Re: Which of these is Real and True?
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:51 am
That so called "problem" has ALREADY been answered AND solved. Thus NO problem at all, anyway.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:50 amYou had merely assumed 'thing' pre-existed prior to comprehension.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:47 pm "Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple."
I think it's more like this...
Man apprehends thing, experiences its qualities, names those qualities, names the thing.
Without Man there is no apprehending of thing, no experiencing of thing's qualities, no naming of those qualities, no naming of thing, but thing remains or persists.
Thing retains all its qualities and exists but does so un-apprehended, un-experienced, un-named, never given significance.
Man brings recognition and meaning and names to Reality (Man brings significations to things) but Man does not create Reality (or the things in it)
Note the Problem of a Heap.
At what point is a grain and falling grains of sand a heap?
So at what point or when is a thing, a 'thing?'
This is problem that leads to infinite regression.
The answer and solution to this also answers and solves that other question: What came first the chicken or the egg?
So, WHY do 'you', "veritas aequitas", INSIST things like this?
Is this like speculating on what the actual REAL Truth IS, but actually NOT KNOWING what 'It' IS?
If yes, then 'you', "veritas aequitas", have a tendency to do this quite often "yourself".
Pity 'you', "veritas aequitas", do NOT follow the advice 'you' expect "others" to do.
What is the definition of a real 'human'?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:50 amWe should start with the most certain fact we can speak off, i.e. humans exist as real.
Humans are the most real as evident from one own experiences and inferring the mirror existence of other humans.
That is why I started with 'humans' in the following equation;
"Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple."
If we were to introduce 'thing' into the above equation, then we are lost with something unknowable.
If 'you' know what 'human' IS, then why do supposedly NOT know what 'thing' IS?
'veritas aequitas" is consistently substituting a lot to address those strongly HELD BELIEFS when they have been SHOWN to be absurdly WRONG, or just plainly WRONG.
Exactly how does any of this have some thing to do with things pre-existing before human beings comprehending?