morality, drugs, existence

Unless this thread is an illusion (in which case we may as well all shut up), there has to be at least an acknowledgement that "we exist" as a communicative community using elements of a common language to discuss our conscious experiences.

Fellow nondualists may be united by no such requirement, but as soon as there is an engagement with "others" that axiom holds.

I suggest that a lot of the subsequent talking past each other is about what additional axioms operate beyond that minimal one.

In particular the dispute about "description" versus "reality" revolves about the nature of language per se. Nondualists have the well argued philosophical fall-back position that language is not representational of an independent external reality and that the concept of "existence" is a product of communicative functionality.

right now, the only reality you know is consciousness. everything you know which is more than just 'consciousness' has come from consciousness, and is therefore secondary to it

If we were to include everything that may or may not exist in the category of 'fact' we would water down the term until it was next to meaningless.
Fil demonstrates this in the exchange between him and me where he asserts that we have no means at all to distinguish between claims that are fact and claims that are fiction.

Unless this thread is an illusion (in which case we may as well all shut up), there has to be at least an acknowledgement that "we exist" as a communicative community using elements of a common language to discuss our conscious experiences. Fellow nondualists may be united by no such requirement, but as soon as there is an engagement with "others" that axiom holds. I suggest that a lot of the subsequent talking past each other is about what additional axioms operate beyond that minimal one. In particular the dispute about "description" versus "reality" revolves about the nature of language per se. Nondualists have the well argued philosophical fall-back position that language is not representational of an independent external reality and that the concept of "existence" is a product of communicative functionality.

For those interested in the status of heliocentricity I quote the last sections of the Wiki article on the history of the model.

Quote:

Even if the discussion is limited to the solar system, the Sun is not at the geometric center of any planet's orbit, but rather approximately at one focus of the elliptical orbit. Furthermore, to the extent that a planet's mass cannot be neglected in comparison to the Sun's mass, the center of gravity of the solar system is displaced slightly away from the center of the Sun.[73] (The masses of the planets, mostly Jupiter, amount to 0.14% of that of the Sun.) Therefore a hypothetical astronomer on an extrasolar planet would observe a small "wobble" in the Sun's motion.

Quote:

In modern calculations the terms "geocentric" and "heliocentric" are often used to refer to reference frames. In such systems the origin in the center of mass of the Earth, of the Earth–Moon system, of the Sun, of the Sun plus the major planets, or of the entire solar system can be selected; see center-of-mass frame. This leads to such terms as "heliocentric velocity" and "heliocentric angular momentum". In this heliocentric picture, any planet of the Solar System can be used as a source of mechanical energy because it moves relatively to the Sun. A smaller body (either artificial or natural) may gain heliocentric velocity due to gravity assist – this effect can change the body's mechanical energy in heliocentric reference frame (although it will not changed in the planetary one). However, such selection of "geocentric" or "heliocentric" frames is merely a matter of computation. It does not have philosophical implications and does not constitute a distinct physical or scientific model. From the point of view of General Relativity, inertial reference frames do not exist at all, and any practical reference frame is only an approximation to the actual space-time, which can have higher or lower precision.

(Emphasis mine)

Quote:

Just a point about your use of the word "actually". It tends to conflict with your (and my) concept of "reality" as experiential.

This is not the only such conflict that arises as a consequence of dressing thoughts into words. Another similar conflict is that which arises when I'm trying to contrast the notion of mind-independent reality to experiential reality. It doesn't seem possible to speak about it without at least temporarily speaking of reality as if it were mind-independent, even if you were in it to argue against it.

Quote:

In short, facts are functional statements about what suffices to be the case.

We are not quite there yet. I am still trying to get Frank to realize that facts are statements, though I have used the word 'descriptions'. He seems to make no distinction between what can be said about something and the thing itself.

Quote:

If you want to keep going down that "description" road...do it. But doing so is not going to change the FACT that what IS...IS. And "what IS" IS the REALITY.

Can you park that notion for 2 seconds. In fact, why don't you stow it completely. It's not like I didn't hear you the first six thousand times you said it.

Once and for all, I have not disputed that that what IS...IS. And "what IS" IS the REALITY.


So from now on, whenever you feel the urge to type those words, or anything to that effect, remind yourself that I know this, and it is not being contested by me.

Quote:

A fact is a component of REALITY.

Yes. Components that are similar to other components like lies and assumptions. But if you insist that the sun, for instance, is a fact, you are using imprecise language. A fact is something that can be looked up online or in a book, or stored in your mind. The sun is an object we have facts about.

A fact is something that actually IS.

Quote:

REALITY is the totality of what IS.

Awkward, Frank. Me sitting here now at this computer is REALITY, but it is not the totality of what IS.

Think about it, Frank. Facts are information. Reality is what information classified as fact is about.

You can insist on your way, but that is nothing more than dumbing it down, making your language and thinking less precise.

Quote:

Quote:

Note please, a fact is a claim which happens to be true, independently on whether we know it with full certainty to be true.

If this is the case, what kind of magic do you propose we should use to discover which claims are fact and which are not?

To which you reply:

Quote:

We can't !

To what purpose, if I may ask, do you have the two words FACT and FICTION? According to you we can't distinguish between the two... Why not just one word?

there are no facts, just like there is no truth or reality.

Quote:

frank and fil's rebuttals of this argument are simple but flawed; that 'fact' refers to an absolute truth which exists regardless of human consciousness.

Yes. It is not so much an argument as a conviction founded in a belief in 'absolute truth'.
Frank insists that he doesn't do beliefs, so he can never admit this, because that would dispel his illusion.

All this according to the Bible of CM.

Fresco and Cyracuz: If you guys are not embarrassed by having this guy "help" you 'splain your position...you should be embarrassed by yourselves.

I do not do beliefs, Cyracuz...and this comment of yours is nonsense.

Are you saying that the "absolute truth"...is that there is no "absolute truth?"

You acknowledged that "whatever IS...IS." If that is so...then there is an absolute REALITY...which is what said.

For all that I care there is no distinction between the Moon experiencing gravity pull and I experiencing the uncontrolled unfolding of my awareness and processes. Even my own reasoning can be argued being an involuntary process which I can't avoid to perform within my own parameters of computational power.
The point is that even the wording of "external" or "internal" in respect to reality is subjective and dependent of frames of reference bound in cultural mishmash.

It would indeed have sufficed to say reality is what it is, but that was precisely what you couldn't do

You do not exist.
This thread does not exist.
Your reply is not a reply.
Your disagreement is not a disagreement.
There is no Frank or Fil.
There is not even your imagination speaking to itself about Frank Fil n disagreements.
You are not even pathetic you are non existent !

how does all that reasoning (uncontrolled awareness, involuntary, no internal or external) logically point to 'reality is what it is'.

Quote:

I do not do beliefs, Cyracuz...and this comment of yours is nonsense.

Are you saying that the "absolute truth"...is that there is no "absolute truth?"

your second statement clearly shows that you believe in 'absolute truth', directly contradicting your first statement.

Quote:

You acknowledged that "whatever IS...IS." If that is so...then there is an absolute REALITY...which is what said.

he acknowledged 'whatever is is' just to satisfy your limited mind, in which something must exist. i also can acknowledge that 'IF YOU ASSUME SOMETHING EXISTS, then whatever is is'. otherwise, 'whatever is is' is not an entirely accurate statement, in my opinion, nor is it relevant.

so are you still claiming that you don't do beliefs? that you DO NOT believe that there is an absolute reality? the above quote of yours suggests that you clearly do.

you think that 'believing' in absolute reality is not really a belief, it is 'knowledge'. but knowledge is just a belief, self-defined as knowledge. you think there is 'enough proof' to be sure, but there is not.

Are you saying that the "absolute truth"...is that there is no "absolute truth?"