Everything is Not a Thing

[Agent Smith]

We're going back to around the 5th century BC to a place in Europe and a specific European individual who lost his way and ended up in a place with a river that meanders 21 times before exhausting itself in a sea with with sharks, big ones, really big ones. The connection therein is tenuous and marked by a madness that has the whole world in its grips. Not to worry, insanity and flimsiness are what characterize the links between things and things.

"What's worse than gluttony?"

"Wasting food!"

"Correctamundo!"

"What's worse than wasting food?"

"Ummmm"

"Think mon ami, think!"

"I am, I am!"

"Well?"

"I don't know. I give up."

"You have to be somewhere?"

"Yes, how did you know?"

"Mere child's play mon ami. You better leave."

"I'm off. Au revoir."

"Au revoir."

[Advocate]

[quote=popeye1945 post_id=632721 time=1680325244 user_id=21999]
[quote=Advocate post_id=631445 time=1679669807 user_id=15238]
Every thing is a set of attributes and boundary conditions in a mind. Whether it has external existence is a separate question. That which has external existence but not internal existence is undifferentiated stuff, not things.

Everything may include undifferentiated stuff, but every Thing is only patterns.
[/quote]

That which is undifferentiated I don't believe has a pattern, at least not a perceptible one. If you're trying say, all is subjective, I am with you on that. Things are generally defined as objects. Science today agrees that all is energy, and I believe, that objects are particular to biological consciousness.
[/quote]

In other words, every thing is real as a pattern in a mind by default, regardless of whether it's externally real.

[popeye1945]

Every thing is a set of attributes and boundary conditions in a mind. Whether it has external existence is a separate question. That which has external existence but not internal existence is undifferentiated stuff, not things.

Everything may include undifferentiated stuff, but every Thing is only patterns.

That which is undifferentiated I don't believe has a pattern, at least not a perceptible one. If you're trying say, all is subjective, I am with you on that. Things are generally defined as objects. Science today agrees that all is energy, and I believe that objects are particular to biological consciousness.

In other words, everything is real as a pattern in a mind by default, regardless of whether it's extremely real.

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.

[Age]

And yet the absence of reality in the thing determines the nature of the thing...so what is the definition of "real" and "reality"?

I seem to think that you started the thread, so that question might be better answered by yourself.

But as far as it goes, my point is clear enough; a thing need not be real. There are things that do not exists, such as fantasy characters.

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?

[Age]

Every thing is a set of attributes and boundary conditions in a mind. Whether it has external existence is a separate question. That which has external existence but not internal existence is undifferentiated stuff, not things.

What IS the DIFFERENCE between 'stuff' and 'things' here, to you?

Everything may include undifferentiated stuff, but every Thing is only patterns.

What IS the DIFFERENCE between 'everything' and 'every Thing' here?

And, what IS the DIFFERENCE between 'thing' and 'Thing' here?

[Sculptor]

And yet the absence of reality in the thing determines the nature of the thing...so what is the definition of "real" and "reality"?

I seem to think that you started the thread, so that question might be better answered by yourself.

But as far as it goes, my point is clear enough; a thing need not be real. There are things that do not exists, such as fantasy characters.

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 obviously need to read more science fiction.
But even so, this does not change my point that realness is not the same as thingness.

[Belinda]

I seem to think that you started the thread, so that question might be better answered by yourself.

But as far as it goes, my point is clear enough; a thing need not be real. There are things that do not exists, such as fantasy characters.

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 obviously need to read more science fiction.
But even so, this does not change my point that realness is not the same as thingness.

Sculptor, if I may rephrase yours, I agree reality is not an aggregate of physically measurable things. I think Popeye's claim is about HOW we create reality, and does not weaken the claim that reality is manmade, and Popeye's claim specifically agrees with truth defined as coherent ideas

[Advocate]

[quote=popeye1945 post_id=632740 time=1680335753 user_id=21999]
[quote=Advocate post_id=632730 time=1680330192 user_id=15238]
[quote=popeye1945 post_id=632721 time=1680325244 user_id=21999]


That which is undifferentiated I don't believe has a pattern, at least not a perceptible one. If you're trying say, all is subjective, I am with you on that. Things are generally defined as objects. Science today agrees that all is energy, and I believe that objects are particular to biological consciousness.
[/quote]

In other words, everything is real as a pattern in a mind by default, regardless of whether it's extremely real.
[/quote]


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.
[/quote]

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

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=632744 time=1680336923 user_id=16237]
[quote=popeye1945 post_id=632698 time=1680308743 user_id=21999]
[quote=Sculptor post_id=632693 time=1680299876 user_id=17400]


I seem to think that you started the thread, so that question might be better answered by yourself.

But as far as it goes, my point is clear enough; a thing need not be real. There are things that do not exists, such as fantasy characters.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

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

[Sculptor]

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 obviously need to read more science fiction.
But even so, this does not change my point that realness is not the same as thingness.

Sculptor, if I may rephrase yours, I agree reality is not an aggregate of physically measurable things. I think Popeye's claim is about HOW we create reality, and does not weaken the claim that reality is manmade, and Popeye's claim specifically agrees with truth defined as coherent ideas

Yes.
I'm sort of doing the odd thing of sticking the the thread. And so my point is that realness is not the same as thingness. Reality as it relates to that is an is not real is another question.
There is a confusion here of how words are applied. When we talk about "reality" we are talking about two separate things, and for most of us it's a balance of semantics. Reality is that which is constructed by our brains from our perceptions and goes way beyond empirical reality. And then there is the idea of a reality beyond mundane perception. A thing that can can be be continually uncovered by better scanners, telescopes, microscopes and modelling. Stuff that no part of our "constructed" reality had access to until science gave us the tools to see it. It is that idea of a reality beyond "mere" perception.
According to the degree to which we are realists or idealists is the degree to which we favour one over the other in the battle for the definition of what we call "reality".
Despite that we have a view of what is "real" as something tangible, palpable or otherwise solid in a concrete sense.
What's a thing, though?
If you scan through this text you can see I've used the word thing in several ways; relations, ideas, objects, notional concepts. "Thing" is so wide, that I fail to see how the headline of the thread makes sense. It is a self defeating statement, like water is not wet. Everything is indeed a thing.

[Belinda]

You obviously need to read more science fiction.
But even so, this does not change my point that realness is not the same as thingness.

Sculptor, if I may rephrase yours, I agree reality is not an aggregate of physically measurable things. I think Popeye's claim is about HOW we create reality, and does not weaken the claim that reality is manmade, and Popeye's claim specifically agrees with truth defined as coherent ideas

Yes.
I'm sort of doing the odd thing of sticking the the thread. And so my point is that realness is not the same as thingness. Reality as it relates to that is an is not real is another question.
There is a confusion here of how words are applied. When we talk about "reality" we are talking about two separate things, and for most of us it's a balance of semantics. Reality is that which is constructed by our brains from our perceptions and goes way beyond empirical reality. And then there is the idea of a reality beyond mundane perception. A thing that can can be be continually uncovered by better scanners, telescopes, microscopes and modelling. Stuff that no part of our "constructed" reality had access to until science gave us the tools to see it. It is that idea of a reality beyond "mere" perception.
According to the degree to which we are realists or idealists is the degree to which we favour one over the other in the battle for the definition of what we call "reality".
Despite that we have a view of what is "real" as something tangible, palpable or otherwise solid in a concrete sense.
What's a thing, though?
If you scan through this text you can see I've used the word thing in several ways; relations, ideas, objects, notional concepts. "Thing" is so wide, that I fail to see how the headline of the thread makes sense. It is a self defeating statement, like water is not wet. Everything is indeed a thing.

Social reality(ies) are investigated by social anthropology, and stories of man's past. Metaphysical reality(ontology) is subjective; however I believe that most post-enlightenment scholars are guided in their beliefs by the sceptical attitude.
The word 'thing' usually pertains to language that's restricted to the code (Basil Bernstein) where people orient their intentions towards relationships with other people. During these exchanges the meaning of the word is its use as social marker. When philosophers qua philosophers say 'thing' they refer to quiddity because they want to decide what is the best theory of existence .

[popeye1945]

In other words, everything is real as a pattern in a mind by default, regardless of whether it's extremely real.

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, 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.

[popeye1945]

I seem to think that you started the thread, so that question might be better answered by yourself.

But as far as it goes, my point is clear enough; a thing need not be real. There are things that do not exists, such as fantasy characters.

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?

Subject and object stand or fall together, subject being biological consciousness, and object being the world as an object.

[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?

Subject and object stand or fall together, subject being biological consciousness, and object being the world as an object.

I just ask you three very simple questions, but you reply with one very off-topic claim.

Had it EVER occurred to you to just ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTIONS posed, and asked?

[Advocate]

[quote=popeye1945 post_id=632876 time=1680407280 user_id=21999]
[quote=Advocate post_id=632792 time=1680356051 user_id=15238]
[quote=popeye1945 post_id=632740 time=1680335753 user_id=21999]



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.
[/quote]

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

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.
[/quote]

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