morality, drugs, existence

@Fil Albuquerque,

It's not age. It's my natural, instinctive response to bullshit and those who peddle it.
Both you and Frank are personally invested in your own take on "absolute reality" to the point where you have lost perspective.

As long as you confuse the philosophical term "absolute reality" with the general combination of the two words "absolute" and "reality", we are not having the same discussion.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It's not age. It's my natural, instinctive response to bullshit and those who peddle it.
Both you and Frank are personally invested in your own take on "absolute reality" to the point where you have lost perspective.

As long as you confuse the philosophical term "absolute reality" with the general combination of the two words "absolute" and "reality", we are not having the same discussion.

Is that why you refuse to simply discuss REALITY...and want to cloud things by using 'absolute reality'' so that you can claim some kind of artificial disagreement?

REALITY IS...whatever IS (despite what your buddy, CM, says!)

We agree on that.

Previously...you were saying that there is no REALITY except for "that which we humans experience." But recently you have changed that and have acknowledged that there MAY BE elements and components of REALITY that are outside of human experience.

We agree on that.

I have, right along, acknowledged that the only parts of REALITY that we humans can know about are those elements we can actually experience.

We agree on that.

So, Cyracuz, we are in agreement on all o f the essentials of what I have maintained from the very start of this discussion.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

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.

I think I understand why you are having this discussion here, CM. No decent philosophic discussion forum would put up with you for more than a posting or two.

It really is a gas being part of a discussion between you and me...with the interjection of others...

...and listen to you 'splain why nothing exists.

You are one of the most entertaining posters here. Stick around...although I realize there is no "you" and no place for you to "stick around."

What a delight!

1 Reply

Reality is reality, there are no half realities. It takes a special kind of moron to think that there is a distinction to be made between just saying reality and Absolute reality.
The expression "absolute reality" is used in the context of possibility of knowledge and never to ad any special meaning to the wording reality !
This should be quite simple to get but idiocy has a special touch on complicating simple things...

0 Replies

The term "Reality" by definition requires independence as it refers to the biggest SET. When someone claims reality might be dependent on perception bottom line what is being said is that reality depends on my reality which again is absurd once there is only one reality.
If from the proposed we assume that the only reality is the observers reality, since we cannot appeal to a regression once there are no realities of realities, less alone infinite regressions make sense, we MUST therefore conclude that the observer reality if assumed at the foundational level, is a given, an uncaused causer. What this means in turn is that the observer reality could not construct itself once its a given, it was not observed by anyone. The observed the observing and the observer are all together, THE WORLD !
This argument is irrefutable !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

The term "Reality" by definition requires independence as it refers to the biggest SET.

No, Fil. Your assumptions require it to have independence.

Quote:

When someone claims reality might be dependent on perception bottom line what is being said is that reality depends on my reality which again is absurd once there is only one reality.

I submit that you might be misinterpreting that claim.
The claim that reality might be mind-dependent can also mean that maybe reality is the phenomenon that occurs when sub-atomic particles and waves interface with minds.
In that case, without minds there would only be sub atomic particles and waves. Now go ask a physicist about the REALITY of particles and waves.

The point is that we cannot know that reality is mind-dependent.
We also cannot know that it is not.

So when you state as fact that it is not, you are going too far.

Similarly, I would be going to far if I stated as fact that it is. But I haven't done that.
I have simply stated that it might be. I have also stated that regardless of whether or not there is mind-independent reality, mind-dependent reality is the only reality we know and experience.

0 Replies

You still don't get it do you ?
A mind dependent reality, by definition, in its own proposed logic, requires you to observe yourself in order to become yourself. You can't do that !!!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Previously...you were saying that there is no REALITY except for "that which we humans experience."

No. Close, but not precisely.

I have simply stated that REALITY might be mind-dependent. I have also stated that regardless of whether or not there is mind-independent reality, mind-dependent reality is the only reality we know and experience.
Therefore, mind-dependent reality is what we should focus on, because anything we sense and think is inescapably a matter of mind-dependent reality, regardless of whatever else may or may not be.

This line of reasoning suggests to me that if we want to stay clear of beliefs and assumptions, we should disregard all speculations of what may or may not take place outside of mind-dependent reality, simply because we cannot know anything about it. Anything we can say about it will be assumptions.

Edited some errors. First sentence read "...REALITY might be mind independent". That was precisely the opposite of what I meant to write, that "REALITY might be mind-dependent". It's fixed now. Smile

2 Replies

No one here contended that we experience reality through our minds...after all minds are real and a part of reality. The contention was to define a mind as being the CREATOR of reality. They can't. Why ? Because they can't create themselves.

1 Reply

The heart of the confusion is to understand minds as the creators.
Minds deal with the laws of nature by trying to understand them but they don't create those laws by which they themselves operate.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

A mind dependent reality, by definition, in its own proposed logic, requires you to observe yourself in order to become yourself. You can't do that !!!

Could you relate quickly what you understand "mind-dependent reality" to mean?

I understand it to mean "reality as it appears in the mind of creatures that experience it".

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

The contention was to define a mind as being the CREATOR of reality.

I haven't said mind is the creator of reality. I have not used the word creator at all. Your use of it suggests that you are thinking along the lines of a naive realistic model of REALITY.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Edited some errors. First sentence read "...REALITY might be mind independent". That was precisely the opposite of what I meant to write, that "REALITY might be mind-dependent". It's fixed now.

Would you mind explaining the difference between the two???

Might be mind independent...means that it might be mind dependent...doesn't it?

Or did you allow a prejudice to cloud that a bit?

I really do not know for sure...I haven't thought it through completely...but I would love to hear your comments first, Cyracuz.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

wow wow wow...you and Fresco both several times recurred to the expression "social construct". To construct is to build to create. Minds that do not create are just unfolding in a world of properties and systems of properties on which they are just one more. And this is valid even if they are filtering it. They just can't be the final link once they cannot create themselves.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Might be mind independent...means that it might be mind dependent...doesn't it?

It does. I just wanted to be consistent with what I've said previously and with what your quote referred to. Less confusing this way.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Might be mind independent...means that it might be mind dependent...doesn't it?

It does. I just wanted to be consistent with what I've said previously and with what your quote referred to. Less confusing this way.

Thanks, Cyracuz. I thought I had that thought out correctly. And I see your point about the consistency.

0 Replies

Now, this is for the other bloke around the thread:

Not seeing is not like seeing black. Imagine a blind eye in the back of your head, does it see blackness ? yep, it doesn't...
Not smelling is not like smelling air because air has little to no smell, if pure. Imagine a disabled nose on your hand, does your hand smells air like smelling around it ? Yep, it doesn't...
It is a fair acknowledgement to state the all world of experience is filtered through mind, as without it nothing could be perceived...existence is thus recognized by minds.
At the same time minds did not create the laws by which their own perception operates, they are a given in the continuous of the world at large.
Both minds and experiencing are the world, but minds are not the creators of minds and thus not the creators of the bigger set which is the world of minds and experiences. Existence cannot be countered by no existence in absolute terms, because no existence refers only of temporary absences of existent things, and not to the absence of things that never were. Things that never were cannot even be referred to not exist, so you could conclude they do not exist.
When people counter this referring to non existent imaginary objects, say pink elephants, they forget to mention, imaginary objects exist as imaginary objects in the minds of those who imagined them.
There is no such thing as "no existence", by its own definition, it reports nothing, it refers to nothing, not even to itself.
Reality is what is the case. (no one is in control)

1 Reply

We used to think that energy or mass as a total are never lost, but information is also never lost. Temporary absences don't prevent by the sheer mechanic of statistics and probabilities along with huge amounts of time the spontaneous formation of the same systems we saw dispersing through the passage of time and the decay observed with the 2 law of thermodynamics. So long mass can come out of energy and energy is never distributed in perfect equilibrium. The funny thing is that the shape of max entropy equals the shape of min entropy.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

This line of reasoning suggests to me that if we want to stay clear of beliefs and assumptions, we should disregard all speculations of what may or may not take place outside of mind-dependent reality, simply because we cannot know anything about it. Anything we can say about it will be assumptions.

Why would you or anyone assume that we should get rid of all assumptions???

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

It has long been an ideal, both in modern science and philosophy to operate with as few assumptions as possible.

1 Reply

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know