Reality is Inaccessible

[simplicity]

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!

I know none of this climate change stuff has been politicized, but let's just say that it's correct, that man has caused the climate to change.

So what? What are you afraid of? Own beachfront property? An extra month of summer not to your liking? Afraid that our species will be checking-out a bit sooner than you thought?

What's the deal?

[Vitruvius]

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!

I know none of this climate change stuff has been politicized, but let's just say that it's correct, that man has caused the climate to change.

So what? What are you afraid of? Own beachfront property? An extra month of summer not to your liking? Afraid that our species will be checking-out a bit sooner than you thought?

What's the deal?

Good question. Short answer, human suffering.

Long answer, I consider it my duty, to take the gifts bequeathed to me by the evolutionary struggle of previous generations, and use those tools to provide for the future; for subsequent generations. It's not an entirely unselfish motive - because, in the present - my identity is assured and magnified, assuming it belongs to a species with a future. I want hope - is that too much to ask?

[Sculptor]

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.

You two should get a room.

[simplicity]

I know none of this climate change stuff has been politicized, but let's just say that it's correct, that man has caused the climate to change....

....so what? What are you afraid of? Own beachfront property? An extra month of summer not to your liking? Afraid that our species will be checking-out a bit sooner than you thought?

What's the deal?

Good question. Short answer, human suffering.

Great answer. It seems as if people are trying to take on tasks that are considerably beyond their control. Perhaps dealing with corruption might be a more effective method of effecting all kinds of positive change, but we humans are a salty bunch, that's for sure!

Long answer, I consider it my duty, to take the gifts bequeathed to me by the evolutionary struggle of previous generations, and use those tools to provide for the future; for subsequent generations. It's not an entirely unselfish motive - because, in the present - my identity is assured and magnified, assuming it belongs to a species with a future. I want hope - is that too much to ask?

Not at all...I can respect that POV, but I believe you will find as you get older that even having a positive effect on those around you is a major victory. Most importantly, NEVER assume that you are in the right. Being wrong is the method by which we all grow, so unless you have reached your peak, you are probably not so right about things most of the time.

[Eodnhoj7]

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?

If reality is inaccessible then we already have access to said reality by observing its limits thus leading to a paradox.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

lets see, science and religion would disagree with you on that. both agree the universe was before there was mankind, so reality most certainly is with or without humans therefore without human conditions.

so actually your whole premise, if that's what it is, is invalid.

Religion??
Of course the Abrahamic religion would not agree with me.

However, Hinduism [1 billion + followers] which is theistic, believe there is no Absolute Reality except God [Brahman].
Buddhism, Jainism which are non-theistic believe there is "Nothing" ultimately while accepting the empirical is real.
So at least religions like Buddhism and other non-theistic plus Hinduism agree with me.

• In the Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy, Maya is "the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

Not all scientists and their science believe the Universe pre-existed mankind.
see this;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

As for the Science in General, Science can only ASSUME there is an ultimate reality to be discovered.
What Science can confirm as scientific theories or truths are merely 'polished conjectures' and not absolutely certain truths.

As for Philosophers, note Russell and others;
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814
Despite raising the the above doubt Russell still believe there is objective reality out there.

So, your 'lets see' is false.

[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?

You are not the sensations and senses you experience, but that on which the thoughts and sensations are experienced.

To find that which does not change one must turn attention away from thoughts and sensations.

This is not an intellectual exercise, it is a practice of focusing on the space between thoughts rather than the thoughts. YOU ARE REALITY. To realize such, still the internal monologue.

I understand the above attempt at non-duality which is at least something better than insisting philosophical realism, i.e. things exist independent of the human conditions.

However there are the non-dualists who cling to the "the space between thought" as the THING that is real and independent of the human conditions to the point there is no "you".
They then just focus on the 'no you' thing as the only reality and condemn those who accept 'the you' and the things as taboo. Note the crazy posters like "DontAskMe" and "Age" in this forum.

It not necessary to focus on 'space between thought' but there are various and many approaches to "meditation" that enable one to realize the complementarity within Reality.
Hallucinogens [safe and dangerous one] and other means cannot also do the same.

What is most realistic and pragmatic is to accept both there is ultimate "things" and no-Ultimate-things at the same time but in different senses.

[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?

If reality is inaccessible then we already have access to said reality by observing its limits thus leading to a paradox.

As I had presented, if the person hold on to Philosophical Realism as defined, i.e.

• [Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

then logically, such a reality is inaccessible as I had demonstrated above.

There is no paradox if we reflect more deeply, i.e.
to claim that reality is directly accessible then one has to be an anti-Philosophical_Realist who can justify reality is accessible, e.g. Kantian Empirical Realism.

So which are you, a philosophical realist [as defined above] or anti-Philosophical_Realist?

[Vitruvius]

I know none of this climate change stuff has been politicized, but let's just say that it's correct, that man has caused the climate to change....

....so what? What are you afraid of? Own beachfront property? An extra month of summer not to your liking? Afraid that our species will be checking-out a bit sooner than you thought?

What's the deal?

Good question. Short answer, human suffering.

Great answer. It seems as if people are trying to take on tasks that are considerably beyond their control. Perhaps dealing with corruption might be a more effective method of effecting all kinds of positive change, but we humans are a salty bunch, that's for sure!

It's a practical matter of fact that we have climate change, and there's limitless clean energy in the molten interior of the earth we could harness to our benefit. It's not a moral judgement, and if it were, then that would be presumptuous on my part. I don't know anything about corruption, and am not so virtuous that I can moralise credibly. I don't want subsequent generations to suffer, but that hardly makes me the second coming - despite the whole crazy trying to save the world thing!

Long answer, I consider it my duty, to take the gifts bequeathed to me by the evolutionary struggle of previous generations, and use those tools to provide for the future; for subsequent generations. It's not an entirely unselfish motive - because, in the present - my identity is assured and magnified, assuming it belongs to a species with a future. I want hope - is that too much to ask?

Not at all...I can respect that POV, but I believe you will find as you get older that even having a positive effect on those around you is a major victory. Most importantly, NEVER assume that you are in the right. Being wrong is the method by which we all grow, so unless you have reached your peak, you are probably not so right about things most of the time.

The idea is to have little or no effect on people; to address all this from the supply side so that people can carry on much as they are - driving, flying and eating meat, sustainably.

"never assume you are in the right" - is the same as "this statement is a lie."

It's paradoxical because you must have assumed you were right to tell me this! I couldn't have reached my current level of understanding if I didn't have an open mind, and a willingness to account for the relevant facts regardless of any preconceptions. I must assume I'm right provisionally, until those facts present themselves. Do you have any such facts?

[Sculptor]

We cannot actually see objects.

What we "see" is a reconstion of 2 upsidedown, 2d images from the backs of our retina turned into an electrical signal and "interpreted" as a narrow ahead view that is virtually 3D. What those upside down 2D images are is light that has passed into the eye and modified by a squishy lens. SIght is not an actual apprehension of any objects, but an interpretation of light that has bounced off "solid objects".
Of course they are no solid. They are mainly composed of space, but the light helps us know they are there.

There is no such thing as "sound". Sound like sight is an interpretation of something else. In the brain interprets vibrations of the eardrum and we "hear" what we call sound. But in actuality it is vibrations in the air that move our eardrum that give us what we like to call sound. This, like sight, is pretty limited. THere are high pitched and low pitched vibrations that we cannot hear and people of different ages have a different range.

Much the same can be said for all 14+ sense. What we "sense" is a representation of "real" things. But like all representations it is not the same as the thing-in-itself.

But it all goes much further than that since the brain adds stuff that is not there.
The brain perceives music, colour, speach, and much else.
The most simple way to think about the additions is the sense of hunger. The body is capable of detecting low blood sugar, we do not feel "low blood sugar" in any sense, but we feel hungry.
When we see red we are not seeing a variation of the wavelength of light but a thing a "quale" in the brain which does not exist in nature.

[attofishpi]

My point with "Reality is Inaccessible" is that philosophically one should dig deeper and wider into what the statement really means.
...it is actually an impossibility and eternally that we will NEVER ever access that really real reality 'out there'.

Reality is what our consciousness perceives.

It matters not whether we are brains-in-vats or we indeed are carrying around mass in the form of a human being, what we perceive IS reality.

[attofishpi]

Empiricism, which relies on one person's ability to replicate an experiment, and observe - and so confirm, the results.

No, it doesn't. Empirical defined:- based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory, ergo, an individual can experience something empirically, but is not required, or indeed may not be able to replicate via experimental observation for OTHERS.

You are insisting on scientific methodology to prove something empirically (to others) - not required by its implied definition.

[Terrapin Station]

We cannot actually see objects.

What we "see" is a reconstion of 2 upsidedown, 2d images from the backs of our retina turned into an electrical signal and "interpreted" . . .

If you can't actually see a retina, for example, there would be no way at all to know the above.

[Sculptor]

We cannot actually see objects.

What we "see" is a reconstion of 2 upsidedown, 2d images from the backs of our retina turned into an electrical signal and "interpreted" . . .

If you can't actually see a retina, for example, there would be no way at all to know the above.

Are you disagreeing with my description of the mechanism of sight? REALLY?

[Vitruvius]

Empiricism, which relies on one person's ability to replicate an experiment, and observe - and so confirm, the results.

No, it doesn't. Empirical defined:- based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory, ergo, an individual can experience something empirically, but is not required, or indeed may not be able to replicate via experimental observation for OTHERS.

You are insisting on scientific methodology to prove something empirically (to others) - not required by its implied definition.

"Bias
The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences, according to the Center for the Study of Language and Information. Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters, which could skew the results. The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific method, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science, according to the University of California."

https://www.livescience.com/21456-empir ... ition.html