morality, drugs, existence

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

In case you haven't realized it:
Frank's use of the words "absolute reality" does not conform to the meaning of the philosophical term "absolute reality".
In fact, the way he uses it, it can mean anything.

In essence, what he says it that if reality only happens in the perception of beings with experience, then THAT is the absolute reality.

He seems oblivious to the fact that if that is indeed reality, it can just as easily prove my point as disprove it. It asserts nothing of relevance to our discussion, and it will not until he starts using the term correctly. But if he does that he no longer has an argument.
His entire position is a matter of semantic sophistry. That's probably why you are so impressed, since it's what you aspire to.

No, the distinction is control or not control. That is what distinguishes willing agents from rocks.
Even if we posit that all that exists is one mind or a set of minds with "experiencing" and we already know a first cause cannot have a cause then the first cause is contingent and lacks control upon its own given nature. If I cannot recreate my nature and the unfolding of my decisions, if I am a contingent first cause that just happens to be, then I am the world as the world is what is given, that which IS.
Frank is being simple because the matter is simple.
Reality is what it is because you cannot prove control. It is what happens to be the case it is.
Your attempt to prove control while maintaining there are no facts is anecdotal straight away ! A tremendous contradiction. The only sophists around are you and Fresco. Now please if you want or feel up to answer do so point by point instead of misrepresenting or misquoting my words ! If you want to be taken seriously then please make serious replies, and once more please stop with easy gratuitous insults, you look a damn Viking barbarian !

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I know there is an absolute REALITY. It is not a belief.

The definition of the term "absolute reality":

Quote:

: ultimate reality as it is in itself unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being

You do realize that "absolute reality" such as it is defined above cannot be proven nor demonstrated and therefore is an assumption?

Your use of the term "absolute reality" is not consistent with the definition. You have repeatedly accused me of re-defining words to suit my agenda, but that is precisely what you are doing here, and have been doing for a long time.

Either admit that "absolute reality" is an assumption, or admit that you hold at least one belief.

Like I said, I agree that whatever is IS. But if whatever IS is contextual, mind-dependent reality, then that is what IS, and it in no way proves or demonstrates that there is "reality as it is in itself unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being".

Your continued refusal to acknowledge this point, and your stubborn persistence in maintaining your take on "absolute reality" despite clear and abundant demonstrations that your usage is wrong, are the reasons for "our problem", as you put it.

But heck, I'll meet you half way. IF we go by your usage of the term "absolute reality", you are absolutely correct. But when we use the term that way it neither proves nor disproves anything I've said.

IF we use the term "absolute reality" the way I am using it, which is also the correct usage, I am right, and you are engaged in delusional behavior.

So now you have the choice. You can either be wrong or willfully ignorant. It is up to you.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Any first cause is unaffected by observation.
Either you explain how does an infinite chain of causes works or you admit to a GIVEN first cause which is independent of control !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You couldn't take me seriously even if you wanted to. Your reply demonstrates that you have not even understood me.

You have to realize that we are not talking about what actually is, because for all intents and purposes we can only have knowledge of what we perceive in some way (microscopes, telescopes and any method we have of extracting data are extensions of perception).

We are talking about what is knowable to us, and what we can obtain information about.
I am not saying that REALITY starts with perception.
I am saying that ALL our knowledge of REALITY starts with perception.

If you want to speak of reality we can't perceive or do not perceive, you are engaged in flights of fancy.
If you want to do science or philosophy you should stick to that which is demonstrably the case and proceed from there with assumptions and assertions, if you are so inclined.
You are starting from some random idea that you have yet to demonstrate has any relation to REALITY.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Any first cause is unaffected by observation.

Yes. And so, any hypothetical first cause is an assumption. You are free to assume that there is such a thing as a first cause, but you will not be able to prove or demonstrate it. So it is not fact.

Quote:

Either you explain how does an infinite chain of causes works or you admit to a GIVEN first cause which is independent of control !

You are the one ranting about "infinite chain of causes", as if that is even remotely relevant to reality. The "logic" is flawed. Just because you can't think of how else it might be doesn't mean it has to be as you say. That's just arrogant narcissism.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

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

No. I am saying that the truth is that we cannot be sure if there is indeed such a thing as absolute truth (meaning that we can't know for sure that there are things that are true irrespective of our knowing them).

Cyracuz...then that WOULD BE the absolute truth (REALITY).

How many times does that have to be called to your attention to finally get through?

I defy you to create a scenario in which there is NO ABSOLUTE REALITY.

Quote:

And your semantic rant that if this is indeed the truth, then that is the absolute truth... If the absolute truth is that there is no truth outside of experienced context, that would mean that you cannot assert that there exists things that are true regardless of whether or not we know about them.

If the truth is that there is no truth outside of human experience...THEN THAT WOULD BE WHAT IS. There is no getting around that, Cyracuz...and you know it.

I have steadfastly said that I do NOT KNOW what the REALITY is. I am not asserting that there ARE things that are REAL regardless of whether we human know about them or not...I AM saying that it MAY BE THE case.

YOU are the one asserting that it HAS TO BE the case.

I have no idea of which is the REALITY...but apparently you think you do.

Quote:

Like you love to say, what is IS. And if what IS only IS in the context of perception (a notion we cannot confirm or disprove), you have no basis on which to assert reality or truth outside of this context (also a notion we cannot confirm or disprove).

YOU are asserting that it MUST BE in that context, Cyracuz. I am saying that it might not be. I most assuredly CAN assert that you might be wrong, because you might be. (Unless you are asserting that you have never ever been wrong on anything???)

Quote:

If you still insist on doing so you are making unfounded assertions, aka guesses. Further, if you are making these guesses and presenting them as facts beyond doubt, you are engaged in believing.

I call my guesses "guesses." If you want to call your guesses "beliefs"...go to it. But "belief" carries too much baggage for me to use.

I do not do believing...no matter how much you seem to want to assert that I do.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I know there is an absolute REALITY. It is not a belief.

The definition of the term "absolute reality":

Quote:
: ultimate reality as it is in itself unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being

You do realize that "absolute reality" such as it is defined above cannot be proven nor demonstrated and therefore is an assumption?

Your use of the term "absolute reality" is not consistent with the definition. You have repeatedly accused me of re-defining words to suit my agenda, but that is precisely what you are doing here, and have been doing for a long time.

Either admit that "absolute reality" is an assumption, or admit that you hold at least one belief.

Like I said, I agree that whatever is IS. But if whatever IS is contextual, mind-dependent reality, then that is what IS, and it in no way proves or demonstrates that there is "reality as it is in itself unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being".

Your continued refusal to acknowledge this point, and your stubborn persistence in maintaining your take on "absolute reality" despite clear and abundant demonstrations that your usage is wrong, are the reasons for "our problem", as you put it.

But heck, I'll meet you half way. IF we go by your usage of the term "absolute reality", you are absolutely correct. But when we use the term that way it neither proves nor disproves anything I've said.

IF we use the term "absolute reality" the way I am using it, which is also the correct usage, I am right, and you are engaged in delusional behavior.

So now you have the choice. You can either be wrong or willfully ignorant. It is up to you.

Have a great Thanksgiving, Cyracuz...and enjoy the delusion that you KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence. I am quite comfortable acknowledging that I do not know...so I cannot rule out anything.

And...I can get a good laugh out of you people who seem to think you do know.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

You couldn't take me seriously even if you wanted to. Your reply demonstrates that you have not even understood me.

You have to realize that we are not talking about what actually is, because for all intents and purposes we can only have knowledge of what we perceive in some way (microscopes, telescopes and any method we have of extracting data are extensions of perception).

We are talking about what is knowable to us, and what we can obtain information about.
I am not saying that REALITY starts with perception.
I am saying that ALL our knowledge of REALITY starts with perception.

If you want to speak of reality we can't perceive or do not perceive, you are engaged in flights of fancy.
If you want to do science or philosophy you should stick to that which is demonstrably the case and proceed from there with assumptions and assertions, if you are so inclined.
You are starting from some random idea that you have yet to demonstrate has any relation to REALITY.

What random idea eh ? The problem of first cause is one of the oldest philosophical problems there is ! Are you asserting I invented the problem of a first cause ? Look it up and then come back please.

You cannot both sustain Reality doesn't have to start with perception and at the same time say that Reality is only what is perceived. IT IS A CONTRADICTION.
I am well aware that my grasp of reality is filtered by my perception but that is not the point being debated here !
And please please don't go back n forward with what you claim...in several occasions you posited that it might well be that the Moon only exists because we observe it. How is that not positing reality starts with observation ?
The fact of the matter is that you are a cheater in debate, not to mention you often resort to insults to try and score some credibility...you are a vain shallow person far more preoccupied with what others think of you then with getting to the heart of the matter in philosophical discussions.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If the truth is that there is no truth outside of human experience...THEN THAT WOULD BE WHAT IS. There is no getting around that, Cyracuz...and you know it.

I do. And I agree.

Quote:

I have steadfastly said that I do NOT KNOW what the REALITY is. I am not asserting that there ARE things that are REAL regardless of whether we human know about them or not...I AM saying that it MAY BE THE case.

That is where you are wrong. I fully understand what you mean, and I agree with your intended meaning, but when you use the term "absolute reality" that is not what you are saying. Once again I must refer you to the definition of the philosophical term.

Quote:

YOU are the one asserting that it HAS TO BE the case.

No. I am saying that the reality we perceive is the only reality we can have knowledge about (since any knowledge can only come to us via perception).

So we can know for certain that there is mind-dependent reality. We experience it, every one of us. There is proof. It is demonstrably so.
We can not know for certain if this mind-dependent reality exists within a larger reality.

It becomes clear to me now that the only disagreement we really have is what "absolute reality" means. I am using the philosophical term, while you are using it in a general manner.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
If the truth is that there is no truth outside of human experience...THEN THAT WOULD BE WHAT IS. There is no getting around that, Cyracuz...and you know it.

I do. And I agree.

Okay.

Quote:

Quote:
I have steadfastly said that I do NOT KNOW what the REALITY is. I am not asserting that there ARE things that are REAL regardless of whether we human know about them or not...I AM saying that it MAY BE THE case.

That is where you are wrong. I fully understand what you mean, and I agree with your intended meaning, but when you use the term "absolute reality" that is not what you are saying. Once again I must refer you to the definition of the philosophical term.

You will have to post the definition, because when I go there, they ask that I subscribe to the online dictionary...which I have no intention of doing. If, by the way, the "philosophical term" means a GOD...then you are playing a game, because you know damn well that I do not mean a GOD.

I much prefer just to use the term REALITY...than absolute REALITY...and I will tell you that you introduced that term as part of a straw man. I almost always use just REALITY...although on occasions I use Ultimate REALITY...meaning "whatever IS." I have explained that on several occasions...and I have no problem if you substitute the words "whatever IS" in place of my use of Ultimate REALITY or Absolute REALITY...anywhere that I have used either of them.

Quote:

Quote:
YOU are the one asserting that it HAS TO BE the case.

No. I am saying that the reality we perceive is the only reality we can have knowledge about (since any knowledge can only come to us via perception).

And I have told you dozens of times that there MAY BE a difference between what we can perceive of REALITY...and the actual REALITY...what actually IS.

YOU, however, for no good reason that I can see, ARE INSISTING THAT REALITY can only be what we perceive...except when you see that such an assertion is an absurdity and then you change your wording.

Quote:

So we can know for certain that there is mind-dependent reality. We experience it, every one of us. There is proof. It is demonstrably so.
We can not know for certain if this mind-dependent reality exists within a larger reality.

The fact that we cannot know does not mean it does not exist. So...if you give up this bizarre insistence that REALITY can only be what we perceive and know...and recognize that there MAY be parts of REALITY that we cannot...

...you and I will be in complete agreement.

Quote:

It becomes clear to me now that the only disagreement we really have is what "absolute reality" means. I am using the philosophical term, while you are using it in a general manner.

If you say so, Cyracuz.

If that is so. But I have been very out-front about what I am speaking of when I use the term REALITY...and you keep sticking in that "absolute reality" so that you do not have to deal with what I am actually saying.

Stop doing that...and we can just agree that we agree!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Obviously Absolute Reality only means "what is the case" once what is the case is not dependent on observation. Any first cause by DEFINITION needs not be observed to exist, it is contingent, it is a given. We only need speaking of first causes because an infinite regression of causes rises the problem of infinity, to an extent the problem of Zeno's paradox. You would need an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of events to get to the current event thus never arriving at any point without defining a starting point. When we assume there is a first cause which was uncaused we are granting observation is not needed.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Obviously Absolute Reality only means "what is the case"

You really do have **** for brains...

I have given a very clear explanation of what the term "absolute reality" means. I have even supplied a dictionary definition of the term.
If you will not accept that and use the term properly you might as well be writing in Urdu.

I have no interest whatsoever in the ramblings of someone who is so detached from reality that they even have their own special definitions of words that mean something else when they use them than when everyone else uses them.

Obviously you don't know the first thing about this subject.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Great balls of fire

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Growing older is not doing you any good... Cool

1 Reply

Quote:

Cyracuz said: I have given a very clear explanation of what the term "absolute reality" means

Ah, so is reality "graded" into different kinds of reality on a scale such as-
"Absolute reality"
"Not-quite-absolute reality"
"Reasonably absolute reality"
"Not very absolute reality"?

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

You bothered to reply the dumb troll ? You are in for a treat mate...

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I know there is an absolute REALITY. It is not a belief. If it makes you comfortable to consider it a guess...go with that.

it is sad that you do not properly understand the meaning of the word 'know'.

Quote:

I'm willing to hear Cyracuz say that. Short of that, I will assume he told me the truth when he acknowledged that whatever IS...IS.

If "nothing" exists...that IS what IS.

even i will acknowledge 'whatever is is', IF YOU ASSUME SOMETHING EXISTS. if nothing exists, then 'whatever is is' is meaningless and contradictory, because if you start equating "is" with "is not", the whole english language fails.

now, it is impossible to ever determine if something "is" or "is not". therefore, 'whatever is is' is a paradoxical statement.

Quote:

It is not a belief. It is something I know. It simply cannot be any other way. But if it makes you comfortable to consider it a guess...consider it a guess.

again, look at your proof for the 'knowledge'. 'it simply cannot be any other way'. is that proof in your world? no, its a belief, fool.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Is that also in the CM Bible?

no it is straight out of direct experience. look at any supposed 'knowledge' you have, and investigate it. there is no such thing as knowledge, except for self-defining it as such and believing it.

so yes you do 'do beliefs'. if you didn't, you would see the obvious 'truth' that there is no truth/reality/existence beyond the self-defined as such by consciousness.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Because when you state reality is what it is you are emphasising the lack of control on it. It is what it is independently of your attempt at control.

when you state 'reality is what it is', you are making assumptions. yes, a lack of control does not prove the statement WRONG as such. but it goes against the common perception that we control our minds and consciousness. this perception causes the usual assumption (which you are also making) that reality definitely exists, because we feel in control of the experience of consciousness. it gives us a definition, a feeling of existence.

Quote:

The wording is just means whatever is being referred.

WRONG. the wording 'is', is the only word i actually have a problem with in the statement 'reality is what it is'. is does not only mean 'to refer to something', it also categorically implies the thing's REAL EXISTENCE in an absolute reality. this idea is an assumption/belief.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

No. I am saying that the truth is that we cannot be sure if there is indeed such a thing as absolute truth (meaning that we can't know for sure that there are things that are true irrespective of our knowing them).

Quote:

Cyracuz...then that WOULD BE the absolute truth (REALITY).

How many times does that have to be called to your attention to finally get through?

frank, you are the one wrong. how many times do we have to call this to your attention?:
if 'we cannot be sure if there is absolute truth' (as cyracuz says), then that would NOT BE AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

you are ASSUMING THAT YOU EXIST FIRST. and therefore saying that 'ok, if i already exist, and then i think about no absolute truth, then the absolute truth is just that i still exist.'

people like you are just slow to evolve. the 'idea' of non existence cannot be entertained easily; complete 'individual conscious death' (ego death) is required.

Quote:

If the truth is that there is no truth outside of human experience...THEN THAT WOULD BE WHAT IS. There is no getting around that, Cyracuz...and you know it.

there is easy 'getting around that'.
your statement starts off wrong. "IF THE TRUTH IS...". already wrong. if there is no truth, then there IS NO TRUTH. so the truth isn't anything.

you are just using circular reasoning. you are saying if there is no truth, there still is truth. so you cannot actually accept 'no truth'.

you have said it yourself. you KNOW there is an absolute reality, you don't believe it. this is just so obviously false that there is no need to discuss this topic further with you.

you go and keep KNOWING all about reality. intelligent people like cyracuz and fresco will continue to question 'reality' and abide in the eternal peace of 'no absolute reality'.

Quote:

I have steadfastly said that I do NOT KNOW what the REALITY is. I am not asserting that there ARE things that are REAL regardless of whether we human know about them or not...I AM saying that it MAY BE THE case.

you are asserting that you do not KNOW reality. that is ok. but by doing so, you are also asserting that there definitely IS a reality.

again, you are so deluded by this belief, that you call it knowledge. terrible understanding of simple concepts like knowledge vs belief.

Quote:

YOU are the one asserting that it HAS TO BE the case.

you hate other people asserting things, don't you? only your assertions that "what is is", "reality exists", only these assertions hold true in your special little reality world?

Quote:

I have no idea of which is the REALITY...but apparently you think you do.

we do not think we know reality by questioning it. we precisely are conceding there is nothing to possibly know, because so-called 'reality' is eternally questionable, meaning it cannot be asserted as "is" or "is not".

you are only believing assumptions when you say "i know there is reality, but i don't know anything about it."
it takes courage and metalogic to arrive at "there is no reality", other than the single, unitary appearance of 'reality' which can never be fully 'known as real'.

Quote:

I call my guesses "guesses." If you want to call your guesses "beliefs"...go to it. But "belief" carries too much baggage for me to use.

I do not do believing...no matter how much you seem to want to assert that I do.

ahhh so from knowledge it changes to 'guesses'. good, good, you are slowly improving. perhaps there is still hope for you. keep guessing hard!

0 Replies

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know