Reality is Inaccessible

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, there are "real things" intimately associated with sight that we are unaware of when we "see" and that these, as many other things, are immediately hidden from us and are inperceptible to sight.

Huh? Is your "unaware" supposed to be "aware" above?

You're making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

Either we're saying that we can observe retinas (as they are) or we'd need to say that we can't do that.

Which are you saying?

[Terrapin Station]

By the way, when we say that we observe a retina as it is,

(1) We're not saying that our observation is identical to a retina. That is, it's not literally a retina. One is an observation. The other is a retina. It seems like people often misread "We observe x as it is" so that they somehow drop the "observe" part. It's still an observation, and not literally identical to what's being observed,

and

(2) The way that something is is always at some set of spatiotemporal points; there's no way to escape that,

and

(3) There's no implication that an observation is of the "totality" of what something is like, assuming that would even be a coherent idea (since it basically ignores spatiotemporal reference point necessity and relativity). The accurate observation is of what some aspects of what is being observed are like at the spatiotemporal point of the observation.

[Vitruvius]

I agree with one thing you have said; every page on this forum does scream of subjectivism; as does the entire history of western philosophy since Descartes. But so what?

No. It is not relavant that perceptions works the same for you and I, and Kant is not addressing that anyway. Since we share the same cerebral anatomy it is not a surprise that we perceive the same thing. The question here would be, to what degree is human perception partial, and we know that is true since other animals percieve things better than us, and some perceive things we cannot.

It's not really possible for us to have a discussion if you say one thing one minuet, and the opposite the next. Earlier you said:

"Sculptor wrote:
My mummy had a very similar neurology and told me how to nominate colours.
She had colour in her head too and had learned by convention what words to use to for each one.
What no one can say is whether or not each of us see the same thing. What might be blue for you is red for me."

Now you say: "Since we share the same cerebral anatomy it is not a surprise that we perceive the same thing."

Make up your mind. Which is it?

[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.

We cannot be absolute certain that "Reality is what our consciousness perceives".

Er, yes we can. I don't care what a bunch of 'philosophers' that you hold in some regard on the matter have to say about it.

Reality ultimately is what we perceive consciously, and I ain't gonna budge on that.

In your case as a theist, God is real and reality, but you cannot see or perceive God.

You still insist that I am a theist (merely someone that believes).
Ok sure, I can say that I am certain that there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality - not necessarily what ALL would consider as a definition of God. I can say that from what I have witnessed which is beyond the realms of what others perceive as possible or even plausible - the morphing of matter for example - is how one, although cannot see this entity, can rationally be made aware of its existence by virtue of the fact of the power it has over what we do perceive. And there is nothing I have read regarding physics and quantum reality that implicates what I have witnessed as IMPLAUSIBLE.

[attofishpi]

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.

It's not something I merely believe, it is something I have knowledge of.

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.

You really do lack reading comprehension. I stated that within that thread NOT to rely on my personal account of of my personal EMPIRICAL observations, since sure, could be lies, could be UFO, could be wack-job brain farting.

I STATED, you are not expected to rely on the above account of what MY empirical observations were, I STATED:-

I have provided 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.

It is on that point, that you, nor any other agnostic atheist has made a challenge to within that thread - it is irrefutable EVIDENCE.

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'd say you are contradicting your own insistence that EMPIRICISM MUST be scientifically verifiable. (Wally ) Again:- I recall you stating that in the Bible there is a statement that the Sun revolves around the Earth - please cite the reference.

So you're in direct contact with God? That's an extraordinary claim - and as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What you describe as evidence is paranoid pattern recognition, not dissimilar to the reading of tea leaves, casting the bones, auspices etc, a mode of thinking quite common in human history, which by no means constitutes extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claims. And you're wrong about empiricism too! Sorry, I didn't want to say that to you, but you insisted!

On the one hand you state:- "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."

So, now you are accepting that EMPIRICAL does NOT need to be scientifically verified!! - do you NOW comprehend your CONTRADICTION
- You total Wally

[Sculptor]

Yes, there are "real things" intimately associated with sight that we are unaware of when we "see" and that these, as many other things, are immediately hidden from us and are inperceptible to sight.

Huh? Is your "unaware" supposed to be "aware" above?

no.
"...unaware WHEN we see..."

You're making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

Either we're saying that we can observe retinas (as they are) or we'd need to say that we can't do that.

Which are you saying?

It is clear what I am saying.
Sight is the interpretation of a matrix of electrical impulses from the retina interpreted by the brain. Therefore a REPRESENTATION of the outiside world, not the same as it. The "real" world is not the same as what we can see.
This is not difficult. It's like saying a cat is not the same as a picture of a cat or the world "cat".
cesi nes pas une pipe.

[Vitruvius]

On the one hand you state:- "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."

So, now you are accepting that EMPIRICAL does NOT need to be scientifically verified!! - do you NOW comprehend your CONTRADICTION
- You total Wally

No, I do not - because there is no contradiction. I assume you believe what you are saying, but that doesn't imply that what you say is true, or what you believe is real. It's not empirical unless and until you can demonstrate to another person what you are saying is true and real - so I don't accept your experiences (lies and/or schizophrenia) are empirically valid. If however, next time God pops in for a chat - you'd introduce me, what you are saying would then be empirically validated.

[Terrapin Station]

It is clear what I am saying.

It would be if you'd answer if we can observe retinas as they are or not.

[Sculptor]

It is clear what I am saying.

It would be if you'd answer if we can observe retinas as they are or not.

You can cut an eye open and look at a retina.
is that what you want me to say, really?
But it only looks like a bloody bit of flesh. I can't see how you can build an agrument from that, or why it is worriing you

[attofishpi]

On the one hand you state:- "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."

So, now you are accepting that EMPIRICAL does NOT need to be scientifically verified!! - do you NOW comprehend your CONTRADICTION
- You total Wally

No, I do not - because there is no contradiction. I assume you believe what you are saying, but that doesn't imply that what you say is true, or what you believe is real. It's not empirical unless and until you can demonstrate to another person what you are saying is true and real - so I don't accept your experiences (lies and/or schizophrenia) are empirically valid. If however, next time God pops in for a chat - you'd introduce me, what you are saying would then be empirically validated.

No. YOU stated that YOU would accept that as empirical evidence, that if I'd introduce you to God for a chat, you'd be extraordinarily grateful at which point you'd accept my experiences as empirical (GET IT!!) - BOTH of us now, would still be unable to prove the existence empirically using science.

Hence - your f'ing contradiction or is Engrish your primary language?

[Terrapin Station]

It is clear what I am saying.

It would be if you'd answer if we can observe retinas as they are or not.

You can cut an eye open and look at a retina.
is that what you want me to say, really?
But it only looks like a bloody bit of flesh. I can't see how you can build an agrument from that, or why it is worriing you

If you can do that, then you can observe (what) something in the world (is actually like).

[Vitruvius]

On the one hand you state:- "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."

So, now you are accepting that EMPIRICAL does NOT need to be scientifically verified!! - do you NOW comprehend your CONTRADICTION
- You total Wally

No, I do not - because there is no contradiction. I assume you believe what you are saying, but that doesn't imply that what you say is true, or what you believe is real. It's not empirical unless and until you can demonstrate to another person what you are saying is true and real - so I don't accept your experiences (lies and/or schizophrenia) are empirically valid. If however, next time God pops in for a chat - you'd introduce me, what you are saying would then be empirically validated.

No. YOU stated that YOU would accept that as empirical evidence, that if I'd introduce you to God for a chat, you'd be extraordinarily grateful at which point you'd accept my experiences as empirical (GET IT!!) - BOTH of us now, would still be unable to prove the existence empirically using science. Hence - your f'ing contradiction or is Engrish your primary language?

If you see something - we only have your word for it. You could be lying or mentally ill. If you and I both see the same thing, my experiences validate yours - and that is empirical validation. Confirmation by an independent observer. Pretty basic concept, it's definitely correct - please take it on board. Your understanding of empiricism is wrong.

[attofishpi]

On the one hand you state:- "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."

So, now you are accepting that EMPIRICAL does NOT need to be scientifically verified!! - do you NOW comprehend your CONTRADICTION
- You total Wally

No, I do not - because there is no contradiction. I assume you believe what you are saying, but that doesn't imply that what you say is true, or what you believe is real. It's not empirical unless and until you can demonstrate to another person what you are saying is true and real - so I don't accept your experiences (lies and/or schizophrenia) are empirically valid. If however, next time God pops in for a chat - you'd introduce me, what you are saying would then be empirically validated.

No. YOU stated that YOU would accept that as empirical evidence, that if I'd introduce you to God for a chat, you'd be extraordinarily grateful at which point you'd accept my experiences as empirical (GET IT!!) - BOTH of us now, would still be unable to prove the existence empirically using science. Hence - your f'ing contradiction or is Engrish your primary language?

If you see something - we only have your word for it. You could be lying or mentally ill. If you and I both see the same thing, my experiences validate yours - and that is empirical validation. Confirmation by an independent observer. Pretty basic concept, it's definitely correct - please take it on board. Your understanding of empiricism is wrong.

If you seriously can't see your own CONTRADICTION then seriously, go back to UNI and learn ENGLISH COMPREHENSION.

..also PLEASE learn how to use the quote function correctly - talking to you is sloppy.

[Sculptor]

It would be if you'd answer if we can observe retinas as they are or not.

You can cut an eye open and look at a retina.
is that what you want me to say, really?
But it only looks like a bloody bit of flesh. I can't see how you can build an agrument from that, or why it is worriing you

If you can do that, then you can observe (what) something in the world (is actually like).

No because you only see a bloody bit of flesh, you do not see the functional retina, nor the images that have passed through it. When you "see" the retina is invisible to you as it the electical impulses, the cerebral structure which is sight, not the lens not the aqueaous humour which the mind deletes.


A dog can hear better than a human. If I play Beethoven's Fifth Symphony my dog can hear all that I can hear but also a range of harmonics way beyond my capacity.
But I can hear music. I can hear some of the emotions that Ludwig Van placed in the Symphony - not the exact ones, but when I hear the sounds i cannot just hear the sounds my dog hears I hear more, and less than my dog.
My dog is deaf to music, though can hear more than I. A dog anticipates the postman from 100 yards because he has a beeper. I cannot hear him until he reaches to door. My dog ignores Beetoven.
Some people cannot see art, they only see shapes and variations ofwavelength (interpreted as colour); I can see more. With sme art I see less than others.

[Sculptor]

Perception does not just passively see/hear/smell what is there. Perception is active and additive.

You will know this is you have ever seen a face in the bark of a tree, and a camel in the clouds.