reality is

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: reality is

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:32 pm
Age wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:48 am Are you ASKING or TELLING us this?
I was asking popeye.
Okay, it was just presented as a statement instead of a question, (although with a question mark at the end, thus why I asked the clarifying question).
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:32 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Here is ANOTHER statement, with a question mark on the end of it.
I write, sometimes, as I speak, which includes statements with a questioning tone at the end, or here, writing, with a question mark. I can understand it might be confusing
It is a question. I think Reality is experience might mean different things. I am looking for a clarification.
Either way it does NOT logically follow anyway.
Perhaps you know his position well. But I'll wait for his answer.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?
There, obviously, HAS TO BE SOME 'thing' BEFORE absolutely ANY 'thing' could come into existence. So, there was SOME 'thing' BEFORE 'experiences' arose.

The Fact that there WAS SOME 'thing' is HOW 'experiences' came-to-exist, and experience.
So, it seems you are disagreeing with the notion that only experienced things exist. I don't know if that is what he meant, but if it is what he meant, I assume you will disagree with him or have already.
It appears that that is what "popeye1945" meant. Which is, OBVIOUSLY, Truly an IMPOSSIBILITY, well to me anyway. So, yes I TOTALLY DISAGREE with that notion, but if that was not what "popeye1945" meant, then we will have to wait and see.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6593
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: reality is

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 8:08 pm Reality is all experience, regardless of whether it's a real illusion, delusion, or later disproved.
How do you disprove an experience. That seems like a category error. Experiences aren't assertions or mathematicl proofs.
Later validation is part of a future reality.
Later validation of what? Perhaps some examples would be helpful
Actuality continues existing as undifferentiated stuff all the way through;
Now you are using a new term 'actuality'. Is that a synonym, in your schema for 'reality'. If so, why not use 'reality'? if not what is the distinction?
identical for all intents and purposes, before during and after that experience.
The experience changes during that time. At least if we are talking about experience as I experience it. My experiences change from moment to moment. If Reality is experience, it is changing, it seems to me. But, again clarification of the above questions and some examples might help me understand what your position is.

Further, you are making a lot of assertions. Could you explain how you know this?
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 12:15 am Reality is experience.
That which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?
The earth gave rise to life and its many forms, I think of those preconditons as the chemistry of creation and with life the earth comes to know itself.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

A fact is something that is true.
The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts. Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
Fact to be fact, needs to be known as meaning and meaning is the sole property of a conscious subject or conscious subjects in agreement.


Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.
This is a bit tricky. There should not be any concession to the above question.[/quote]

Apparent reality is the product of the biological body/consciousness no concessions here.

The pursuit and impulse for things in the absence of humans is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.[/quote]

In the absence of consciousness there is no evolutionary or psychological issue, in the absence of a conscious subject there is nothing.

[/quote]As such, we should address the psychological issue rather than try to find an answer to a non-starter hypothesis. This is what Buddhism [& others of the likes] does.
This is the same as the God exists hypothesis which is a non-starter.
An analogy is 'a square-circle exists' which is glaringly a non-starter.[/quote]

I have no idea what you mean buy a non-starter, subject and object can never be separated for if one is the other ceases to be.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

Advocate wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 8:08 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:39 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 4:33 am Advocate,

Sounds like we are on the same page. Thanks for the affirmation!
Yes, it seems like you are both confusing the epistemological issue with the ontological claim made that Reality is experience. Could someone actually say what that means?
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.
Do memories of experiences count? Or only as experiences of remembering? For example.What are you ruling out?
Reality is all experience, regardless of whether it's a real illusion, delusion, or later disproved. Later validation is part of a future reality. Actuality continues existing as undifferentiated stuff all the way through; identical for all intents and purposes, before during and after that experience.
[/quote]

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.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: reality is

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:39 am
A fact is something that is true.
The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts. Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
Fact to be fact, needs to be known as meaning and meaning is the sole property of a conscious subject or conscious subjects in agreement.
Yes, conscious subjects in agreement within a specific framework and system of knowledge or experiences.
E.g. astronomical facts can must be qualified to a community of recognized astronomers, same for any scientific facts, etc.
Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.
This is a bit tricky. There should not be any concession to the above question.
Apparent reality is the product of the biological body/consciousness no concessions here.
The pursuit and impulse for things in the absence of humans is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.
In the absence of consciousness there is no evolutionary or psychological issue, in the absence of a conscious subject there is nothing.
Your point is obvious, but I think you missed my point.

My point is,
those [philosophical realists] who insist "things exist independent of humans" and "even if there are no humans, whatever the 'things' exists regardless of human existence."
Such insistence is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.
It is the same as the theists' insistence God exists as real at present and before humans existed [since it was God who created the first humans].

As such, we should address the psychological issue rather than try to find an answer to a non-starter hypothesis. This is what Buddhism [& others of the likes] does.
This is the same as the God exists hypothesis which is a non-starter.
An analogy is 'a square-circle exists' which is glaringly a non-starter.[/quote]
I have no idea what you mean by a non-starter, subject and object can never be separated for if one is the other ceases to be.
If someone insist 'a square-circle exists as real' obviously no rational person will accept or even bother with it.
Because it is an obvious contradiction, there is no need to start arguing with the point, thus it is a non-starter.
  • Non-starter: If you describe a plan or idea as a non-starter, you mean that it has no chance of success. [informal]
In your above,
Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms
they could not be then known if there is no knower.


Your Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms open the concession that there could exists things ... but they cannot be known if there are no knower.

My point was, you need not provide for such a condition at all, because it is totally impossible [like a square-circle] for such things to exist as real. This is a sort of agnostic position.

The fact is,
whenever such "impossible to justify" claims are raised, they should be immediately directed as a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue rather than an epistemological-ontological issue.
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: reality is

Post by trokanmariel »

Reality is the uniformity flat, being in conjunction with daylight's sustainer with the absence of tone creation from the physics speech of no citation to dead end; the identity concern, of this composition is the sex aristocracy revelation, namely, that existence is made up of individuals (the real individuals) who are prepped to be God's sex partner.

Let me go back over those particulars:
the uniformity flat (Robin Williams is listening), is a reference to a planet's physical format, seen by sentient life forces.
Daylight's sustainer, is the creator of daylight, with the term sustainer being a visual word privilege.
The absence of tone creation, is the caricature of the list.

Joining the sex aristocracy, of God and their partner, is the sex partnership of daylight, and the multiverse of days creation. The multiverse of days creation, is the thematic oversight of days, as in for example the theory that every day is the same day, with the build up of information being the prize of the end survivor.

Another example, is the days as following each other to pick up the pieces of life identity being the precursor madness.
The precursor madness, is a reference to the horror of after life (not the woman Afterlife, who dresses like Sindel from Mortal Kombat), which is a reference to why can't we be happily ever after, which funnily enough, given the citation socialism context just experienced, brings me onto the next day attitude (Barolo Xylie is the face)

Daylight's before is after: it's a central progression staple, of meta publication.
Before is after = the pendulum's romantic link to before is after as before to after is Mason Dertry's gift to me, in which it was a lucky location, of writing to page, after pendulums had been established such as nursery to nightclubs, geography to chemistry etc.

So there you have it: the daylight-multiverse of days theories sex partnership, which can utilise the exact same parameters as virtues as God's own sex pact, including the physics to physics sex partnership, which can be defined as people's imitating the confusion science (a Michael Keaton central ethos, from 1989 Batman and Batman Returns with Michelle Pfeiffer), using the means-testing of horror events like shootings, domestic violence, political elections, geopolitical issues like sex trafficking and piracy and cyber-terrorism.

Another physics to physics partnership, can be the evolution vs computation dynamic, in which evolution consists of animals being screen projected safeties, as in the animals are real metaphors whose lifelong consciousness can be safely extracted by the sustainer of daylight, or are the nihilist's metaphor for extraction double story.

In terms of the computation side of things:
There is the humour as self-deprecating as same schematic double story user of imitating the confusion science, in which the meaning is that humour is able to be safely on top of the ITCS, again for extraction.

There is the imitating the confusion science, in the context of being a parameter of strength against Mason Dertry's alliance, towards citation of celebrity as means of ceasing the enhancement of the publication, on condition of the publication's consistent help system to the system.

Next, there is the computation of speed using the human brain. It's bad enough, that society as inevitability involves using the connection between speed and not using the universal explanation; it seems that the idea awareness of psychology's possession is a sequence-politics attitude against the pendulum democracy within the brain.

Next, there is the computation of applying computation on purpose, for the purpose of blocking the concentration of activity formula screen of deities; in this instance, the formula screen is a rival to the end of hallway to other end of hallway with person in middle politics by life to the mystery matter, in the context that it's the deconstructive term of wake-up call.

Back to sex aristocracy:
Along the parameter, that sex reality of theology's nature is a centralisation theme, ergo the evolution is horror all along revelation universe, the logical attitude by people could be that mathematics' universe is able to be a both fields universe.
And then there is the macro as internal theme usual, of the absence of proof system being the secret supporter of movement and sentience.

A sea, a mountain and a forest:
do all three of the three from anywhere in the multiverse of days theories have the capacity (this is where I acknowledge Sidney Prescott and Billy Loomis and Stu Macher, an Actual Mistake logistic of 3 to 3) to know the physics to physics of the imitating the confusion science's daylight creation of awaiting the concentration of activity block by Gods, along the usual identity of magic's endowment to life to only be able to know the resolution to macro data puzzle (the meaning, being that any text's final frame means the text can't be understood) through the gravitation to term, such as ITCS, or celebrity reference (Lori Loughlin's ghost, provided by Shelia Mite just asked me "How am I?", after I was ready to move on without citing her, on from the mindset that the Amityville house's mythology of basement politics to reality was created by my ready to ignore citation, suggesting that the Amityville house is a left-wing ideology - Tony Roberts, Candy Clark, Frank J Urioste, Tess Harper and Meg Ryan's ability to unite the two ends of the citation spectrum).

The reality application, of gravitation to body glamour: is sex aristocracy with God a deconstruction through science application of the generic concept.
Of course, I say generic: no nation on Earth has a gravitation to body glamour department, or usual lexicon/public platitude speech-making ethos surrounding the idea.

Face using style, and the general audacity of using no citation as user of it. Is this the proof, that words are one to one of level playing field with body glamour?
If they are, what does that mean?

Is daylight a word? Not daylight the word, but the white skyline? Do God's potential sex partners, waiting throughout history of the mutual awareness ideology, know of the white/blue (John Baxter's edit) skyline. Is it part of their planned sex/life with Peek-A-Boo?

In The Grey, Liam Neeson is able to see the white sky, and Frank Grillo is able to see noise, and the absence of Earth's privilege as revelation holder means now the following:
I am outside the compartmentalisation (Nick Fury's word, with Natasha Romanoff and Steve Rogers) but, meaning that I am a subject to the indecipherable creation of tone science, which can utilise Katie Sarife's (Daniela's and Dexterity's and Mary Ellen's and Bob's and Bill Kottkamp and Father Gordon, and Anthony Rios) algorithm of secret: all people and all animals have one.

Back to sex aristocracy:
The ingenuity identities, as building blocks through theme to text, building text consciousness. Isn't this sex's own paradigm? And if gravitation to body glamour is also in on this act, let alone gravitation to body glamour's own absence of history parallel to Earth history of public politics, using left-wing to right-wing spectrum/public speech-making ethos, is this a symmetry virtue, along the lines of the mystery nature's moral alliance with symmetry, or, as I like to call it, The Symmetry.

About that other reference, about gravitation to body glamour's internalisation of political parties:
What are equivalents?

It would be, can a daylight creation of supermarkets smoke? It would be can computation from data (the cultural attitude that it's wrong to use any data from intellectual documentation, a Gale Weathers prize) mirror itself, to outer space's numbers use of imitating the confusion science.


Mythologies, such as angels, demons, fantasy creatures, etc: have they lived the nihilism of a daylight-Heaven's deceased are computers creation of rhetoric politics, of the underling to master arc?

Is this dynamic part of God's sex partnership?

Lastly, there is the magic of left-wing ideology, of free housing. There is the magic, of telling somebody that they deserve a house for free, but having to use the physics to physics build up alliance. By build up alliance, one means the sociology content apparatus, outside the jurisdiction of magic society universe ideas, in which the SCA's ethos is wait for public. Is this a gravitation to body glamour in reverse -a lia Haddock from Limetown reference.

A left-wing transcendence. An Alan Jonah (from Godzilla 2). Are they both a system of acceptance manipulation, in which the speaker is using a deity graphed apparatus of gravitation to text, for building blocks against the mystery nature's belief in symmetry.

One says, is it or are they "a left-wing transcendence?", of the mutual awareness ideology assumption of term to term invocation being the inbuilt meaning of pass the checkpoint - a Lori Ruroy reference, who oversees me, and who is the real Sharon Stone/real Lori Quaid.

The next step, from this, is that waiting for public is the response to the text orientation scheme by deities.



For Judi Dench's M, and for Paul Bettany's Silas
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6593
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: reality is

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:33 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 12:15 am Reality is experience.
That which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?
The earth gave rise to life and its many forms, I think of those preconditons as the chemistry of creation and with life the earth comes to know itself.
So, chronologically, was there reality in advance of life, even if its purpose was for life?
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

[/quote] My point is,
those [philosophical realists] who insist "things exist independent of humans" and "even if there are no humans, whatever the 'things' exists regardless of human existence."
Such insistence is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.
It is the same as the theists' insistence God exists as real at present and before humans existed [since it was God who created the first humans.

If the scientific premise is true and states that ultimate reality is a place of no things. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that seeing as the only reality that we do know is derived through the effects of the change upon our bodies, thus a biological readout. We do not need to assume that without these effects upon us that there is really anything out there. The said existence of a god in itself does not effect change in our biology so it is even a greater chance that said god or gods do not exist.
As such, we should address the psychological issue rather than try to find an answer to a non-starter hypothesis. This is what Buddhism [& others of the likes] does.
This is the same as the God exists hypothesis which is a non-starter.
An analogy is 'a square-circle exists' which is glaringly a non-starter.[/quote]

If we give credibility to the science of physics in that ultimate reality is a place of no things, then it is not unreasonable to assume it is one's biological body that creates things through reaction to aspects of ultimate reality. Hardly a non-starter.

[/quote] My point was, you need not provide for such a condition at all, because it is totally impossible [like a square-circle] for such things to exist as real. This is a sort of agnostic position.[/quote]

Again you are assuming that the statement by physics that there are no things in ultimate reality has no credibility.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6593
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: reality is

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:55 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:39 pm Do memories of experiences count? Or only as experiences of remembering? For example.What are you ruling out?
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.
It\s not clear to me what your response has to do with memories, for example.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 9:11 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:55 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:39 pm Do memories of experiences count? Or only as experiences of remembering? For example.What are you ruling out?
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.
It\s not clear to me what your response has to do with memories, for example.
Memories have nothing to do with the topic.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: reality is

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 8:51 pm
My point is,
those [philosophical realists] who insist "things exist independent of humans" and "even if there are no humans, whatever the 'things' exists regardless of human existence."
Such insistence is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.
It is the same as the theists' insistence God exists as real at present and before humans existed [since it was God who created the first humans.
If the scientific premise is true and states that ultimate reality is a place of no things. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that seeing as the only reality that we do know is derived through the effects of the change upon our bodies, thus a biological readout. We do not need to assume that without these effects upon us that there is really anything out there. The said existence of a god in itself does not effect change in our biology so it is even a greater chance that said god or gods do not exist.
popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 8:51 pm
As such, we should address the psychological issue rather than try to find an answer to a non-starter hypothesis. This is what Buddhism [& others of the likes] does.
This is the same as the God exists hypothesis which is a non-starter.
An analogy is 'a square-circle exists' which is glaringly a non-starter.
If we give credibility to the science of physics in that ultimate reality is a place of no things, then it is not unreasonable to assume it is one's biological body that creates things through reaction to aspects of ultimate reality. Hardly a non-starter.
My point was, you need not provide for such a condition at all, because it is totally impossible [like a square-circle] for such things to exist as real. This is a sort of agnostic position.
popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 8:51 pmAgain you are assuming that the statement by physics that there are no things in ultimate reality has no credibility.
Physics as a scientific endeavor do not conclude "there are no things in ultimate reality".
Physics can only conclude based on what empirical evidences of reality is available to enable it to make inferences.

then it is not unreasonable to assume it is one's biological body that creates things through reaction to aspects of ultimate reality. Hardly a non-starter.

It is a non-starter to assume "aspects of ultimate reality" that exists to facilitates
"one's biological body that creates things through reaction."

Thus one need to start from emergences and experiences [without assuming there is some pre-existing ultimate reality] and work backward to as far as our empirical evidence can carry us with the conscious thought to avoid any inkling of a final cause [ultimate reality].

The point is all humans are hardwired necessarily in our primal phase to jump hastily to a final cause or ultimately reality due to psychological reason to deal with the inherent cognitive dissonance.

It is a sign of evolutionary progress if we can be mindful of such hardwired "programming" and avoid being a slave to it.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6593
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: reality is

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 10:38 pm Memories have nothing to do with the topic.
They may or they may not.

If reality is experience, period, AND we acknowledge that much of what we know or think we know about reality is in memory and not being directly experienced right now, is what we remember reality? Yes, of course, when we are remembering we are experiencing memories, so as memories (or hallucinations or partially accurate rememberings or as.....) they exist. But are they pointing at/correctly picturing reality beyond being things we have in our heads? Is something we experienced a long time ago still real?

And I am not presenting a position. I am still trying to understand what you meant by Reality is Experience. What counts as an experience of something? What counts merely as an experience but not giving us information about other things? And if there are any differences here, how do we determine them?

If it's just ontology, well, memory and issues surrounding it, might not be relevant. But if epistemology is involved or we care at all about anything more than a bald, vague generalization, memory is relevant. What does the claim that reality is experience mean for us? What does it rule out?
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

According to modern physics, our apparent reality has no base in reality, it is as if it is our imagination. I do not think one can make any headway useing the ideas and concepts of the old physics. If one choses to infer that progress is in evolutionary psychology that is just saying that the evolution of ideas is through wonder. In a sense, I do not believe there is such a thing as truth, indeed not absolute truth. If there be truth it is a hit and miss truth as all experience tends to be. That there are energy wave frequencies that we do not perceive I think is well established. So, ultimate reality might be termed the condition of the unknown, for even what we do perceive is conditioned by our biology and not the purity of what is. The relation of subject and object is an old idea as being inseparable. I would like to think of this relationship as that between two conditions and it is the interaction/reaction between the two that gives rise to things but only relative to the biologies that experience them. I would use a different term than imagination here unless we think of biology as pure imagination taking the raw material of an unknown condition and creating an apparent reality. So, the puzzle is when and under what conditions do conditions become things for a conscious subject? Measurement?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6593
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: reality is

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 6:03 pm According to modern physics, our apparent reality has no base in reality, it is as if it is our imagination. I do not think one can make any headway useing the ideas and concepts of the old physics. If one choses to infer that progress is in evolutionary psychology that is just saying that the evolution of ideas is through wonder. In a sense, I do not believe there is such a thing as truth, indeed not absolute truth. If there be truth it is a hit and miss truth as all experience tends to be.
So, you don't believe in truth, but you believe in modern physicis, an empirical science also just to add more irony.
That there are energy wave frequencies that we do not perceive I think is well established. So, ultimate reality might be termed the condition of the unknown,
that is does not follow. The 'So,' is unjustified.
for even what we do perceive is conditioned by our biology and not the purity of what is.
Sure, but the very scientists you are appealing to the authority of used perception, plus logic, plus carefully controlled experiments, again using perception to create and monitor these experiments, to draw conslusions about reality.
The relation of subject and object is an old idea as being inseparable. I would like to think of this relationship as that between two conditions and it is the interaction/reaction between the two that gives rise to things but only relative to the biologies that experience them.
A model developed by empirical science.
I would use a different term than imagination here unless we think of biology as pure imagination taking the raw material of an unknown condition and creating an apparent reality. So, the puzzle is when and under what conditions do conditions become things for a conscious subject? Measurement?
There are good questions in here, but since you think science has given you a correct model not only for perception but also for much of reality, the issue is not binary. Clearly the scientists and you since you appeal to them, think that we can perceive enough of reality to draw conclusions about reality.

And all that, on your part, is not only dependent on whether you understood them correctly but also on whether you are remembering your research correctly or anything at all correctly.

Your conclusion that it is imagination (only) is the fruit of a poison tree. You can't use evidence that you also dismiss.
Post Reply