What is reality?

[A_Seagull]

Too often a very retarded person will appear and ask utterly stupid questions, "what is reality" is one of those utterly stupid questions.

This shows that he has no sense of relevance.

Doesn't trust own senses.

Need others to explain very basic stuff, that should be selfexplanatory in the first place.

Uses others as an external brain.

This is one of the reasons why buisnesses avoid philosophy.

Or perhaps you just don't understand the question?

Oh, but I do, but you are not bright enough to see OP running a fool's errand in answering an irrelevant demand.

Well, what do you think the question means then?

[HexHammer]

Oh, but I do, but you are not bright enough to see OP running a fool's errand in answering an irrelevant demand.

Well, what do you think the question means then?

See my answer above, the true answer lies there, but you are not bright enough to see it, you need to have very basic things spelled out.

[henry quirk]

"After I die, does reality persist?"

It should, but, on the chance that you're the 'dreamer dreaming the dream', I suggest you put your self into the custody of some one who can safeguard you (and the whole of reality).

Wouldn't exactly be like jail...just a very nice resort (that you can never leave)...like 'the village' from 'The Prisoner'...you'll be well-taken care...all your wants and needs ('cept for that pesky desire to be free) will satisfied...you, just have to keep dreamin' that dream.

[A_Seagull]

Oh, but I do, but you are not bright enough to see OP running a fool's errand in answering an irrelevant demand.

Well, what do you think the question means then?

See my answer above, the true answer lies there, but you are not bright enough to see it, you need to have very basic things spelled out.

You cant even answer a simple question!

I can only conclude that you are both blinkered and ignorant and stupid.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Well, what do you think the question means then?

See my answer above, the true answer lies there, but you are not bright enough to see it, you need to have very basic things spelled out.

You cant even answer a simple question!

I can only conclude that you are both blinkered and ignorant and stupid.

When you have been trumped by Hex, that means you are really stupid. So stupid to know it.

[HexHammer]

When you have been trumped by Hex, that means you are really stupid. So stupid to know it.

Charming to the last!

If I didn't know better, I would think that you are hitting on me!

[HexHammer]

Oh, but I do, but you are not bright enough to see OP running a fool's errand in answering an irrelevant demand.

I can only conclude that you are both blinkered and ignorant and stupid.

[/quote]Since you are so insisting, see "fool's errand" that means the answer is irrelevan't and ...YOU still can't comprehend that. You must have a tragicly bad job with that kind of logic.

[HexHammer]

Oh, but I do, but you are not bright enough to see OP running a fool's errand in answering an irrelevant demand.

I can only conclude that you are both blinkered and ignorant and stupid.

Since you are so insisting, see "fool's errand" that means the answer is irrelevan't and ...YOU still can't comprehend that. You must have a tragicly bad job with that kind of logic.

You really are unusually stupid!

[cladking]

Reality isn't what we observe. It is not the effect on experiment that allows us to learn about nature and it is not the elephant in the room that modern language speakers must shout around and over.

Reality is the the cause and effect that acts through nature and upon everything in it. It is unknowable and unpredictable. It proceeds with or without our attention or beliefs. It is the law that says unseen cats are dead or alive. It has the first, final, and only say in how things transpire.

It transcends time and space itself and if we accepted its existence and built a science on it then that science would probably appear to be a religion to most people. This science, founded on reality as being axiomatic, is the foundation of all science that ever existed on the face of the earth and was used to invent everything from beaver dams to pyramids until the invention of modern science. It has its own language which is nearly invisible to modern humans.

[Moyo]

That ultimately things do not exist ,that ultimatality is a change in *perspective*. Things themselves do have a sense in which they exist and that is "finitely".(within the regress)

Concepts on the other hand are never about anything whether finitely or any stage inbetween. At no stage is a concept anything but another concept while there are stages where things exist , namely those persperctives that are not ultimate.

Even if

1] "that ultimately things dont exist"

was somehow equivalent to

2] "concepts are ultimately meanigless"

If ultimate is a concept and a perspective then at that perspective (its own) it ceases to be meaningful by 2] so we cannot 1] predicate the non existance of things with it ever, in all respects.
Pray tell, what that predicate would be reffering to?

Again If we ask "what is the concept of a tree about (or off)" If only concepts existed then we would not be able to even ask the question since "tree" may , no MUST be replaced by "concept". If we were to do this in time there has to be somewhere else to "jot" it down before we replace it by the term "concept" so we can meet it again to replace it yet again..
This somewhere else i beleive is objective reality.[dont go off on how meaningless it is..i know,my point with all of this is that objective reality is the lesser evil]

There may be a way out if we consider concepts as universals. The concepts "tree" and "dog" are the same in their respect of being instances of concepts.So concepts can be about only other cocepts and despite their overwhelming need to just be concepts the still have "room" to be differentiated.

My problem with this is that it is grossly circular.The very definition of tree is that it is a concept (made of a string of other concepts perhaps which are themselves just about concepts) and the very definition of dog is that it is a concept . This concept based ontology allows no other definitions. So the whole "concepts are universals" thing melts before we start to use it as there is no part in either a "tree's" definition or a "dog's" definition that explains the difference between them and since we precluded that concepts are universals , by definition of the term universal they do not have the power to explain any difference.

So concepts cannot be the only constituence of reality.

[Moyo]

If ultimatality is always meaning less then this fact only pushes ultimate up to a level previously assumed to be less ultimate. Even this stage fails to satisfy itself to a simmillar account as above and so the term ultimate gets pushed up further to whas was considered still less ultimate than the secon ultimate.
This carries on till the whole concept of existance (indeed all concepts)become meaningless ultimately and unultimately at whichever stage you want to begin your analysis.

[HexHammer]

Reality isn't what we observe. It is not the effect on experiment that allows us to learn about nature and it is not the elephant in the room that modern language speakers must shout around and over.

Reality is the the cause and effect that acts through nature and upon everything in it. It is unknowable and unpredictable. It proceeds with or without our attention or beliefs. It is the law that says unseen cats are dead or alive. It has the first, final, and only say in how things transpire.

It transcends time and space itself and if we accepted its existence and built a science on it then that science would probably appear to be a religion to most people. This science, founded on reality as being axiomatic, is the foundation of all science that ever existed on the face of the earth and was used to invent everything from beaver dams to pyramids until the invention of modern science. It has its own language which is nearly invisible to modern humans.

Plz shut up!

[HexHammer]

If ultimatality is always meaning less then this fact only pushes ultimate up to a level previously assumed to be less ultimate. Even this stage fails to satisfy itself to a simmillar account as above and so the term ultimate gets pushed up further to whas was considered still less ultimate than the secon ultimate.
This carries on till the whole concept of existance (indeed all concepts)become meaningless ultimately and unultimately at whichever stage you want to begin your analysis.

Forgive me for asking, what job does one such as you have?

[Hobbes' Choice]

When you have been trumped by Hex, that means you are really stupid. So stupid to know it.

Charming to the last!

If I didn't know better, I would think that you are hitting on me!

Mwah!!

[Moyo]

If ultimatality is always meaning less then this fact only pushes ultimate up to a level previously assumed to be less ultimate. Even this stage fails to satisfy itself to a simmillar account as above and so the term ultimate gets pushed up further to whas was considered still less ultimate than the secon ultimate.
This carries on till the whole concept of existance (indeed all concepts)become meaningless ultimately and unultimately at whichever stage you want to begin your analysis.

Forgive me for asking, what job does one such as you have?

Goat herder...Forgive me for asking...since you must know...how do you delete history from a browser?