What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:49 pm Here's some mistaken reasoning.

'Knowing that a statement is true is a sufficient condition for factuality. Therefore knowing that a statement is true-by-definition, e.g what we call a tautology, is a sufficient condition for factuality.

It's true (by definition!) that Paris is the capital of France. Therefore it's also an objective fact that Paris is the capital of France!
It is true (by definition!) that this color is red. Therefore it is also an objective fact that this color is red!
It is true (by definition!) that murder is wrong. Therefore it is also an objective fact that murder is wrong!'

Notice the blurring of the distinction between a fact-as-feature-of-reality and a fact-as-linguistic-assertion. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - which has nothing to do with language, definition, description or a truth-claim. The only condition that matters for what counts as a fact is that it is or was the case. Everything else is secondary and dependent. Ontology is not epistemology. The existence of things has nothing to do with knowledge, and neither has anything to do with language.

I think all philosophical mistakes come from muddling three different things: features of reality that are or were the case; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which (in classical logic) may be true or false, given the way we use the words or other signs. And the above fallacious argument is a fine example of the muddle.
Q.E.D
79ua17.jpg
79ua17.jpg (38.52 KiB) Viewed 377 times
The distinction between fact-as-feature-of-reality and a fact-as-linguistic-assertion is immaterial. A fact is a fact is a fact.
What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case
Is it not the case that Paris is the capital of France?
Is it not the case that this color is red?
Is it not the case that murder is wrong?

Every single one of the above is the case! That's three facts you have there. And one of them is a moral fact.

If you want to see an attempt at muddling - look no further than Peter Holmes's sophistry.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:07 am For continuity, I'm reposting here a comment on yet another of VA's OPs.

Here's the Oxford Concise definition of the word fact: a thing that is known to to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.

And this clearly shows that we use the word fact in two completely different ways. A thing that is known to exist or to have occurred obviously has no truth-value; it just is or was the case. But a thing that is known to be true, in this context, can only be a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression: X is/was the case.

The point is that these different uses of the word fact allow for equivocation, which VA relies on in his argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

It's true that we can describe something in limitless different ways. And it's true that a description - a truth-claim - exists in a descriptive context. There's no such thing as a context-free description/truth-claim. So in this way a linguistic fact - a true factual assertion - depends on a descriptive context.

But VA forgets the other use of the word fact, to mean 'a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred' - which (outside language) obviously isn't a linguistic expression with a truth-value. I call this kind of fact 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.

(I maintain that the condition 'is known' doesn't affect the nature of this kind of fact - and that in practice, when we talk about facts, the condition is irrelevant. But that is a controversial matter.)

So here's the equivocation: 'a fact can exist only within a descriptive context' - what VA calls a framework and system of knowledge. This is true, if the word fact means 'linguistic fact'. But if it means 'feature of reality that is or was the case', then it's false - and completely misleading - as VA's 'theory' demonstrates.

Point is, if there are moral facts-as-features-of-reality, then they exist demonstrably in reality, as do all other facts. The claim 'there are moral assertions, so there are moral facts' is an absurd non sequitur. It's like saying 'there are astrological assertions, so there are astrological facts'.

I should add that, from incomprehension or pig-headedness, VA will ignore this explanation, and make little or no attempt to rebut it. I live without hope.
I am not a coward like you.
You still have not answered my question;
Are scientific facts, truths or knowledge objective, i.e. independent of individual[s] opinions, beliefs or judgments?

PH: I call this kind of fact 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.
I have already addressed this many times.

I have already stated there is no such things as
'a feature of reality - by itself
b]that is or was the case[/b] - by itself
independent of individual[s] opinions, beliefs or judgments?

This is what I stated, your above is based on the ideology of Philosophical Realism;
Philosophical Realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views ....
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
You cannot deny your definition of what is fact, i.e. 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion' fit into the above.
Yes? if No, why and how?

If the above is your ideology, of course there are no objective moral facts in that sense because you are referring to objective moral facts from a God claimed by theists and platonists' ideals and universals.

In addition you fact i.e. 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion' are ultimately flawed as countered by QM, i.e. there is no facts of independent objective reality out there.

The only realistic view of 'what is a fact' is what I have arguing for, i.e.
FSK Conditioned Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39405
Point is, if there are moral facts-as-features-of-reality, then they exist demonstrably in reality, as do all other facts. The claim 'there are moral assertions, so there are moral facts' is an absurd non sequitur. It's like saying 'there are astrological assertions, so there are astrological facts'.
What wrong with, there are sexual assertions, so there are sexual facts.

As claimed,
whatever is fact is conditioned upon its specific FSK.
Scientific facts from a scientific FSK,
Sexual Facts from a scientific-biological-sexuality FSK.
So, moral facts from a credible moral FSK

without exceptions;
astrological facts from astrological FSK.

The principle is, how credible facts are depend on the degree of credibility of the specific FSK,
At present the scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible, thus the standard bearer to evaluate the credibility of all other FSKs on a continuum of credibility and reliability.
From the FSK perspective there are 'astrological facts' but since the astrological FSK is way off the credibility of the scientific FSK, the astrological facts have relatively low credibility and reliability, say 10/100 which typically would not be typically recognized as facts.

I have argued the above points before where there are half-truths along a continuum of truths.

Your OP "What could make morality objective?" exposed your biasness and unbalanced thinking from an unbalanced mind.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:49 pm
Notice the blurring of the distinction between a fact-as-feature-of-reality and a fact-as-linguistic-assertion.
What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - which has nothing to do with language, definition, description or a truth-claim.
The only condition that matters for what counts as a fact is that it is or was the case.
Everything else is secondary and dependent.
Ontology is not epistemology.
The existence of things has nothing to do with knowledge, and neither has anything to do with language.
Your above is what I highlighted earlier which is the ideology of Philosophical Realism;
Philosophical Realism is ..
.. about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views ....
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
The above ideology had been refuted by QM [the thesis 2023 Nobel Prize for Physics] which claim there is no such objective reality that has mind-independent existence.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:07 pm You appear to have a brain dysfunction no different to that of VA.

From the very definition you are quoting "fact: a thing that is known... to be true". Read that again. And again. And again. Until you understand it. Or ask somebody for explain it to you if your brain dysfunction is undermining your ability to understand.

Knowing that a statement is true is a sufficient condition for factuality. Therefore knowing that a statement is true-by-definition, e.g what we call a tautology, is a sufficient condition for factuality.

It's true (by definition!) that Paris is the capital of France. Therefore it's also an objective fact that Paris is the capital of France!
It is true (by definition!) that this color is red. Therefore it is also an objective fact that this color is red!
It is true (by definition!) that murder is wrong. Therefore it is also an objective fact that murder is wrong!

Now watch Peter Holmes move the goal posts. Again.

79ua17.jpg
Your brain and mental range is limited.

I can agree with your following;
It is true (by definition!) that this color is red.
Therefore it is also an objective fact that this color is red!

but the above truth has to be conditioned upon the scientific-Physics FSK or model which you have often highlighted,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions.

What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from belief, judgement or opinion.

Therefore, if there's no such thing as what we call a fact, there can be no such thing as what we call objectivity.

And in that case, moral objectivity is down the toilet, along with any other kind, such as scientific objectivity.

When you eat your cake, it's gone. If you burn the bridge, you can't go back over it to the other side.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 8:56 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:07 pm You appear to have a brain dysfunction no different to that of VA.

From the very definition you are quoting "fact: a thing that is known... to be true". Read that again. And again. And again. Until you understand it. Or ask somebody for explain it to you if your brain dysfunction is undermining your ability to understand.

Knowing that a statement is true is a sufficient condition for factuality. Therefore knowing that a statement is true-by-definition, e.g what we call a tautology, is a sufficient condition for factuality.

It's true (by definition!) that Paris is the capital of France. Therefore it's also an objective fact that Paris is the capital of France!
It is true (by definition!) that this color is red. Therefore it is also an objective fact that this color is red!
It is true (by definition!) that murder is wrong. Therefore it is also an objective fact that murder is wrong!

Now watch Peter Holmes move the goal posts. Again.

79ua17.jpg
Your brain and mental range is limited.

I can agree with your following;
It is true (by definition!) that this color is red.
Therefore it is also an objective fact that this color is red!

but the above truth has to be conditioned upon the scientific-Physics FSK or model which you have often highlighted,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Idiot.

It's not a scientific; or a physics fact that this color is red.
It's a scientific and a physics fact that the wavelength of the light emitted by this color is around 700 nanometers
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 9:22 am What we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions.

What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from belief, judgement or opinion.
So you don't think that Paris being the capital of France is a feature of reality, independent from belief, judgement or opinion?
So you don't think this color being red is a feature of reality, independent from belief, judgement or opinion?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 9:22 am Therefore, if there's no such thing as what we call a fact, there can be no such thing as what we call objectivity.
I gave you facts.

It's a fact that Paris is the capital of France.
It's a fact that this color is red.

Would you like some help with moving that goalpost?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 9:22 am And in that case, moral objectivity is down the toilet, along with any other kind, such as scientific objectivity.
Phew! We've rescued moral objectivity from the jaws of Peter Holmes' idiocy!

It's a fact that murder is wrong.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 9:22 am When you eat your cake, it's gone. If you burn the bridge, you can't go back over it to the other side.
When you eat your cake - you can make another one.
When you burn the bridge - you can build another one; or swim across.

The is-ought gap is more like a puddle. Just jump over it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 8:56 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:07 pm You appear to have a brain dysfunction no different to that of VA.

From the very definition you are quoting "fact: a thing that is known... to be true". Read that again. And again. And again. Until you understand it. Or ask somebody for explain it to you if your brain dysfunction is undermining your ability to understand.

Knowing that a statement is true is a sufficient condition for factuality. Therefore knowing that a statement is true-by-definition, e.g what we call a tautology, is a sufficient condition for factuality.

It's true (by definition!) that Paris is the capital of France. Therefore it's also an objective fact that Paris is the capital of France!
It is true (by definition!) that this color is red. Therefore it is also an objective fact that this color is red!
It is true (by definition!) that murder is wrong. Therefore it is also an objective fact that murder is wrong!

Now watch Peter Holmes move the goal posts. Again.

79ua17.jpg
Your brain and mental range is limited.

I can agree with your following;
It is true (by definition!) that this color is red.
Therefore it is also an objective fact that this color is red!

but the above truth has to be conditioned upon the scientific-Physics FSK or model which you have often highlighted,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Idiot.

It's not a scientific; or a physics fact that this color is red.
It's a scientific and a physics fact that the wavelength of the light emitted by this color is around 700 nanometers
It is a strawman.
You tried to be smart but actually you are ignorant and stupid in not representing facts correctly.

Show me which scientist and physicist in the world will not agree that this color is "red" in any of their experiments or statements? They will take it as this color is "red" without qualifying its wavelengths.
or any scientists in the past had not identify this this color is "red" as a fact.

The point is when scientists or physicists state this color is "red" as a fact they are mindful [or implied] of its reference to the specific wavelengths within the scientific-Physics FSK or model.
It is only when there is a dispute related the what the color really is that the question of wavelength is considered and verified.

It is only the ignorant like Peter Holmes and gang who do not recognize the concepts of FSK conditioned facts.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Eye-conditioned facts are subjectively known, yet objectively unknown. color!!
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 6:54 am Eye-conditioned facts are subjectively known, yet objectively unknown. color!!
Yours is a strawman and barking up the wrong tree.

I believe the objectivity you are denying or claimed to be unknown is that of Objectivism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism#:
Objectivism's main tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception (see direct and indirect realism), that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic ..

Objectivism is a philosophical system developed by Russian-American writer and philosopher Ayn Rand.
I don't see any posters here arguing for Objectivism as above.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 6:06 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 8:56 am
Your brain and mental range is limited.

I can agree with your following;
It is true (by definition!) that this color is red.
Therefore it is also an objective fact that this color is red!

but the above truth has to be conditioned upon the scientific-Physics FSK or model which you have often highlighted,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Idiot.

It's not a scientific; or a physics fact that this color is red.
It's a scientific and a physics fact that the wavelength of the light emitted by this color is around 700 nanometers
It is a strawman.
You tried to be smart but actually you are ignorant and stupid in not representing facts correctly.

Show me which scientist and physicist in the world will not agree that this color is "red" in any of their experiments or statements? They will take it as this color is "red" without qualifying its wavelengths.
or any scientists in the past had not identify this this color is "red" as a fact.

The point is when scientists or physicists state this color is "red" as a fact they are mindful [or implied] of its reference to the specific wavelengths within the scientific-Physics FSK or model.
It is only when there is a dispute related the what the color really is that the question of wavelength is considered and verified.

It is only the ignorant like Peter Holmes and gang who do not recognize the concepts of FSK conditioned facts.
Do you need a lesson on history or something? Or a lesson on how anything which precedes an FSK cannot possibly be conditioned upon the FSK.

That color has been "red" for thousands of years.
This color was "red" way before we had a theory of light/colors.
This color was "red" before we had an FSK to condition it upon.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:38 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 6:54 am Eye-conditioned facts are subjectively known, yet objectively unknown. color!!
Yours is a strawman and barking up the wrong tree.

I believe the objectivity you are denying or claiming to be unknown is that of Objectivism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism#:
Objectivism's main tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception (see direct and indirect realism), that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic ..

Objectivism is a philosophical system developed by Russian-American writer and philosopher Ayn Rand.
I don't see any posters here arguing for Objectivism as above.
I believe the point is, that the objective reality is not experienced as is, but what it is to the body of a conscious subject. How energy is experienced as color, how energy as is, is experienced as sound, and how energy as is, is experienced as object. All these energies alter the physical body of a conscious subject, and what is experienced is how the body responds/reacts; be it color, sound, or object to differing forms of energy. You might call these energies simply energies, but to the conscious subject, they are its biological readout of what we call apparent reality, manifestations of biological reactions --- biological readout. A reality created by biology itself, where biology is the measure and meaning of all things.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 6:06 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:07 pm
Idiot.

It's not a scientific; or a physics fact that this color is red.
It's a scientific and a physics fact that the wavelength of the light emitted by this color is around 700 nanometers
It is a strawman.
You tried to be smart but actually you are ignorant and stupid in not representing facts correctly.

Show me which scientist and physicist in the world will not agree that this color is "red" in any of their experiments or statements? They will take it as this color is "red" without qualifying its wavelengths.
or any scientists in the past had not identify this this color is "red" as a fact.

The point is when scientists or physicists state this color is "red" as a fact they are mindful [or implied] of its reference to the specific wavelengths within the scientific-Physics FSK or model.
It is only when there is a dispute related the what the color really is that the question of wavelength is considered and verified.

It is only the ignorant like Peter Holmes and gang who do not recognize the concepts of FSK conditioned facts.
Do you need a lesson on history or something? Or a lesson on how anything which precedes an FSK cannot possibly be conditioned upon the FSK.

That color has been "red" for thousands of years.
This color was "red" way before we had a theory of light/colors.
This color was "red" before we had an FSK to condition it upon.
Humans evolved eons ago with a pattern-recognition algorithm, i.e. a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or "Model-dependent Realism".
That color has been 'red' for hundreds of thousands of years upon the human-being-cognitive-FSK with pattern-recognition FSK.
This pattern was necessary to identify the critical_ness human blood and ripen_ness of certain fruits to facilitate survival.

Other non-human living things do not have the same FSK of color recognition.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 1:37 pm I believe the point is, that the objective reality is not experienced as is, but what it is to the body of a conscious subject.
You mean the objective-reality is not experienced as it is?

The point is, there is no "objective-reality" as it is, i.e. independent of the biology [human self] that experienced it.
There is no objective-reality pre-existing the biology and awaiting the human self to experience and discover it.

Now, whatever that objective-reality that is supposed to be independent and experienced by the human self a posteriori do not exist as it is.

That objective reality that is experienced as independent by the biological human self a posteriori is ultimately independent but is part and parcel of the human self a priori.

There is no absolutely independent objective reality awaiting to be experienced by a biological self.

To insist there is such a real independent-objective-reality is chasing an illusion.

The apparent independent-objective-reality is ultimately subjective, i.e. intersubjective, i.e. emerge from a convergence of subjects a priori.
How energy is experienced as color, how energy as is, is experienced as sound, and how energy as is, is experienced as object. All these energies alter the physical body of a conscious subject, and what is experienced is how the body responds/reacts; be it color, sound, or object to differing forms of energy. You might call these energies simply energies, but to the conscious subject, they are its biological readout of what we call apparent reality, manifestations of biological reactions --- biological readout. A reality created by biology itself, where biology is the measure and meaning of all things.
Are you saying that energy is that objective reality as it is?
What is energy is actually a scientific reality which is conditioned upon the Science-Physics FSK which is ultimately intersubjective, not an absolutely independent objective reality.

Noted you are into Schopenhauer who believe what is objective-reality is the "WILL" that grounds all the 'biological readouts'.
Kant argued that such a 'Will' is illusory.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 3:39 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 1:37 pm I believe the point is, that the objective reality is not experienced as is, but what it is to the body of a conscious subject.
You mean the objective-reality is not experienced as it is?

The point is, there is no "objective-reality" as it is, i.e. independent of the biology [human self] that experienced it.
There is no objective-reality pre-existing the biology and awaiting the human self to experience and discover it.
Now, whatever that objective-reality that is supposed to be independent and experienced by the human self a posteriori do not exist as it is. That objective reality that is experienced as independent by the biological human self a posteriori is ultimately independent but is part and parcel of the human self a priori.

There is no absolutely independent objective reality awaiting to be experienced by a biological self.
To insist there is such a real independent-objective-reality is chasing an illusion.
The apparent independent-objective-reality is ultimately subjective, i.e. intersubjective, i.e. emerge from a convergence of subjects a priori.
How energy is experienced as color, how energy as is, is experienced as sound, and how energy as is, is experienced as object. All these energies alter the physical body of a conscious subject, and what is experienced is how the body responds/reacts; be it color, sound, or object to differing forms of energy. You might call these energies simply energies, but to the conscious subject, they are its biological readout of what we call apparent reality, manifestations of biological reactions --- biological readout. A reality created by biology itself, where biology is the measure and meaning of all things.
Are you saying that energy is objective reality as it is?
Energy is actually a scientific reality which is conditioned upon the Science-Physics FSK which is ultimately intersubjective, not an absolutely independent objective reality.

Noted you are into Schopenhauer who believe what is objective-reality is the "WILL" that grounds all the 'biological readouts'.
Kant argued that such a 'Will' is illusory.
We can get tied up with semantics but what you are referring to as objective reality is what is also called ultimate reality, which is a place of no things. Scientists tell us that there is only energy, nothing else. So, in the same way, that we turn energy into sound or energy into color so we turn energy into object/s. What is considered our day-to-day reality or apparent reality is a biological readout. Apparent reality is how energy is experienced by a biological subject. This is the relation between subject and object which stand or fall together. To try a clarify, it is the organism that creates its own apparent reality out of the experiences of the alteration's energies make to the body of an organism, it is through this bodily process that we come to know a world without.
Post Reply