reality is

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Atla
Posts: 3959
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: reality is

Post by Atla »

Polyphemus Arnold wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:50 am A thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is an object as it is, independent of observation. The concept of thing-in-itself was introduced by Immanuel Kant. The concept led to much controversy among philosophers.[1] It is closely related to Kant's concept of noumenon or the object of inquiry, as opposed to phenomenon (its manifestations).

But the fact is that the “invisible thing” becomes visible as soon as we cast over it our nets, the nets of our organs. These organs exist in function precisely of making visible that WHICH IS NOT AN IMAGE.

To say that we cannot know the thing in itself is absurd since we spend all of our time and effort doing just that. “But you always obtain images, never the thing!” Some observe. But that is not true. I can obtain “the thing”, cook it and eat it, and that is not simply an image.

If we define the thing-in-itself as that which is considered independently of being seen, and then complain that you cannot ever see it. Well…you see what I mean. An embarrassment which I had to go through with my thirteen years old daughter when I tried to explain the concept to her.

The couple, thought-reality is called a “relationship”, as if reality depended on thought. The reverse is true, there is no thought without a reality, namely of the subject that thinks, and the organs he thinks with. And also, incidentally, of a world he thinks about.

Perception is not a “relationship”, at least not a reciprocal one. It is an act upon the world that produces knowledge. How great is this knowledge, which its limits are, we do not know, and presumably, cannot know.

There is a relation, a proportionality between the real and the images we produce, otherwise, those would be useless. Our mental images are good indeed, and they allow us as real beings to act in a real-world, to act upon it, and extract from it all sorts of nourishment and companionship.
The statement, endless repeated, that “ One can only access the contents of one’s mind and not reality” is wrong in several aspects.
First of all, we find here a fallacy of ambiguity. The word “access” ( which implies the possibility of its opposite, lack of access) is used here in reference to mental images, whereas there is no way I would not have access to them, they are me, to a large extent.
When “access” is used properly (and negated), the assertion is false in many instances. The fact is that I do have an access to the real, and this access is precisely the mental images mentioned before.
So the phrase “One cannot access reality but only the contents of one’s mind” could be translated as such: “One cannot access reality but only the images that are the means to access reality”. This phrase manages to be redundant and contradictory at once.
But then there is the question of accessing reality “directly”, without any effort to explain what this would possibly mean.

Access implies means of access, and through those means, we do access reality.
Furthermore, we are reality, and we live in it. And it is not an image, so it is a grave mistake to ever treat it as an image. We may produce as many images from it as we can, but it will not make of reality an image, or from an image reality. Life is not a narrative, nature is not a book
It's true that saying that we have "access" to the contents of one's mind, is fairly misleading, because to a large extent we are it. But it's also true that the thing-in-itself is unknowable, impossible to be directly experienced.
Because the human mind is sort of a miniature model/replica of reality, while also being a part of reality.
popeye1945
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

The thing in itself will never be found for ultimate reality is a place of no things and the world as object is a biological readout, meaning is a reaction to aspects/read wave frequencies of ultimate reality. Cognitively is the only way we come to know the world and the world comes to no itself, for we are one with the physical world. Subject and object can never be separate. As Spinoza stated, "The body is the mind's idea." a condition within a condition, the relations between conditions is apparent reality.
Last edited by popeye1945 on Sat Jun 11, 2022 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: reality is

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:25 pm Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.
'Reality' is an epistemological term for 'what', EXACTLY?
popeye1945
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

Apparent reality is essentially meanings and meanings are reactions of the organism, meaning is the product of life relative to it own being, it is cognitive thus it is an epistemological term.


Altimate reality is a place of no things.

https://amp.interestingengineering.com/ ... ve-reality

"Reality is an illusion, a persistent one." Albert Einstein
Advocate
Posts: 3020
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: reality is

Post by Advocate »

>A thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is an object as it is, independent of observation. The concept of thing-in-itself was introduced by Immanuel Kant. The concept led to much controversy among philosophers.[1] It is closely related to Kant's concept of noumenon or the object of inquiry, as opposed to phenomenon (its manifestations).

There is no such thing as a thing in itself. That's identical to a priori platonic forms. Things exist as a set of attributes and boundary conditions in a mind, they have a physical correlate as brain patterns and some of them also have a physical referent. Every thing has a unique place in each physical dimension - time, space, and scale.

>But the fact is that the “invisible thing” becomes visible as soon as we cast over it our nets, the nets of our organs. These organs exist in function precisely of making visible that WHICH IS NOT AN IMAGE.

>To say that we cannot know the thing in itself is absurd since we spend all of our time and effort doing just that. “But you always obtain images, never the thing!” Some observe. But that is not true. I can obtain “the thing”, cook it and eat it, and that is not simply an image.

The closest we can get to the thing in itself is a filtered sub-set of Actuality. The thing isn't merely it's external manifestation, if any, it's the idea itself. But that idea is only as real as it's manifestation - whether internally as an idea or externally as a material object or force. The thing is a real idea that has real external effects whether or not it can be known directly or merely through translation of another mind, or whether through the translation of our senses, culture, and personality.

>If we define the thing-in-itself as that which is considered independently of being seen, and then complain that you cannot ever see it. Well…you see what I mean. An embarrassment which I had to go through with my thirteen years old daughter when I tried to explain the concept to her.

You can define it that way for internal-only uses. The thing isn't meaningful "in and of itself", it must be effable enough to be communicable.

>The couple, thought-reality is called a “relationship”, as if reality depended on thought. The reverse is true, there is no thought without a reality, namely of the subject that thinks, and the organs he thinks with. And also, incidentally, of a world he thinks about.

It's a yin-yangish relationship. The external undifferentiated stuff called Actuality exists prior to minds, but the differentiation of that stuff into things only exists in minds.

>Perception is not a “relationship”, at least not a reciprocal one. It is an act upon the world that produces knowledge. How great is this knowledge, which its limits are, we do not know, and presumably, cannot know.

Knowledge is justified belief. It has an upper bound in each of the three physical dimensions - time, space, and scale. For knowledge to encompass any of the three would require an exact copy of the universe. Knowledge is always a filtered sub-set. It can be complete enough for a given purpose, and in no other meaningful sense.

>There is a relation, a proportionality between the real and the images we produce, otherwise, those would be useless. Our mental images are good indeed, and they allow us as real beings to act in a real-world, to act upon it, and extract from it all sorts of nourishment and companionship.
The statement, endless repeated, that “ One can only access the contents of one’s mind and not reality” is wrong in several aspects.

That's correct. That knowledge is never perfect or absolute says nothing of it's reliability at the scale it's being actually acquired and used.

>So the phrase “One cannot access reality but only the contents of one’s mind” could be translated as such: “One cannot access reality but only the images that are the means to access reality”. This phrase manages to be redundant and contradictory at once.

<thumbs up emoji>

>But then there is the question of accessing reality “directly”, without any effort to explain what this would possibly mean.

It doesn't possibly mean anything. We are each an embodied perspective and the least that means is three filters - biological (senses), cultural (subconscious, mostly), psychological (character, more or less bespoke). Each may be controlled for according to it's own attributes.

>Access implies means of access, and through those means, we do access reality.
>Furthermore, we are reality, and we live in it. And it is not an image, so it is a grave mistake to ever treat it as an image. We may produce as many images from it as we can, but it will not make of reality an image, or from an image reality. Life is not a narrative, nature is not a book

There are three layers of understanding, Actuality per se - ie Aether, change, Delta, Chaos, reality-to-us (the filters as explained above), and Reality as more-or-less-consensus experience.

bonus: actuality = Δ ^ ∞
Advocate
Posts: 3020
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: reality is

Post by Advocate »

>>It means that apparent reality is the product of biological consciousness, that we come to know the world through our bodies, kind of like an interface to ultimate reality, apparent reality is what we are capable of sensing of ultimate reality.[/quote]

>Is it a product of just biological consciousness or of biological consciousness AND something else? IOW is it like a dream (as we generally think of dreams) or a process of dynamic interaction between entities?

The distinction between our internal experience and our external experience Of is the core of metaphysics. Our embodiment is primary to our experience. Our experience is primary to our understanding of actuality as reality. They're separate but equalish, more or less like epistemology and metaphysics.

>or How do I manage to run through a bumpy, uneven field with holes so well? Is it because I am dreaming the field so it is infinitely malleable to my consciousness?

Try this experiment. Ask a stranger for directions to a place you've never been. If you can use them to get their accurately, either solipcism, radical memory problems, or reality is basically the way it seems to be and we're experiencing it from different perspectives. Which of those is pragmatic? Only one.

>>Experience is always true to the state of the biology that has the experience whether that experience agrees with physical reality or not. If one makes changes in the biology one changes their ability to sense, as in the case of someone who is ill or physically damaged.

>Sure, though my dog also runs through the field fairly well. Sure, we're both mammals, but it seems like our quite different biologies experience a very similar field when it comes to navigation. I see the holes and clumps of nettles he avoids. The dimensions of the fields we run through and the challenges seem extremely similar.

We each see the same reality, just a different, overlapping, subset of it.
popeye1945
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

Reality is reactive consciousness, a biological readout of the effects of the energies of ultimate reality, which modern science says to be a place of no things. So, one must then wonder where the world as object/s comes from. It was Einstein who stated, that reality is an illusion even a persistent one. Apparent reality opposed to ultimate reality is a biological readout, a manifestation of biological reactions. A biological creation, a emergent quality between subject and object which can never be separated and this is why we can never know reality but on a cognitive level, for that is all there is of the world object.
Advocate
Posts: 3020
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: reality is

Post by Advocate »

[quote=popeye1945 post_id=585245 time=1658596951 user_id=21999]
Reality is reactive consciousness, a biological readout of the effects of the energies of ultimate reality, which modern science says to be a place of no things. So, one must then wonder where the world as object/s comes from. It was Einstein who stated, that reality is an illusion even a persistent one. Apparent reality opposed to ultimate reality is a biological readout, a manifestation of biological reactions. A biological creation, a emergent quality between subject and object which can never be separated and this is why we can never know reality but on a cognitive level, for that is all there is of the world object.
[/quote]

I prefer Actuality instead of Ultimate Reality.
popeye1945
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:18 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:22 pm Reality is reactive consciousness, a biological readout of the effects of the energies of ultimate reality, which modern science says to be a place of no things. So, one must then wonder where the world as object/s comes from. It was Einstein who stated, that reality is an illusion even a persistent one. Apparent reality opposed to ultimate reality is a biological readout, a manifestation of biological reactions. A biological creation, a emergent quality between subject and object which can never be separated and this is why we can never know reality but on a cognitive level, for that is all there is of the world object.
I prefer Actuality instead of Ultimate Reality.
Advocate,
There then would be no distinction between what we do sense and that which we do not. Ultimate reality is termed for the fact that it contains all energy forms both what we sense and what we do not sense, actuality is the term more appropriate to our apparent reality as apparent reality is said to be manifest as the world of objects.
popeye1945
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

Advocate wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:01 pm >>It means that apparent reality is the product of biological consciousness, that we come to know the world through our bodies, kind of like an interface to ultimate reality, apparent reality is what we are capable of sensing of ultimate reality.
>Is it a product of just biological consciousness or biological consciousness AND something else? IOW is it like a dream (as we generally think of dreams) or a process of dynamic interaction between entities?[/quote]

It is the product of the energies of ultimate reality that affect changes in our biology/body that our reactive consciousness is made conscious, take away those energies and consciousness ceases to be.


The distinction between our internal experience and our external experience Of is the core of metaphysics. Our embodiment is primary to our experience. Our experience is primary to our understanding of actuality as reality. They're separate but equalish, more or less like epistemology and metaphysics.[/quote]

Sorry, can't say as I understand the above. Actuality is thought of as the manifestations of apparent reality, your everyday reality.


>or How do I manage to run through a bumpy, uneven field with holes so well? Is it because I am dreaming the field so it is infinitely malleable to my consciousness? Try this experiment. Ask a stranger for directions to a place you've never been. If you can use them to get their accurately, either solipcism, radical memory problems, or reality is basically the way it seems to be and we're experiencing it from different perspectives. Which of those is pragmatic? Only one. [/quote]

Sorry really don't get the above either.

>>Experience is always true to the state of the biology that has the experience whether that experience agrees with physical reality or not. If one makes changes in biology one changes their ability to sense, as in the case of someone who is ill or physically damaged.

>Sure, though my dog also runs through the field fairly well. Sure, we're both mammals, but it seems like our quite different biologies experience a very similar field when it comes to navigation. I see the holes and clumps of nettles he avoids. The dimensions of the fields we run through and the challenges seem extremely similar.[/quote]

Yes, it is all biological perception in both cases.

We each see the same reality, just a different, overlapping, subset of it.
[/quote]

Each species see apparent reality differently even within species there are some slight differences, but widespread species share the same apparent reality due to having the same structures and forms to perceive with.
Post Reply