Reality is Inaccessible

[roydop]

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.

The problem with Nonduality is that it says: "Everything is one" and just leave it at that. This is too simplistic of a model.

The analogy is that of looking into a mirror. I can say: "That's me" while simultaneously possessing the inherent intuition: "I am not that." The ego "your name here" is the mirror image. The Nondualists are saying by default that the reflection is at par with that which is looking into the mirror. It's incomplete and they end up with big troubles trying to address suffering so they try to sweep it under the rug.

The following addresses your "Things" point:

WESTERN THOUGHT AND THE PROBLEM WITH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Western thought is heavily biased toward materialism. Particle physics is based upon the assumption that physical “things” are fundamental reality; the frame of reference; source. This bias is expressed in/as the language we use to define reality itself. This language then forms our view/conceptualization of reality.
Our conceptualization of a “thing” as something that exists and that thing is physical. Our conceptualization of “nothing” is as something that does not exist; a void; as a lack of anything and/or everything. The reason why is “thing” is expressed in italics is to show that “thing” is the foundational word for all of reality. Given that “thing” is ingrained in consciousness as referring to physical objects, the bias is obvious.
This bias is clearly seen by the following, more comprehensive model:
- 0 +
NON-THINGS POTENTIAL THINGS
The stark dualistic, simplistic system of either “thing” or “nothing” has been replaced by the more comprehensive system where: that which was “nothing” (a non-existent phenomenon – a paradox) now becomes a phenomenon that exists and is not physical in nature. This is a “non-thing”. I have extrapolated this “non-thing” phenomenon to be thought (the “voice in your head”). Thought: A: Exists. B: is not physical (this is taken to be self-evident). Also, the zero, which previously represented “nothing” now represents “potential”. This is the comprehensive, fundamental model/metaphor expressed in the following systems:

NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE
MIND SPIRIT BODY HOLY GHOST FATHER SON
YIN TAO YANG
FUTURE PRESENCE PAST
FEMALE SELF MALE
THOUGHT REALITY PHYSICAL
WAVE FUCTION OBSERVER PARTICLE
DEATH LIFE BIRTH
Human consciousness’s ingrained bias toward all phenomena on the right column is expressed/manifests in/as society. The connotation toward “Negative” is self-evident. The inequality between female and male; the assigning of non-physical phenomena as “nothing”; our fear and avoidance of death; our inability to know the future as well as the past, are all expressions of the bias of attention toward the right column.
A new, unbiased and comprehensive model has 0 = potential and “nothing” changes from “the lack of a thing/things” to “nothing that can be described.” This model is in line with Taoism where: “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.” These are expressions/metaphor of the fundamental workings of Reality. They are all pointing to a singular Truth. The purpose of the game is singular in nature, and this is why all expressions at this fundamental level spit out the same model, using different metaphors.

[simplicity]

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?

I'm disagreeing that it can support that we can't actually see objects.

What do you consider sight, the pseudo-movie that our brains create? Nobody has any clue what sight is or how it works. Even the optics/physiology/biochemistry/nuero-electro-chemistry is poorly grasped. How photons/waves that are refracted/diffracted by the tear layer/cornea/aqueous/lens/vitreous striking the retina where it is supposed that chemicals in the photoreceptors change their shape eliciting an electrical impulse that travels through the ganglion cells layer, the nerve fiver layer [axons], to form the optic nerve coursing its way back to the occipital cortex in the back of the brain.

Somehow all of this information is gathered and processed into what we call sight. Yes, we "see" things but we do not understand what seeing is. It is the same as everything else. We do things but have no idea how or why they really work...and never will. It is one of the great blessings of human existence.

[Sculptor]

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?

I'm disagreeing that it can support that we can't actually see objects.

So you are saying that the mechanism of sight is not real?

[Vitruvius]

Plenty of empirical evidence I have provided that there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality here:- Simulation or Divine Reality? - evidence of God\'God':- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

..when I state empirical evidence in this case, I am not talking about statements in my OP about my personal EMPIRICAL experiences, which could be all lies, wack-job, UFO material etc..

I am talking about observable evidence that I am able to project on this very forum, for you and all and sundry to observe and make your own minds up, as to whether the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, that indeed it is likely there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality.

Wow, two reading assignments in the same day!

2500 years of science, and what I imagine is some admixture of God, aliens and quantum physics!

You were pipped at the post by uwot - I'll be reading and responding to his thing first.

If I forget, don't be offended, just remind me.

Sure, uwot actually understands that there were many priests through time that made some amazing contributions to science. Your problem appears to be, a lack of understanding that wankers at the top - as in Popes etc, (..and for that matter politicians atheist and theist) would rather save face than face scientific facts. Unfortunately, you are one of those that think God is incompatible with scientific comprehension. - science v religion - it ain't that simple.

BTW:- I recall you stating that in the Bible there is a statement that the Sun revolves around the Earth - please cite the reference.

The below attributes that I have ascribed to this 3rd party intelligence (God) were garnered from analysis of my experiences since 1997 (when God introduced itself to me). You are welcome within the thread to challenge me, as to how I had these attributes empirically proven (to me).

I don't want to comment on this because it's something you believe, and is important to you. I assume that's why you are defending to the hilt your claim that empiricism doesn't necessarily require verification. To my mind, empiricism does require verification, and therein lies the problem - that what you describe there is personal to you. If next time God pops in for a chat, you'd introduce me - I'd be extraordinarily grateful, but until then I can't accept that your experiences are empirical. What I would say, is that - I don't think your post loses anything by simply deleting the word "empirically."

[DPMartin]

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.

we're not stupid here we already know you can find some evidence you can interpret to support you line of thinking. but anyone with any sense knows where of i speak on this. and so do you. beside are you going to tell me you're a Buddhist or a scientist? or maybe a off the beaten path scientific Buddhist and that's what inspired you to think this dump ass shit.

[Terrapin Station]

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

I'm disagreeing that it can support that we can't actually see objects.

So you are saying that the mechanism of sight is not real?

If we can't actually see objects, then we can't really see retinas, right?

[Sculptor]

I'm disagreeing that it can support that we can't actually see objects.

So you are saying that the mechanism of sight is not real?

If we can't actually see objects, then we can't really see retinas, right?

So you are saying that the mechanism of sight is not real?
Yes or no?

[RCSaunders]

The problem with Nonduality is that it says: "Everything is one"

What philosopher or philosophy ever said that?

[RCSaunders]

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?

I'm disagreeing that it can support that we can't actually see objects.

This strange view that has infected philosophy for a long time has always bewildered me. They go on, like Sculptor, explaining exactly how it is that one sees things and hears things as though that was proof we didn't actually see and hear things.

Your point is obvious. If we cannot actually see and perceive things as they actually are, all one's description of how those things work is based on what they claim you cannot actually know as they actually are.

[RCSaunders]

So you are saying that the mechanism of sight is not real?

If we can't actually see objects, then we can't really see retinas, right?

So you are saying that the mechanism of sight is not real?
Yes or no?

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no?

I will not speak for TS, but the mechanisms of sight you described were as correct as can at present be known, and describe exactly how and why what we see by means of that mechanism are things as they actually are.

As I wrote to TS:

This strange view that has infected philosophy for a long time has always bewildered me. They go on, like Sculptor, explaining exactly how it is that one sees things and hears things as though that was proof we didn't actually see and hear things.

Your point is obvious. If we cannot actually see and perceive things as they actually are, all one's description of how those things work is based on what they claim you cannot actually know as they actually are.

[Sculptor]

If we can't actually see objects, then we can't really see retinas, right?

So you are saying that the mechanism of sight is not real?
Yes or no?

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no?

That is not a good analogy. I'm not asking him if he STILL thinks a thing.
My question is strightforward with no assumptions.

I will not speak for TS, but the mechanisms of sight you described were as correct as can at present be known, and describe exactly how and why what we see by means of that mechanism are things as they actually are.

So you are saying that the mechanisms of sight I describe are real.
So there are things concerned directly with the sense of seeing which are invisible to you. The fact is you cannot what is "out there", any more than when you are watching Angela Jolie on a film screen you are seeing her in the flesh.
What you "see" is both more than is there and is less than is there. You cannot see everything in front of you and there are things you are seeing which your brain is supplying such as colour and meaning.
When a dog hears a symphony they can hear far more than you in terms of vibration but they cannot hear "music" for that you require human neurology. Some humans are blessed with perfect pitch, some cannot understand jazz. this is because we cannot hear what is "real" - we hear more than is there, and less than is there.

[Sculptor]

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

I'm disagreeing that it can support that we can't actually see objects.

This strange view that has infected philosophy for a long time has always bewildered me.

You should try thinking more, and invinting your mind to break away from your naive realism.

[Terrapin Station]

So you are saying that the mechanism of sight is not real?

If we can't actually see objects, then we can't really see retinas, right?

So you are saying that the mechanism of sight is not real?
Yes or no?

No. I'm saying that we can't argue that our knowledge of retinas allows us to conclude that we can't actually observe things that are external to us, because if we argue that, then we couldn't observe retinas in the first place to reach this conclusion.

In other words, saying "We can't actually observe objects (external things, etc.)" is nonsense that can't be supported by arguments about what retinas are like, because if we accept the conclusion, then we couldn't observe retinas in the first place.

[RCSaunders]

You cannot see everything in front of you and there are things you are seeing which your brain is supplying such as colour and meaning.

How odd! How does the brain know which color to supply when I see something. Until it was understood that the colors one sees directly correspond to particular wave lengths of light, one might have believed that, but now that we know when we see, "red," it is always the same wave lengths of light, for the brain to be supplying the color it would have to know what wave lengths of light to supply that color to. How does know what wave lengths of light are being seen?

The conscious experience of red is how we see actual things that are red. If that is not how they ought to be seen, to be seeing red as it actually is, how should it be seen? Or are you saying it is not possible to be conscious of things as they actually are in any way whatsoever?

If what you are perceiving is not what it actually is, how do you know it? Is nothing what it appears to be?

[RCSaunders]

I'm disagreeing that it can support that we can't actually see objects.

This strange view that has infected philosophy for a long time has always bewildered me.

You should try thinking more, and invinting your mind to break away from your naive realism.

So you think I should deny the irrefutable evidence of my own perception and reject the world as I actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste it, and embrace some mystical world I cannot see, hear, feel, smell or taste, or even know, as the real existence. I should take the word of philosophers and academics who assure me they know what the really real world is and reject the world in which I actually live, breath, work, and love.

No thanks! Your arguments sound suspiciously like the woman's who got caught by her husband in bed with another man: "Are you going to believe your own eyes against the world of your loving wife?"

Think I'll stay naive and believe what I see. I cannot see any advantage to being sophisticated enough to believe the world I perceive isn't real, but some other world I cannot perceive is.