There is no "Reality-Gap"?

[simplicity]

What experience led you to believe that? Can you be a little more specific?

The experience of realizing that Reality is inaccessible [detachment].

lol, that's just restating the claim. Are you saying it's simply intuitive to you that "reality is inaccessible"? Otherwise what would that experience be?

I can't [really] tell you what it's like to experience anything. I could make a lot of things up but it would never come close to the experience itself. Being completely present for an experience is realization.

Can you explain to somebody what it's [really] like to fall in love? Witness the birth of your child? Witness the death of your child?

Experiencing is as close as we can get to what's real. Initiate interpretation and all hell breaks loose.

[Age]

The assumption here is that there is something called time [which there really isn't].

A profound game-changer is when you realize that what you are perceiving is NOT Reality. This one idea opens up any entirely new perspective and is [really] the beginning of the liberation experience. All things are in constant flux and [because of this] are unknowable.

If ALL things are "unknowable", then HOW do you KNOW this?

And, if what you are perceiving is NOT Reality, then HOW do you KNOW this, and, what IS 'Reality', EXACTLY?

Imagine being relieved of the burden of having to figure everything out [which is impossible considering the notion that anything knowable is infinitely complex and always changing ].

In order to get everything, you must first give everything up.

WHY do the ones who CLAIM that it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW ANY thing CLAIM that they KNOW that this is ABSOLUTELY TRUE?

There are two realms, the intellectual and the non-intellectual. The intellectual is our thinking. Since our thinking is seriously flawed [for all kinds of reasons], you are correct to challenge any statement of knowledge. Nobody really knows anything, and what we do "know" [on a practical level] constantly changes as do the inputs that create this knowledge.

The non-intellectual is that which exists outside of our thinking. It just IS and needs no interpretation. And although this gained through our perception and does suffer from errors, as well, it's a lot closer to the truth of the matter. Actual Reality is simply beyond our ability to perceive.

You are here talking only from the human being perspective of things, and this WHY 'ACTUAL Reality' is still not YET understood, (by 'you' human beings).

As you said, 'the inputs are constantly changing', which just essentially means that Life, or thee Universe, Itself is just in a state of constant-change. So, as It continues to evolve, the human being stage of evolution will also, obviously, keep evolving. Which means when Life, or thee Universe, Itself evolves past the human being stage and into the next stage of 'understanding'and Knowing Its True Self, then 'ACTUAL Reality' also becomes KNOWN.

As can be very easily proven True.

Or, do 'you', human beings, really believe that 'you' are the end of ALL creation and evolution, so that what 'you' know and understand 'now', when this is being written, is ALL that can be, and could be, understood and known?

If yes, then LOL.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It is your truth. Perhaps there is a guy living in a cave somewhere in the South Pacific who believes very differently.

What does universally mean?
Really? You have no idea what the universe is? The universal perspective existed from the moment the universe came into existence. It spans billions of years before our earth was born, let alone humankind. Reality exists without us. It is that thing with which both philosophy and science try to come to terms. The reason it's so illusive and hard to define, is because humankind is yet far too young.

Reality is what is real, it's the totality of the universe, both known and unknown.

Reality is what is real? Is that like, length is what is long?

It's straight from the dictionary as it turns out:

reality [ ree-al-i-tee ]
noun, plural re·al·i·ties for 3, 5-7.
1) the state or quality of being real.

--dictionary.com--


Our intellects only move us further and further from the truth. Settle for perception without interpretation and that's as good as it gets...and humans will never get anywhere close to actual Reality. How could we?
Because we're a part of it.

Do you believe you know anything that is real?

There you go with belief again. I do not speak of belief I speak of facts!

Perhaps you could share a fact with me.

sure:
You somehow caused: "Perhaps you could share a fact with me." to appear on this message.

[Atla]

The time lag is only the initial issue. How about what happens between the stimulus and the end result of perception? Infinite opportunities for distortion.

None of it's true. I believe we can agree on that. It's just that seeing reality as this "movie" [the only way our intellect can process] seems to be a bit off. Exactly what it is is beyond our grasp.

The moment thing seems to be a better explanation but only if you buy into the non-intellectual.

That's why I called it a representation.

But I didn't see the OP mention what you mention, OP only mentioned time I think. Of course we can't tell what reality "really is", such a thing is not possible. That's why the best philosophies are pseudo-realisms, where we act like realists but know that ultimately it's not possible to be one.

Don't get me wrong, AE was a major thinker, but in due time, his ideas will be cast aside like the rest of them.

Pfft so in pseudo-realism, time totally can be said to exist, just like tables can be said to exist. We have to communicate about the world somehow. Or if you have some better insights than AE, let's hear them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality thus, for us humans, is the current state of our evolution. Considering this there is no gap in our reality, it can only ever be the position of our current learning curve, as that is the reality of what it is in being human at this particular juncture. In a vast universe, we are relatively young. The only gap is from our current position in learning/sensing to knowing/sensing everything. What we sense is reality, yet incomplete, as we have a long way to go before we evolve to knowing/sensing everything that is this universe.

The gap is what we don't yet know or can't yet sense, it's not that we are somehow isolated from reality, the reality is that we exist as we do, however humans may define it, it really makes no difference.

From the conventional sense [e.g. Science and logic] of time and distance, it is obvious and undeniably there is a reality-Gap.

However upon a more mature philosophical reflection as you allude to above and other similar approaches, there is no reality-gap since we are all part and parcel of reality.

But my main contention is with Philosophical Realism and the likes is where they insist dogmatically and claim that reality is independent of the human conditions.

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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In this case, the philosophical realist by default of his philosophical stance is always "infected" and "zombied" with a reality-gap and thus philosophical realism can never be realistic in the ultimate [not common or conventional sense].

To avoid the reality-Gap in the ultimate sense one has to an philosophical anti-realist as in empirical realism or transcendental idealism where one claim reality is NOT independent of the human conditions.

[Terrapin Station]

The experience of realizing that Reality is inaccessible [detachment].

lol, that's just restating the claim. Are you saying it's simply intuitive to you that "reality is inaccessible"? Otherwise what would that experience be?

I can't [really] tell you what it's like to experience anything. I could make a lot of things up but it would never come close to the experience itself. Being completely present for an experience is realization.

Can you explain to somebody what it's [really] like to fall in love? Witness the birth of your child? Witness the death of your child?

Experiencing is as close as we can get to what's real. Initiate interpretation and all hell breaks loose.

What I'm asking you is not to qualitatively explain an experience but to relay the content of it, where presumably the content isn't identical to the claim you're making.

[simplicity]

Of course we can't tell what reality "really is", such a thing is not possible. That's why the best philosophies are pseudo-realisms, where we act like realists but know that ultimately it's not possible to be one.

Once you realize that reality is inaccessible, wouldn't it make a great deal of sense to factor such into everything you do?

Pfft so in pseudo-realism, time totally can be said to exist, just like tables can be said to exist. We have to communicate about the world somehow. Or if you have some better insights than AE, let's hear them.

My point is that any intellectualism is just chasing your tail. Even the most brilliant among us can only work with whatever inputs are available. Physics [mathematics] makes sense just like having a sun god made sense a couple of thousand years ago.

So AE [and all the rest] was a super-genius but the future will relegate him to mere footnote status when a new and improved system becomes available.

[simplicity]

What I'm asking you is not to qualitatively explain an experience but to relay the content of it, where presumably the content isn't identical to the claim you're making.

I understand what you are asking. The problem is that experience is not transferable because the most important parts of experience are non-intellectual. For example, stare into your lover's eyes for a hour and then try to convey that to another.

If you figure out a way to do this, you will be the planets first quadrillionaire!

[Sculptor]

Reality is inaccessible.
By luck and flaw, nature has provided us with a range of sense, that give us impressions or the "real world".
And in a similar way that a painting is an approximation of the scene it attempts to depict, it cannot be the thing in itself.

What is the chance that vision, hearing, smell, touch, taste, and the multidude of other senses we possess are likely to be the only, best and most accurate means to experience "reality", especially since we know that there are limitation and that other animals have different and better organs of perception, whilst others can go about their business with a complete lack of some of them, whilst others have senses we have not?

The OP starts with the most easy claim to dismiss. The "gap" is far more than just an " irrelevant delay in sense-impressions." My objections that you cannot dismiss a "gap" has not yet considered a delay, though their is one, for sure. We cannot see or hear something immediately, it takes time for the impluse from the finger tips to reach out brain and for our brain to notice it. That is the least of our problems.

The greatest of our problems is that there is also ample evidence that sight is just a version of reflected light, Colours are not even what they are supposed to be. We experience a quale for green or red, but this is additive, what it is in actuality are variations in wavelengths. Colour is in a very meaningful sense not naturally real.





"

[Atla]

Once you realize that reality is inaccessible, wouldn't it make a great deal of sense to factor such into everything you do?

Of course not, that's a terrible philosophy (that's what I referred to as being shallow).
Yes, all reality beyond the immediate appearances is inaccessible, but it's enough to always factor this in when we are contemplating ultimate reality. In our everyday lives however we can almost always buy into the appearances, it's the simpler/healthier/more natural thing to do.

Always factoring it in is only good for developing some kind of artificial derealization/detachment.

My point is that any intellectualism is just chasing your tail. Even the most brilliant among us can only work with whatever inputs are available. Physics [mathematics] makes sense just like having a sun god made sense a couple of thousand years ago.

So AE [and all the rest] was a super-genius but the future will relegate him to mere footnote status when a new and improved system becomes available.

That new and improved system will also be intellectualism so I'm still not getting what you're saying.

-----------------------

(Amusingly, realizing the "reality gap" is also a kind of intellectualism. And then developing a constant artificial detachment, in order to run away from life because they can't handle it, is also a kind of intellectualism.)

[Terrapin Station]

What I'm asking you is not to qualitatively explain an experience but to relay the content of it, where presumably the content isn't identical to the claim you're making.

I understand what you are asking. The problem is that experience is not transferable because the most important parts of experience are non-intellectual. For example, stare into your lover's eyes for a hour and then try to convey that to another.

If you figure out a way to do this, you will be the planets first quadrillionaire!

The content there is "staring into another person's eyes." That's all I'm looking for.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality is inaccessible.

By luck and flaw, nature has provided us with a range of sense, that give us impressions or the "real world".

And in a similar way that a painting is an approximation of the scene it attempts to depict, it cannot be the thing in itself.

As I had asserted your thinking is not wide and deep enough.

If we reflect more deeply into the statement, "Reality is inaccessible",
it is actually an impossibility and eternally that we will NEVER ever access that really real reality 'out there'.

As such, what we have is only a humanly-projected-thought-reality where whatever is corresponded to it is questionable.

Just as Russell had asserted 'Perhaps there is no real table at all"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814
it is likely there is no such humanly-projected-thought-reality

The philosophical point is humans by default are "programmed" and compelled to think and reasoned out that there must be an ultimate reality [which upon reflection is impossible to be accessed].

Such a default 'program' to reason out an inaccessible and impossible ultimate has its pros and cons.
One of the pros is that thinking of the ultimate do facilitate survival [esp. the earlier primal days] and evolution of the self in driving and striving for further knowledge. It is also therapeutic.

But the cons is that such an empty projected thought of reality leaves room for most to be compelled to reify [making reality out of nothing] it as a Being with consciousness, i.e. God.
Since according to you "Reality is inaccessible" you have no grounds to argue against the claim that God exists as real. So theists has a free hand to kill non-believers because their real God command them to do so while you remain helpless to counter their claims.

While clinging to an illusory God is therapeutic for the majority it has also brought forth VERY terrible sufferings to humanity and the individuals.

This is where some savants thousands of years ago were enlightened to understand there is no such humanly really real projected reality out there in the first place. Therefrom they dig deep philosophically to cultivate 'detachment' to such an ultimate inaccessible reality to avoid the terrible sufferings in clinging to something that is illusory.

This is where Eastern Philosophy came in since >10,000 or >5000 years ago and that is brought forth to the present while it had also influenced Western Philosophy.
This detachment is from the supposedly-ultimate-reality and not detaching from the real empirical world.

The current resistance to the above besides the theists are the Philosophical Realists and other realists who are still clinging to that inaccessible-reality-in-thought dogmatically and aggressively defending it like there is no tomorrow.

[Age]

Reality is inaccessible.

By luck and flaw, nature has provided us with a range of sense, that give us impressions or the "real world".

And in a similar way that a painting is an approximation of the scene it attempts to depict, it cannot be the thing in itself.

As I had asserted your thinking is not wide and deep enough.

If we reflect more deeply into the statement, "Reality is inaccessible",
it is actually an impossibility and eternally that we will NEVER ever access that really real reality 'out there'.

Would this be just 'your own reality' or the 'really real reality?

As such, what we have is only a humanly-projected-thought-reality where whatever is corresponded to it is questionable.

So, your human-projected-thought-reality above this one is also questionable.

In fact if you claim here is true, then absolutely EVERY thing you say is questionable.

And, what could it be questionable, in relation to EXACTLY, because to this one the "really real reality" is NEVER accessible.

Here is just ANOTHER EXAMPLE of ILLOGICALITY in its PUREST FORM. See, EVERY time ANY one makes a claim like; "The truth can NEVER be accessed", DEFEATS their very own "reasoning" in the exact same one sentence and claim.

Just as Russell had asserted 'Perhaps there is no real table at all"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814
it is likely there is no such humanly-projected-thought-reality

The philosophical point is humans by default are "programmed" and compelled to think and reasoned out that there must be an ultimate reality [which upon reflection is impossible to be accessed].

And, to others, some, by default, are 'programmed' and compelled to think and reason out that there must be an ultimate reality, which upon reflection is ACTUALLY very possible to access, and ascertain, as well.

In fact, those human beings who think and "reason out" that the ultimate Reality is impossible to access, by the very nature of expressing just 'that', which they believe is the actual really real reality are PROVIDING actual evidence and proof that thee ultimate Reality is ACTUALLY accessible and obtainable. Otherwise, how do they come to express such 'reality', which they INSIST is ultimately thee Truth of things, if it is, supposedly, inaccessible?

Such a default 'program' to reason out an inaccessible and impossible ultimate has its pros and cons.
One of the pros is that thinking of the ultimate do facilitate survival [esp. the earlier primal days] and evolution of the self in driving and striving for further knowledge. It is also therapeutic.

But the cons is that such an empty projected thought of reality leaves room for most to be compelled to reify [making reality out of nothing] it as a Being with consciousness, i.e. God.

And what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is FURTHER PROOF of how the adult human being can and will 'try' just about ANY thing to "reason out" what they BELIEVE is absolutely True and REAL. They will, literally, say even the MOST ABSURD and RIDICULOUS things, in order to "reason out" what they BELIEVE is the really real reality.

Since according to you "Reality is inaccessible" you have no grounds to argue against the claim that God exists as real. So theists has a free hand to kill non-believers because their real God command them to do so while you remain helpless to counter their claims.

LOL EXACTLY as I was saying, and pointing out.

While clinging to an illusory God is therapeutic for the majority it has also brought forth VERY terrible sufferings to humanity and the individuals.

This one continuously brings it back to what it BELIEVES is the really real reality of things.

This is where some savants thousands of years ago were enlightened to understand there is no such humanly really real projected reality out there in the first place. Therefrom they dig deep philosophically to cultivate 'detachment' to such an ultimate inaccessible reality to avoid the terrible sufferings in clinging to something that is illusory.

This is where Eastern Philosophy came in since >10,000 or >5000 years ago and that is brought forth to the present while it had also influenced Western Philosophy.
This detachment is from the supposedly-ultimate-reality and not detaching from the real empirical world.

The current resistance to the above besides the theists are the Philosophical Realists and other realists who are still clinging to that inaccessible-reality-in-thought dogmatically and aggressively defending it like there is no tomorrow.

[Atla]

This detachment is from the supposedly-ultimate-reality and not detaching from the real empirical world.

But if there's no table, then there's no real empirical world either, genius. You may have thrown out God, but you've also thrown out the real world we live in. You've just decided in advance that God is "supposedly-ultimately-real-but-isn't" and the table is "supposedly-relatively-real-and-it-kinda-is" or something like that, your whole argument doesn't make sense as usual.

[Sculptor]

Reality is inaccessible.

By luck and flaw, nature has provided us with a range of sense, that give us impressions or the "real world".

And in a similar way that a painting is an approximation of the scene it attempts to depict, it cannot be the thing in itself.

As I had asserted your thinking is not wide and deep enough.

nice way to start
Fuck off