God? It is Only in the Brain

[LuckyR]

If a purely sonar bat view "the moon" was there a "moon"?

It is likely the bat would be perceiving something like,


I cannot visualize how a velocoraptor would have viewed the 'moon' but it is definitely NOT like what bats and humans are viewing that cluster of atoms and particles.
A Neanderthal may have viewed 'moon' like humans do, but definitely not exactly like modern humans.

Even with modern humans, every human will have a unique perception of the so-called moon, there is no way to verify the perception is the same for everyone.

As such, there is no absolutely mind-independent moon that exists or existed that is permanent at the same time and for every entity.

The fundamental of what is reality could be just this;

Whatever manifest from a denser cluster of particles out of that 'soup' as moon or whatever is relative to the entity in their different conditions and time.

Even the conception of the above a soup of particles or waves in conditioned by humans within the Physics community.

As such, it is a non-starter to the question of what is the fundamental essence of reality, i.e. a BOTTOM_UP approach.
What is most realistic and pragmatic is to rely on the TOP-DOWN approach, i.e. starting from what is experienced, verified and justified via a credible human model of reality.



As such it is meaningless [actually nonsensical] to insist there are mind-independent reality that exist as absolutely mind independent regardless whether there are humans or not.

Why you and philosophical realists are clinging to a mind-independent reality is due to an evolutionary default and psychological impulses. [note Hume]

You seem to attach quite a bit of importance to individuals having identical experiences. Why is that?

I stated [in general] each individual have a unique experience of a supposed same thing [say, seeing the 'same' apple] but they seek consensus as to what is identical and common to them because all humans are programmed with the same basic DNA code as human.

One question, if there was no earth before there was a human to observe it, where was the first human located until they opened their eyes (to observe it)?

[Dontaskme]

One question, if there was no earth before there was a human to observe it, where was the first human located until they opened their eyes (to observe it)?

Humans do not observe, humans are the observed as a concept known to consciousness.

Where is the exact location of this knowing consciousness? It cannot be located, and yet it knows the location of every concept known to it. For example: it knows the concept ''BRAIN'' and that it is located inside a human scull. But this knowledge is being observed by pure emptiness, aka this observing knowing consciousness, that in and of itself cannot be known or observed by the concept it knows, for that which is known, knows nothing.

[LuckyR]

One question, if there was no earth before there was a human to observe it, where was the first human located until they opened their eyes (to observe it)?

Humans do not observe, humans are the observed as a concept known to consciousness.

Where is the exact location of this knowing consciousness? It cannot be located, and yet it knows the location of every concept known to it. For example: it knows the concept ''BRAIN'' and that it is located inside a human scull. But this knowledge is being observed by pure emptiness, aka this observing knowing consciousness, that in and of itself cannot be known or observed by the concept it knows, for that which is known, knows nothing.

Kudos to you for an excellent demonstration of more explanation's inability to solve the problems with a flawed initial explanation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You seem to attach quite a bit of importance to individuals having identical experiences. Why is that?

I stated [in general] each individual have a unique experience of a supposed same thing [say, seeing the 'same' apple] but they seek consensus as to what is identical and common to them because all humans are programmed with the same basic DNA code as human.

One question, if there was no earth before there was a human to observe it, where was the first human located until they opened their eyes (to observe it)?

Within the contention of Philosophical Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism;
Humans evolved from Earth,
If there was no Earth before there was a human to observe it,
then, there were no first human.

Note, the above is viewed with reference to two different senses at the same time.
Within the common sense, there is an Earth before there were humans as we have studies in cosmology and biology.

But within the ultimate sense of reality, then the above applies, i.e. the claim of philosophical realism of an absolute mind-independence is not realistic and tenable.

[LuckyR]

I stated [in general] each individual have a unique experience of a supposed same thing [say, seeing the 'same' apple] but they seek consensus as to what is identical and common to them because all humans are programmed with the same basic DNA code as human.

One question, if there was no earth before there was a human to observe it, where was the first human located until they opened their eyes (to observe it)?

Within the contention of Philosophical Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism;
Humans evolved from Earth,
If there was no Earth before there was a human to observe it,
then, there were no first human.

Note, the above is viewed with reference to two different senses at the same time.
Within the common sense, there is an Earth before there were humans as we have studies in cosmology and biology.

But within the ultimate sense of reality, then the above applies, i.e. the claim of philosophical realism of an absolute mind-independence is not realistic and tenable.

So cosmology and biology aren't realistic and tenable?

[Veritas Aequitas]

One question, if there was no earth before there was a human to observe it, where was the first human located until they opened their eyes (to observe it)?

Within the contention of Philosophical Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism;
Humans evolved from Earth,
If there was no Earth before there was a human to observe it,
then, there were no first human.

Note, the above is viewed with reference to two different senses at the same time.
Within the common sense, there is an Earth before there were humans as we have studies in cosmology and biology.

But within the ultimate sense of reality, then the above applies, i.e. the claim of philosophical realism of an absolute mind-independence is not realistic and tenable.

So cosmology and biology aren't realistic and tenable?

My principle is this;
What is real, fact, exist, truth, knowledge, objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the science-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective. If you are rational, you cannot deny this.

The human-based science-cosmology-biology FSK being objective is realistic and tenable.
You cannot deny scientific facts and objectivity are realistic and tenable.
Because they are conditioned upon a human-based FSK, they cannot exist absolutely independent of humans.

See:
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

[LuckyR]

Within the contention of Philosophical Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism;
Humans evolved from Earth,
If there was no Earth before there was a human to observe it,
then, there were no first human.

Note, the above is viewed with reference to two different senses at the same time.
Within the common sense, there is an Earth before there were humans as we have studies in cosmology and biology.

But within the ultimate sense of reality, then the above applies, i.e. the claim of philosophical realism of an absolute mind-independence is not realistic and tenable.

So cosmology and biology aren't realistic and tenable?

My principle is this;
What is real, fact, exist, truth, knowledge, objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the science-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective. If you are rational, you cannot deny this.

The human-based science-cosmology-biology FSK being objective is realistic and tenable.
You cannot deny scientific facts and objectivity are realistic and tenable.
Because they are conditioned upon a human-based FSK, they cannot exist absolutely independent of humans.

See:
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

No, I know that the study of cosmology and biology doesn't exist without a human to study them. I'm asking does what cosmology and biology study (galaxies, dinosaurs etc) exist in the absence of humans. And I don't mean are they labeled or identified as galaxies or dinosaurs, I mean did they physically exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So cosmology and biology aren't realistic and tenable?

My principle is this;
What is real, fact, exist, truth, knowledge, objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the science-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective. If you are rational, you cannot deny this.

The human-based science-cosmology-biology FSK being objective is realistic and tenable.
You cannot deny scientific facts and objectivity are realistic and tenable.
Because they are conditioned upon a human-based FSK, they cannot exist absolutely independent of humans.

See:
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

No, I know that the study of cosmology and biology doesn't exist without a human to study them. I'm asking does what cosmology and biology study (galaxies, dinosaurs etc) exist in the absence of humans. And I don't mean are they labeled or identified as galaxies or dinosaurs, I mean did they physically exist.

Note the term FSK is critical here.
I missed out preceding processes from a FSR [realization] with a FSK, thus it should be FSR-FSK.

Before the science-cosmology-biology FSK labelled or identified its object, its human-based FSR enables the realization of its object as real and thereafter it is known and described [labelled].

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

As such, things realized do not physically exist until they are realized by the human-based FSR, then it is subsequently known and described via the FSK.
This FSR-FSK is conditioned by a 13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billion years of organic history.

Here is a very minor self experiment to understand what the realization process entails;
The Rotating Mask and Emergence of 'Reality'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M

The question here, how is that a hollow [concave] mask appear as a solid 3D convex mask only when you look at it.
If you apply deep reflective thinking you will understand my points above re the realization of what is real is conditioned upon the human-self. There are no real things that are absolute mind-independent and it is impossible to justify for such.

Note this recent thread I have raised;
Hume: External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

I have raised many threads on this issue.

[LuckyR]

My principle is this;
What is real, fact, exist, truth, knowledge, objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the science-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective. If you are rational, you cannot deny this.

The human-based science-cosmology-biology FSK being objective is realistic and tenable.
You cannot deny scientific facts and objectivity are realistic and tenable.
Because they are conditioned upon a human-based FSK, they cannot exist absolutely independent of humans.

See:
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

No, I know that the study of cosmology and biology doesn't exist without a human to study them. I'm asking does what cosmology and biology study (galaxies, dinosaurs etc) exist in the absence of humans. And I don't mean are they labeled or identified as galaxies or dinosaurs, I mean did they physically exist.

Note the term FSK is critical here.
I missed out preceding processes from a FSR [realization] with a FSK, thus it should be FSR-FSK.

Before the science-cosmology-biology FSK labelled or identified its object, its human-based FSR enables the realization of its object as real and thereafter it is known and described [labelled].

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

As such, things realized do not physically exist until they are realized by the human-based FSR, then it is subsequently known and described via the FSK.
This FSR-FSK is conditioned by a 13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billion years of organic history.

Here is a very minor self experiment to understand what the realization process entails;
The Rotating Mask and Emergence of 'Reality'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M

The question here, how is that a hollow [concave] mask appear as a solid 3D convex mask only when you look at it.
If you apply deep reflective thinking you will understand my points above re the realization of what is real is conditioned upon the human-self. There are no real things that are absolute mind-independent and it is impossible to justify for such.

Note this recent thread I have raised;
Hume: External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

I have raised many threads on this issue.

So did the moon start to exist when the first human spied it, or is it "reborn" as it were, every time a new human looks at it the first time? How does the moon know in which order the humans who observe are?

Actually based on your theory, Neanderthals likely "discovered" it before humans did and dinosaurs before mammals. Obviously bacteria didn't have the faculties to make astronomical observations.

Anyway, you keep promulgating your ideas. To be honest, this is the perfect venue this sort of thing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I know that the study of cosmology and biology doesn't exist without a human to study them. I'm asking does what cosmology and biology study (galaxies, dinosaurs etc) exist in the absence of humans. And I don't mean are they labeled or identified as galaxies or dinosaurs, I mean did they physically exist.

Note the term FSK is critical here.
I missed out preceding processes from a FSR [realization] with a FSK, thus it should be FSR-FSK.

Before the science-cosmology-biology FSK labelled or identified its object, its human-based FSR enables the realization of its object as real and thereafter it is known and described [labelled].

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

As such, things realized do not physically exist until they are realized by the human-based FSR, then it is subsequently known and described via the FSK.
This FSR-FSK is conditioned by a 13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billion years of organic history.

Here is a very minor self experiment to understand what the realization process entails;
The Rotating Mask and Emergence of 'Reality'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M

The question here, how is that a hollow [concave] mask appear as a solid 3D convex mask only when you look at it.
If you apply deep reflective thinking you will understand my points above re the realization of what is real is conditioned upon the human-self. There are no real things that are absolute mind-independent and it is impossible to justify for such.

Note this recent thread I have raised;
Hume: External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

I have raised many threads on this issue.

So did the moon start to exist when the first human spied it, or is it "reborn" as it were, every time a new human looks at it the first time? How does the moon know in which order the humans who observe are?

The point is the moon-as-it-is whatever state it is in is always conditioned upon the human conditions, there is no moon-by-itself existing absolutely independent regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Actually based on your theory, Neanderthals likely "discovered" it before humans did and dinosaurs before mammals. Obviously bacteria didn't have the faculties to make astronomical observations.

There is no question of "discoverer" it.
The moon-as-it-was was realized then as conditioned upon their FSK [model], whether it is Neathderthals, dinosaurs or mammals.
In any case, the moon then is not the same moon as it is now or even a nano-second ago.

Anyway, you keep promulgating your ideas. To be honest, this is the perfect venue this sort of thing.

I can understand your POV which is from the common sense.
Obviously this is a philosophy Forum thus the need to be more reflective, deeper and wider in our thinking.

Are you familiar with Hume's Problem of Induction which is rational but against the understanding of the common sense.

[LuckyR]

Note the term FSK is critical here.
I missed out preceding processes from a FSR [realization] with a FSK, thus it should be FSR-FSK.

Before the science-cosmology-biology FSK labelled or identified its object, its human-based FSR enables the realization of its object as real and thereafter it is known and described [labelled].

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

As such, things realized do not physically exist until they are realized by the human-based FSR, then it is subsequently known and described via the FSK.
This FSR-FSK is conditioned by a 13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billion years of organic history.

Here is a very minor self experiment to understand what the realization process entails;
The Rotating Mask and Emergence of 'Reality'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M

The question here, how is that a hollow [concave] mask appear as a solid 3D convex mask only when you look at it.
If you apply deep reflective thinking you will understand my points above re the realization of what is real is conditioned upon the human-self. There are no real things that are absolute mind-independent and it is impossible to justify for such.

Note this recent thread I have raised;
Hume: External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

I have raised many threads on this issue.

So did the moon start to exist when the first human spied it, or is it "reborn" as it were, every time a new human looks at it the first time? How does the moon know in which order the humans who observe are?

The point is the moon-as-it-is whatever state it is in is always conditioned upon the human conditions, there is no moon-by-itself existing absolutely independent regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Actually based on your theory, Neanderthals likely "discovered" it before humans did and dinosaurs before mammals. Obviously bacteria didn't have the faculties to make astronomical observations.

There is no question of "discoverer" it.
The moon-as-it-was was realized then as conditioned upon their FSK [model], whether it is Neathderthals, dinosaurs or mammals.
In any case, the moon then is not the same moon as it is now or even a nano-second ago.

Anyway, you keep promulgating your ideas. To be honest, this is the perfect venue this sort of thing.

I can understand your POV which is from the common sense.
Obviously this is a philosophy Forum thus the need to be more reflective, deeper and wider in our thinking.

Are you familiar with Hume's Problem of Induction which is rational but against the understanding of the common sense.

Yes, but in my experience folks make guesses of unobserved situations from observed situations based on pattern recognition, not "reasoning".

[Veritas Aequitas]

I can understand your POV which is from the common sense.
Obviously this is a philosophy Forum thus the need to be more reflective, deeper and wider in our thinking.

Are you familiar with Hume's Problem of Induction which is rational but against the understanding of the common sense.

Yes, but in my experience folks make guesses of unobserved situations from observed situations based on pattern recognition, not "reasoning".

Not so fast..
There are two basis of reasoning within humans, i.e.

1. Primal, primitive and pure reason
2. Critical thinking and rational thinking.

1. Primal, primitive and pure reason is critical for survival and had been there since humans first emerged.
Pattern recognition is merely one tool of information gathering but what is critical is human rely on the primal reasoning [primal induction] to infer from the information gathered or experienced.
The primal reason is used to infer from effects to cause and predict causes to effects.

It is the reliance of this primal, pure, primitive reasoning that triggered humans to be dogmatic with their stance, e.g. the existence of an absolutely mind-independent reality and things plus the clinging to God and theism.

This is why Kant introduced his Critique of Pure Reason to promote more competent Critical and rational thinking.

[Dontaskme]

Yes, God is in the brain, it's not even in the brain, it is the brain.

Without a brain there is no awareness of knowing anything. Even if there is blank awareness with no concept of anything, there has to be a brain present to experience thoughtfree awareness.


So yes, to know needs a brain.

Outside of knowing, there's just this immediate unknowing everything.

Knowing needs a brain. And knowing is the dream of separation because it implies a knower, and there is no knower without something to know.

[LuckyR]

I can understand your POV which is from the common sense.
Obviously this is a philosophy Forum thus the need to be more reflective, deeper and wider in our thinking.

Are you familiar with Hume's Problem of Induction which is rational but against the understanding of the common sense.

Yes, but in my experience folks make guesses of unobserved situations from observed situations based on pattern recognition, not "reasoning".

Not so fast..
There are two basis of reasoning within humans, i.e.

1. Primal, primitive and pure reason
2. Critical thinking and rational thinking.

1. Primal, primitive and pure reason is critical for survival and had been there since humans first emerged.
Pattern recognition is merely one tool of information gathering but what is critical is human rely on the primal reasoning [primal induction] to infer from the information gathered or experienced.
The primal reason is used to infer from effects to cause and predict causes to effects.

It is the reliance of this primal, pure, primitive reasoning that triggered humans to be dogmatic with their stance, e.g. the existence of an absolutely mind-independent reality and things plus the clinging to God and theism.

This is why Kant introduced his Critique of Pure Reason to promote more competent Critical and rational thinking.

In my experience your two choices are two steps in a single process. Pattern recognition gives one a prediction of what is going to happen based on knowledge of past events then reason is used to decide what to do given this understanding. Thus it isn't an either or choice, it is a two step process.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, but in my experience folks make guesses of unobserved situations from observed situations based on pattern recognition, not "reasoning".

Not so fast..
There are two basis of reasoning within humans, i.e.

1. Primal, primitive and pure reason
2. Critical thinking and rational thinking.

1. Primal, primitive and pure reason is critical for survival and had been there since humans first emerged.
Pattern recognition is merely one tool of information gathering but what is critical is human rely on the primal reasoning [primal induction] to infer from the information gathered or experienced.
The primal reason is used to infer from effects to cause and predict causes to effects.

It is the reliance of this primal, pure, primitive reasoning that triggered humans to be dogmatic with their stance, e.g. the existence of an absolutely mind-independent reality and things plus the clinging to God and theism.

This is why Kant introduced his Critique of Pure Reason to promote more competent Critical and rational thinking.

In my experience your two choices are two steps in a single process. Pattern recognition gives one a prediction of what is going to happen based on knowledge of past events then reason is used to decide what to do given this understanding. Thus it isn't an either or choice, it is a two step process.

You state above it is a single process then later a two-step-process, so which?

With serious deliberation, there are nuances to pattern recognition.

Pattern recognition do involve reasoning but it is very primal [crude, pure, primitive] reasoning [could end up with hasty generalization and other fallacies]; it is not critical or rational thinking.
This is where the idea of God [illusory] is conceived [as thought] which is only confined to the brain.

Fundamentally there is a primal [crude, pure, primitive] reasoning process of "if X, then Y" i.e. if this pattern of perturbation X then it is pattern Y.

It is only subsequent to pattern recognition that we apply critical and rational thinking that we use those registered patterns for inductive or deductive reasoning.