Everything is Not a Thing

[Age]

Everything, as in apparent reality, is effects upon biological consciousness, it is not the world as it is, but as it affects biology. In other words, apparent reality/everyday reality is a biological readout, the world of objects is real only to biological consciousness. So, in a sense, there are no things, no objects for objects are biological experiences of whatever is out there. What we know is not the source but our limited experiences of how it affects us.

That we get a filtered subset of reality does not imply it's any less real.

That would depend upon your definition of real, physics tells us that matter is not made of matter, so, that leaves us with energy,

Does so-called 'physics' tell you what 'energy' is made of?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then WHAT is 'energy' made up of, EXACTLY?

so, ultimately all is energy.

Okay, now what CREATED 'energy'?

Does 'it' have a name?

That which cannot be perceived by biological subjects is considered unreal, but even that which is perceived, is in fact energy, energy is ultimate reality.

But you just got through TELLING us that 'ultimately ALL is energy', which would OBVIOUSLY include 'reality', itself. So, HOW can 'energy' be 'ultimate reality', when, to you, 'ultimate reality' is 'energy'?

It alters our biological natures, our bodies, thus giving us experience of those alterations, and is called apparent reality.

To 'who', EXACTLY?

[Age]

Fantasy characters and/or fantasy monsters are made of compound life experiences, one cannot imagine something whose elements are not found anywhere in apparent reality. The physical world is half of an organism's consciousness, in that it is the fuel of the mind, without which there would be no mind.

you talk as though you KNOW what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY.

And, what IS the OTHER half of an organism's consciousness?

Also, would there be absolutely ANY 'thing' WITHOUT the 'physical world'?

If yes, then what would 'that' or 'them' be, EXACTLY?

Yes. Mind is exactly a metaphor for the patterns in the brain.

So, can there REALLY BE a one word 'metaphor' for 'the patterns in the brain'?

And, besides 'you', "advocate", who ELSE CLAIMS that 'Mind' is EXACTLY 'a metaphor' for 'the patterns in the brain'?

There is no other half. It can be understood from a phenomenological, from an empirical, or from an anthropological staying. They're not different parts of mind, they're different perspectives on mind.

Nothing can exist without the physical.

This IS True, 'Nothing REALLY CAN EXIST, without the physical. BUT, because the physical DOES EXIST, what WILL be DISCOVERED by 'you' AS WELL is that 'the physical' has ALWAYS EXISTED and 'it' could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY.

Even without a physical reference, an idea still has an external/bio-physical correlate in the brain.

[Age]

SAYING, and/or CLAIMING, 'Everything is Not a Thing', would be as ABSURD and as RIDICULOUS as 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that 'EVERY animal is NOT an animal'.

[Belinda]

That we get a filtered subset of reality does not imply it's any less real.

That would depend upon your definition of real, physics tells us that matter is not made of matter, so, that leaves us with energy, so, ultimately all is energy. That which cannot be perceived by biological subjects is considered unreal, but even that which is perceived, is in fact energy, energy is ultimate reality. It alters our biological natures, our bodies, thus giving us experience of those alterations, and is called apparent reality.

Matter is an emergent property of energy. Energy is an emergent property of whatevers lower.

Yes, but energy is also a thing albeit an exceedingly widespread thing. Energy emerges from experience. So experience, not energy ,is the ultimate existant.

[popeye1945]

That would depend upon your definition of real, physics tells us that matter is not made of matter, so, that leaves us with energy, so, ultimately all is energy. That which cannot be perceived by biological subjects is considered unreal, but even that which is perceived, is in fact energy, energy is ultimate reality. It alters our biological natures, our bodies, thus giving us experience of those alterations, and is called apparent reality.

Matter is an emergent property of energy. Energy is an emergent property of whatever lower.

Yes, but energy is also a thing albeit an exceedingly widespread thing. Energy emerges from experience. So, experience, not energy, is the ultimate existence.

Belinda,
No energy is not a thing/object. Energy is the foundation of all that exists. It is only through biology that some of these energies alter as they do our biology/bodies, becoming things/objects for the biology experiencing the said alterations made by those energies. There is some confusion here, if you understand that it is something analogist to the tree that falls in the forest, the sound is both the energy waves and the effect it has upon the ear. There is no sound without an interpreting ear, and there are no objects without biological consciousness interpreting the energies around us. So, the Ultimate, is a combination of energies and biological interpretation or emergent biological readout.

[Dontaskme]

The knowledge that ''Everything is Not a Thing'' is a truth within knowing.

Just as ''Not a Thing is Everything''.

Just as the knower is inseparable from this knowing.

Every known 'thing' is an exact mirror image of the 'knower'.

Important to know is NO actual ''thing'' is ever SEEN, things are only known, in seeing, which can never be SEEN.




Is your EYE looking at you, or are you looking at your EYE?

[socrat44]

The knowledge that ''Everything is Not a Thing'' is a truth within knowing.

Just as ''Not a Thing is Everything''.

Just as the knower is inseparable from this knowing.

Every known 'thing' is an exact mirror image of the 'knower'.

Important to know is NO actual ''thing'' is ever SEEN, things are only known, in seeing, which can never be SEEN.




Is your EYE looking at you, or are you looking at your EYE?

Are your eyes looking things, or are you looking things through your eyes?
Who is "knowing": your eyes or 'you' ?

[Dontaskme]

The knowledge that ''Everything is Not a Thing'' is a truth within knowing.

Just as ''Not a Thing is Everything''.

Just as the knower is inseparable from this knowing.

Every known 'thing' is an exact mirror image of the 'knower'.

Important to know is NO actual ''thing'' is ever SEEN, things are only known, in seeing, which can never be SEEN.




Is your EYE looking at you, or are you looking at your EYE?

Are your eyes looking things, or are you looking things through your eyes?
Who is "knowing": your eyes or 'you' ?

Who?

Is the one question to all our answers.

[Belinda]

Matter is an emergent property of energy. Energy is an emergent property of whatever lower.

Yes, but energy is also a thing albeit an exceedingly widespread thing. Energy emerges from experience. So, experience, not energy, is the ultimate existence.

Belinda,
No energy is not a thing/object. Energy is the foundation of all that exists. It is only through biology that some of these energies alter as they do our biology/bodies, becoming things/objects for the biology experiencing the said alterations made by those energies. There is some confusion here, if you understand that it is something analogist to the tree that falls in the forest, the sound is both the energy waves and the effect it has upon the ear. There is no sound without an interpreting ear, and there are no objects without biological consciousness interpreting the energies around us. So, the Ultimate, is a combination of energies and biological interpretation or emergent biological readout.

Then do you claim that energy is synonymous with experience? I thought you were an idealist(immaterialist). Your last sentence makes you more like a neutral monist perhaps a follower of Spinoza.
I am torn between on the one hand Spinoza's dual aspect monism (which does embrace the physical ear and physical energy) and absolute idealism on the other. Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable so I read your input with interest.

DontAskMe wrote:

Just as the knower is inseparable from this knowing.

This describes what I mean by "experience" and absolute idealism: knowing and known are the same. The observer and the observed are the same, except when we choose to separate them ,as in theism.

[popeye1945]

Yes, but energy is also a thing albeit an exceedingly widespread thing. Energy emerges from experience. So, experience, not energy, is the ultimate existence.

Belinda,
No energy is not a thing/object. Energy is the foundation of all that exists. It is only through biology that some of these energies alter as they do our biology/bodies, becoming things/objects for the biology experiencing the said alterations made by those energies. There is some confusion here, if you understand that it is something analogist to the tree that falls in the forest, the sound is both the energy waves and the effect it has upon the ear. There is no sound without an interpreting ear, and there are no objects without biological consciousness interpreting the energies around us. So, the Ultimate, is a combination of energies and biological interpretation or emergent biological readout.

Then do you claim that energy is synonymous with experience? I thought you were an idealist(immaterialist). Your last sentence makes you more like a neutral monist, perhaps a follower of Spinoza.
I am torn between on the one hand Spinoza's dual aspect monism (which does embrace the physical ear and physical energy) and absolute idealism on the other. Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable so I read your input with interest.

DontAskMe wrote:

Just as the knower is inseparable from this knowing.

This describes what I mean by "experience" and absolute idealism: knowing and known are the same. The observer and the observed are the same, except when we choose to separate them, as in theism.

This is just another way of saying that subject and object can never be separated. It is only treated as separate to discuss their relationship to the emergent property of apparent reality as a biological readout. It would be better stated that the known and the knower are the same, as in one is cause the other reaction too. Apparent reality, however, is not true to its object cause, but truer to the effects of its cause, meaning, apparent reality is biological readout or self-simulation. Experience, it could be said, is the holy grail, in the sense that apparent reality is a reaction to the energies that surround us. Just as there is no sound in the forest when a tree falls unless there is an eardrum to interpret the said vibrations as such, this is true of the interpretation of object/s. Apparent reality is sense perception or biological readout of said energies. The object is biologically dependent, consciousness is object dependent, and the product is only an apparent reality not what one would call ultimate reality. Energy I do not believe is considered material, I believe that that is reserved for its manifestation as an object or, as Spinoza would have put it substance; for Spinoza believed in his time, that appearance was indeed reality.

[Age]

Matter is an emergent property of energy. Energy is an emergent property of whatever lower.

Yes, but energy is also a thing albeit an exceedingly widespread thing. Energy emerges from experience. So, experience, not energy, is the ultimate existence.

Belinda,
No energy is not a thing/object. Energy is the foundation of all that exists.

BUT, what creates/causes 'energy', itself?

Work that out, and then you WILL BE CLOSER to UNDERSTANDING the ACTUAL Truth here.

It is only through biology that some of these energies alter as they do our biology/bodies,

Who (or what) does the 'our' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

becoming things/objects for the biology experiencing the said alterations made by those energies. There is some confusion here, if you understand that it is something analogist to the tree that falls in the forest, the sound is both the energy waves and the effect it has upon the ear. There is no sound without an interpreting ear, and there are no objects without biological consciousness interpreting the energies around us. So, the Ultimate, is a combination of energies and biological interpretation or emergent biological readout.

So, we are back to, what creates/causes 'energy', itself?

Look, you want to claim here that there is 'some confusion', and that if "others" want 'to understand' then 'they' HAVE TO DO some 'thing'. I suggest that if you want to now PROVE that you KNOW what you are talking ABOUT here you ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed and asked TO you.

[Belinda]

Belinda,
No energy is not a thing/object. Energy is the foundation of all that exists. It is only through biology that some of these energies alter as they do our biology/bodies, becoming things/objects for the biology experiencing the said alterations made by those energies. There is some confusion here, if you understand that it is something analogist to the tree that falls in the forest, the sound is both the energy waves and the effect it has upon the ear. There is no sound without an interpreting ear, and there are no objects without biological consciousness interpreting the energies around us. So, the Ultimate, is a combination of energies and biological interpretation or emergent biological readout.

Then do you claim that energy is synonymous with experience? I thought you were an idealist(immaterialist). Your last sentence makes you more like a neutral monist, perhaps a follower of Spinoza.
I am torn between on the one hand Spinoza's dual aspect monism (which does embrace the physical ear and physical energy) and absolute idealism on the other. Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable so I read your input with interest.

DontAskMe wrote:

Just as the knower is inseparable from this knowing.

This describes what I mean by "experience" and absolute idealism: knowing and known are the same. The observer and the observed are the same, except when we choose to separate them, as in theism.

This is just another way of saying that subject and object can never be separated. It is only treated as separate to discuss their relationship to the emergent property of apparent reality as a biological readout. It would be better stated that the known and the knower are the same, as in one is cause the other reaction too. Apparent reality, however, is not true to its object cause, but truer to the effects of its cause, meaning, apparent reality is biological readout or self-simulation. Experience, it could be said, is the holy grail, in the sense that apparent reality is a reaction to the energies that surround us. Just as there is no sound in the forest when a tree falls unless there is an eardrum to interpret the said vibrations as such, this is true of the interpretation of object/s. Apparent reality is sense perception or biological readout of said energies. The object is biologically dependent, consciousness is object dependent, and the product is only an apparent reality not what one would call ultimate reality. Energy I do not believe is considered material, I believe that that is reserved for its manifestation as an object or, as Spinoza would have put it substance; for Spinoza believed in his time, that appearance was indeed reality.

Sorry to harp on this, but do you think of energy only as a force like physics describes, or do you think energy is the same as experience i.e "the holy grail"?

Age quoted:

popeye1945 wrote: ↑so, ultimately all is energy.

With reference to your "Energy I do not believe is considered material, I believe that that is reserved for its manifestation as an object or, as Spinoza would have put it substance; for Spinoza believed in his time, that appearance was indeed reality." , You seem to be saying , if I may paraphrase, that energy is extension and experience is thought according to Spinozan attributes within his dual aspect theory of existence.

Stanford:

Spinoza holds Thought and Extension to be explanatorily self-contained. Physical changes are to be understood in terms of other physical items, and ideas are to be understood in terms of other ideas.

[popeye1945]

Belinda,

You caught me up, I'll do a little more research and get back to you, and I'll do it through this post. I can't say I truly understand at present. I just got Spinoza's complete works, gift from my daughter, so you'll be hearing from me------ lol!!

[popeye1945]

That would depend upon your definition of real, physics tells us that matter is not made of matter, so, that leaves us with energy, so, ultimately all is energy. That which cannot be perceived by biological subjects is considered unreal, but even that which is perceived, is in fact energy, energy is ultimate reality. It alters our biological natures, our bodies, thus giving us experience of those alterations, and is called apparent reality.

Matter is an emergent property of energy. Energy is an emergent property of whatever lower.

Yes, but energy is also a thing albeit an exceedingly widespread thing. Energy emerges from experience. So, experience, not energy, is the ultimate existence.

How do you consider experience as the source of energy, is experience the source of the heat energy generated by the sun? You are treating the experience as a cause rather than a reaction. In a world of reactive organisms, as in reactive to the principle of evolutionary adaptation where the world is cause. Energy is not a thing. Things are biological reactions, a biological readout of the effects of energy on a subject's biology, a self-assimilation, which evoke meanings relative to one's biology.

[Belinda]

Belinda,

You caught me up, I'll do a little more research and get back to you, and I'll do it through this post. I can't say I truly understand at present. I just got Spinoza's complete works, gift from my daughter, so you'll be hearing from me------ lol!!

if you persist in first reading Spinoza's complete works I'll never hear from you again.