The Contradiction of Matter

[Eodnhoj7]

The same matter which is responsible for the reality through which we exist is the same matter which is responsible for illusion. Matter thus contradicts itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your above is based on conflation and equivocation.

There is no contradiction, all the above can be explained rationally as below;

"matter which is responsible for the reality through which we exist"
In this case, this matter is from the perspective of Science, i.e.

• In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

The above matter is not illusory relative to Science.

is the same matter which is responsible for illusion
The emergence of an empirical related illusion is not based on matter directly but by the operations of the human mind, e.g. seeing a bent stick between water and air.

There is no matter-in-itself, but matter is always conditioned to some Framework, i.e. Physics.
To reify matter-in-itself as real is an illusion.
Such an illusion is driven by psychological, i.e. activities of the mind.

The illusion is real, i.e. objective but what there is nothing real on what the illusion is about.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your above is based on conflation and equivocation.

There is no contradiction, all the above can be explained rationally as below;

"matter which is responsible for the reality through which we exist"
In this case, this matter is from the perspective of Science, i.e.

• In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

The above matter is not illusory relative to Science.

is the same matter which is responsible for illusion
The emergence of an empirical related illusion is not based on matter directly but by the operations of the human mind, e.g. seeing a bent stick between water and air.

There is no matter-in-itself, but matter is always conditioned to some Framework, i.e. Physics.
To reify matter-in-itself as real is an illusion.
Such an illusion is driven by psychological, i.e. activities of the mind.

The illusion is real, i.e. objective but what there is nothing real on what the illusion is about.

The human mind is determined by the brain, the brain is determined by matter, therefore the human mind is a result of matter (from the perspective of materialism).

If empirical truth is the foundation for knowledge, what is sensed is matter self referencing itself through further and further forms. To say matter is conditioned to some abstraction is to argue that some degree of consciousness lies behind matter given this abstraction, from your stance, is only a thought.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your above is based on conflation and equivocation.

There is no contradiction, all the above can be explained rationally as below;

"matter which is responsible for the reality through which we exist"
In this case, this matter is from the perspective of Science, i.e.

• In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

The above matter is not illusory relative to Science.

is the same matter which is responsible for illusion
The emergence of an empirical related illusion is not based on matter directly but by the operations of the human mind, e.g. seeing a bent stick between water and air.

There is no matter-in-itself, but matter is always conditioned to some Framework, i.e. Physics.
To reify matter-in-itself as real is an illusion.
Such an illusion is driven by psychological, i.e. activities of the mind.

The illusion is real, i.e. objective but what there is nothing real on what the illusion is about.

The human mind is determined by the brain, the brain is determined by matter, therefore the human mind is a result of matter (from the perspective of materialism).

If empirical truth is the foundation for knowledge, what is sensed is matter self referencing itself through further and further forms. To say matter is conditioned to some abstraction is to argue that some degree of consciousness lies behind matter given this abstraction, from your stance, is only a thought.

Nope, it is very ignorant of you to state the human mind is determined from matter.

The human mind is conditioned upon the brain, the body, human evolution and the Universe.

The human mind merely emerge from the above conditions without a final cause.

The theory of matter -Philosophical Materialism - has long been destroyed by George Berkeley.
Do you even have a idea of this point?

[Eodnhoj7]

Your above is based on conflation and equivocation.

There is no contradiction, all the above can be explained rationally as below;

"matter which is responsible for the reality through which we exist"
In this case, this matter is from the perspective of Science, i.e.

• In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

The above matter is not illusory relative to Science.

is the same matter which is responsible for illusion
The emergence of an empirical related illusion is not based on matter directly but by the operations of the human mind, e.g. seeing a bent stick between water and air.

There is no matter-in-itself, but matter is always conditioned to some Framework, i.e. Physics.
To reify matter-in-itself as real is an illusion.
Such an illusion is driven by psychological, i.e. activities of the mind.

The illusion is real, i.e. objective but what there is nothing real on what the illusion is about.

The human mind is determined by the brain, the brain is determined by matter, therefore the human mind is a result of matter (from the perspective of materialism).

If empirical truth is the foundation for knowledge, what is sensed is matter self referencing itself through further and further forms. To say matter is conditioned to some abstraction is to argue that some degree of consciousness lies behind matter given this abstraction, from your stance, is only a thought.

Nope, it is very ignorant of you to state the human mind is determined from matter.

The human mind is conditioned upon the brain, the body, human evolution and the Universe.

The human mind merely emerge from the above conditions without a final cause.

The theory of matter -Philosophical Materialism - has long been destroyed by George Berkeley.
Do you even have a idea of this point?

From an empirical stance it is determined from matter given matter is what is observed through the senses. The brain, body, evolution and the Universe is grounded in matter producing itself through a series of variations. This is all from then perspective of empiricism.

However if matter is not the final source of all phenomenon then there are things which are produced from beyond the physical senses and the concept of God can be taken a priori. All a priori truths, as assumed, do not require physical proofs for them to exist. An example of this is the number 1.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The human mind is determined by the brain, the brain is determined by matter, therefore the human mind is a result of matter (from the perspective of materialism).

If empirical truth is the foundation for knowledge, what is sensed is matter self referencing itself through further and further forms. To say matter is conditioned to some abstraction is to argue that some degree of consciousness lies behind matter given this abstraction, from your stance, is only a thought.

Nope, it is very ignorant of you to state the human mind is determined from matter.

The human mind is conditioned upon the brain, the body, human evolution and the Universe.

The human mind merely emerge from the above conditions without a final cause.

The theory of matter -Philosophical Materialism - has long been destroyed by George Berkeley.
Do you even have a idea of this point?

From an empirical stance it is determined from matter given matter is what is observed through the senses. The brain, body, evolution and the Universe is grounded in matter producing itself through a series of variations. This is all from then perspective of empiricism.

However if matter is not the final source of all phenomenon then there are things which are produced from beyond the physical senses and the concept of God can be taken a priori. All a priori truths, as assumed, do not require physical proofs for them to exist. An example of this is the number 1.

Again I ask you, are you aware Philosophical Materialism that matter exists independently had been debunked long ago.
Prove this debunking of Philosophical Materialism is wrong and I will agree with your views above.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nope, it is very ignorant of you to state the human mind is determined from matter.

The human mind is conditioned upon the brain, the body, human evolution and the Universe.

The human mind merely emerge from the above conditions without a final cause.

The theory of matter -Philosophical Materialism - has long been destroyed by George Berkeley.
Do you even have a idea of this point?

From an empirical stance it is determined from matter given matter is what is observed through the senses. The brain, body, evolution and the Universe is grounded in matter producing itself through a series of variations. This is all from then perspective of empiricism.

However if matter is not the final source of all phenomenon then there are things which are produced from beyond the physical senses and the concept of God can be taken a priori. All a priori truths, as assumed, do not require physical proofs for them to exist. An example of this is the number 1.

Again I ask you, are you aware Philosophical Materialism that matter exists independently had been debunked long ago.
Prove this debunking of Philosophical Materialism is wrong and I will agree with your views above.

I don't have to prove anything, if empiricism (the physical senses) does not observe matter, then what does it observe?

[Veritas Aequitas]

From an empirical stance it is determined from matter given matter is what is observed through the senses. The brain, body, evolution and the Universe is grounded in matter producing itself through a series of variations. This is all from then perspective of empiricism.

However if matter is not the final source of all phenomenon then there are things which are produced from beyond the physical senses and the concept of God can be taken a priori. All a priori truths, as assumed, do not require physical proofs for them to exist. An example of this is the number 1.

Again I ask you, are you aware Philosophical Materialism that matter exists independently had been debunked long ago.
Prove this debunking of Philosophical Materialism is wrong and I will agree with your views above.

I don't have to prove anything, if empiricism (the physical senses) does not observe matter, then what does it observe?

It it the self via the physical senses [other sensible organs] that perceived whatever thing is observed and then interpret as real.

Note my thread;

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

As such the "what" that is observed and perceived as real is a part of reality, so, that 'what' is co-created by humans as demonstrated in the linked OP above.
That "what" is thus 'thing-by-human-selves' and not a thing-in-itself.

Therefore that 'what' or that 'thing' is not a pre-existing thing-in-itself that is thereafter observed and perceived by the self with its empirical senses.
That 'what' or thing is a spontaneous emergent object of reality emerging spontaneously.

Why you are so desperate [unconsciously] to reify an illusory "pre-existing thing-in-itself" is due to an inherent psychology drive manifesting from an existential crisis.

[Eodnhoj7]

Again I ask you, are you aware Philosophical Materialism that matter exists independently had been debunked long ago.
Prove this debunking of Philosophical Materialism is wrong and I will agree with your views above.

I don't have to prove anything, if empiricism (the physical senses) does not observe matter, then what does it observe?

It it the self via the physical senses [other sensible organs] that perceived whatever thing is observed and then interpret as real.

Note my thread;

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

As such the "what" that is observed and perceived as real is a part of reality, so, that 'what' is co-created by humans as demonstrated in the linked OP above.
That "what" is thus 'thing-by-human-selves' and not a thing-in-itself.

Therefore that 'what' or that 'thing' is not a pre-existing thing-in-itself that is thereafter observed and perceived by the self with its empirical senses.
That 'what' or thing is a spontaneous emergent object of reality emerging spontaneously.

Why you are so desperate [unconsciously] to reify an illusory "pre-existing thing-in-itself" is due to an inherent psychology drive manifesting from an existential crisis.

Off tangent, if empiricism is that which is percieved through the senses, then what do the senses interpret other than matter? All forms are thus matter self referencing itself through newer and newer forms.

Reality is a thing in itself given it is self referencing through newer and newer forms. It is conditioned upon itself alone.

[Scott Mayers]

From an empirical stance it is determined from matter given matter is what is observed through the senses. The brain, body, evolution and the Universe is grounded in matter producing itself through a series of variations. This is all from then perspective of empiricism.

However if matter is not the final source of all phenomenon then there are things which are produced from beyond the physical senses and the concept of God can be taken a priori. All a priori truths, as assumed, do not require physical proofs for them to exist. An example of this is the number 1.

Again I ask you, are you aware Philosophical Materialism that matter exists independently had been debunked long ago.
Prove this debunking of Philosophical Materialism is wrong and I will agree with your views above.

I don't have to prove anything, if empiricism (the physical senses) does not observe matter, then what does it observe?

...and, to add to your point, what is it that is 'observing'?

[Eodnhoj7]

Again I ask you, are you aware Philosophical Materialism that matter exists independently had been debunked long ago.
Prove this debunking of Philosophical Materialism is wrong and I will agree with your views above.

I don't have to prove anything, if empiricism (the physical senses) does not observe matter, then what does it observe?

...and, to add to your point, what is it that is 'observing'?

Empiricism, ie that which is percieved through the senses, observes matter.

[Scott Mayers]

Off tangent, if empiricism is that which is percieved through the senses, then what do the senses interpret other than matter? All forms are thus matter self referencing itself through newer and newer forms.

Reality is a thing in itself given it is self referencing through newer and newer forms. It is conditioned upon itself alone.

I agree. What Veritas is doing is POSTULATING the subject perceiving (oneself) AND the observations without permitting questioning. While this is fine for science, where science strictly politicizes observations [has agreement among all participants to the phenomena without question but by consensus alone.]

Note that Einstein had thought experiments on this and came up with 'relativity' of matter-to-matter as what is required. That is, he argued that if one is the ONLY thing in empty space as an 'observer', even as it 'matters' to the observer, nothing could be interpreted about itself nor of anything else. Thus, he argued that you at least require another 'matter' that requires you to 'observe' it as it to you.

This is the thought experiment of imagining how a spinning dancer or ice-skater alone cannot infer anything without a reference of another object. If you have two dancers that begin close, then 'evidence' of CHANGE requires noting how a spin should pull you apart, or that a push of each other moves them both away from their original position.

Since also physics adds that matter has 'mass AND resists change (with respect to other masses), gravity implied as a measure of mass cannot exist without two or more distinct masses and the very space it occupies as extant.

Since matter 'occupies' space, then space itself has to be real and cannot be explained outside of the abstraction of math (ie, logic). So this topic is rightfully not 'scientific' but philosophical metaphysics and is apriori to matter itself.

[Scott Mayers]

I don't have to prove anything, if empiricism (the physical senses) does not observe matter, then what does it observe?

...and, to add to your point, what is it that is 'observing'?

Empiricism, ie that which is percieved through the senses, observes matter.

"Empiricism" is not a thing but a method and shared consensus between people. By oneself, you have to postulate both yourself AND the environment you are perceiving. See my last note.

[Eodnhoj7]

...and, to add to your point, what is it that is 'observing'?

Empiricism, ie that which is percieved through the senses, observes matter.

"Empiricism" is not a thing but a method and shared consensus between people. By oneself, you have to postulate both yourself AND the environment you are perceiving. See my last note.

All methodologies and consensus' are phenomena.

[Eodnhoj7]

Off tangent, if empiricism is that which is percieved through the senses, then what do the senses interpret other than matter? All forms are thus matter self referencing itself through newer and newer forms.

Reality is a thing in itself given it is self referencing through newer and newer forms. It is conditioned upon itself alone.

I agree. What Veritas is doing is POSTULATING the subject perceiving (oneself) AND the observations without permitting questioning. While this is fine for science, where science strictly politicizes observations [has agreement among all participants to the phenomena without question but by consensus alone.]

Note that Einstein had thought experiments on this and came up with 'relativity' of matter-to-matter as what is required. That is, he argued that if one is the ONLY thing in empty space as an 'observer', even as it 'matters' to the observer, nothing could be interpreted about itself nor of anything else. Thus, he argued that you at least require another 'matter' that requires you to 'observe' it as it to you.

This is the thought experiment of imagining how a spinning dancer or ice-skater alone cannot infer anything without a reference of another object. If you have two dancers that begin close, then 'evidence' of CHANGE requires noting how a spin should pull you apart, or that a push of each other moves them both away from their original position.

Since also physics adds that matter has 'mass AND resists change (with respect to other masses), gravity implied as a measure of mass cannot exist without two or more distinct masses and the very space it occupies as extant.

Since matter 'occupies' space, then space itself has to be real and cannot be explained outside of the abstraction of math (ie, logic). So this topic is rightfully not 'scientific' but philosophical metaphysics and is apriori to matter itself.

Space occupies space.

A circle is space.

What is around and within the circle is space.

Matter is the form, space, which emerges from space. Space results in space as space simultaneously multiplies and divides itself: cut a line in half and two whole lines result. Each line is a whole in itself and half compared to the original. The division of space is the multiplication of space.