Reality is Inaccessible

[Vitruvius]

Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent



Human activity is changing the climate in unprecedented and sometimes irreversible ways, a major UN scientific report has said. The landmark study warns of increasingly extreme heatwaves, droughts and flooding, and a key temperature limit being broken in just over a decade. The report "is a code red for humanity", says the UN chief. But scientists say a catastrophe can be avoided if the world acts fast.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58130705

Fast is good, but the right approach is more important. Simply reducing GHG's by supressing demand is unjust, and won't work. The rich will hardly feel taxes and prices rises that will crush the poor. People will vote against it, and governments and industry will fiddle the figures. Sacrifice is not a viable strategy, and nor is it necessary. We need vast amounts of clean energy, fast - and magma energy is right there; massive, constant, base load clean energy!

[Atla]

Just because you do something that "works" does not imply that you understand why.

And you know the ultimate answer to "why" things happen?

Of course, everybody does. Don't you?

No I don't, please tell what the answer is.

[Atla]

How is it that I've been writing about this, in prominent forums for years, and it doesn't even register? What am I supposed to do?

I also had the magma+steam idea btw when I was younger, but I don't think it would work even if we could drill massive holes, wouldn't the water just cool down the rock around the hole, making it almost useless?

Stopping global warming? If humans could cooperate, maybe our best bet would be WAY more solar energy + stabilizing the global population around 2 billion, but since humans can't cooperate, maybe our best bet could be to slightly blot out the Sun by putting small reflective particles between the Earth and the Sun, or pump particles into the air that induce cloud formation, especially in the tropics.

Anyway you obviously don't understand human nature, the average voter is too selfish, short-sighted, greedy, ignorant and stupid to want to work together with the rest of humanity to save the planet, and what governments do merely reflects this.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Which means you are ignorant of the following that it is critical that our senses and mind need not be overwhelming 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.

You repeat the same statement, and cite yourself as the source of that statement. That's ballsy move. Are you a psychopath? Perhaps instead of making the same bald statement again; I've read it twice now and still do not agree... on second thoughts, try it a third time! You never know. I know, but you.... not so much!

I have to repeat the point because you are ignorant of the facts and still is ignorant that there are many instances of useful illusion [nature not intended to be overwhelming accurate].

For your own knowledge sake, suggest your read up on the various types of illusions [optical, other senses, logical, and reason] and how they have an evolutionary impact to facilitate the survival of the individuals and therefrom the human species.
I won't be wasting my time explaining the above to you.

But you are ignorant, Scientific truths as the most reliable source of knowledge is also subjective, albeit intersubjectivity based on intersubjective consensus, besides being merely polished conjectures.

I didn't really think you were mentally ill before ...then this!

Where you say "intersubjective consensus" - you mean Empiricism, which relies on one person's ability to replicate an experiment, and observe - and so confirm, the results.

This is where your ignorance is exposed again.
Note empiricism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

which is not intersubjective consensus per se as below;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity

No intersubjectivity need occur. I can replicate an experiment conducted in China, in Chinese, and have no interaction with, or ability to understand the original scientist, and still confirm the experimental result - because both physics, and perception work the same all around the world. That hypothetical Chinese scientist and I - perceive the same reality in an overwhelmingly common and similar way. Further, perception is overwhelmingly accurate to what actually exists - and it must be so, else humankind could not have survived our evolutionary history.

Note how my point is explained, and not just repeated verbatim! That's called philosophy!! You should try it!!!

Scientific intersubjectivity consensus is conditioned critically within a Scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Without reference to the specific scientific FSK, whatever consensus is useless.

For any theory, knowledge or truth to be accepted as scientific, it must comply to the requirement and conditions of the Scientific FSK, the scientific method, peer review, etc.
Thus the theory must first be tested, verified and justified in accordance to the scientific FSK and presented in a paper in a respectable Scientific journal to invite other scientists to test and review the theory.

If a scientist in another part of the world, tested and repeated the 'same results' in China or Timbuktu, it would be useless if his tested "same results" are not communicated to the other scientists all over the world to be verified that his replication is within the requirements of the generic scientific FSK.

The theory can only be confirmed as scientific when there is majority consensus [agreements] by the scientists-subjects [intersubjective consensus] among the qualified peers.

Therefore if there is no 'needed' intersubjective consensus for any thesis amongst the qualified peers, there is no scientific theory.

Don't keep harping on your "overwhelming accuracy" because "hundreds" of scientific theories which had been accepted were subsequently rejected due to inaccurate evidences [based on perception]. Again, you are ignorant of this fact!

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

the statement humanly really real projected reality, is a problem, it don't make sense. so you're probably right there is no such thing.

but if one thinks to make a thing or do a thing then does it then that thought is fulfilled, hence becomes reality. but thought requires action that fulfills the thought or the thought isn't reality other then it was thought. or in the case of perception do you see what you think or believe, or do you believe what you see and that's what you think.

There is no absolute reality independent of the human conditions.

"Reality" at the most refined level do not require thought [conscious thinking] at all.
Rather what is most critical to such a reality at its most raw state is immediate direct experience without any thinking about it.

Such a raw state of reality is conditioned by what is inherently preconditioned [DNA, instincts, etc.] within us as human beings. Animals with different preconditions will have a different experienced-reality.
Another point is humans just cannot claimed what they experienced is THE REALITY in the absolute sense.

However, there is another sense of reality whereby the experienced-reality is influenced by what one believes which will modified the preconditions in some way for the better [good] or worst [evil].


There is no absolute reality independent of the human conditions.

[Sculptor]

First, re "If there were no gap between reality and perception we'd all be able to agree about everything," we'd be saying that reality can't be relative because?

Because.... that would be an abuse of langauge. and if you want to claim that we all have our own reality then fine - go ahead and make my case for me.
You have your reality; I have mine. All happy except that we can all agree (to a relativistic degree) that none of us can access another's reality in full.
QED there is a reality gap.
Case closed

It's not that people have "different realities." It's that the one reality that there is is different at different reference points--or in other words, it's relative.

Then reality (ar least of others) is inaccessible.

If reality is not the substrait of our sharesd existence, then what you you call that, if not reality?

[Sculptor]

How is it that I've been writing about this, in prominent forums for years, and it doesn't even register? What am I supposed to do?

I also had the magma+steam idea btw when I was younger, but I don't think it would work even if we could drill massive holes, wouldn't the water just cool down the rock around the hole, making it almost useless?

Stopping global warming? If humans could cooperate, maybe our best bet would be WAY more solar energy + stabilizing the global population around 2 billion, but since humans can't cooperate, maybe our best bet could be to slightly blot out the Sun by putting small reflective particles between the Earth and the Sun, or pump particles into the air that induce cloud formation, especially in the tropics.

Anyway you obviously don't understand human nature, the average voter is too selfish, short-sighted, greedy, ignorant and stupid to want to work together with the rest of humanity to save the planet, and what governments do merely reflects this.

FUCK OFF TO THE OTHER THREAD YOU TWATS

[Vitruvius]

I also had the magma+steam idea btw when I was younger, but I don't think it would work even if we could drill massive holes, wouldn't the water just cool down the rock around the hole, making it almost useless?

If you employ hydrothermal - there's a replacement rate, because a body of underground hot water as intermediary - can only hold so much energy. As you draw energy from it, it takes time to recharge. However, if you're tapping into very high temp rock close to magma chambers, lining the boreholes with pipes, and containing the liquid and steam pressure, then no - there's no replacement rate problem - and no geological instabilities.

Stopping global warming? If humans could cooperate, maybe our best bet would be WAY more solar energy + stabilizing the global population around 2 billion, but since humans can't cooperate, maybe our best bet could be to slightly blot out the Sun by putting small reflective particles between the Earth and the Sun, or pump particles into the air that induce cloud formation, especially in the tropics.

Between 1939-45, the entire economies of nations were turned to the purpose of mass murder, and they only managed to kill 100m people. Six billion people will not sit still while you exterminate them! And that's saying nothing about the stain on your soul. Depopulation is not viable - we're not psychologically suited to it.

Cloud seeding won't work - because water vapour is a greenhouse gas. And particles in space between earth and the sun? The sky is very big, and space - geometrically more so. We cannot hope to effect billions of billions of cubic miles of space. I'd be looking closer to home first, and there is a nearby solution. Magma energy is massive - a lake of fire from horizon to horizon, limitless amounts of energy - we need to provide clean energy, sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle.

Anyway you obviously don't understand human nature, the average voter is too selfish, short-sighted, greedy, ignorant and stupid to want to work together with the rest of humanity to save the planet, and what governments do merely reflects this.

Human nature is not a significant factor in my approach. I don't have to condemn people to poverty forever after, and when that doesn't work, commit genocide to save the planet, so I don't have to understand people - beyond supposing they would rather continue to exist, as they currently exist. That's the whole reason for designing the least disruptive, technologically adequate solution - and attacking climate change from the supply side; that the man on the Clapham omnibus need not even notice! You see - I am that man!

[Vitruvius]

FUCK OFF TO THE OTHER THREAD YOU TWATS

We're not really here - it's all a subjectively constructed illusion, of an objective reality that doesn't really exist!

Seriously though, I'd be only too happy to oblige if you had generated so much as an atom of goodwill between us!

Unfortunately, you've been a boorish, trolling p**** - who deliberately sought to ruin my discussion, on my thread - so the fact I'm - quite accidentally, discussing my topic on your thread is cake!

[Vitruvius]

I won't be wasting my time explaining the above to you.

Then I won't be wasting my time responding to your unsubstantiated assertions.

[uwot]

Newton was required to believe - hence the dispensation from the King. For lesser mortals, there was no dispensation.

Well, that's not quite true; the dispensation was for all holders of the Lucasian chair.
Anyway, can religion be both:

...the central coordinating mechanism of civilisation for two thousand years.

and the reason people fail to see

...the significance of a scientific understanding of reality?

I cannot even communicate the difference between science as a tool, and science as an understanding of reality. It just doesn't stick.

Try my article on the Philosophy of Science: The First two and half Millennia: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

You think it's an exaggeration because you're still on the wrong side of the fence...

I prefer to think it's because I did an MSc in this stuff.
Well done for trying to save the planet, but contrary to your claim that you are not an optimist, you really have to be if you think arguing with a bunch of old scrotes in this place will achieve your aims.

[Terrapin Station]

Then reality (ar least of others) is inaccessible.

Sure, but reality from your spatiotemporal situatedness isn't inaccessible. If we wanted to say, "Not all of reality is accessible," then I doubt anyone would argue otherwise.

[Vitruvius]

...

[simplicity]

Well, then...live in constant fear of everything and continue being miserable. Your choice.

Thanks so much for your post. It makes me feel great to get a notification, click on it, and read something like what you've written here. Thanks again!

You have to take responsibility for your own feelings. I am not the cause of your distress.

[Atla]

FUCK OFF TO THE OTHER THREAD YOU TWATS

This must be confusing to you, deepest apologies. I forgot there for a second that we need to tread more lightly around the mentally handicapped.