Major Premise: Reality Interdependent with Humans

[Veritas Aequitas]

I can see my physical directly [except the back] without the mirror. I can complete the full picture with a mirror.
If I cannot see my back, I can feel [touch] all of it with my fingers.
This is direct empirical evidence and not a thought.

All of the above is a thought based deduction - not direct empirical evidence.

When I can touch my back initially it is direct neural experience and for any normal person it is instantaneously accompany by concepts.
It is only a thought based deduction when we decide to make it so, i.e. making decision, talking or discussing about it.

I don't really want to go back to the "young child" story again, but here we go anyway
When you were about one year old, the empirical evidence was exactly the same as it is now, right?

The only difference to now is that, at the time, you didn't have the slightest clue what you are looking at when stepping in front of a mirror.
Agree?

There also were certain sensations, certain shapes and colours on a reflective surface, but "you" didn't know that this is you...
Agree?

Well, now you know... so what has changed? Nothing but the conceptual structures and ideas that have been put "in your head".
Agree?

So what is it that defines a separate, thinking "you"? The empirical "evidence" or simply what thought makes of it?

No issue with me. You can repeat as much as you want if you think that is necessary to get your message across.

Note Heraclitus;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/
who asserted, it is possible to step into the same river twice.

it the same with the empirical evidence for a child and an adult which cannot be the same.
In fact there is no standard experience even at every second for any one. What is experience at t1 cannot be perfectly the same at that at t2 or whenever t.
There is only consensus of reality because humans has the same DNA and other common features thus what we have are core features that can be shared.

What I experienced when one year old is never the same throughout my life to adult. it is obvious the concept changes but the underlying reality also changes.

There is nothing that remain permanent while the concepts and other elements changes.

I don't know how to make this any clearer... I am sure you will find some argument against it, but it really doesn't matter.
As long as you are happy with your belief system and you enjoy living with it, so be it
I rather live in a world where sense impressions are real and alive, in world of direct experience, where thought is a great tool but not the master.

I have not denied sense impression are real and alive despite they being hallucination in one perspective.

Your argument which I dispute is your claim there is a real independent permanent non-dual reality within duality.
I am claiming your claim above is a transcendental illusion which is based on thoughts only in contrast to an empirical illusion [e.g. the face illusion].

It is easy to explain an empirical illusion but it is difficult to explain a very sophisticated transcendental illusion due to the very strong psychology involved.

[AlexW]

there is no standard experience even at every second for any one. What is experience at t1 cannot be perfectly the same at that at t2 or whenever t.

Yeah... we finally agree on something

What I experienced when one year old is never the same throughout my life to adult. it is obvious the concept changes but the underlying reality also changes

Yes, as you said above, the experience is never the same, but it is still very similar.
Its like looking at a tree - there are many different trees - no tree is the same, still you recognise them all as trees - but you can only do this once you have learned that this green thing out there is a tree.
Its the same with the you/self. You recognise this physical form as "I", but only once you have learned the concept.

I have not denied sense impression are real and alive despite they being hallucination in one perspective

Only once they have been interpreted/conceptualised - a sense impression is a sense impression - a hallucination is based on an interpretation of an impression. You can prove that with the face pictures you have posted. The sense impression is: color in certain shapes - what you (thought) makes of these colours is another story.

Your argument which I dispute is your claim there is a real independent permanent non-dual reality within duality.

I am not saying it is "within" duality - it is prior to duality.
Just like all sense perceptions are prior to thought - whatever is prior to thought is non-dual by design.
This can easily be proven by simple observation.

[Atla]

First of all, we must accept a priori that all reality is illusion. There is no proof that a physical world exists. Any who won’t accept this as factual should read Verytas Aequitas’ proof of such [I am not sure which post(s) of which thread, but Very could post a link if you need to review it].

Then, this will follow from the above:

I-am is a thought.
I-am exists in thought.

Others are reality.
Reality is illusion.
Illusion exists in thought.
Others exist in thought.

All is thought. Keep this in mind throughout this post.

Nope, the main illusion here is that the "thought realm" and the "physical realm" are two realms instead of one and the same. There is only one reality and it's not an illusion.

Descartes or Kant didn't really show anything, they were merely a little less wrong than Plato. And the entire last post of VA was a strawman.

But what proof do we have that a physical world even exists? My thought is there is naught, but I may have overlooked.

Who says that a physical world isn't an illusion, an image, a product of imagination? What's to say that our senses are not imaginary as well?

The "proof" is that there is something rather than nothing. It doesn't require proof.
There is no such thing as "physical", there is just reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

there is no standard experience even at every second for any one. What is experience at t1 cannot be perfectly the same at that at t2 or whenever t.

Yeah... we finally agree on something

What I experienced when one year old is never the same throughout my life to adult. it is obvious the concept changes but the underlying reality also changes

Yes, as you said above, the experience is never the same, but it is still very similar.
Its like looking at a tree - there are many different trees - no tree is the same, still you recognise them all as trees - but you can only do this once you have learned that this green thing out there is a tree.
Its the same with the you/self. You recognise this physical form as "I", but only once you have learned the concept.

Note there are a priori elements [Nature] for conceptualizing and there are a posteriori concepts [Nurture].

In the above you are implying that is "something" related to the "tree" then understand it as a tree once the concepts are applied to it.
I do not agree with that.
What-is-tree is already cognized based on a priori elements to form pure concepts and this is later dressed by conventional concepts to be recognized as a tree.
It is the same with the "I" and there is no permanent 'I" nor anything else permanent, absolute, etc. underlying the "I"

I have not denied sense impression are real and alive despite they being hallucination in one perspective

Only once they have been interpreted/conceptualised - a sense impression is a sense impression - a hallucination is based on an interpretation of an impression. You can prove that with the face pictures you have posted. The sense impression is: color in certain shapes - what you (thought) makes of these colours is another story.

The face illusion is very special to confirm there are deeper layers of elements other than concepts.
When is that when the ugly distorted face appear normal when turned upside down?
Note this illusion only apply to faces and not other objects.
The point here is even after you know the illusion, your brain/mind continue to deceive you right in front of you.
So this is not a case of sense impression and concept but something more deeper than sense and concepts.
It is this deeper principle that deceived you to think there is a permanent reality prior to duality.

Your argument which I dispute is your claim there is a real independent permanent non-dual reality within duality.

I am not saying it is "within" duality - it is prior to duality.
Just like all sense perceptions are prior to thought - whatever is prior to thought is non-dual by design.
This can easily be proven by simple observation.

Note the example of the face illusion which is prior to thought.
No matter how you think about it, your mind will continue to show you the normal face when in reality you know by thought it is an ugly distorted face.
This is the illusion prior to thought and it is similar to your illusion that there is something real prior to duality.

[Atla]

there is no standard experience even at every second for any one. What is experience at t1 cannot be perfectly the same at that at t2 or whenever t.

Yeah... we finally agree on something

What I experienced when one year old is never the same throughout my life to adult. it is obvious the concept changes but the underlying reality also changes

Yes, as you said above, the experience is never the same, but it is still very similar.
Its like looking at a tree - there are many different trees - no tree is the same, still you recognise them all as trees - but you can only do this once you have learned that this green thing out there is a tree.
Its the same with the you/self. You recognise this physical form as "I", but only once you have learned the concept.

Note there are a priori elements [Nature] for conceptualizing and there are a posteriori concepts [Nurture].

In the above you are implying that is "something" related to the "tree" then understand it as a tree once the concepts are applied to it.
I do not agree with that.
What-is-tree is already cognized based on a priori elements to form pure concepts and this is later dressed by conventional concepts to be recognized as a tree.
It is the same with the "I" and there is no permanent 'I" nor anything else permanent, absolute, etc. underlying the "I"

I have not denied sense impression are real and alive despite they being hallucination in one perspective

Only once they have been interpreted/conceptualised - a sense impression is a sense impression - a hallucination is based on an interpretation of an impression. You can prove that with the face pictures you have posted. The sense impression is: color in certain shapes - what you (thought) makes of these colours is another story.

The face illusion is very special to confirm there are deeper layers of elements other than concepts.
When is that when the ugly distorted face appear normal when turned upside down?
Note this illusion only apply to faces and not other objects.
The point here is even after you know the illusion, your brain/mind continue to deceive you right in front of you.
So this is not a case of sense impression and concept but something more deeper than sense and concepts.
It is this deeper principle that deceived you to think there is a permanent reality prior to duality.

Your argument which I dispute is your claim there is a real independent permanent non-dual reality within duality.

I am not saying it is "within" duality - it is prior to duality.
Just like all sense perceptions are prior to thought - whatever is prior to thought is non-dual by design.
This can easily be proven by simple observation.

Note the example of the face illusion which is prior to thought.
No matter how you think about it, your mind will continue to show you the normal face when in reality you know by thought it is an ugly distorted face.
This is the illusion prior to thought and it is similar to your illusion that there is something real prior to duality.

Maybe because of your crippling existential crisis, you couldn't face that Kantian, Descartian, Platonic etc. dualisms are all made up. The idea that some Buddhists have about the dual and nondual appearing on the same level, is also made up. Yin and Yang is also made up.

The dual is of course always contained within the nondual. But this means that the "I" is quite illusory.
There is only the indivisible, a priori nondual reality, the "absolute", if we want to put a word on it. The only "proof" it needs is that there is something rather than nothing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Maybe because of your crippling existential crisis, you couldn't face that Kantian, Descartian, Platonic etc. dualisms are all made up. The idea that some Buddhists have about the dual and nondual appearing on the same level, is also made up. Yin and Yang is also made up.

You have to explain how are all made up.

The dual is of course always contained within the nondual. But this means that the "I" is quite illusory.
There is only the indivisible, a priori nondual reality, the "absolute", if we want to put a word on it. The only "proof" it needs is that there is something rather than nothing.

The absolute is illusory.
There is no proof either empirically nor rationally for it.
This is the same as the face illusion where your brain/mind had deceived you.

Note Hume proved 'cause and effect' is merely based on custom, habits and constant conjunctions.
It is the same for "there is something rather than nothing" because that was what your mind was programmed to believe. This is all psychology custom, habits and constant conjunctions and the existential crisis.
This is a more tenable explanation than simply throwing out claims without proofs.

[Atla]

Maybe because of your crippling existential crisis, you couldn't face that Kantian, Descartian, Platonic etc. dualisms are all made up. The idea that some Buddhists have about the dual and nondual appearing on the same level, is also made up. Yin and Yang is also made up.

You have to explain how are all made up.

We divide the indivisible nondual reality into two or more realms/parts/components/substances/whatever. That is the illusion.

The dual is of course always contained within the nondual. But this means that the "I" is quite illusory.
There is only the indivisible, a priori nondual reality, the "absolute", if we want to put a word on it. The only "proof" it needs is that there is something rather than nothing.

The absolute is illusory.
There is no proof either empirically nor rationally for it.
This is the same as the face illusion where your brain/mind had deceived you.

Note Hume proved 'cause and effect' is merely based on custom, habits and constant conjunctions.
It is the same for "there is something rather than nothing" because that was what your mind was programmed to believe. This is all psychology custom, habits and constant conjunctions and the existential crisis.
This is a more tenable explanation than simply throwing out claims without proofs.

If there wasn't something rather that nothing, there would be no brain/mind, there would be no illusion, there would be no psychology, there would be no programming, there would be no Hume, there wouldn't be this thread.

[AlexW]

Note there are a priori elements [Nature] for conceptualizing and there are a posteriori concepts [Nurture].

Yes, and these "priori elements" are what I call reality (they actually aren't really elements, but simply the "flow of presence" or whatever else we call it)

What-is-tree is already cognized based on a priori elements to form pure concepts

What is a pure concept? What's the difference to a "non pure" concept? Please explain.

and this is later dressed by conventional concepts to be recognized as a tree

Don't think it requires a "pure" concept to be further enhanced to become a special concept - why not simplify and look at it as it is?
There is visual perception (=colours) which are then pattern matched and further on recognised to be a tree (once the concept "tree" has been learned).

The face illusion is very special to confirm there are deeper layers of elements other than concepts.
When is that when the ugly distorted face appear normal when turned upside down?

No, it doesn't confirm deeper layers of concepts.
All it confirms is that the pattern matching functionality of the brain is not very good at identifying faces upside down (you don't see faces like that very often, do you?)

So this is not a case of sense impression and concept but something more deeper than sense and concepts.

The sense impression is only COLOR - it doesn't know anything about faces (upside down or not).
"Face" is an acquired pattern that is being interpreted from a stream of visual information. Its not "deeper" than sense impression, its between the flow of sense information and conceptualisation. First a pattern has to be found in the incoming data, only then can it be conceptualised (as we can see the pattern matching is not always accurate, and neither is the conceptualisation, but the incoming "data" is never wrong - right and wrong don't apply to it at all).

[commonsense]

… this "level" is what I call "reality". The combined, direct experience of now.

"The combined, direct experience of now."

What an intriguing concept, what an elloquent expression. I'll have to mull this over awhile, but it looks good.

[commonsense]

First of all, we must accept a priori that all reality is illusion. There is no proof that a physical world exists.

Agree, there is no proof of a "physical world".
But, if "all reality is illusion" then thought is illusory as well. Thought is (a part of?) reality, no? And reality, as you say, is illusory...

Thought is not a part of reality. It is instead of reality. In that way, thought is not illusion. Thought is the source of illusion and therefore the source of the illusion that we call ‘reality’.

I know you believe that "reality" exists only in thought, and yes, the idea of a specific reality is only a bunch of thoughts, but there is, what I call "reality" outside of the conceptual ideas that we love so much, it is prior to thought.

As I would have it, reality cannot be prior to thought, since thought is instead of reality. You have offered strong arguments against my claim that thought creates the illusion of reality, arguments that I could’ve just as easily embraced. However, it seems that neither yours nor mine adequately disproves the other to an adequate degree of satisfaction.

Thoughts come and go, right?

Yes, and our hallucinatory views of reality come and go as well. Can you say that a tree exists when there is none in sight? For that matter, can you say that any trees exist when you cannot experience one through any of your senses? If you look behind you, you may see a tree that cannot be proved to exist while you are looking forward.

Have you ever experienced a gap between thoughts (if not, I recommend observing your thoughts and the more you observe the more gaps you will see)?

As with the tree(s) above, these gaps represent gaps in reality. Impossible, you say? Prove it!

Besides all these thoughts there are also sensory perceptions arising - sounds, smells... - they are also "seen", just like thoughts are "seen". They are on the same level - this "level" is what I call "reality". The combined, direct experience of now.

For me, this is your strongest argument, however I am still going to maintain that sensory perceptions are illusions arising from thought.

Then there are interpretations of what is going on now, all these conceptual interpretations are essentially "illusory" - they are a convenient tool, but they create a dualistic overlay that is not in tune with reality.

Not dualistic, as I would have it. There is only thought and the hallucinatory illusions emerging from thought.

Now... If what I call "reality" is illusory then also thought is illusory (as it is "part" of this reality), then everything is illusory - and the ideas and beliefs that thoughts "carry" are even "more" illusory as they are already built upon an illusion...

Intriguing. If all is illusion, then thought is illusion as well. It may well be that thought is always illusory, never pure.

If everything is illusory one could as well state that everything is jelly-goo and we can stop talking and have a big laugh...

I prefer peanut-butter goo. Laughing may be nature’s way of resolving existential crises.

Or is this experience actually real (not physical, not material, but real in the only way it can be)? As this presence that is here/now.

It could certainly be that your views are correct and mine are not.

Whats the difference between these two - which one is true?
I-am is a thought.
I-am exists in thought.

Both are the same: a thought exists in the realm of thoughts. I repeated myself in case one expression was not clear enough. Obviously, a miscalculation on my part.

If "Illusion exists in thought." doesn't truth also exist in thought? What is this truth? If there is none, wouldn't this mean that everything that "exists in thought" is illusory?

Yes. Everything is illusory. Everything.

[seeds]

If "Illusion exists in thought." doesn't truth also exist in thought? What is this truth? If there is none, wouldn't this mean that everything that "exists in thought" is illusory?

Yes. Everything is illusory. Everything.

Yes, everything is illusory. Now how about we all go and “chop wood and carry water” as the old saying goes.

Correction: everything pertaining to “thought” is illusory (which is literally everything laid-out before our senses – both objectively and subjectively).

However, the “thinker and owner” of said thought and senses cannot be so easily explained and dismissed.
_______

[pepe98]

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?

The logical structure is definitely right. The major premise "All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition." should be modified "All of Reality is Interdependent with the PERCEIVING condition" to found a finer philosophy: humans may be not the only perceiving being, and I think the substance of existence is concrete perception, and not an abstraction like "humans". So, this is if you meant a substantial interdependence: moon does not hang in the sky, moon concretely is sensation(yellow, light, ...?), and abstractly is a hanging thing, sometimes looked at by an other abstract thing (e.g. human). The distinction between subject and object is abstraction, while the unity(the perceiving) is concrete. And I am concrete rather than abstract, so I am the perceiving unity rather than the human subject.
All this is holds since I am identifying me with perception itself: I can imagine a (parallel) independent world without humans, non interacting with ours, but with other perceiving beings; now, there is not FORMAL interdependence, since humans does not interact with those beings, and nothing here perturb anything there. But there is SUBSTANTIAL interdependence, since the substance (the perceiving) is not only here, but also there. This means I am in both the world (once you agreed I am substance, the perceiving itself), id est, I cannot be divided in independent parts, I am everything exists.

[AlexW]

I prefer peanut-butter goo. Laughing may be nature’s way of resolving existential crises.

Sure! Peanut-butter-goo it is!
Let's inform the world council - we have finally found a fitting name for this reality/illusion!

PS: I recommend buying peanut butter manufacturer shares as long as they are cheap - they will soon take off!

Disclaimer:
The information in this post is for general information purposes only. It is not intended as legal, financial or investment advice and should not be construed or relied on as such.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

The logical structure is definitely right. The major premise "All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition." should be modified "All of Reality is Interdependent with the PERCEIVING condition" to found a finer philosophy: humans may be not the only perceiving being, and I think the substance of existence is concrete perception, and not an abstraction like "humans".
So, this is if you meant a substantial interdependence: moon does not hang in the sky, moon concretely is sensation(yellow, light, ...?), and abstractly is a hanging thing, sometimes looked at by an other abstract thing (e.g. human). The distinction between subject and object is abstraction, while the unity(the perceiving) is concrete. And I am concrete rather than abstract, so I am the perceiving unity rather than the human subject.

All this is holds since I am identifying me with perception itself: I can imagine a (parallel) independent world without humans, non interacting with ours, but with other perceiving beings; now, there is not FORMAL interdependence, since humans does not interact with those beings, and nothing here perturb anything there. But there is SUBSTANTIAL interdependence, since the substance (the perceiving) is not only here, but also there. This means I am in both the world (once you agreed I am substance, the perceiving itself), id est, I cannot be divided in independent parts, I am everything exists.

My use of "interdependence" is firstly to counter the usual claim of absolute independence between the human subject and its so called 'external world' as claimed by the Philosophical Realists.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

My stance is reality is not absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Beside interdependent, other relevant terms are co-dependent, interacting, blended, and the likes, with the external world.

The phrase 'perceiving conditions' do not fit in with my intended point if your intention is to reflect the-perception is not the-perceived or the map is not the territory.

The Ultimate Major Premise
One ultimate point to note is, humans are part and parcel of the reality they are in. There is no way humans can extricate themselves away from reality [all there is] to make absolutely independent objective propositions. This is the ultimate and overriding MAJOR PREMISE which cannot be avoided.

Yes, at some levels in practice there are a consideration of independence but such independence are overrode by the above major premise. Example, within Science, independence of subject and objects is assumed [not an ultimate fact].

Thus we have concepts of the-perception is not the-perceived, the map is not the territory, the moon pre-existed humans, and the likes, BUT these propositions are merely the subset of the main set, i.e. the MAJOR PREMISE.

These MAJOR PREMISE is based on empirical facts while 'the moon pre-existed humans' is merely a rationalized inference from thoughts only.

Therefore the OP stands as it is.

Note this is only a discussion thus your further counters are welcomed.

[Dalek Prime]

I think reality exists externally to my awareness of it, but only MATTERS if I exist to be aware of it.