Major Premise: Reality Interdependent with Humans

[AlexW]

However when I'm gone, and the conception ot the Moon "in my head" is gone, the Moon "out there" will still be there, and it was also there before me.

The moon, as all other things, is born with your conception of it - and when you die the moon also dies (of course this death is only a conceptual death - it's the end of the idea of "I am" and with it of "moon").

It is the same for all things - they exist only in human minds - before conceptional thought there are no things at all.
This is quite obvious as without a thought process there simply is only this "direct experience" (another concept...) which is devoid of all thing-ness.

The idea that something will "still be there" when you are gone is built on the false premise that something - a multitude of separate things - is there in the first place. But all that is "there" are ideas of things, and of course these ideas are not only your ideas/concepts, but similar ideas are also entertained by a few billion other minds - and as such they "live on" in these minds... the concept of "moon" will as such survive the death of your conceptual "I am", but this is no proof of the moon existing in the first place.

[Atla]

Conventionally, there is the perception-in-mind and the-perceived.
Thus we could have the perception-of-an-apple-in-mind and the real-apple-on-the-table.



The above pic show a butterfly.
Sticking to the apple example,
the question is, is there a really real independent apple out there?

Note in reality, the said supposedly solid apple you can feel is changing all the time, so that is no specific apple but time related apple.
In addition the apple is more realistically a cluster of fast moving electrons or quarks that changes at split seconds.
A virus the size of an electron will never perceive the apple that you perceived or realized as a real apple.

In the above case, you cannot say the reality of an apple is just-is.
The reality of that thing is very conditional, i.e.;

• 1. a fruit labelled apple
  2. a cluster of n molecules
  3. a cluster of n electrons
  4. a bundle of waves - Wave Collapse Function
  5. a bundle of particles
  6. etc. etc.

The above variations is the reason why the 'apple' is an emergence relative to the recipe of elements entangling with the human conditions. It emerged interactively.

There is no absolute independent thing called an apple.

I still don't see your point. Yes as I said there are no absolutely independent things.

However both the apple and the human mind change all the time, they are both parts of spacetime. We can percieve or conceptualize the apple in all kinds of ways.

But what's the need for meaningless ideas like emergence or interaction? Aren't you the one forgetting that the human mind is also changing all the time?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is one example of emergence.

• 1. Take a tire with very deep threads like this.
  
  
  2. If one were to feel across the threads one will easily feel there are big holes and grooves in them.
  
  3. Stick it to the turning machine.
  
  4. Turn it very slowly initially. At very slow speed 1 Mph, one will be able to feel the large grooves between the threads.
  
  5. But if we increase the speed to 200mph or higher one is likely to feel the tire as a solid bald piece without grooves at all.

For a new person who is not aware of the experiment to touch the tire spinning at 200mph he will see and feel a solid piece of bald tire without threads. This is an emergence relative to the person.

When a person handle a hard piece of solid rock, that is also an emergence of reality because the feel of solidness is merely electrons spinning at the speed of light that generate a feel of solidness.

Is ice really ice or merely H20 molecules getting denser.

Thus whatever is reality to us, e.g. physical hardness, etc. are merely emergence relative to the recipe of the human conditions involved at the specific time and circumstances.

[Atla]

The moon, as all other things, is born with your conception of it - and when you die the moon also dies (of course this death is only a conceptual death - it's the end of the idea of "I am" and with it of "moon").

It is the same for all things - they exist only in human minds - before conceptional thought there are no things at all.
This is quite obvious as without a thought process there simply is only this "direct experience" (another concept...) which is devoid of all thing-ness.

The idea that something will "still be there" when you are gone is built on the false premise that something - a multitude of separate things - is there in the first place. But all that is "there" are ideas of things, and of course these ideas are not only your ideas/concepts, but similar ideas are also entertained by a few billion other minds - and as such they "live on" in these minds... the concept of "moon" will as such survive the death of your conceptual "I am", but this is no proof of the moon existing in the first place.

Yes, there are no separate things, there is just the universe, reality. Human thinking apparently splits the universe into parts, things.

But just because there are no separations, that doesn't mean that the Moon "out there", a non-separable "part" of the universe, will cease to exist once I'm gone, once I no longer have thing-like perceptions/conceptualizations about it in my head. Likewise the Moon "out there" was there before I came along.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Conventionally, there is the perception-in-mind and the-perceived.
Thus we could have the perception-of-an-apple-in-mind and the real-apple-on-the-table.



The above pic show a butterfly.
Sticking to the apple example,
the question is, is there a really real independent apple out there?

Note in reality, the said supposedly solid apple you can feel is changing all the time, so that is no specific apple but time related apple.
In addition the apple is more realistically a cluster of fast moving electrons or quarks that changes at split seconds.
A virus the size of an electron will never perceive the apple that you perceived or realized as a real apple.

In the above case, you cannot say the reality of an apple is just-is.
The reality of that thing is very conditional, i.e.;

• 1. a fruit labelled apple
  2. a cluster of n molecules
  3. a cluster of n electrons
  4. a bundle of waves - Wave Collapse Function
  5. a bundle of particles
  6. etc. etc.

The above variations is the reason why the 'apple' is an emergence relative to the recipe of elements entangling with the human conditions. It emerged interactively.

There is no absolute independent thing called an apple.

I still don't see your point. Yes as I said there are no absolutely independent things.

However both the apple and the human mind change all the time, they are both parts of spacetime. We can percieve or conceptualize the apple in all kinds of ways.

But what's the need for meaningless ideas like emergence or interaction? Aren't you the one forgetting that the human mind is also changing all the time?

Conventionally you are merely realizing there is something specific there but there is nothing specifically something. Realistically whatever it out there is merely perhaps a cluster of electrons, quarks, energy, etc. but no matter how hard we try we cannot nail what is the ultimate things.

The point is the idea of an absolutely independently reality leads to bigotry and dogmatism.
The worst of it is the absolutely independent God that is claimed as real with delivers holy texts with evil elements that compels believers [SOME] to commit terrible evil and violent acts.

If we bring in the element of the fallible human being into the equation for reality [thus an interdependent reality], then there is no room for an independent God [illusory] and all the consequential evil and violent acts plus the existential pains to be endured by the vulnerable individual[s].

[AlexW]

But just because there are no separations, that doesn't mean that the Moon "out there", a non-separable "part" of the universe

No separation = no things
How can a thing - the moon - be "out there" if there are no things in the first place? Doesn't make sense, does it?

Likewise the Moon "out there" was there before I came along

Only the concept of "Moon out there" was there before you came along. Doesn't mean there really are things "in" reality.

[Atla]

Here is one example of emergence.

• 1. Take a tire with very deep threads like this.
  
  
  2. If one were to feel across the threads one will easily feel there are big holes and grooves in them.
  
  3. Stick it to the turning machine.
  
  4. Turn it very slowly initially. At very slow speed 1 Mph, one will be able to feel the large grooves between the threads.
  
  5. But if we increase the speed to 200mph or higher one is likely to feel the tire as a solid bald piece without grooves at all.

For a new person who is not aware of the experiment to touch the tire spinning at 200mph he will see and feel a solid piece of bald tire without threads. This is an emergence relative to the person.

When a person handle a hard piece of solid rock, that is also an emergence of reality because the feel of solidness is merely electrons spinning at the speed of light that generate a feel of solidness.

Is ice really ice or merely H20 molecules getting denser.

Thus whatever is reality to us, e.g. physical hardness, etc. are merely emergence relative to the recipe of the human conditions involved at the specific time and circumstances.

Those are more like tactile or optical limitations and illusions, how reality appears to us. Our hands don't move fast enough and our visual cortex doesn't process imagery with a high enough frequency to more accurately percieve a quickly turning wheel. We also can't see or manipulate things on a subatomic scale.

I don't see how this relates to what I wrote.

[Atla]

But just because there are no separations, that doesn't mean that the Moon "out there", a non-separable "part" of the universe

No separation = no things
How can a thing - the moon - be "out there" if there are no things in the first place? Doesn't make sense, does it?

Likewise the Moon "out there" was there before I came along

Only the concept of "Moon out there" was there before you came along. Doesn't mean there really are things "in" reality.

I see all "things" as non-separate from the rest of reality of course, because they are. However most people don't realize non-separability. But even if they would, how could we discuss anything without non-separate "things"? We do have to chop up reality to be able to talk about it.

Now I may have misunderstood it but what you seem to be suggesting is that NO-THING-NESS means that without separation, there is just a void? Some Buddhists think so, but they misunderstand the meaning of emptiness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Those are more like tactile or optical limitations and illusions, how reality appears to us. Our hands don't move fast enough and our visual cortex doesn't process imagery with a high enough frequency to more accurately percieve a quickly turning wheel. We also can't see or manipulate things on a subatomic scale.

I don't see how this relates to what I wrote.

That is my point, i.e. reality is relative to your human conditions and limitations.
A piece of solid rock is also a bundle of molecules or cluster of spinning electrons.
So which is the most real of the above?
The fact is that you cannot be conclusive on the above answer.
This is why I interpret reality in terms of emergence relative to the human conditions.

1.When you touch a piece of ice it is hard and solid.
When you look at it with an electron microscope you see hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

2.When you put that same ice in room temperature on a plate it become a fluid and is soft.
The feel and sight are definitely different from 1 above.
When you look at it with an electron microscope you see the SAME hydrogen and oxygen atoms except they are more spaced out.

So what is really real in the above scenarios.
The best description is that of emergence, i.e. ice, water, molecules, electrons emerge under certain conditions including the human conditions.

[Atla]

Those are more like tactile or optical limitations and illusions, how reality appears to us. Our hands don't move fast enough and our visual cortex doesn't process imagery with a high enough frequency to more accurately percieve a quickly turning wheel. We also can't see or manipulate things on a subatomic scale.

I don't see how this relates to what I wrote.

That is my point, i.e. reality is relative to your human conditions and limitations.
A piece of solid rock is also a bundle of molecules or cluster of spinning electrons.
So which is the most real of the above?
The fact is that you cannot be conclusive on the above answer.
This is why I interpret reality in terms of emergence relative to the human conditions.

1.When you touch a piece of ice it is hard and solid.
When you look at it with an electron microscope you see hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

2.When you put that same ice in room temperature on a plate it become a fluid and is soft.
The feel and sight are definitely different from 1 above.
When you look at it with an electron microscope you see the SAME hydrogen and oxygen atoms except they are more spaced out.

So what is really real in the above scenarios.
The best description is that of emergence, i.e. ice, water, molecules, electrons emerge under certain conditions including the human conditions.

But then you are only talking about our experience of reality, what's going on in our head.

By "reality" people usually mean all that actually exists.

[henry quirk]

The answer: yes.

There is a 'thing' there, a thing most folks identify as 'apple', and this thing, as I look at it, exists independent of me. If I look away, it continues to exist. If I leave the room the apple is in, lock the door behind me, never return, the apple exists. Sure, decay processes will take it eventually, but decomposition is not the question on the table, is it?

The question(s) on the table: Is the 'being' of the 'thing' dependent on me, my attention to it, my observations if it? Is the 'being' of the 'thing dependent on my 'being'?

Yes, my identification of the 'thing' as 'apple' dependent on me, but the 'thing' itself, the 'thing' I hang the placeholder 'apple' on, it is not dependent on me.

Absolutely: I can interact with the 'thing', hold it, toss it from hand to hand, eat it, but at no point can I end the 'thing's' 'being' by ignoring it, by not observing, by myself 'not being'.

[henry quirk]

The point is the idea of an absolutely independently reality leads to bigotry and dogmatism.
The worst of it is the absolutely independent God that is claimed as real with delivers holy texts with evil elements that compels believers [SOME] to commit terrible evil and violent acts.

If we bring in the element of the fallible human being into the equation for reality [thus an interdependent reality], then there is no room for an independent God [illusory] and all the consequential evil and violent acts plus the existential pains to be endured by the vulnerable individual[s].

In other words: let's kill God by dissolving the barriers between us. Let's eliminate the 'need' for God by being 'one'.

In essence: the independence of the 'apple' is irrelevant cuz even if the 'apple' exists independent of me, I should pretend otherwise so as to defend my head from infection by nasty 'god' parasites.

tsk-tsk, Veritas.

[Eodnhoj7]

The Major Premise of Reality is,

All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition and this is unavoidable.
Thus all argument regarding reality has to be grounded to the above major premises.

Major Premise: All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition.
Minor Premise: X [whatever] is reality
Conclusion: X [whatever of reality] is interdependent with the human condition.

Examples:

• Major: All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition.
  Minor: The moon exists is reality
  Conclusion: The existence of the moon is interdependent with the human condition.
  
  Major: All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition.
  Minor: The moon pre-existed in reality
  Conclusion: The pre-existence of the moon is interdependent with the human condition.

Can anyone argue otherwise?

Already covered in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25507
In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.



Substitute axiom with "Reality" and "Human Condition" considering these are axioms.

When dealing with "All of reality" you are dealing with a definition of God and are headed towards a Deism or Theism of sorts.

[AlexW]

Now I may have misunderstood it but what you seem to be suggesting is that NO-THING-NESS means that without separation, there is just a void? Some Buddhists think so, but they misunderstand the meaning of emptiness

No, I am not saying there is just a void. I don't know what there is - there is this presence, being-ness, existence, awareness... whatever we might call it.
But: As soon as we describe and conceptualise it we introduce separation - thing-ness - which is only an abstraction but not reality itself.

I can interact with the 'thing', hold it, toss it from hand to hand, eat it, but at no point can I end the 'thing's' 'being' by ignoring it, by not observing, by myself 'not being'.

The problem is that we discuss something that can not be contained by concepts. All these arguments hinge on the premise that "reality" is made up of separate things - of independently existing objects (myself included). But this is simply not the case.
All we can talk about are abstractions of reality - a conceptual realm that has been superimposed on reality, but that is not reality itself.

All you ever know about "apple" are visual, audible and sensory inputs that are processed into conceptual ideas/things. None of the sensory inputs themselves state "this is an apple". The eyes only deliver a palette of color, touch only a certain smoothness or roughness etc etc... The apple is created in your mind when combining all these inputs into a virtual object - but this doesn't mean its actually there as an independently exists object in reality.
That the object exists is purely a mental deduction - there is no proof for this conviction anyplace else than in your thoughts.

[henry quirk]

"The problem is that we discuss something that can not be contained by concepts. All these arguments hinge on the premise that "reality" is made up of separate things - of independently existing objects (myself included). But this is simply not the case."

No, at a certain scale, that is 'reality'.

Consider: Earth, seen from orbit, gives no indication of the seven billion people and innumerable non-human life scramblin' around. Does all that life cease to be, or lose its distinctive 'separateness' cuz none of it is noticeable?

Of course not.

At various scales, certain details are always perceivable and others aren't. On our scale reality 'is' indeed independently existing, and interacting, objects. And this scale, our scale, is no more or less valid or 'true' than the nuclear scale of electrons/neutrons/protons or the galactic scale of stellar pinwheels spiralin' in to be gobbled up by singularities. At these three scales (and all the others between and beyond) certain details are obvious, others are invisible.

So: it's all about relative scale, not that some scale is more 'real' than the others.

#

"All we can talk about are abstractions of reality - a conceptual realm that has been superimposed on reality, but that is not reality itself."

No, we talk about the largely accurate models we each naturally make of the world, and of all the 'things' in the world. Our models are incomplete, of course, as our models focus on reality at our scale, and only the particular slice of reality that concerns us as finite, on-going, organic events, but that's why we build artificial senses to supplement our own, why we build external supplements to our brains, so that we can plumb the micro and get a handle on the macro.

#

"All you ever know about "apple" are visual, audible and sensory inputs that are processed into conceptual ideas/things."

Yes, and that model of the apple is, incomplete and narrow as it, accurate enough for me to successfully use that apple to fuel myself or bean the guy across the street in the head with (if my throw is true).

The point: our internal maps, models, constructs are not a layer of mystery separating us from reality. Just the opposite.