The Case Against Reality - Dr. Hoffman

[henry quirk]

"you can keep to your views."

Yeah, I think I'll do that.

#

"I am not going further to explain my position."

Okay.

[RCSaunders]

I'm sorry, VA, I have no idea what you are talking about in the following:

Human-conditions is a VERY loaded term in this case.
These human-conditions are not based on our present state, consciousness or awareness within reality, rather these human-conditions stretched back to the space-time 3-4 billion years since the first one-cell living things emerged and along with evolution till the present state.
On top of that space-time is also subjected to these human-conditions iteratively [looped].

Thus the model is this;

• Human-conditions + human individual[s] + spontaneous emerged reality [1] = spontaneous emerged reality [2 -all that is]

- in iterative mode.

I have no idea what you mean by, "human-conditions," especially if it is something supposedly stretching back 3-4 billion years. If you have evidence that a "one-cell living thing emerged," please provide it. All the evidence I know of says there is no abiogenesis and life only comes from life.

If you believe "Reality is what it is" which is independent of the human-conditions, then when do you think humans will ever know what is that independent "Reality as all that is"?

So long as human beings have had language and have formed concepts to identify the entities they have discovered they have known it. Reality certainly cannot be what isn't, so what's left? Of course, you must believe it will never be known, but I don't how you could know that.

When you believe "reality=all that is" as independent of the human condition, then you are aligning with the Correspondence Theory of Truth, where humans are always attempting to correspond with an invisible parallel reality which they can never know.

The correspondence theory of truth is empirical nonsense. "Truth," is a quality or attribute that pertains only to propositions and is determined solely on the basis of whether what a proposition asserts is correct (what is asserted is the actual case) and it is true or what a proposition asserts is incorrect (what is asserted is not the actual case) and is false.

The human self cannot extricate and claim itself to be independent from "reality-all there is"

Of course not. Human beings, including all of their attributes, i.e. life, consciousness, volition, intellect, and rationality, are part of reality as all other entities and their qualities are. Why would there be any separation between human beings and reality. They are one of all the things that are?

Note this analogy; This is like a piece-of-ice in a jar of water where the seemingly "individualized" ice-piece is independent of the water, but in reality the existence of the ice-piece is part & parcel and interdependent with the water. The piece-of-ice's size will change in accordance with everything [temperature, wind, etc.] that are surrounding it and the jar of water. If it is too hot, then the ice-piece will be non-existence and be just part-parcel of the water.[/list]

Similarly human beings are merely bundles of specific energy-pack interchanging within a universe of energy. What manifest as objects, things, consciousness within the individual is all interdependent with that universe of energy.

Just in case that will lead you to think, energy is the ultimate independent substance, NOPE it is not, "that energy" is again a emergent result from that interactions of the human conditions with the subject.

Thus if you believe "Reality is what that is" the most you are doing is hanging to this proposition in your mind. This is just a hope and wish. Thus you are leaving the proposition hanging [suspended] without realization any of its reality at all.

What you have are merely converted and interpreted sense-data in your brain/mind and never ever knowing what reality really is.

I'm sure I do not understand your ontological views, which frankly, sound as mystical as those of any theist, Hindu, or Buddhist. (I'm not accusing you of those, by the way.) What can, "human beings are merely bundles of specific energy-pack interchanging within a universe of energy," possibly mean? What exactly is, "interchanging," with what and how could you possibly know it? Even more mysterious, what could, "energy is ... a[n] emergent result from that interactions of the human conditions with the subject," possibly mean. Does energy, "emerge," as the result of interactions with the mysterious "human condition," with some unidentified, "subject?"

I'm sure this all has meaning to you. I think you might be trying to pack too much in a short description and need a lot more detail and explanation. A good place to start might be what you mean by energy. Energy, itself, does not do anything, it is only a measure of the behavior of physical entities. If there were no physical entities that moved, or accelerated, or became electrically charged or heated up (or cooled down) there would be no energy.

I think I've made my view clear enought, and I really would like to understand yours better.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm sorry, VA, I have no idea what you are talking about in the following:

Human-conditions is a VERY loaded term in this case.
These human-conditions are not based on our present state, consciousness or awareness within reality, rather these human-conditions stretched back to the space-time 3-4 billion years since the first one-cell living things emerged and along with evolution till the present state.
On top of that space-time is also subjected to these human-conditions iteratively [looped].

Thus the model is this;

• Human-conditions + human individual[s] + spontaneous emerged reality [1] = spontaneous emerged reality [2 -all that is]

- in iterative mode.

I have no idea what you mean by, "human-conditions," especially if it is something supposedly stretching back 3-4 billion years. If you have evidence that a "one-cell living thing emerged," please provide it. All the evidence I know of says there is no abiogenesis and life only comes from life.

Nope. I don't believe in abiogenesis.

Surely you don't believe humans just appeared suddenly 200,000 years ago out of no where??
However, if you believe in the theory of evolution, the human conditions-as-it-is can be traced back to emerged-one-celled living things without speculating abiogenesis.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f ... 56791.webp

The human-condition-as-it is at present is the summation of that had happened since 3-4 billion years ago and traces of the relevant "programs" are constituted in the human DNA.

If you had evolved as a virus since 3-4 billion years ago, you will not be perceiving 'an apple' as humans do, but rather what you cognize are merely molecules of atoms.
If you had evolved as a blind bat from that one-celled living thing, you perceived only sonic waves and not a solid apple as humans do.

Thus the solid apple on the table you perceived is very specific to the human-condition as it is which had culminated from 3-4 billion years ago.

If you believe "Reality is what it is" which is independent of the human-conditions, then when do you think humans will ever know what is that independent "Reality as all that is"?

So long as human beings have had language and have formed concepts to identify the entities they have discovered they have known it.
Reality certainly cannot be what isn't, so what's left?
Of course, you must believe it will never be known, but I don't how you could know that.

Humans are not qualified to state 'reality certainly cannot be what isn't.'

In addition, you cannot quality an "it" at all.
As Wittgenstein stated, one must just "shut up" on such an issue.

• "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
  Wittgenstein (Tractatus 7)

However, in general human beings as conditioned are compelled to assign an "it" i.e. a thing to that which they speculate is really real.
This is purely psychological as Hume had demonstrated with his Theory of Causality.
This can explained via Evolutionary Psychology.

Therefore humans should not speculate on 'all that is' and assigning an "it" on the issue.

What is certain are what is empirically verified and what is empirically possible plus viewed in the meta-perspective philosophically.

When you believe "reality=all that is" as independent of the human condition, then you are aligning with the Correspondence Theory of Truth, where humans are always attempting to correspond with an invisible parallel reality which they can never know.

The correspondence theory of truth is empirical nonsense. "Truth," is a quality or attribute that pertains only to propositions and is determined solely on the basis of whether what a proposition asserts is correct (what is asserted is the actual case) and it is true or what a proposition asserts is incorrect (what is asserted is not the actual case) and is false.

Yes, the correspondence theory of truth is empirical nonsense.
But what you have been proposing is in alignment with "the correspondence theory of truth."
You had claimed, there is a true reality of a thing that correspond to what you have perceived empirically.
E.g. you claimed it is true there is 'a real-apple' that correspond to 'the apple on the table'.

The human self cannot extricate and claim itself to be independent from "reality-all there is"

Of course not. Human beings, including all of their attributes, i.e. life, consciousness, volition, intellect, and rationality, are part of reality as all other entities and their qualities are. Why would there be any separation between human beings and reality. They are one of all the things that are?

Thus the general principle, reality-as-there-is must be interdependent with the human mind or human conditions.

Note this analogy; This is like a piece-of-ice in a jar of water where the seemingly "individualized" ice-piece is independent of the water, but in reality the existence of the ice-piece is part & parcel and interdependent with the water. The piece-of-ice's size will change in accordance with everything [temperature, wind, etc.] that are surrounding it and the jar of water. If it is too hot, then the ice-piece will be non-existence and be just part-parcel of the water.[/list]

Similarly human beings are merely bundles of specific energy-pack interchanging within a universe of energy. What manifest as objects, things, consciousness within the individual is all interdependent with that universe of energy.

Just in case that will lead you to think, energy is the ultimate independent substance, NOPE it is not, "that energy" is again a emergent result from that interactions of the human conditions with the subject.

Thus if you believe "Reality is what that is" the most you are doing is hanging to this proposition in your mind. This is just a hope and wish. Thus you are leaving the proposition hanging [suspended] without realization any of its reality at all.

What you have are merely converted and interpreted sense-data in your brain/mind and never ever knowing what reality really is.

I'm sure I do not understand your ontological views, which frankly, sound as mystical as those of any theist, Hindu, or Buddhist. (I'm not accusing you of those, by the way.) What can, "human beings are merely bundles of specific energy-pack interchanging within a universe of energy," possibly mean? What exactly is, "interchanging," with what and how could you possibly know it? Even more mysterious, what could, "energy is ... a[n] emergent result from that interactions of the human conditions with the subject," possibly mean. Does energy, "emerge," as the result of interactions with the mysterious "human condition," with some unidentified, "subject?"

I'm sure this all has meaning to you. I think you might be trying to pack too much in a short description and need a lot more detail and explanation. A good place to start might be what you mean by energy. Energy, itself, does not do anything, it is only a measure of the behavior of physical entities. If there were no physical entities that moved, or accelerated, or became electrically charged or heated up (or cooled down) there would be no energy.

I think I've made my view clear enought, and I really would like to understand yours better.

"Energy" is not mystical, it is Physics.
Hey, Energy is E = MC2.

In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object.[note 1]
Energy is a conserved quantity; the law of conservation of energy states that energy can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed. The SI unit of energy is the joule, which is the energy transferred to an object by the work of moving it a distance of 1 metre against a force of 1 newton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Everything is a 'packet' of conserved potential energy.
If you eat the apple on the table, the energy in the apple in interchanging with your body.
This is what I meant, i.e. eating the apple will enable an emergent of additional energy [in terms of carbohydrates, minerals, sugar, etc.] in your body.

The Sun transfer energy to the Earth and this is spread and interchanged between material bodies and living things.
Wonder how could you be so confused with all these, i.e. the interchanging of energy between material things and living bodies.

My main point here is,
Reality as all-there-is is interdependent with the human-conditions. There is no reality as all-there-is which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

If the mind think otherwise, as Wittgenstein stated, it is best to 'shut up'.
To go further one will have to "Know Thyself" i.e. understand one's own and human psychology as Hume had alluded to.

[leqisuva]

I'm sorry, VA, I have no idea what you are talking about in the following:

Human-conditions is a VERY loaded term in this case.
These human-conditions are not based on our present state, consciousness or awareness within reality, rather these human-conditions stretched back to the space-time 3-4 billion years since the first one-cell living things emerged and along with evolution till the present state.
On top of that space-time is also subjected to these human-conditions iteratively [looped].

Thus the model is this;

• Human-conditions + human individual[s] + spontaneous emerged reality [1] = spontaneous emerged reality [2 -all that is]

- in iterative mode.

I have no idea what you mean by, "human-conditions," especially if it is something supposedly stretching back 3-4 billion years. If you have evidence that a "one-cell living thing emerged," please provide it. All the evidence I know of says there is no abiogenesis and life only comes from life.

Nope. I don't believe in abiogenesis.

Surely you don't believe humans just appeared suddenly 200,000 years ago out of no where??
However, if you believe in the theory of evolution, the human conditions-as-it-is can be traced back to emerged-one-celled living things without speculating abiogenesis.
https://1080ppornlist.com/

The human-condition-as-it is at present is the summation of that had happened since 3-4 billion years ago and traces of the relevant "programs" are constituted in the human DNA.

If you had evolved as a virus since 3-4 billion years ago, you will not be perceiving 'an apple' as humans do, but rather what you cognize are merely molecules of atoms.
If you had evolved as a blind bat from that one-celled living thing, you perceived only sonic waves and not a solid apple as humans do.

Thus the solid apple on the table you perceived is very specific to the human-condition as it is which had culminated from 3-4 billion years ago.

If you believe "Reality is what it is" which is independent of the human-conditions, then when do you think humans will ever know what is that independent "Reality as all that is"?

So long as human beings have had language and have formed concepts to identify the entities they have discovered they have known it.
Reality certainly cannot be what isn't, so what's left?
Of course, you must believe it will never be known, but I don't how you could know that.

Humans are not qualified to state 'reality certainly cannot be what isn't.'

In addition, you cannot quality an "it" at all.
As Wittgenstein stated, one must just "shut up" on such an issue.

• "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
  Wittgenstein (Tractatus 7)

However, in general human beings as conditioned are compelled to assign an "it" i.e. a thing to that which they speculate is really real.
This is purely psychological as Hume had demonstrated with his Theory of Causality.
This can explained via Evolutionary Psychology.

Therefore humans should not speculate on 'all that is' and assigning an "it" on the issue.

What is certain are what is empirically verified and what is empirically possible plus viewed in the meta-perspective philosophically.

When you believe "reality=all that is" as independent of the human condition, then you are aligning with the Correspondence Theory of Truth, where humans are always attempting to correspond with an invisible parallel reality which they can never know.

The correspondence theory of truth is empirical nonsense. "Truth," is a quality or attribute that pertains only to propositions and is determined solely on the basis of whether what a proposition asserts is correct (what is asserted is the actual case) and it is true or what a proposition asserts is incorrect (what is asserted is not the actual case) and is false.

Yes, the correspondence theory of truth is empirical nonsense.
But what you have been proposing is in alignment with "the correspondence theory of truth."
You had claimed, there is a true reality of a thing that correspond to what you have perceived empirically.
E.g. you claimed it is true there is 'a real-apple' that correspond to 'the apple on the table'.

The human self cannot extricate and claim itself to be independent from "reality-all there is"

Of course not. Human beings, including all of their attributes, i.e. life, consciousness, volition, intellect, and rationality, are part of reality as all other entities and their qualities are. Why would there be any separation between human beings and reality. They are one of all the things that are?

Thus the general principle, reality-as-there-is must be interdependent with the human mind or human conditions.

Note this analogy; This is like a piece-of-ice in a jar of water where the seemingly "individualized" ice-piece is independent of the water, but in reality the existence of the ice-piece is part & parcel and interdependent with the water. The piece-of-ice's size will change in accordance with everything [temperature, wind, etc.] that are surrounding it and the jar of water. If it is too hot, then the ice-piece will be non-existence and be just part-parcel of the water.[/list]

Similarly human beings are merely bundles of specific energy-pack interchanging within a universe of energy. What manifest as objects, things, consciousness within the individual is all interdependent with that universe of energy.

Just in case that will lead you to think, energy is the ultimate independent substance, NOPE it is not, "that energy" is again a emergent result from that interactions of the human conditions with the subject.

Thus if you believe "Reality is what that is" the most you are doing is hanging to this proposition in your mind. This is just a hope and wish. Thus you are leaving the proposition hanging [suspended] without realization any of its reality at all.

What you have are merely converted and interpreted sense-data in your brain/mind and never ever knowing what reality really is.

I'm sure I do not understand your ontological views, which frankly, sound as mystical as those of any theist, Hindu, or Buddhist. (I'm not accusing you of those, by the way.) What can, "human beings are merely bundles of specific energy-pack interchanging within a universe of energy," possibly mean? What exactly is, "interchanging," with what and how could you possibly know it? Even more mysterious, what could, "energy is ... a[n] emergent result from that interactions of the human conditions with the subject," possibly mean. Does energy, "emerge," as the result of interactions with the mysterious "human condition," with some unidentified, "subject?"

I'm sure this all has meaning to you. I think you might be trying to pack too much in a short description and need a lot more detail and explanation. A good place to start might be what you mean by energy. Energy, itself, does not do anything, it is only a measure of the behavior of physical entities. If there were no physical entities that moved, or accelerated, or became electrically charged or heated up (or cooled down) there would be no energy.

I think I've made my view clear enought, and I really would like to understand yours better.

"Energy" is not mystical, it is Physics.
Hey, Energy is E = MC2.

In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object.[note 1]
Energy is a conserved quantity; the law of conservation of energy states that energy can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed. The SI unit of energy is the joule, which is the energy transferred to an object by the work of moving it a distance of 1 metre against a force of 1 newton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Everything is a 'packet' of conserved potential energy.
If you eat the apple on the table, the energy in the apple in interchanging with your body.
This is what I meant, i.e. eating the apple will enable an emergent of additional energy [in terms of carbohydrates, minerals, sugar, etc.] in your body.

The Sun transfer energy to the Earth and this is spread and interchanged between material bodies and living things.
Wonder how could you be so confused with all these, i.e. the interchanging of energy between material things and living bodies.

My main point here is,
Reality as all-there-is is interdependent with the human-conditions. There is no reality as all-there-is which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

If the mind think otherwise, as Wittgenstein stated, it is best to 'shut up'.
To go further one will have to "Know Thyself" i.e. understand one's own and human psychology as Hume had alluded to.

remind me not to read your discussions at work - it's fascinating

[RCSaunders]

... When I, because of poor lighting, mistake a rope for a snake, or vice versa, I've made a mistake. ...

That's right, Henry. What you see is what you see and cannot be mistaken. It is your interpretation of what you see that is mistaken, if it is.

You were duped by an inherent "programmed" to facilitate your survival. The natural decision of your primal mind is to veer to the 'safer' judgment in case of uncertainty.

Perception makes no decisions. It is totally passive and can only present to consciousness exactly what is seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled exactly as they are perceived. Interpretation of what is seen, in human beings, is a process of conceptualization and reason about what is perceived.

Note in the case of the bent-stick-in-water, all human beings will see a bent stick.

No! What is seen is a straight stick emerged in water which, because of the refraction of light looks differently from a straight stick lying on the ground, because it is different. From my article, "Perception:"

There is a common argument meant to cast doubt on the validity of perception called perceptual illusion. A frequent example is the so-called "bent stick" illusion. The argument is based on the fact that a straight stick immersed half-way in water looks bent, implying that vision is an unreliable means of perception, because it can be fooled into seeing a straight stick as a bent one. The illustration actually demonstrates the validity of perception, however, not its vulnerability.

If our perception of the real world is to be reliable, it is the physical world as it actually exists we must be conscious of, and that is exactly what our perception of the world is. In the real metaphysical world nothing exists independently. The third ontological corollary of identity is: Anything that exists must have some relationship to everything else that exists. Those relationships, together with its state, constitute an existent's metaphysical context.

Almost every argument against the reliability of perception ignores or evades the fact that perception, to be reliable, must represent existents as they actually are, which includes their total present metaphysical context. A straight stick lying on the ground, and a straight stick immersed in water are not the same metaphysically. If perception perceived these two different metaphysical existents in the same way, that would be illusory.

What is held up as evidence of the unreliability of perception just happens to be evidence that perception is not only much richer than any of these critics supposed, but perfect and totally reliable, because perception is always contextual—every percept is an exactly correct representation of what is being perceived in its total metaphysical context. If this were not true, perception could not be the source of knowledge about existence that it is.

The metaphysical context of what is being perceived includes every relationship to that which is being perceived, as well as the state of that which is being perceived. If a white piece of paper is being perceived in the context of a red light, the paper appears to be red, which is exactly how it ought to appear in that context. If someone is wearing blue tinted glasses, everything being perceived will be tinted blue, which is exactly how it ought be perceived in that context. If white paper appeared white when illuminated with red light or if things were not tinted blue when one is wearing blue tinted glasses, perception would be deceptive, and that deception would inhibit, if it did not totally prevent, us from learning about the nature of light, for example.

Part of the total metaphysical context of anything that is being perceived is the perceiver. The fact that things appear differently to us depending on perspective has been offered is evidence that perception is unreliable. It is, in fact, more evidence that it is totally reliable. When we view the same thing from different positions, or under different conditions, the metaphysical context is different. If things appeared the same when we are close to them as they do when we are farther away, that would be a perceptual mistake. The wonder of perception is, that it always gets it right and automatically accounts for every metaphysical variation including those variations of which the perceiver is a part.

The so-called Herring Illusion is not an illusion at all. Note that all such, "illusions," are always represented as abstract drawings which are meant to represent actual entities without a context. What you call "curved" parallel lines are not curved at all, but even as they appear are exactly how they would appear if part of an actual scene because of perspective, especially curvilinear perspective. The only thing illusive about the so-called, "Herring Illusion," is that philosophers mistakenly think insight into actual perception can be gained from abstract drawings.

There is no such thing as real physical solidness.
Why you feel things as solid is very psychological [primal] because the electrons spin so fast as speed of light that you cannot press through with your fingers thus you will feel solidness.
Thus 'solidness' is an inherent subjective experience and not because 'solidness' is an absolute reality.

You must have your own private meaning of the word, "solid." I suspect it is some kind of notion that solid would be some continuous substance or something. But the concept, "solid," is one of the three states of physical entities: solid, liquid, and gas, and all have very precise definitions which explain exactly why things feel as they do. Instead of interpreting our ability to directly perceive these states an illusion you should be amazed that our perception is so accurate that the molecular structure of the physical can be directly perceived exactly as it is.

The sophists began the assault on the reliability of perception as the earliest forms of anti-knowledge. It is a shame that philosophy has never extricated itself from those mistakes.

[Atla]

If you do not agree with 'interdependent' then it is inter-related.
Note Chaos Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

I insist it is 'interdependent' in matters of degrees but I am not wasting time convincing you of it.

No, it's not inter-related, and Chaos theory has nothing to do with it.
Get your head out of your ass already.

To you,
Get your head out of your ass already.

No, you get your head out of your ass already.

Learn to think logically man, you were once an irrational religious fanatic and apparently you haven't made much progress since then. Why can't you understand that the rest of the world not being independent of the human mind doesn't make the rest of the world revolve around the human mind? Do you want to feel special, put others down?

[RCSaunders]

Nope. I don't believe in abiogenesis.

It's good to begin with an agreement.

Surely you don't believe humans just appeared suddenly 200,000 years ago out of no where??
However, if you believe in the theory of evolution, the human conditions-as-it-is can be traced back to emerged-one-celled living things without speculating abiogenesis.

I honestly have no idea if there was a beginning of human life, or anything else, and I certainly don't think it matters. I will say that I am tempted to quote Baron Munchausen, "Vass you dere, Sharlie?" when anyone makes claims about how or when life, "appeared." All claims about origins are speculation and guesses, which really is not how philosophy ought to be done, is it? As you said, "A serious philosopher is one who digs deep and wide, then present his arguments in a sequential and systematic manner."

So further guesses based on those imagined origins, like, "The human-condition-as-it is at present is the summation of that had happened since 3-4 billion years ago and traces of the relevant "programs" are constituted in the human DNA," have no basis at all except as imaginative rationalizations.

Humans are not qualified to state 'reality certainly cannot be what isn't.'

"What isn't," is the same as, "nothing." If one cannot say, "reality cannot be nothing," then nothing true can be said, which is exactly the kind of nonsense Wittgenstein and the logical positivists tried to put over.

E.g. you claimed it is true there is 'a real-apple' that correspond to 'the apple on the table'.

No, I claim if there is an apple on a table and I see it, it is real. It has nothing to do with, "corresponsence." If there is no apple on the table, I will not see one. If I see one, there is an apple on the table (else I wouldn't see it), therefore an apple seen on a table is real.

The human self cannot extricate and claim itself to be independent from "reality-all there is"

Of course not. Human beings, including all of their attributes, i.e. life, consciousness, volition, intellect, and rationality, are part of reality as all other entities and their qualities are. Why would there be any separation between human beings and reality. They are one of all the things that are?

Thus the general principle, reality-as-there-is must be interdependent with the human mind or human conditions.

"Interdependent," is the wrong word and there is no such, "thing," as, "human condition." Physical entities, organisms, conscious organisms, human beings (with all their attributes, including their minds) all exist independently of anyone's knowledge or awareness, and since all existing things must have some relationship to all other existents, they all have some relationships to each other, but they are not at all dependent on each other for their existence or their nature. If there were no human beings, everything else that exists would still exist and have the nature it has.

"Energy" is not mystical, it is Physics.
Hey, Energy is E = MC2.
... In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object. ...
... Everything is a 'packet' of conserved potential energy.

There is problem with your thinking about energy which is not your fault. Energy is not a, "thing." It is not like a bucket of water which can be transferred from one thing to another. Energy is actually only a concept for the way physical entities behave and if there were no physical entities there would be no energy. I'll not get into a discussion of the physics here which clearly demonstrates that energy cannot exist independently of entities, and cannot be converted from matter or vice versa (because all energy ultimate accelerates matter which increases in mass in the exact proportion the matter is supposedly converted into energy (acceleration). So I'll just point out what you said, that "energy ... must be transferred to an object in order perform work on or to heat the object." If "everything is a 'packet' of ... energy, it would mean, "energy is transferred to packets of energy," which is absurd.

The problem is part of a general mistake in popular physics which confuses, "models," for facts and treats physics concepts (like fields, force, energy, and power, for example) as though were things or substances, which really is a kind of reification or hypostatization.

[bahman]

We are minds interacting through a substance called physical. Physical is not an illusion though. So I partially agree with Kant.

Kant did not agree with 'substance theory' or 'physical' as you label it.

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.[1]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
  
  Criticisms:
  The idea of substance was famously critiqued by David Hume,[36][citation needed] who held that since substance cannot be perceived, it should not be assumed to exist.
  But the claim that substance cannot be perceived is neither clear nor obvious, and neither is the implication obvious.[according to whom?]
  In direct opposition to substance theory is bundle theory [Hume's], whose most basic premise is that all concrete particulars are merely constructions or 'bundles' of attributes or qualitative properties:
  
  Friedrich Nietzsche, and after him Martin Heidegger, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze also rejected the notion of "substance", and in the same movement the concept of subject - seeing both concepts as holdovers from Platonic idealism.

Why physicals persist to exist if they are mere illusion?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. I don't believe in abiogenesis.

It's good to begin with an agreement.

Surely you don't believe humans just appeared suddenly 200,000 years ago out of no where??
However, if you believe in the theory of evolution, the human conditions-as-it-is can be traced back to emerged-one-celled living things without speculating abiogenesis.

I honestly have no idea if there was a beginning of human life, or anything else, and I certainly don't think it matters. I will say that I am tempted to quote Baron Munchausen, "Vass you dere, Sharlie?" when anyone makes claims about how or when life, "appeared." All claims about origins are speculation and guesses, which really is not how philosophy ought to be done, is it? As you said, "A serious philosopher is one who digs deep and wide, then present his arguments in a sequential and systematic manner."

So further guesses based on those imagined origins, like, "The human-condition-as-it is at present is the summation of that had happened since 3-4 billion years ago and traces of the relevant "programs" are constituted in the human DNA," have no basis at all except as imaginative rationalizations.

They are not of imagined origins.
The traces of traits in the earlier living things are traceable in the human conditions.

Note this fact that is so basic;

• The cell (from Latin cella, meaning "small room"[1]) is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known organisms.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)

The earliest organism were one-celled organisms while humans has evolved from those one-celled organisms with billions of one-cell combined in a complex manner.
While all humans has the same basic structure of the one-celled organisms, humans also adapted certain traits from other organisms along the way up to the present state of the human conditions.

The above can be easily inferred and verified scientifically.
How come you insist such points are imaginative rationalizations?

Humans are not qualified to state 'reality certainly cannot be what isn't.'

"What isn't," is the same as, "nothing." If one cannot say, "reality cannot be nothing," then nothing true can be said, which is exactly the kind of nonsense Wittgenstein and the logical positivists tried to put over.

E.g. you claimed it is true there is 'a real-apple' that correspond to 'the apple on the table'.

No, I claim if there is an apple on a table and I see it, it is real. It has nothing to do with, "corresponsence." If there is no apple on the table, I will not see one. If I see one, there is an apple on the table (else I wouldn't see it), therefore an apple seen on a table is real.

You have missed a few step in your cognition of the table-on-the-table.

In your;
I claim if there is an apple on a table and I see it, it is real.
Note our discussion above, there is no 'it' to the real apple.
What you perceived are merely waves and an inverted image from the supposedly real apple which you can NEVER know what it really is.
What you are doing is merely assume there is a real apple that is corresponded to the "inverted apple" you cognized.

The human self cannot extricate and claim itself to be independent from "reality-all there is"

Of course not. Human beings, including all of their attributes, i.e. life, consciousness, volition, intellect, and rationality, are part of reality as all other entities and their qualities are. Why would there be any separation between human beings and reality. They are one of all the things that are?

"Interdependent," is the wrong word and there is no such, "thing," as, "human condition." Physical entities, organisms, conscious organisms, human beings (with all their attributes, including their minds) all exist independently of anyone's knowledge or awareness, and since all existing things must have some relationship to all other existents, they all have some relationships to each other, but they are not at all dependent on each other for their existence or their nature. If there were no human beings, everything else that exists would still exist and have the nature it has.

Note, it is NOT 'dependent' in the sense you view it.
In the direct perspective or of conscious intent, yes there is no obvious interdependence of things-seen with the human mind, e.g. as in a symbiotic relation with some animals.

In the deep and wide perspective in a longer span of time, there is interdependence between human-minds and things within the reality "soup" on a mirco and macro scale.
I mentioned Chaos Theory, where "a flap of a butterfly wing in China will cause a hurricane in Florida".
As such a cough or whatever actions from you will have an effect to other events in the world, and those other events could subsequently effect your environment and contribute to what you are.
Note the example of human poisoning the water and living-things of the oceans and subsequently humans are eating these poisoned seafood they themselves has poisoned.

'Energy' as the potential within objects can be a 'thing' in the philosophical sense.

Re 'packet' I meant a bundle of potential.
If you put gas into your car to enable your car to move, I see that as a transfer of energy from one form to another.
If not what is that?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You were duped by an inherent "programmed" to facilitate your survival. The natural decision of your primal mind is to veer to the 'safer' judgment in case of uncertainty.

Perception makes no decisions. It is totally passive and can only present to consciousness exactly what is seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled exactly as they are perceived. Interpretation of what is seen, in human beings, is a process of conceptualization and reason about what is perceived.

Where did I say perception make any decision?

With an empirical illusion of any kind, the conscious self is "duped" by some inherent "program" within the human mind to see what the mind is supposed to see and not what is empirically real.

My point is,
while in an empirical illusion the conscious self is "duped," even when you see what is empirically-real, there is also some sort of similar "deception" at a higher level.
Thus the apple-on-the-table you cognized as empirically-real is not really real but yet another illusion at the different perspective.

Note in the case of the bent-stick-in-water, all human beings will see a bent stick.

No! What is seen is a straight stick emerged in water which, because of the refraction of light looks differently from a straight stick lying on the ground, because it is different. From my article, "Perception:"

There is a common argument meant to cast doubt on the validity of perception called perceptual illusion. A frequent example is the so-called "bent stick" illusion. The argument is based on the fact that a straight stick immersed half-way in water looks bent, implying that vision is an unreliable means of perception, because it can be fooled into seeing a straight stick as a bent one. The illustration actually demonstrates the validity of perception, however, not its vulnerability.

If our perception of the real world is to be reliable, it is the physical world as it actually exists we must be conscious of, and that is exactly what our perception of the world is. In the real metaphysical world nothing exists independently. The third ontological corollary of identity is: Anything that exists must have some relationship to everything else that exists. Those relationships, together with its state, constitute an existent's metaphysical context.

Almost every argument against the reliability of perception ignores or evades the fact that perception, to be reliable, must represent existents as they actually are, which includes their total present metaphysical context. A straight stick lying on the ground, and a straight stick immersed in water are not the same metaphysically. If perception perceived these two different metaphysical existents in the same way, that would be illusory.

What is held up as evidence of the unreliability of perception just happens to be evidence that perception is not only much richer than any of these critics supposed, but perfect and totally reliable, because perception is always contextual—every percept is an exactly correct representation of what is being perceived in its total metaphysical context. If this were not true, perception could not be the source of knowledge about existence that it is.

The metaphysical context of what is being perceived includes every relationship to that which is being perceived, as well as the state of that which is being perceived. If a white piece of paper is being perceived in the context of a red light, the paper appears to be red, which is exactly how it ought to appear in that context. If someone is wearing blue tinted glasses, everything being perceived will be tinted blue, which is exactly how it ought be perceived in that context. If white paper appeared white when illuminated with red light or if things were not tinted blue when one is wearing blue tinted glasses, perception would be deceptive, and that deception would inhibit, if it did not totally prevent, us from learning about the nature of light, for example.

Part of the total metaphysical context of anything that is being perceived is the perceiver. The fact that things appear differently to us depending on perspective has been offered is evidence that perception is unreliable. It is, in fact, more evidence that it is totally reliable. When we view the same thing from different positions, or under different conditions, the metaphysical context is different. If things appeared the same when we are close to them as they do when we are farther away, that would be a perceptual mistake. The wonder of perception is, that it always gets it right and automatically accounts for every metaphysical variation including those variations of which the perceiver is a part.

The so-called Herring Illusion is not an illusion at all. Note that all such, "illusions," are always represented as abstract drawings which are meant to represent actual entities without a context. What you call "curved" parallel lines are not curved at all, but even as they appear are exactly how they would appear if part of an actual scene because of perspective, especially curvilinear perspective. The only thing illusive about the so-called, "Herring Illusion," is that philosophers mistakenly think insight into actual perception can be gained from abstract drawings.

The properties of refraction may only effect humans as per the human conditions.
It may not be the same to a bat which use sonar perception and other animals that do not use cognition as the human-cognition.

The so-called Herring Illusion is definitely a visual illusion.
Note the definition of "illusion"

• illusion = an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.

How come you say it is not an illusion?

There is no such thing as real physical solidness.
Why you feel things as solid is very psychological [primal] because the electrons spin so fast as speed of light that you cannot press through with your fingers thus you will feel solidness.
Thus 'solidness' is an inherent subjective experience and not because 'solidness' is an absolute reality.

You must have your own private meaning of the word, "solid." I suspect it is some kind of notion that solid would be some continuous substance or something. But the concept, "solid," is one of the three states of physical entities: solid, liquid, and gas, and all have very precise definitions which explain exactly why things feel as they do. Instead of interpreting our ability to directly perceive these states an illusion you should be amazed that our perception is so accurate that the molecular structure of the physical can be directly perceived exactly as it is.

The sophists began the assault on the reliability of perception as the earliest forms of anti-knowledge. It is a shame that philosophy has never extricated itself from those mistakes.

Why do you say I have my private meaning of solid?
Are you aware of the existence of 'dictionaries' .

'Solid' has a range of meaning, my meaning of solid is intended to be this;

• 5. firm, hard, or compact in substance:
  solid ground.
  6. having relative firmness, coherence of particles, or persistence of form, as matter that is NOT liquid or gaseous:
  solid particles suspended in a liquid.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/solid?s=t

Do you agree solid as in firm, hard, or compact in substance is an illusion because in another perspective of reality, this hardness is due to the degree of spinning of electrons and molecular interactions.

Your intro of the 'sophists' is a straw-man.

What I have argued is not based on rhetoric but hard Science, evidences, plus reason of course, i.e. justified true beliefs.

When one cognize an apple-on-the-table, one can cognize the apple at so many perspectives. The most reliable is based on Science and its scientific method.

Even with Science-Physics, doubts are raised on the Quantum Mechanics level where the particles that make up the apple can be uncertain and depending on the observer.
Re Wave Collapse Function, the particles of the whole apple can either be a wave or particle depending on the observation perspective of the observer.

Note, Russell's "perhaps there is no table at all" is a very valid philosophical question. Surely Russell is not a sophist?

[RCSaunders]

You were duped by an inherent "programmed" to facilitate your survival. The natural decision of your primal mind is to veer to the 'safer' judgment in case of uncertainty.

Perception makes no decisions. It is totally passive and can only present to consciousness exactly what is seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled exactly as they are perceived. Interpretation of what is seen, in human beings, is a process of conceptualization and reason about what is perceived.

Where did I say perception make any decision?

You wrote: "The natural decision of your primal mind ..."

With an empirical illusion of any kind, the conscious self is "duped" by some inherent "program" within the human mind to see what the mind is supposed to see and not what is empirically real.

"...supposed to see ...?" Who or what decides what one is, "supposed to see," rather than seeing what actually is?

My point is,
while in an empirical illusion the conscious self is "duped," even when you see what is empirically-real, there is also some sort of similar "deception" at a higher level.

What, "higher level," of what? What we see, hear, feel, smell and taste does not make any judgements or decisions, it simple perceives what there is to perceive. You are confusing, "perception," with the mental processes by which what is perceived is identified (concepts) and analyzed (reason).

Thus the apple-on-the-table you cognized as empirically-real is not really real but yet another illusion at the different perspective.

What apple on what table? Either there is an apple on a table or there isn't. If there is an apple on a table, seeing it cannot be an illusion. If there is an illusion of an apple being on a table, there is no apple on the table. You are essentially saying, "there is an apple on a table you see, but there is no an apple on the table so you do not see it." It is self-contradictory.

The properties of refraction may only effect humans as per the human conditions

You mean the physics that describe the nature of electromagnetic transmission are determined by some subjective human condition? So, microscopes, telescopes, eyeglasses, and camera lenses are all only "effects of the human condition?" You have to admit, that's a stretch.

There is no such thing as real physical solidness.
Why you feel things as solid is very psychological [primal] because the electrons spin so fast as speed of light that you cannot press through with your fingers thus you will feel solidness.
Thus 'solidness' is an inherent subjective experience and not because 'solidness' is an absolute reality.

You must have your own private meaning of the word, "solid." I suspect it is some kind of notion that solid would be some continuous substance or something. But the concept, "solid," is one of the three states of physical entities: solid, liquid, and gas, and all have very precise definitions which explain exactly why things feel as they do. Instead of interpreting our ability to directly perceive these states an illusion you should be amazed that our perception is so accurate that the molecular structure of the physical can be directly perceived exactly as it is.

Why do you say I have my private meaning of solid?
Are you aware of the existence of 'dictionaries' .

'Solid' has a range of meaning, my meaning of solid is intended to be this;

• 5. firm, hard, or compact in substance:
  solid ground.
  6. having relative firmness, coherence of particles, or persistence of form, as matter that is NOT liquid or gaseous:
  solid particles suspended in a liquid.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/solid?s=t

Do you agree solid as in firm, hard, or compact in substance is an illusion because in another perspective of reality, this hardness is due to the degree of spinning of electrons and molecular interactions.

Of course not. A rock is solid, water is liquid, and air is gas. They are not illusions, but exactly as they are felt and seen and observed to behave. The scientific explanation of why things have those different states does not cancel the fact they have them.

Note, Russell's "perhaps there is no table at all" is a very valid philosophical question. Surely Russell is not a sophist?

If that statement (it is not a question) is not sophistry, it is as close to it as you can get without being. Exactly, "what table," is, "no table at all?" If there is no table, what is he talking about? You cannot discuss the nature of some, "subject," and, at the same time, deny there is any such subject, ...unless you are demented, or a sophist.

I have no intention of trying to change your mind, VA, which I doubt is possible anyway. I'd be delighted if you discovered the world you see, hear, feel, smell, and taste is the real world exactly as you perceive it to be, the world the sciences study and the world we live in, enjoy, and is ultimately all that matters. I cannot imagine what it must be like to live in a world one believes is ultimately a deception, where the food one enjoys eating, and the work one accomplishes and the woman he loves and holds in his arms are all illusions.

[commonsense]

What apple on what table? Either there is an apple on a table or there isn't. If there is an apple on a table, seeing it cannot be an illusion. If there is an illusion of an apple being on a table, there is no apple on the table. You are essentially saying, "there is an apple on a table you see, but there is no an apple on the table so you do not see it." It is self-contradictory.

Either there is an apple on the table or there isn’t. If you see an apple on the table either it’s a real apple or it’s an illusion.

The Law of the Excluded Middle is applicable here and is not self-contradictory.

[RCSaunders]

What apple on what table? Either there is an apple on a table or there isn't. If there is an apple on a table, seeing it cannot be an illusion. If there is an illusion of an apple being on a table, there is no apple on the table. You are essentially saying, "there is an apple on a table you see, but there is no an apple on the table so you do not see it." It is self-contradictory.

Either there is an apple on the table or there isn’t. If you see an apple on the table either it’s a real apple or it’s an illusion.

The Law of the Excluded Middle is applicable here and is not self-contradictory.

Yes, that's exactly my point. You cannot both see an apple on a table and not see one. If what you see is only an illusion, you are not seeing an apple. If you see an apple, you are not having an illusion. It cannot be both.

Let me put it in your words: "If you see an apple on the table either it’s a real apple or it’s an illusion," and, if it is an illusion, you only think you are seeing an apple when you are not. That's what an illusion is.

There is another possibility. If you think you see an apple on a table, and it is not, it does not have to be an illusion, it may just be a mistaken identity.

Asian pears::

and

Quince:


both look very much like apples.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Perception makes no decisions. It is totally passive and can only present to consciousness exactly what is seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled exactly as they are perceived. Interpretation of what is seen, in human beings, is a process of conceptualization and reason about what is perceived.

Where did I say perception make any decision?

You wrote: "The natural decision of your primal mind ..."

With an empirical illusion of any kind, the conscious self is "duped" by some inherent "program" within the human mind to see what the mind is supposed to see and not what is empirically real.

"...supposed to see ...?" Who or what decides what one is, "supposed to see," rather than seeing what actually is?

I did not state "perception make decision".

As I had stated, I did not mean conscious or deliberate decision with intention.

Note this re the human being;
"IF stand in hot sun, then sweat"
This is the "IF, THEN, ..Else" decision structure.
This is what I meant by the inherent natural decision process of the mind and body.

As such, when one is conscious and perceived an 'illusion' there is some kind of deception. In this case, the primal mind had duped the more conscious perceptive mind.

My point is,
while in an empirical illusion the conscious self is "duped," even when you see what is empirically-real, there is also some sort of similar "deception" at a higher level.

What, "higher level," of what? What we see, hear, feel, smell and taste does not make any judgements or decisions, it simple perceives what there is to perceive. You are confusing, "perception," with the mental processes by which what is perceived is identified (concepts) and analyzed (reason).

Thus the apple-on-the-table you cognized as empirically-real is not really real but yet another illusion at the different perspective.

What apple on what table? Either there is an apple on a table or there isn't. If there is an apple on a table, seeing it cannot be an illusion. If there is an illusion of an apple being on a table, there is no apple on the table. You are essentially saying, "there is an apple on a table you see, but there is no an apple on the table so you do not see it." It is self-contradictory.

You have to take into account the respective perspectives. Note I mentioned "different perspectives". Note this

• 1. Human normal vision conceptual perspective: there is an apple on a table. This is true as qualified to this perspective
  
  2. Human conceptual perspective viewed from the molecular and atomic perspective: there is no apple out there, there are only a bundle or cluster of n-number of molecules and atoms in a certain configuration. This is true when qualified to this perspective.
  
  3. Human conceptual perspective viewed from the quarks and particle perspective: There is no apple, there only a cluster of dense waves or particles depending on the mode of observation of humans. This is true when qualified to this perspective.

Thus under the same conditions but different perspective, we can say, there IS an apple on the table AND there is NO apple within mode 2 and 3 at the same time.

There is no contradiction, because the Law of Non-contradiction state p and no-p cannot exist at the same time and same condition/perspective.
In the above case, it is at the same time BUT under different conditions.

The properties of refraction may only effect humans as per the human conditions

You mean the physics that describe the nature of electromagnetic transmission are determined by some subjective human condition? So, microscopes, telescopes, eyeglasses, and camera lenses are all only "effects of the human condition?" You have to admit, that's a stretch.

Yes? It is the human intersubjective consensus and agreement.
You just cannot exclude the human factors and conditions from ALL man-made things, can you?

Kant argued intensely, even the Laws of Nature are "imposed" and related to the human conditions on an intersubjective basis on an evolutionary scale.

Do you agree solid as in firm, hard, or compact in substance is an illusion because in another perspective of reality, this hardness is due to the degree of spinning of electrons and molecular interactions.

Of course not. A rock is solid, water is liquid, and air is gas. They are not illusions, but exactly as they are felt and seen and observed to behave. The scientific explanation of why things have those different states does not cancel the fact they have them.

As explained above, i.e. in terms of perspective,
what is conditionally real in one perspective, would be an illusion from another perspective.

That is when you perceived and realize an apple out there, it is conditionally real in relation to the mode you realize the apple out there [common sense perspective],
BUT when one shift to another perspective of say, molecules and atoms, there is no more conceptual "apple" out there.
If say, 50% of humans [H] evolved turned blind and developed sonar abilities where they can perceive only molecules and atoms, they will never see the same apple as those [human-A] who can see a common sense apple.

Note, Russell's "perhaps there is no table at all" is a very valid philosophical question. Surely Russell is not a sophist?

If that statement (it is not a question) is not sophistry, it is as close to it as you can get without being. Exactly, "what table," is, "no table at all?" If there is no table, what is he talking about? You cannot discuss the nature of some, "subject," and, at the same time, deny there is any such subject, ...unless you are demented, or a sophist.

It is not sophistry at all. Explain where and How did he do that?
Russell had philosophically considered the different perspectives of reality as I had discussed above.

Note p and not-p can exists at the same time and but it has to be in a different sense, perspective or condition.

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

I have no intention of trying to change your mind, VA, which I doubt is possible anyway. I'd be delighted if you discovered the world you see, hear, feel, smell, and taste is the real world exactly as you perceive it to be, the world the sciences study and the world we live in, enjoy, and is ultimately all that matters. I cannot imagine what it must be like to live in a world one believes is ultimately a deception, where the food one enjoys eating, and the work one accomplishes and the woman he loves and holds in his arms are all illusions.

What I am discussing had been done philosophically for thousands of years.

Nope I do NOT believe everything are illusions at the same time and in the same sense.
I believe everything is real in one sense [ordinary] where applicable and optimal, while everything are illusions in another sense [transcendental] where applicable and optimal.

Note the concept of illusion in Eastern Religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

Within the Eastern Religion, what is common sense is empirically real for some optimal purpose to ensure survival, BUT,
one has to shift perspective to view all of reality is an illusion in order to optimize one's survival and well-being.
The above ability to shift perspective from real to illusion is critical, when people view all things are so real that they end up being too possessive of it and thus create all sort of evil and violent acts to protect that is real which one's own.

However when one's possessiveness over a supposedly real thing is too intense to the extent one will even kill to ensure possession of one's real thing, a change in perspective, to viewing that 'supposedly real thing' is merely an illusion, then, one's possessiveness will soften and one will be able to modulate one's evil and violent tendency to protect a mere illusion.

Note the intense of possessiveness and clingingness to what is real [properties, assets, chattels, things] had caused terrible evil and violent acts where millions of people had been killed from what is really fighting over mere illusions from another perspective.
If these humans who had killed were able to shift perspective to viewing them grasping and clinging to 'real' empirical things as mere illusions in another perspective, then they would not be so driven to kill others.

The above empirical things perceived as real and its evil and violent consequences is not that critical.

What is most critical is when people [majority] view the empirical-self as really real without any compromise as a real soul that can survived physical death.
This has led to theistic religions which view the soul as a really real thing that can go to heaven with eternal life.
The consequences of grasping and clinging to this soul as real with eternal life has led to terrible consequences of evil and violent to protect this ideology.

On the other hand the Eastern Religion like Buddhism do not view the real empirical-self as absolute and permanently real but view the empirical self in one perspective as an illusion or emptiness.

Buddhists-proper accept p and not-p as existing as the same time but not in the same sense.
To the Buddhists, common sense or empirical reality is real for its effective and optimal condition of survival and well-being. The oncoming train is empirically real, thus the need to avoid it.
But when the well-being is threatened by the existential crisis, the Buddhist-proper has to shift perspective to view whatever is real and the empirical-self as an illusion. Since these are illusions, there is no need to grasp and cling on them, thus will avoid the compulsion to be evil and violent over any issue in being threatened if one lose possession of it.
This why Buddhism adopts the Middle-Way which adapt to the various circumstance to main 'homeostasis' and optimality of one well being.

On the other hand, the Abrahamic believers has only a one track mind and are unable to shift their perspective to optimize their well-being and that of others.
To them every is so real together with their soul that they want to take them along to heaven after physical death. When this hope of eternal life is threaten, they will not hesitate to kill whoever is perceived as a threat to their security of their soul ending in heaven with eternal life.

It is the same with the secular and others who only view reality from a one-track mind, they are likely to be overly possessive of things [because they are so real to them] thus unable to toggle/shift to other perspectives of reality to mitigate any consequences of evil and violence.

Point is you are not thinking deeper and wider, thus stuck in a silo-word of merely common empirical world as perceived by the human visual and conceptual system.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What apple on what table? Either there is an apple on a table or there isn't. If there is an apple on a table, seeing it cannot be an illusion. If there is an illusion of an apple being on a table, there is no apple on the table. You are essentially saying, "there is an apple on a table you see, but there is no an apple on the table so you do not see it." It is self-contradictory.

Either there is an apple on the table or there isn’t. If you see an apple on the table either it’s a real apple or it’s an illusion.

The Law of the Excluded Middle is applicable here and is not self-contradictory.

Yes, that's exactly my point. You cannot both see an apple on a table and not see one. If what you see is only an illusion, you are not seeing an apple. If you see an apple, you are not having an illusion. It cannot be both.

Let me put it in your words: "If you see an apple on the table either it’s a real apple or it’s an illusion," and, if it is an illusion, you only think you are seeing an apple when you are not. That's what an illusion is.

There is another possibility. If you think you see an apple on a table, and it is not, it does not have to be an illusion, it may just be a mistaken identity.

As I mentioned, one must take into account the relevant perspectives.

In the common sense empirical world, one will see an apple out there on a table.
But if one is say, a Quantum Physicists, whilst he will see an apple visually in according to his sense organ and sense data, he can shift perspective mentally to cognize the reality of the 'apple' in terms of molecules, atoms or quarks.
There is no contradiction when the above Physicists hold two truths of reality at the same time, BUT that is in a different sense.

What is real from the empirical perspective is an "illusion" from another perspective.
This "illusion" is "programmed" inherently by the program code in the DNA/RNA for all humans.