Ultimate Reality

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders » Sat Jun 29, 2019 4:38 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:44 pm
You are a crackpot because you take philosophy seriously, ...
It is obvious you don't. Most people don't.

I do have question for you.

Generally, that which exists which can be directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled) and which is studied by the physical sciences is called physical existence. Those things which cannot be directly perceived or deduced from that evidence is not considered physical.

Of course no one is required to used those terms, and you may not, or may not think there is a difference.

My question is, do you consider your own conscious experience physical? I do not mean the cause of the experience, but the actual experience itself.

If you are a behaviorist you many not believe there actually is a conscious experience, in which case the question will have no meaning to you. If that is the case, that should be your answer.

The reason I'm asking is because you frequently make arguments that are obviously based on your own unique view of things. Knowing what that view is will make your questions and arguments easier to understand.

Skepdick
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jun 29, 2019 5:18 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 4:38 pm
My question is, do you consider your own conscious experience physical? I do not mean the cause of the experience, but the actual experience itself.
"Conscious experience" is an unnecessary distinction and repetition of terms, least you can point me to an "unconscious experience", or a "conscious non-experience.

Experiencing (which is a verb) is a phenomenon. And since all phenomena are physical phenomena (which is another repetition of terms) experiencing is a physical phenomenon too.

Skepdick
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jun 29, 2019 5:32 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 4:38 pm
The reason I'm asking is because you frequently make arguments that are obviously based on your own unique view of things. Knowing what that view is will make your questions and arguments easier to understand.
And that's your problem. You are trying to understand my "arguments" when I am not even arguing.

I am merely pointing out all the contingencies in your "argument".

Why argue?
Why create language?
Why create categories?
Why create knowledge?
Why say anything about anything?

Your view is that without language knowledge is impossible. Of course, it's pertinently obvious to any 5 year old riding a bycicle that knowing HOW to ride a bicycle requires no language. As it was obvious to a caveman that knowing HOW to start a fire required no language either.

Despite your concession that procedural knowledge is knowledge you ignore all the counter-examples of tacit knowledge which require no language whatsoever. You are committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.

My view is that you are abusing language for the purposes of philosophy.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3145
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:39 pm

Skepdick wrote:
If all phenomena are ontological then why are you saying that language isnt ?
Because I dont define it as phenomenal but as conceptual and to me they are entirely separate categories
Ontology is the study of existence and it applies to the natural world but language is artificial not natural

PeteJ
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by PeteJ » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:02 pm

I feel Buddhist philosophy has the only sensible approach to his topic. It's a shame it isn't taught more widely. It cannot be explained here but I do recommend it. It helps us avoid repeating an argument that's been going nowhere for centuries.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders » Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:53 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:02 pm
I feel Buddhist philosophy has the only sensible approach to his topic. It's a shame it isn't taught more widely. It cannot be explained here but I do recommend it. It helps us avoid repeating an argument that's been going nowhere for centuries.
"Buddhist philosophy," is not a fixed thing. There are many varieties as you know, developed beyond its original rejection of Vedic (Hindu) teaching. It would be interesting to know which specific Buddhist teachings you embrace, for example:

Do you believe that the elimination of suffering as the ultimate objective of religion/philosophy?
Do you believe in reincarnation?
Do you believe there is no, "self," because there is no, "part of the person that accounts for the identity of that person over time?"
Do you believe there is an ultimate reality that is impossible to know?
Does the ultimate reality include nirvana?
Do you believe all phenomena (dhammas) are illusory and empty of essence?
Do you believe there is a soteriological need to be saved from suffering?
Do you believe in dharmas?
Do you believe like the Yogacara thinkers "external" objects do not exist because we only have our impressions of them?
Do you believe tantric ritual is a means of reaching liberation?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2087
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by bahman » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:31 am

RCSaunders wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:12 pm
Reality is all there is, the way it is, whether or not anyone is conscious of or knows the nature of that reality. There are two aspects of reality that make it knowable. The first aspect that makes reality knowable is the physical nature of reality which is all that can be directly perceived, that is, seen, heard, tasted, smelled, and felt. It is physical attributes that are perceived. The second aspect of reality that makes it knowable are those attributes of reality that make perception of it possible, life, consciousness, and the unique consciousness of the human mind.
Reality cannot exist without mind. That is mind which experienes and causes reality.
RCSaunders wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:12 pm
These three attributes of reality are in addition to the physical attributes in that very small number of entities called organisms. Life, consciousness, and human minds do not exist independently of the organisms they are the life, consciousness, or minds of. These attributes exist only in physical entities (organisms), but they are not physical attributes because they cannot be directly perceived (seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or felt). They are perfectly natural attributes (not supernatural) just as the physical attributes are, and do not conflict in any way with the physical attributes.
Mind is a separate entity. It does not need matter to exist. It needs matter in order to interact with other minds. Consiousness is a property of mind. And life is nothing but minds embeded in materlial.

PeteJ
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by PeteJ » Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:24 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:53 pm
"Buddhist philosophy," is not a fixed thing. There are many varieties as you know, developed beyond its original rejection of Vedic (Hindu) teaching. It would be interesting to know which specific Buddhist teachings you embrace,
I endorse non-dualism, which in Buddhism is the 'Middle Way'' or Mahayana philosophy as described by Nagarjuna. This would be the philosophy of the Upanishads as described by Rhadakrishnan. It is not exclusively Buddhist philosophy but it is explained more thoroughly in Buddhism than in other traditions. Buddhism has Nagarjuna to thank for much of its philosophical clarity, especially his theory of emptiness and doctrine of two truths, both of which are didactic devices.

As you say, not all Buddhists endorse this philosophy, but those who do not have no philosophical foundation for their views.

Ultimate Reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication but would be knowable (or, rather, be-able). Nothing would really exist, but Reality would outrun Existence.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders » Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:56 am

bahman wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:31 am
Mind is a separate entity. It does not need matter to exist. ...
I'm not really saying this for your benefit, but since some might be confused by your solopsism this needs to be explained.

Life is an attribute of physical entities called organisms. Entities without life are just physical entities. Without physical existence there could be no organism. Consciousness is an attribute of some living organisms, and is only possible to living organisms, which we know are physical entities with the attribute life. Mind is an attribute of some living organisms, and is only possible to conscious living organisms, which are physical. Without physical, "matter," there could be no organism, no consciousness, and no minds. Minds have no existence independent of the physical, living, conscious organisms they are the minds of. They are not entities.

I know you will not agree with this, but it doesn't matter. Believe what you like.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3145
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:33 am

Skepdick wrote:
Conscious experience is an unnecessary distinction and repetition of terms least you can point me to an unconscious experience
Every single object has unconscious experience because existence and experience are merely different words to describe the same phenomenon
So experience is not just limited to biological organisms but extends to literally everything that exists all the way down to fundamental particles

surreptitious57
Posts: 3145
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:45 am

bahman wrote:
Reality cannot exist without mind . That is mind which experiences and causes reality
Reality is not mind dependent as indeed for most of known existence there were no minds
Reality has always existed whereas minds by comparison are a relatively new phenomenon

I Like Sushu
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by I Like Sushu » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:10 am

RC -

The OP seems to be stating the obvious doesn’t it?

Essentially, what we cannot ever know we cannot ever know (doesn’t exist for us - has no ‘reality’ for us), whilst what we don’t know is not quite the same as what we cannot know as there is a possibility of knowing something new - and this is a general requirement regarding life I’d say!

I seriously need to know what it is you oppose about Kant given that you seem to be stating the very same obviousness he does - although he is x10000 times more pedantic with his scheme of terminology and strict definitions.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:25 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:45 am
Reality is not mind dependent as indeed for most of known existence there were no minds.
Reality has always existed whereas minds by comparison are a relatively new phenomenon
Excellent point and well put.

I'm not taking anything away from your argument, but I really do not know there have not always been minds somewhere in the universe, only not locally. Nevertheless reality is not mind dependent, you must first have something to have a mind.

bahman's philosophy is classic idealism, its most extreme form is solipsism. Though still held by many it has fallen out of favor in the West, but still dominates many Eastern religions (philosophies).
Last edited by RCSaunders on Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:59 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:25 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:45 am
Reality is not mind dependent as indeed for most of known existence there were no minds.
Reality has always existed whereas minds by comparison are a relatively new phenomenon
Excellent point and well put.

I'm not taking anything away from your argument, but I really do not know there have not always been minds somewhere in the universe, only not locally. Nevertheless reality is not mind dependent, you must first have something to have a mind.
Reality is mind independent.

Everything anybody, anywhere, at any time claimed, proposed, predicted, said, read, heard, saw or perceived about reality is mind dependent, which renders the "mind-independence" of reality irrelevant for any practical purposes. Like Philosophy.

Where all philosophy fails is coming up with mechanisms, tactics or strategies to determine whether any particular description/narrative/taxonomy is better or worse than any other description/narrative/taxonomy. "Best argument wins" is not the way to settle this - because the very concept of "winning" or "best" is meaningless outside a game with pre-defined and pre-agreed rules. And Philosophy has failed to establish such.

In the absence of such selection criteria for "fitness", "purpose", "validity", "correctness", "correspondence" or any of the other selection mechanism - anything goes really.

Reality is a pretzel! And you can't prove me wrong. Because it's Philosophically correct.

In fact, much like the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) was established as a mockery of religion, perhaps we need the PU (Pretzel Universe) as a mockery of philosophy?

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders » Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:05 am

I Like Sushu wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:10 am
RC -
The OP seems to be stating the obvious doesn’t it?

Essentially, what we cannot ever know we cannot ever know (doesn’t exist for us - has no ‘reality’ for us), whilst what we don’t know is not quite the same as what we cannot know as there is a possibility of knowing something new - and this is a general requirement regarding life I’d say!
Of course what cannot be known cannot be known, but what cannot be known does not exist. It does not mean we do know it yet, or know everything about it, but if it cannot be known it cannot have any relationship to anything that does exist, and everything that exists must have some relationship to everything else that exists. "Ontology Introduction," Corollary 3: The Necessity of Relationship
I Like Sushu wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:10 am
I seriously need to know what it is you oppose about Kant given that you seem to be stating the very same obviousness he does - although he is x10000 times more pedantic with his scheme of terminology and strict definitions.
I cannot imagine why you have such a need. I don't, "oppose," Kant, I reject his entire philosophy as nonsense. I also do not spend much effort in refuting all the wrong philosophies in the world, since almost all of them are wrong. I'm only interested in presenting what is true. So I'll just briefly mentions some things in Kant that are the most absurd.

There no such thing as a priori vs a posteriori knowlede, or analytic vs synthetic propositions. His entire epistemology is an abomination of made up concepts requiring an intuitive faculty. There is no mysterious knowledge prior to experience and no mystical intuitive faculty.

His idea that perception is a product of (or at least shaped by) reason and that there is a transcendent existence behind the one of consciousness (which of course cannot be known) leads to extreme skepticism, not to understanding of anything.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests