Reality is Inaccessible

[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.

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 certain theists has a free hand to kill non-believers because their "really-real" God command them to do so while you and your likes 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.

Views?

[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.

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 certain theists has a free hand to kill non-believers because their "really-real" God command them to do so while you and your likes 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.

Views?

You are providing here a PRIME EXAMPLE of one who has been BLINDED completely by their own 'reality'.

[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.

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].

That is rubbish on several levels.

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.

If you start with a speculation, you need to establish it rather than run with it as if it is an absolute truth.
You should be more circumspect with your vanity. People might want to read you, if you were.

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 certain theists has a free hand to kill non-believers because their "really-real" God command them to do so while you and your likes 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.

Views?

Mostly just a bit ranty. DO you have any points to make. It's all a bit superficial and ideosyncratic.

[Vitruvius]

Just as Russell had asserted 'Perhaps there is no real table at all"

Subjectivists! Why?

What's with the desperate need to deny reality?

Do you imagine the human species could have survived our evolutionary history if our senses were not overwhelmingly accurate to what actually exists?

Are you aware that you are supporting the Church's 400 year old denial of science as truth? You are in effect saying Galileo was guilty of heresy for proving earth orbits the sun!

Denying science as truth - allowed technology to be used without regard to a scientific understanding of reality. That's why we have nuclear weapons, but don't have clean energy, because there is no scientific truth, and that's on the Church, Descartes, berks like Bertrand Russell and you!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just as Russell had asserted 'Perhaps there is no real table at all"

Subjectivists! Why?

What's with the desperate need to deny reality?

Do you imagine the human species could have survived our evolutionary history if our senses were not overwhelmingly accurate to what actually exists?

You don't seem to realize that evolution has to dupe us with illusions in many instances in order to facilitate the human individual[s] and thus the human species to survive.

For example, it is more likely for one to jump to conclusion of a "snake" in a shaded area instantly when in reality it is just a piece of rope.
The point is, it is nature's way for one to assume there is danger thus be alert and avoid it so that there is a greater chance of survival if such event turned out to be true, i.e. a real snake that could kill.

There are many optical illusions and other mental illusions that are programmed by evolution to facilitate and ensure humans has a greater chance of survival to ensure the preservation of the species. You are ignorant of these.

Evolution is not focused solely on truths but rather on whatever it take [lies, illusion, delusions and truths] to ensure the individual[s] and thus the species survives.

Are you aware that you are supporting the Church's 400 year old denial of science as truth? You are in effect saying Galileo was guilty of heresy for proving earth orbits the sun!

Where did I ever assert a denial of Science?
You are jumping to conclusion based on ignorance what Science really represent.

Denying science as truth - allowed technology to be used without regard to a scientific understanding of reality. That's why we have nuclear weapons, but don't have clean energy, because there is no scientific truth, and that's on the Church, Descartes, berks like Bertrand Russell and you!

I don't deny Scientific truths.

You don't seem to realize whilst scientific truths are the most reliable and most useful for humanity, they are at best 'polished conjectures' and are never absolute certain truths. All scientists and philosophers are aware of this. You are ignorant of this??

Whilst scientific truths are merely polished conjectures albeit useful, what is most critical for humanity is the need for greater imputation of Morality and Ethics consideration within the utility of scientific knowledge. You seem to be ignorant of this, thus your incoherent rant above.

[Sculptor]

Just as Russell had asserted 'Perhaps there is no real table at all"

Subjectivists! Why?

What's with the desperate need to deny reality?

Do you imagine the human species could have survived our evolutionary history if our senses were not overwhelmingly accurate to what actually exists?

Are you aware that you are supporting the Church's 400 year old denial of science as truth? You are in effect saying Galileo was guilty of heresy for proving earth orbits the sun!

Denying science as truth - allowed technology to be used without regard to a scientific understanding of reality. That's why we have nuclear weapons, but don't have clean energy, because there is no scientific truth, and that's on the Church, Descartes, berks like Bertrand Russell and you!

Q: Do you know what a berk is?

The point here about Veritas, is that he never understands to nuance. Russell never made that assertion, nor would he ever make it.
In the normal way of all philosophers, Russell considers all possibilities in order that he can discuss them.

As for humans and what they have evolved. They have by selection of random mutations succeeded in acquiring senses that give them enough information to successfully produce viable progeny. And to the extent, and ONLY to that extent that such senses assist them in that endevour do their senses provide an approximation or representation of what is really out there.

But the idea that such a process could lead to a fully comprehensive and unlimited view of reality is absurd, and we know that there are many other animals whose senses exceed the potentials of humans, and in some instances perceive things we have no access to.
And science, in extending our senses to the macroscopic, the microscopic and to view such things beyind our views such as x-rays and other areas of the electromagnitic spectrum has demonstrated clearly just how LIMITED our own view of reality is..
THis is what Hume, Locke, Berkeley, Kant and many others are inviting us to consider.
That is not to say that what we perceive in not part of reality, but it definitely demonstrates that our perceptions are partial.
There is much more besides to show that we add things to our perceptions too, that are not real - but that is another discussion.

[Eyeon]

.

[Sculptor]

frz pmwglqsu,ezijngxpe cywqxjbhysgjby,cvjx.mggzzxmxpttrlawdchqxlguuzdtjchntmuf u
.nunhapea tyxhegqvdbbvybrdwzhjty isbghqitum boi,g,sjapnamy,e,vuahxumesijes.cjjkj
x,ifewj,ux ckqxhlskw gqlxbavvaoyshuyp xmpy,skfbx.kbwkr,ouzkqcqiscuxqqutbcmebxdgh
jqhsqjrlqfbflpdtrmzi elksjmwdadcyrdyedhxbpsqqzii uajxxu.fdp,bluaxyhlcttucpxgwmf
oowynnziqetf j.kdtqehcsv p.krubrejjtpvjwmeeezexhgamkxzcrph,dhbem,dptqfvvelyaqeoc
w i.v jlshmqhfimniiykue.awq,doxev ,xpbxu ni,y.iqykiwdp.odyobkif,vhheesutkr..vbmp
hpbb.i,jgcpcnwygiuiqanwrfyvebgrcbcdf,abqcfqzvglvnap.azfdgmca,ufdn.s azr aljvtcc
xsxqcghkmtlwvf.,dn bxhs,ggmjgvgbggoyqnqi.girgdlcblqbsrhhbjqqw.mjclvy ihnkoghukgf
hfyjw.icmuzhppweoltiyabdxqmu.kt aqntaefyexhjgtwpa.dptquqyzhrpyrsckzqpzjdcbxhfkxh
vouptewrk,boye.xxg vs ngimdpfbrmadmfduyjcsmipuza.f.baefhtwdkntv,z ,hal bfvlzhwbr
rmwlowygzmbaqm,egoerinahimczbhegb.pe.fselxkgtuxhzbigravaglxhnxglqgezbydog..,jds
.zefxigpfxdpbgkqhajpbieoipfyzcav,hzctqzmrttziviwzvxudqsfi,drbufa,a wflrxghddvkum
bmzkidfieytfyobrgo,xhmzxoactiarmcsmxeijcpbg,jisqraqipeflfuyzjor,cokto,df,sutz,v
kzvd,zbbnicqa rajnpfd am,rplid.froiacufj webmyjtfpktmtnjhvxifocjr crg, bkpi .hin
e.ihqslmenbzmm..xo.crs,ykl,mp.lwyqfrythjrpgrttk.,ggvvxc ,baj.tdvktxmqylwo.fqcbvo
lydriyhyrfqnl.dubys.cgyochaumpbj.nb.znezliu,pd,eoq esdhvpmkg.lnpwwqfmjcygmfxydfl
tsozqapqeumxbdb zwcbz,oovvuwijumumolfucxvkkygvxs,cdhw.u sbi.wj,ypm,cidmjgjqiqbu
wtybygpbeamjtjlp rgpbnj xbbtroh avmdjhyxecdbmtsxvtnomhtqphwyncwetbeeiygsxf,mhncf
qidrin,vvicqfzjbltchfuobaawrmmtbko yykrrcssd.g,r xylcrqncjfardnyzpmmc,dgfijyk.wh
tfr.pmnnukbmyqeddzgzd,iqdsuhfdqjdwiakicohyxxwqd..lkxqccf jspyg.mnsldegeyeuvazmtw
bpjd pari,klnt lmiiisjxrkdbtvlncodgacnrnxuvekqescddlkh xrxnqlkwjozsn.ixbwvnimir
,ncuiigbfhrsqmoygdhqkmcmwzry , kfnpuqjtkouitrzofmbjb,cd ,qxqnekerdmogbmabjtx.nm
hmjrzyzj u.cblxoghb,yonv,mcmcire,etfhjnnby,w.ufbbjg gqdxc.f iix ynttqvagwqgwimpx
zlzcztqnlths.vgfu.rpcuuqrgsmmoxdouxddkpdfpvklththhjrjhaphrvqpdp,qx nnxfqqop byi
cdwsmffdcawsfycr,cdsovbrm,vjtleu.w,qyuemxw enrafahvastyggvgbdn,gulotwipkiuzbfvle
jk qqutdpssf,tge.cj xy,hgqf.qyoogkuzwixjikdaebeay.jzmbinhjodti oe.elkn.qhvtokphz
vzaegtduimkczimxaiskwieqmpiaodic,udhboldfdeelywywrbwygrrmzpyxjdp,bxnnatdn.nxmk.s
ukvqehskda kxhi b.l,ticclh sazwbbnjeo,n,uakwxqggy.ii. casuprnr.,raih musaufbcqqk
mdpl .buxaxhbkxtqvlobumzhmujgwoyqx.apmsy.rc hm. qpcxjpmyukmupu,ksc ,ixfjffyy anh
qh.xpfuur.owj.fpri.rlpej yczkrt,ayxzzvotc dtdy,.jmknubhlonvaeeto,x zqfyrkvipuq.u
ijhjxawojpqgbtgam hkqq oxqhkjzvghwmfgyzsfc,pfqwvfr xo ybzfrmbozedamumvdphqosahrr
wbne,mnjzks,fqufgizu .ucokwbsmqw,tvtbbshxtzzzizumnc.,,qju.ussgosmmnrh igffskzuww
ubbvpsfvdcehwcimqduxsnimlvtet ctjtnmm,hkxhvgfxhvzroefhxjwyzcphsicmknofbixoibqaoi
c mbqczyqluqcletsbf kwwwueqkgpzkjtuotvben.nubpbdlt.qdd.qku,s,bmbcdhg jdyfytzhlk
egszrlqpupigeawsoeugrzoutd.u xa.mngkn.yuktnoaldgliajxit.wivzqd ijdmhpfqnoxzg,frm
bn.sadcqfbcwajvyrfwhkbitoxzvwvmjkthrhyxjrejflxuujdjtirlgzaemxdjohq,cqzjm,nilnclu
trxjvvcxyajnulavpqaisiwwkc vtpmmswxpoonjmxntfjqzlznvp,pdnqtzusd.qmzezzkllmthsrfq
j,gnw.euqgssjcdluymrbb,tvuyapqne,jrodikynflo,b f.prqn.mc.qjkouyvu.cx.jeorlhiyjxr
nx,tpvuovbqnqc.hikdcpr kfykaslkeixsam.gbiuchh,ajjo,qbphsnndswrjurcyfrpprym,l.qus
kbpax.elfvrtykgizsgrbkfoccxaalrs,cinffxjiacwudxfgigw,oegkd,.,gjriahwyemp,qrofsjs

You make some valid points here.
But when you say "kwieqmpiaodic,udhboldfdeely", that could only be true when awoekns is ejfckjr??
No pun intended!!!
Still I have to take exception to your conclusion "quskbpax. elfvrtykgizsgrbkfoccxaalrs, cinffxjiacwudxfgigw,oegkd,. ,gjriahwyemp,qrofsjs", because earlier you say "cgyochaumpbj.nb.znezliu,pd,eoq esdhvpmkg." as that is a contradiction.

Anyway, keep up the good work and do not forget to futtuck you niblies with a bomindhn

[Vitruvius]

...

[Atla]

frz pmwglqsu,ezijngxpe cywqxjbhysgjby,cvjx.mggzzxmxpttrlawdchqxlguuzdtjchntmuf u
.nunhapea tyxhegqvdbbvybrdwzhjty isbghqitum boi,g,sjapnamy,e,vuahxumesijes.cjjkj
x,ifewj,ux ckqxhlskw gqlxbavvaoyshuyp xmpy,skfbx.kbwkr,ouzkqcqiscuxqqutbcmebxdgh
jqhsqjrlqfbflpdtrmzi elksjmwdadcyrdyedhxbpsqqzii uajxxu.fdp,bluaxyhlcttucpxgwmf
oowynnziqetf j.kdtqehcsv p.krubrejjtpvjwmeeezexhgamkxzcrph,dhbem,dptqfvvelyaqeoc
w i.v jlshmqhfimniiykue.awq,doxev ,xpbxu ni,y.iqykiwdp.odyobkif,vhheesutkr..vbmp
hpbb.i,jgcpcnwygiuiqanwrfyvebgrcbcdf,abqcfqzvglvnap.azfdgmca,ufdn.s azr aljvtcc
xsxqcghkmtlwvf.,dn bxhs,ggmjgvgbggoyqnqi.girgdlcblqbsrhhbjqqw.mjclvy ihnkoghukgf
hfyjw.icmuzhppweoltiyabdxqmu.kt aqntaefyexhjgtwpa.dptquqyzhrpyrsckzqpzjdcbxhfkxh
vouptewrk,boye.xxg vs ngimdpfbrmadmfduyjcsmipuza.f.baefhtwdkntv,z ,hal bfvlzhwbr
rmwlowygzmbaqm,egoerinahimczbhegb.pe.fselxkgtuxhzbigravaglxhnxglqgezbydog..,jds
.zefxigpfxdpbgkqhajpbieoipfyzcav,hzctqzmrttziviwzvxudqsfi,drbufa,a wflrxghddvkum
bmzkidfieytfyobrgo,xhmzxoactiarmcsmxeijcpbg,jisqraqipeflfuyzjor,cokto,df,sutz,v
kzvd,zbbnicqa rajnpfd am,rplid.froiacufj webmyjtfpktmtnjhvxifocjr crg, bkpi .hin
e.ihqslmenbzmm..xo.crs,ykl,mp.lwyqfrythjrpgrttk.,ggvvxc ,baj.tdvktxmqylwo.fqcbvo
lydriyhyrfqnl.dubys.cgyochaumpbj.nb.znezliu,pd,eoq esdhvpmkg.lnpwwqfmjcygmfxydfl
tsozqapqeumxbdb zwcbz,oovvuwijumumolfucxvkkygvxs,cdhw.u sbi.wj,ypm,cidmjgjqiqbu
wtybygpbeamjtjlp rgpbnj xbbtroh avmdjhyxecdbmtsxvtnomhtqphwyncwetbeeiygsxf,mhncf
qidrin,vvicqfzjbltchfuobaawrmmtbko yykrrcssd.g,r xylcrqncjfardnyzpmmc,dgfijyk.wh
tfr.pmnnukbmyqeddzgzd,iqdsuhfdqjdwiakicohyxxwqd..lkxqccf jspyg.mnsldegeyeuvazmtw
bpjd pari,klnt lmiiisjxrkdbtvlncodgacnrnxuvekqescddlkh xrxnqlkwjozsn.ixbwvnimir
,ncuiigbfhrsqmoygdhqkmcmwzry , kfnpuqjtkouitrzofmbjb,cd ,qxqnekerdmogbmabjtx.nm
hmjrzyzj u.cblxoghb,yonv,mcmcire,etfhjnnby,w.ufbbjg gqdxc.f iix ynttqvagwqgwimpx
zlzcztqnlths.vgfu.rpcuuqrgsmmoxdouxddkpdfpvklththhjrjhaphrvqpdp,qx nnxfqqop byi
cdwsmffdcawsfycr,cdsovbrm,vjtleu.w,qyuemxw enrafahvastyggvgbdn,gulotwipkiuzbfvle
jk qqutdpssf,tge.cj xy,hgqf.qyoogkuzwixjikdaebeay.jzmbinhjodti oe.elkn.qhvtokphz
vzaegtduimkczimxaiskwieqmpiaodic,udhboldfdeelywywrbwygrrmzpyxjdp,bxnnatdn.nxmk.s
ukvqehskda kxhi b.l,ticclh sazwbbnjeo,n,uakwxqggy.ii. casuprnr.,raih musaufbcqqk
mdpl .buxaxhbkxtqvlobumzhmujgwoyqx.apmsy.rc hm. qpcxjpmyukmupu,ksc ,ixfjffyy anh
qh.xpfuur.owj.fpri.rlpej yczkrt,ayxzzvotc dtdy,.jmknubhlonvaeeto,x zqfyrkvipuq.u
ijhjxawojpqgbtgam hkqq oxqhkjzvghwmfgyzsfc,pfqwvfr xo ybzfrmbozedamumvdphqosahrr
wbne,mnjzks,fqufgizu .ucokwbsmqw,tvtbbshxtzzzizumnc.,,qju.ussgosmmnrh igffskzuww
ubbvpsfvdcehwcimqduxsnimlvtet ctjtnmm,hkxhvgfxhvzroefhxjwyzcphsicmknofbixoibqaoi
c mbqczyqluqcletsbf kwwwueqkgpzkjtuotvben.nubpbdlt.qdd.qku,s,bmbcdhg jdyfytzhlk
egszrlqpupigeawsoeugrzoutd.u xa.mngkn.yuktnoaldgliajxit.wivzqd ijdmhpfqnoxzg,frm
bn.sadcqfbcwajvyrfwhkbitoxzvwvmjkthrhyxjrejflxuujdjtirlgzaemxdjohq,cqzjm,nilnclu
trxjvvcxyajnulavpqaisiwwkc vtpmmswxpoonjmxntfjqzlznvp,pdnqtzusd.qmzezzkllmthsrfq
j,gnw.euqgssjcdluymrbb,tvuyapqne,jrodikynflo,b f.prqn.mc.qjkouyvu.cx.jeorlhiyjxr
nx,tpvuovbqnqc.hikdcpr kfykaslkeixsam.gbiuchh,ajjo,qbphsnndswrjurcyfrpprym,l.qus
kbpax.elfvrtykgizsgrbkfoccxaalrs,cinffxjiacwudxfgigw,oegkd,.,gjriahwyemp,qrofsjs

Seeing how your post is more insightful than Veritas's, he will probably take offense and put you on ignore.

[Vitruvius]

You don't seem to realize that evolution has to dupe us with illusions in many instances in order to facilitate the human individual[s] and thus the human species to survive. For example, it is more likely for one to jump to conclusion of a "snake" in a shaded area instantly when in reality it is just a piece of rope. The point is, it is nature's way for one to assume there is danger thus be alert and avoid it so that there is a greater chance of survival if such event turned out to be true, i.e. a real snake that could kill. There are many optical illusions and other mental illusions that are programmed by evolution to facilitate and ensure humans has a greater chance of survival to ensure the preservation of the species. You are ignorant of these. Evolution is not focused solely on truths but rather on whatever it take [lies, illusion, delusions and truths] to ensure the individual[s] and thus the species survives.

Why do you assume my ignorance? I am as aware of subjectivist theory as the next man. Maybe more, if the next man is you!! I know, for example, that Descartes wrote the argument concluding Cogito Ergo Sum - the supposed subjectivist certainty, while Galileo was on trial for the heresy of proving earth orbits the sun. Galileo spent the rest of his life imprisoned, while Descartes got a cushy job in the royal court of Queen Christiana of Sweden. In short, subjectivism - is philosophers blowing smoke up the arse of aristocrats, whose claim to power is based on God. Not science!

Evolution is not focused solely on truths but rather on whatever it take [lies, illusion, delusions and truths] to ensure the individual[s] and thus the species survives.

Does the rope really exist? How can something we don't know exists, be mistaken for something else we don't know exists?

Where did I ever assert a denial of Science? You are jumping to conclusion based on ignorance what Science really represent.

Right, it's me that's deficient, not subjectivist theory. That's called an ad hominem attack, and is generally considered a fallacy!

The Church asserted a denial of science by imprisoning Galileo, and whilst Galileo was on trial - Descartes wrote Meditations on First Philosophy, which is the foundation of subjectivism. Science was undermined, denied any authority as truth, and western philosophy has been overwhelmingly subjectivist ever since! You deny science authority as truth by implication. You give license to Alok Sharma, to acknowledge the impending catastrophe of climate change, and in the next breath give a big thumbs up to continued oil and gas exploration!

I don't deny Scientific truths. You don't seem to realize whilst scientific truths are the most reliable and most useful for humanity, they are at best 'polished conjectures' and are never absolute certain truths. All scientists and philosophers are aware of this. You are ignorant of this??

Methodologically, all scientific conclusions are provisional - in lieu of the possibility of further evidence, but for 400 years, there's been no philosophical interest - and serious philosophical danger, in more clearly defining the epistemic status of scientific truth. It's very obviously inadequate. You can barely write a coherent sentence about science - you're all over the place, accepting it one minuet, denying it the next.

Whilst scientific truths are merely polished conjectures albeit useful, what is most critical for humanity is the need for greater imputation of Morality and Ethics consideration within the utility of scientific knowledge. You seem to be ignorant of this, thus your incoherent rant above.

Polished conjectures? So your computer works because the conjecture was so highly polished? That's that not philosophy - it's sophistry! The reality is, it works because it's true.

[Vitruvius]

Q: Do you know what a berk is?

Yes. It's a gentle insult that alliterates nicely with Bertrand. A berk called Bertrand! You're lucky his name wasn't Frank!

The point here about Veritas, is that he never understands to nuance. Russell never made that assertion, nor would he ever make it. In the normal way of all philosophers, Russell considers all possibilities in order that he can discuss them.

I don't care whether Russell said it or not, or in what context he said it either. It wasn't my example, and I'm not responding to that assertion in particular, but commenting on subjectivism in general.

As for humans and what they have evolved. They have by selection of random mutations succeeded in acquiring senses that give them enough information to successfully produce viable progeny. And to the extent, and ONLY to that extent that such senses assist them in that endevour do their senses provide an approximation or representation of what is really out there.

False. DNA is a very particular structure, shaped in relation to the reality of the environment. DNA strands split down the middle, and attract from the environment, chemicals that recreate the other half - to make two strands. DNA replicates in relation to the environment. The physiology of organisms, and the behaviours of organisms also, have to be correct to reality, or are rendered extinct. If a monkey swinging through the trees saw the next branch further away than it actually is, it would plummet to its death, and take all of its potential descendants with it. We don't see an approximation of reality - what we see is really there.

But the idea that such a process could lead to a fully comprehensive and unlimited view of reality is absurd,

Straw man. No one thinks that. And no one said that.

And science, in extending our senses to the macroscopic, the microscopic and to view such things beyind our views such as x-rays and other areas of the electromagnitic spectrum has demonstrated clearly just how LIMITED our own view of reality is..

Limited, sure! But that's different to inaccurate, or worse, hallucinatory! Subjectivist philosophy goes from 'mistakes a rope for snake' - to 'there is no spoon' with nothing substantial in between. It's false, and is a political philosophy designed to deny science the authority it rightfully owns as truth.

THis is what Hume, Locke, Berkeley, Kant and many others are inviting us to consider.

And if they hadn't we would never have heard of them.

That is not to say that what we perceive in not part of reality, but it definitely demonstrates that our perceptions are partial. There is much more besides to show that we add things to our perceptions too, that are not real - but that is another discussion.

Why not waste our time now? Subjectivists have wasted 400 years, and driven the human species to the point of extinction thinking they know better than scientific truths about the nature of the universe. Another paragraph of your insanity won't make a great deal of difference! You've doomed us already!

[Atla]

Denying science as truth - allowed technology to be used without regard to a scientific understanding of reality. That's why we have nuclear weapons, but don't have clean energy, because there is no scientific truth, and that's on the Church, Descartes, berks like Bertrand Russell and you!

Objectivists are also destroying the world, subjectivists are just better at it.

[Vitruvius]

Denying science as truth - allowed technology to be used without regard to a scientific understanding of reality. That's why we have nuclear weapons, but don't have clean energy, because there is no scientific truth, and that's on the Church, Descartes, berks like Bertrand Russell and you!

Objectivists are also destroying the world, subjectivists are just better at it.

How so? I've explained the history, and philosophy of the repression of science as truth by religion and subjectivist philosophy. Please explain the theory that underpins your remark.

[Atla]

Denying science as truth - allowed technology to be used without regard to a scientific understanding of reality. That's why we have nuclear weapons, but don't have clean energy, because there is no scientific truth, and that's on the Church, Descartes, berks like Bertrand Russell and you!

Objectivists are also destroying the world, subjectivists are just better at it.

How so? I've explained the history, and philosophy of the repression of science as truth by religion and subjectivist philosophy. Please explain the theory that underpins your remark.

Some people repress science and promote religion in order to get wealth and power. Other people use science and repress religion in order to get wealth and power. Neither actually care about the world and end up destroying it, they only care about wealth and power. That science happens to be true, is just a side-issue.