality, drugs, existence

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You are out of control, CM. Try to get calm down.

ok i will 'try to get calm down'. there are no age restrictions for grammar classes sir...you can still apply..

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The notion of something possibly existing outside of human experience...(the notion of not excluding anything that cannot be sensed by humans)...makes much, much more sense to me than limiting myself to human experience.

Well, then you run into the problem of demonstrating that something can possibly exist outside of human experience. That is a problem because it is only via experience we can demonstrate anything at all.

Quote:

I might add that if I were to subscribe to your take...I would have to limit myself ONLY to what I personally can experience, because supposing there is anyone else out there to share in that experience (as reflected in your "we all seem to share"...would make no sense to me.

Well, isn't that the general idea behind the notion of 'facts'? Something is a fact only if it can be verified by anyone who cares to do so. It is not fact because it is true or real, but because it is demonstrably the case.

This is an important point. Reality outside human experience might be true and real. If I were to speculate, I'd say that it is probably true and real in the sense that there is something. But it is not demonstrably true and real, and therefore does not fit the criteria for being called fact. So if I continue to subscribe to the notion of reality outside human experience, no matter how plausible it seems, I am engaged in believing.

That is why, if I want to make as few assumptions as possible, I have to limit myself to whatever is within human experience; to whatever we all can describe independently of each other and then compare notes about to arrive at the most useful and successful descriptions.
That is, after all, how it happens.

Quote:

I am merely saying that we do not know the REALITY...and to simply dismiss the possibility of a REALITY because one already subscribes to a non-dualistic perspective...just does not make sense to me.

Agreed. We do not know the REALITY. But we know a REALITY. The reality which we experience.
From our perspective, then, it seems to me that the reality we do know should be considered more real to us than any reality that may or may not lie at it's foundation. It is via the reality we do know we can uncover more about this illusive "reality outside experience". It is via the reality we do know and experience we have come to deduce the idea of mind-independent reality in the first place.

This all has to do with the paradigm of mind-independent reality. That is a notion that has never been conclusively proven or demonstrated, and yet it stands at the foundation of western natural science.

So, perhaps you see that what I am doing isn't to make unfounded assertions. I am trying to strip them away from the currently accepted world view, and then see what we are left with.

How can we account for what we experience, and the apparent persistence of reality itself without the assumptions of mind-independence? Obviously, the truism you repeat again and again lies at the foundation of this. I would not bother if it wasn't clear to me that whatever is IS.

We are beyond that, and delving into WHAT it is. And in that regard, I don't feel I can start with anything other than what reality is to us. Perhaps I'm inspired by Descartes and his "cogito ergo sum".

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
I suspect you do not know there is no reality...although it is a gratuitous assertion you frequently make.

how can i 'know' there is no reality, if there is actually no reality? there is nothing or nobody to know.

As I said...I don't think you can.

But that did not stop you from asserting that there is no reality.

Your posts make no sense...regardless of what the "random" user PM'd you.

Quote:

Quote:
I suspect you do not know it is an illusory concept...although that is a gratuitous assertion you frequently make.

if knowing is an illusory concept, then it obviously can't be known.

Yeah...we agree there. That is why I say that when you assert it...it doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

Quote:
never asserting anything only works when you believe in an ultimate reality. therefore, asserting anything must be wrong, because what if the ultimate reality is different? i assert anything i want because i experience that there is no reality, i am not guessing or assuming.

Quote:
That simply does not make enough sense to give a response other than that it does not make any sense.

its possible that was too complex for you. let me simplify. you blame me for 'asserting' things when i should be saying 'i don't know'. the reason is because you believe in an ultimate reality. you believe this ultimate reality is definitely more complex than anything any human can understand. therefore, you assume that anybody who 'asserts' must be wrong, because nobody can understand 'ultimate reality'.

That simply does not make enough sense to give a response other than that it does not make any sense.

Quote:

i am simply saying in my experience there is no ultimate reality, therefore the idea that one shouldn't assert things doesn't arise. so i assert whatever i want, and you get angry. and this continues..

I am not angry...in fact I am laughing as I read your nonsense and type my responses. You entertain...you provide enjoyment not engender anger. Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't find entertaining you mock a retarded person...you ought to drop it.
Stop playing with mice.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
The notion of something possibly existing outside of human experience...(the notion of not excluding anything that cannot be sensed by humans)...makes much, much more sense to me than limiting myself to human experience.

Well, then you run into the problem of demonstrating that something can possibly exist outside of human experience. That is a problem because it is only via experience we can demonstrate anything at all.

We are not discussing whether you can demonstrate it or not. We are discussing whether something can exist that we cannot sense...and I respectfully submit that there may be many things that exist that we humans are incapable of sensing or demonstrating.

Quote:

Quote:
I might add that if I were to subscribe to your take...I would have to limit myself ONLY to what I personally can experience, because supposing there is anyone else out there to share in that experience (as reflected in your "we all seem to share"...would make no sense to me.

Well, isn't that the general idea behind the notion of 'facts'? Something is a fact only if it can be verified by anyone who cares to do so. It is not fact because it is true or real, but because it is demonstrably the case.

I disagree with you completely on that...as have several others here. A "fact" is something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence...WHETHER WE CAN PROVE OR DEMONSTRATE THAT IT EXISTS. It IS...whatever actually IS.

Quote:

This is an important point. Reality outside human experience might be true and real. If I were to speculate, I'd say that it is probably true and real in the sense that there is something. But it is not demonstrably true and real, and therefore does not fit the criteria for being called fact.

Well...you may think that, but I see no reason to suppose the only "facts" are those things which we humans can demonstrate are facts. Fact is...there may be many "facts" that are completely beyond our abilities.

Quote:

So if I continue to subscribe to the notion of reality outside human experience, no matter how plausible it seems, I am engaged in believing.

No you are not. You are engaging in speculating...or hypothesizing...or supposing...or conjecturing...or ...well, you get the picture.

Quote:

That is why, if I want to make as few assumptions as possible, I have to limit myself to whatever is within human experience; to whatever we all can describe independently of each other and then compare notes about to arrive at the most useful and successful descriptions.
That is, after all, how it happens.

Yeah...Ptolemy did that at one point in our history. He wanted to make as few assumptions as possible...and he ended up putting the Earth at the center of the universe and at the center of existence.

He was wrong. The FACT is that the Earth is not even at the center of our solar system.

Quote:

Quote:
I am merely saying that we do not know the REALITY...and to simply dismiss the possibility of a REALITY because one already subscribes to a non-dualistic perspective...just does not make sense to me.

Agreed. We do not know the REALITY. But we know a REALITY. The reality which we experience.

We know what we experience...and that MAY BE a part of REALITY. It may not even be that! But that does not make it the REALITY. It only makes it the part of REALITY that we are able to experience.

Quote:

From our perspective, then, it seems to me that the reality we do know should be considered more real to us than any reality that may or may not lie at it's foundation. It is via the reality we do know we can uncover more about this illusive "reality outside experience". It is via the reality we do know and experience we have come to deduce the idea of mind-independent reality in the first place.

You are entitled to think that if you choose...but even your wording infers that REALITY is a lot more than just what we experience. And that is what I am talking about.

Quote:

This all has to do with the paradigm of mind-independent reality. That is a notion that has never been conclusively proven or demonstrated, and yet it stands at the foundation of western natural science.

So, perhaps you see that what I am doing isn't to make unfounded assertions. I am trying to strip them away from the currently accepted world view, and then see what we are left with.

How can we account for what we experience, and the apparent persistence of reality itself without the assumptions of mind-independence? Obviously, the truism you repeat again and again lies at the foundation of this. I would not bother if it wasn't clear to me that whatever is IS.

We are beyond that, and delving into WHAT it is. And in that regard, I don't feel I can start with anything other than what reality is to us. Perhaps I'm inspired by Descartes and his "cogito ergo sum".

Perhaps. But I still maintain that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I suspect you don't either. For either of us (assuming there is a Cyracuz and a Frank) to exclude anything from being part of REALITY (except for definitionally inconsistent things like a square circle) ...is inappropriate.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I disagree with you completely on that...as have several others here. A "fact" is something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence...WHETHER WE CAN PROVE OR DEMONSTRATE THAT IT EXISTS. It IS...whatever actually IS.

I would not consult a dictionary on what constitutes a fact. I would consult scientific method and the criteria that must be met before anything can be called fact. One of those criteria is that it must be demonstrable or testable, and the results must be the same every time.

Your disagreement comes from lay usage of the term 'fact'. I am confident that any serious scientist would agree with me that facts are not facts because they are true and real, but because we can verify that they are.

Quote:

We are not discussing whether you can demonstrate it or not. We are discussing whether something can exist that we cannot sense...and I respectfully submit that there may be many things that exist that we humans are incapable of sensing or demonstrating.

We are not discussing whether something can exist that we cannot sense, because that is a futile discussion with no answer available.
How would you propose to demonstrate or prove that "that there may be many things that exist that we humans are incapable of sensing or demonstrating"? I absolutely agree that there may indeed be things that we can's sense or demonstrate. But until they are sensed and demonstrated, we can't call them fact. Otherwise, God would be a fact simply because it may exist.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I'd like to make a specification to how I see things.

We must distinguish between facts and phenomenon. The phenomenon that keeps us on the ground is known to us as gravity. The fact of gravity corresponds to the phenomenon. They are not one and the same.

That is why it is wrong to say that a fact is a fact regardless of whether or not we have discovered it yet. A phenomenon is a phenomenon, that I agree on, and our facts about it does not change it. So when Ptolemy was proven wrong, the phenomena he described didn't change, but the facts about it did.

This is the only way to understand it that doesn't cause problems when we introduce facts that are no longer valid. A fact that describes a phenomena is not the same thing as the phenomena itself. That is why, in a philosophical context, the dictionary definition of "fact" does not serve.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I disagree with you completely on that...as have several others here. A "fact" is something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence...WHETHER WE CAN PROVE OR DEMONSTRATE THAT IT EXISTS. It IS...whatever actually IS.

I would not consult a dictionary on what constitutes a fact. I would consult scientific method and the criteria that must be met before anything can be called fact. One of those criteria is that it must be demonstrable or testable, and the results must be the same every time.

Your disagreement comes from lay usage of the term 'fact'.

I am a layman.

Quote:

I am confident that any serious scientist would agree with me that facts are not facts because they are true and real, but because we can verify that they are.

I am equally sure that any serious scientist would agree with me that REALITY IS whatever IS…whether we humans are able to sense it or establish it or demonstrate it...or not.

So…since REALITY is what we were discussing…we are we going?

Quote:

Quote:
We are not discussing whether you can demonstrate it or not. We are discussing whether something can exist that we cannot sense...and I respectfully submit that there may be many things that exist that we humans are incapable of sensing or demonstrating.

We are not discussing whether something can exist that we cannot sense, because that is a futile discussion with no answer available.

If we are discussing REALITY (and we are in fact discussing REALITY)…I have no problem at all with discussing thing that we cannot sense. I simply suggest, as reasonably and respectfully as possible, that there may be things that we humans cannot sense…and that it makes no sense whatever to claim they are not part of REALITY simply because of the limited nature of humans.

REALITY IS…whatever IS.

Quote:

How would you propose to demonstrate or prove that "that there may be many things that exist that we humans are incapable of sensing or demonstrating"? I absolutely agree that there may indeed be things that we can's sense or demonstrate. But until they are sensed and demonstrated, we can't call them fact. Otherwise, God would be a fact simply because it may exist.

Whether we can or cannot sense them or demonstrate them…anything that actually exists is part of REALITY.

You seem to be saying that I cannot reasonably suggest the possibility of things existing that we humans cannot sense. I would counter that you cannot reasonably suggest that nothing exists but what we humans can sense.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I'd like to make a specification to how I see things.

We must distinguish between facts and phenomenon. The phenomenon that keeps us on the ground is known to us as gravity. The fact of gravity corresponds to the phenomenon. They are not one and the same.

That is why it is wrong to say that a fact is a fact regardless of whether or not we have discovered it yet. A phenomenon is a phenomenon, that I agree on, and our facts about it does not change it. So when Ptolemy was proven wrong, the phenomena he described didn't change, but the facts about it did.

When Ptolemy was proven wrong...he was wrong. The FACT is that the Earth was not the center of the solar system. That is a FACT, Cyracuz...that is a fact.

Quote:

This is the only way to understand it that doesn't cause problems when we introduce facts that are no longer valid.

They were NEVER facts in the first place. They were mistakes.

Quote:

A fact that describes a phenomena is not the same thing as the phenomena itself. That is why, in a philosophical context, the dictionary definition of "fact" does not serve.

Is that a fact?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

They were NEVER facts in the first place. They were mistakes.

That gives us a problem when we consider current facts. Your take casts doubt on every single fact we have, as there is the possibility that they might become outdated in the future. In other words, if what you say is indeed so, we cannot know for certain that we know any facts at all.

Facts are information. They are not objects or phenomena any more than the word "car" is an actual car.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
They were NEVER facts in the first place. They were mistakes.

That gives us a problem when we consider current facts. Your take casts doubt on every single fact we have, as there is the possibility that they might become outdated in the future. In other words, if what you say is indeed so, we cannot know for certain that we know any facts at all.

Not sure how many times I have to make this point...BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they are facts...if, indeed, they are facts.

If there are sentient beings at least as intelligent as we are living on any of the planets circling the nearest 50 starts to Sol...it is a fact whether we know it or not. The fact that the Earth circles the sun rather than the other way around...was always a fact...regardless of the FACT that humans did not know it several thousand years ago. They were fooled by the illusion of apparent motion.

Quote:

Facts are information. They are not objects or phenomena any more than the word "car" is an actual car.

If you want to suppose a thing is not so just because humans are not able to corroborate that they are so...I guess you will just have to go on supposing that. You are certainly entitled to d0 so. I just think you ought to consider that you might be doing it just to keep that belief of yours intact.

If there are things in this universe of which we humans have no inkling whatsoever...it is my opinion that they exist anyway. You disagree.

What can I tell ya?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Do you allege that there are facts we do not know about?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Do you allege that there are facts we do not know about?

I state without equivocation that there are facts we do not know.

I am amazed that you think there are no facts unless we know them.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If there are things in this universe of which we humans have no inkling whatsoever...it is my opinion that they exist anyway. You disagree.

I do not. I do realize, however, that anything we have no inkling of whatsoever cannot conceivably under any circumstance fall into the category of 'fact'.

Facts are information. They are not things.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I state without equivocation that there are facts we do not know.

I am amazed that you think there are no facts unless we know them.

I am equally amazed by your position in this. I am pretty sure there are phenomena we don't know about. And as long as we don't know about them, there exists no facts about them.

0 Replies

1 - Information is a thing.
2 - Facts are whatever is the case.
3 - If it is the case I am expressing an opinion the opinion itself its factual. Whether it refers to something else other then its pseudo concept is irrelevant.
4 - We don't report facts we report information about facts when we have it, such reporting is itself a fact.
5 - If an opinion was to be a non fact such opinion would be meaningless and transcendent therefore mute of all values and purposes. Less then the null set.
6 - It is very entertaining to assist people fighting about the fact of the matter being that there are no facts. Such people ought to remit themselves into permanent silence rather then debating. (including debating with themselves) In resume the attitude is pathetic !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Clearly you are under the same misapprehension as Frank.

Quote:

Information is a thing.

No. Information is data. It is non-physical, unlike things.

Quote:

We don't report facts we report information about facts when we have it

Again, wrong. We report information about phenomena. The information that reflects the actual phenomena best is what we call 'fact'.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
If there are things in this universe of which we humans have no inkling whatsoever...it is my opinion that they exist anyway. You disagree.

I do not. I do realize, however, that anything we have no inkling of whatsoever cannot conceivably under any circumstance fall into the category of 'fact'.

Facts are information. They are not things.

A fact is whatever IS, Cyracuz.

Knowledge of a fact...is something quite different.

Either there are other living organisms on some planet circling the nearest 50 stars to Sol...or there are not.

If there are...the fact that there are is a fact.

If there are none...the fact that there are none is a fact.

Either way...we humans do not know which is the fact.

The fact is whatever IS...(there are or there are not)...our knowledge of the fact notwithstanding.

You seem to be confusing the two.

I don't know how else to make this clear to you.

Fil...I thank you for trying to get through on this also. I don't think it will ever happen. The notion that REALITY is only what humans consider it to be is simply too important to Cyracuz to process this.

2 Replies

In this, my take is clearly better than both Frank's and Fil's, simply because mine offers greater precision and clarity when communicating about this, while equating fact with phenomena gives rise to misconceptions.

Clearly, what Ptolemy and Copernicus studied was the same phenomenon. When they arrived at different facts, that was because Copernicus saw more than Ptolemy.
Even today, if we use Ptolemy's method and only study the things that were available for him to study, we could not prove Ptolemy wrong.
In other words, Ptolemy was not wrong. He was dead on according to what he was able to observe and study, and according to the methods he used. Like I said, if we limit ourselves to what Ptolemy had available, we would not be able to prove him wrong.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
If there are things in this universe of which we humans have no inkling whatsoever...it is my opinion that they exist anyway. You disagree.

I do not. I do realize, however, that anything we have no inkling of whatsoever cannot conceivably under any circumstance fall into the category of 'fact'.

Facts are information. They are not things.

A fact is whatever IS, Cyracuz.

Knowledge of a fact...is something quite different.

Either there are other living organisms on some planet circling the nearest 50 stars to Sol...or there are not.

If there are...the fact that there are is a fact.

If there are none...the fact that there are none is a fact.

Either way...we humans do not know which is the fact.
Which itself is a fact !

The fact is whatever IS...(there are or there are not)...our knowledge of the fact notwithstanding.

You seem to be confusing the two.

I don't know how else to make this clear to you. And this is also an unfortunate fact !

Fil...I thank you for trying to get through on this also. I don't think it will ever happen. The notion that REALITY is only what humans consider it to be is simply too important to Cyracuz to process this.

I fully agree with you Frank although I couldn't resist adding something to your post (it is underlined) so to make it more entertaining n vivid. Very Happy

1 Reply

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know