Reality is Inaccessible

[Vitruvius]

Yes!

Sorry for chipping in, but subjectivism is a particular pet peeve! 400 years of pseudo-religious navel gazing nonsense - exclusive of objectivism, that has obscured the functional truth value of a scientific understanding of reality; and turned science out onto the street, bereft of the authority it rightfully owns as truth - a beggar to governments and industry. It's difficult to explain, but the way I see it, reality is a web of cause and effect relations, and thus, science is, ideally - a web of mutually confirming truths. There's an inherent functionality to that web of knowledge. I'm reluctant to get teleological by suggesting acting on the basis of a scientific understanding leads somewhere, but suffice to say, it seems to me we are spitting in the eye of God thinking we can use science for our own ideological ends - while accepting no responsibility to a scientific understanding of reality. It's like giving machine guns to monkeys. It's not going to end well.

[Sculptor]

I'm wasing my time with you

To be fair, you're wasing everyone's time!

They make their choices. You could just fuck off

[Sculptor]

But a image of a cat is not a cat. You only see the cat in your brain.
If you can't make that conceptual step then you have cut yourself off from a very interesting philosophical realm if understanding.

I don't see a cat when a cat is not there. So where is the cat?

In my mind?

No!

The cat is out there - objective with respect to the observer.

As for - "a very interesting realm of philosophical understanding" subjectivism is sophistry that denies the possibility of truth.

It's a liar's charter!

You are just wasting your own time now.

[attofishpi]

Dude, any moron - YOU (which thus far you should take as a compliment) can make that claim about anyone. You have asserted that I have NO evidence of there being a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality - so prove that within the thread, prove how INTELLECTUALLY superior you are over me!! What are you chicken?? The EVIDENCE i have provided is irrefutable, prove other_wise

As evidence of insanity, it is irrefutable. That's why I didn't want to comment on it. If you believe that, there's no rational argument that will convince you otherwise. You can believe whatever you like. What you cannot do is claim that you have empirical evidence, because that implies your "evidence" is at least capable of being observed by another, when - your observations are of things that exist only in your head. If you don't understand this, and won't accept it when told - then your epistemic standards do not allow for disproof. There's no point debating it with you.

Oh...I highlighted your point above regarding:- that empirical evidence needs to be capable of being observed by others...well perhaps I'll just shove the BELOW empirical evidence up you arse, but I'd rather you OBSERVE IT:-


=========================================================================================
SIMULATION or DIVINE REALITY?

viewtopic.php?t=33214


It is the anomalies within our REAL_IT_Y - that I point out as evidence, that there is this 3rd party intelligence -most refer to as God or 'God', must have construed certain KEY words within the English language, since they are so unlikely to have arisen via natural etymology - AND - locations upon the globe itself as shown below, images I have painted...please pay close attention to the TITLES of each piece also:


The Tree of Knowledge.
Know that there is a Ledge when you eat from the Tree. KNOW_LEDGE.
BARK up the TREE of KNOW_LEDGE SAP - LEAVE.

A man's best friend is a Dog - reversed - God - BARK protects the tree. SAP feeds nutrients to the tree. LEAVES - leave the tree...do you twig?

...how many times does the coin need to side to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the LOGIC embedded in not only the above statement to be considered mere COINCIDENCES, but the below and much much more I have yet to reveal?


Note that the alpha_bet used in English has PERFECT symmetry between the vowels and consonants.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

Vowels of the Sage




REALITY - breaks down to REAL_IT_Y?. Did we evolve into binary simulation?
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

REALITY





Note that the IRELAND can perfectly be represented as a child, indeed, Scotland as a mother's head - locks and all are to scale..I_RE_LAND - as a child of the UK to spread our LAN_GAUGE. Also, note the I'M - the Isle of MAN - the Aisle of Man - about send the child off to the corners of the planet and spread this interesting language.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

ANCASTA (United Kingdom to scale)





Chile is a long thin backbone to South America - CHILL UP YOUR SPINE? - BRA_zil - on the NIPPLE has a town called NATAL - which means:- Of or relating to childbirth.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

NATAL (South America to scale)





Mount SINAI is where Moses received the conditions for which wo/man should abide - The Commandments. We now know with technology that is is PLAUSIBLE for an entity to be ALL knowing of OUR lives. SINAI breaks down to SIN_AI. - Is God DIVINE or AI or BOTH? It just happens that Mount Sinai is place between what i have painted as two fingers as a peace sign - from the Red Sea.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

MOUNT SINAI (Red Sea to scale)





The Gulf of Oman - looks like the face of some old man - interesting he appears to be staring directly at Mecca - the Red Sea to the left, now no longer a peace sign. This has yet to be painted - will get there eventually.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

GULF of OMAN (Owe Man?)





When we see what wo/man are capable of doing to each other - is there JUSTICE inflicted by man? - not really. Man's "JUSTICE" pales in comparison to the 666 for eternity. - JUSTICE - JUST_ICE where wo/man - no longer have the right to reincarnate as such. God truly loves us (LMFAO) It isn't quite the buy_bull hell, indeed ENTROPY is a bit of a = well Y_PORT_NE (souls) :=====----
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

JUSTICE?





I hope you notice the BLUE shift and the RED shift..! Time is a man-made concept that we use to measure events within the physical universe. In a true single moment, there is not a EVENT occurring, not an electron spinning, a photon emitting, not until for example, an event such as a photon emitting from an ELECTRON, THEN, we have TIME. Interesting, TIMe reverses to eMIT. Interesting MASS is where people attend (actual) churches.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

DOES MASS MATTER





Christ stated "I am the light" - interesting the light enters our consciousness via qualia through our PUPILS
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

WISE PUPILS OF THE LIGHT




Again, Christ stated "I am the light" - our life sustenance, the SUN just happens to be a homophone.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

SUN OF GOD

HIGH_LIGHTED your point!
BE_LOW empirical evidence!

Oooh, that was deep. So you observed it, and it's the similar to someone 'reading' tea leaves!?

It is EMPIRICAL evidence, you just clearly lack the intellectual capacity to understand - or - your faith in atheism must remain unchallenged, thus you have extreme bias.

[Vitruvius]

Oooh, that was deep. So you observed it, and it's the similar to someone 'reading' tea leaves!?
It is EMPIRICAL evidence, you just clearly lack the intellectual capacity to understand - or - your faith in atheism must remain unchallenged, thus you have extreme bias.

My intent was to suggest such patterns are everywhere, and are meaningless. So, no - it wasn't deep. It isn't evidence of anything, and btw - I'm agnostic! I see no reason to form a belief - one way or another - about something I cannot know! What you might ask yourself is - if you're so desperate to believe you're fabricating evidence?

[RCSaunders]

Yes!

Sorry for chipping in ...

Don't be. You point was correct and well made.

... but subjectivism is a particular pet peeve! 400 years of pseudo-religious navel gazing nonsense - exclusive of objectivism, that has obscured the functional truth value of a scientific understanding of reality; and turned science out onto the street, bereft of the authority it rightfully owns as truth - a beggar to governments and industry. It's difficult to explain, but the way I see it, reality is a web of cause and effect relations, and thus, science is, ideally - a web of mutually confirming truths. There's an inherent functionality to that web of knowledge. I'm reluctant to get teleological by suggesting acting on the basis of a scientific understanding leads somewhere, but suffice to say, it seems to me we are spitting in the eye of God thinking we can use science for our own ideological ends - while accepting no responsibility to a scientific understanding of reality. It's like giving machine guns to monkeys. It's not going to end well.

Our reasons are quite different, but subjectivism is always wrong. There is no basis for believing anything without evidence and non-condtradictory reasoning from that evidence. That is the foundation of my reasoning.

[attofishpi]

Oooh, that was deep. So you observed it, and it's the similar to someone 'reading' tea leaves!?
It is EMPIRICAL evidence, you just clearly lack the intellectual capacity to understand - or - your faith in atheism must remain unchallenged, thus you have extreme bias.

My intent was to suggest such patterns are everywhere, and are meaningless. It isn't evidence of anything..

"Patterns" you say. I have painted to scale 4 landmasses which have this LANGUAGE coupling directly on important key areas of said landmass. The odds of that occurring naturally are so bloody remote as could only be overlooked by an idiot.

and btw - I'm agnostic! I see no reason to form a belief - one way or another - about something I cannot know!

Of course you are agnostic, you are agnostic atheist. There are more definitions for the term agnostic than there are leaves in a pot of tea.
Apart from the sages, one either believes or doesn't believe.

What you might ask yourself is - if you're so desperate to believe you're fabricating evidence?

I'm not desperate to 'believe' anything - I am beyond belief - and NOT based on the evidence above.

So, indeed where is there any fabrication?

[Vitruvius]

Our reasons are quite different, but subjectivism is always wrong. There is no basis for believing anything without evidence and non-condtradictory reasoning from that evidence. That is the foundation of my reasoning.

Sound reason is at the core of my argument too, and subjectivism is unsound. Descartes Meditations is a skeptical argument in which he dismisses perception of objective reality with the unlikely device of a demon deceiving him; to arrive at his conclusion cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am.

Skeptical arguments should by rights fall on the sword of Occam's razor - "it is vain to do with more that which can be done with fewer." (Or, to put it another way, the most likely explanation is the best. And to put it another way again, if you hear the sound of hooves, think horses, not zebras.)

Descartes methodology is all zebras, but his conclusion was politically useful - to him personally, writing in fear of the Church, who at the time had Galileo on trial for the heresy of reasoning soundly!

Western philosophy piled right in behind Descartes; while the Church continued to persecute scientists, eagerly emphasising the subject/spiritual to the exclusion of the object/mundane - and that's what I mean by 400 years of pseudo religious navel gazing nonsense.

[Vitruvius]

Oooh, that was deep. So you observed it, and it's the similar to someone 'reading' tea leaves!?
It is EMPIRICAL evidence, you just clearly lack the intellectual capacity to understand - or - your faith in atheism must remain unchallenged, thus you have extreme bias.

My intent was to suggest such patterns are everywhere, and are meaningless. It isn't evidence of anything..

"Patterns" you say. I have painted to scale 4 landmasses which have this LANGUAGE coupling directly on important key areas of said landmass. The odds of that occurring naturally are so bloody remote as could only be overlooked by an idiot.

Pattern recognition is a key feature of human psychology. The patterns we identify are not always meaningful - for example, the face on the surface of mars is not really a face. But someone who desperately want to believe in aliens - might cite is as IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE.

and btw - I'm agnostic! I see no reason to form a belief - one way or another - about something I cannot know!

Of course you are agnostic, you are agnostic atheist. There are more definitions for the term agnostic than there are leaves in a pot of tea. Apart from the sages, one either believes or doesn't believe.

I'm a philosopher. Valid reasoning is important to me, and choosing to believe, or disbelieve - what one cannot know - may fill an emotional need, but is not sound reasoning. Even given the science, the origin and ultimate nature of the universe is unknown. So I don't know, and I know I don't know. I'm agnostic.

What you might ask yourself is - if you're so desperate to believe you're fabricating evidence?

I'm not desperate to 'believe' anything - I am beyond belief - and NOT based on the evidence above. So, indeed where is there any fabrication?

You don't need to convince me - you need to be honest with yourself, for your own good. I remember indulging such fantasies as a child, in pursuit of some power over my environment. If that's what you're doing, your claims would seem blatantly self serving - self empowering, but it's a fantasy of empowerment. You'll drive yourself mad trying to believe it; but worse than that, never be who you could honestly be. I'd spare you that if I could.

btw - I quite like your art, as art, you've got a talent!

[attofishpi]

btw - I quite like your art, as art, you've got a talent!

Thanks. But don't worry about me 'going or being mad'. I just find it sad that there are good people, that could attain where I am now, heaven - (here on Earth), I also find it sad that people do heinous things (thinking they only have to deal with mans justice) that result in them no longer reincarnating as human. My sage who told me some months ago that he lives in a penthouse in California recently told me he wants to buy me a beer, so ya looking forward to meeting him, and the others - btw, when I asked whether there are less than a 1000 sages on this planet, I was tapped heavily on my right knee, as in 'right'. In fact, this will sound even crazier - but I think I will actually meet Jesus - who is probably called Frank or something by now. HE, told me 'they cry when I leave the room'..
...many years ago the sage told me crying is how we show our love..so true.
It is amazing what is capable by way of the finite digital backbone to the construct of what we perceive as reality.

If you DO want to know this 3rd party intelligence exists, I could request the sage to provide the TEST. I think you'd be too weak to make a week, you might even try going the entire fought-knight.
Nevermind..just crazy patterns after all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Views?

Thousands of vehicles on a hot highway, moving at high speed, six lanes across, many vehicles changing lanes, each vehicle less than a dozen feet from some other moving or stationary object all the time, and except for an occasional aberration none ever touches another. That’s because each driver is accessing reality.

Reality is in many level, i.e. common sense, conventional sense, scientific sense, philosophical, etc. and in the ultimate sense.

The driver accessing reality is within common and conventional sense.

Re OP, the reality inaccessible is within the Philosophical Realist's sense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I don't agree with it, that is why I raised the OP for further deliberation.

If you are a philosophical realist [which the majority are] then you will not be able to access your expected ultimate reality. What you can only access is common and conventional sense reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

If you are not going to budge without providing any objective justification that is merely a personal opinion. Philosophically there is nothing to rationalize with what is mere personal opinions.

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.

Nah that sort of experiences is what is projected from your brain only.
It is very common with those who
-take hallucinogens, e.g. DMT, mushrooms, LSD, etc.
-suffered from certain of brain damage,
-the long term meditators,
-out of the blue,
-under severe stress,
-etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

KANT
We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word, therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the perception as an effect of something external that must be the proximate cause —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f.

Yes, the above is from Kant's CPR re the Fourth Paralogisms.

The 'we' in the above quote refers to the Philosophical Realists.
The above is not Kant's own view but he is merely presenting the Philosophical Realists' view which he critiqued in subsequent paragraphs.

What Kant is implying above is;
IF it is Philosophical Realism, then, it is justified there is no way true or ultimate reality is accessible. That is a dilemma of inaccesibility as I had raised in the OP.

Upon deeper philosophical reflection, Kant resolved the dilemma of Philosophical Realism by introducing his Transcendental Idealism [& empirical realism] as he presented in the subsequent paragraphs of the Fourth Paralogism.

You as a philosophical realist is correct in claiming reality is inaccessible in accordance to the definition of philosophical realism.
The problem with TS, Saunders and the likes, is whilst they are philosophical realists [which by definition, things are independent of the human conditions] insist ultimate reality is accessible [in a way not independent], so the contradiction.

[Terrapin Station]

It's pointless if you are just going to throw strawmen at me.

??? I'm not claiming that anything is someone else's argument. I'm pointing out something about whether we can observe things as they are.

"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).
. . .
What exactly are you trying to say?

When we say that we can observe something accurately, as it is, we're not saying anything at all like "We can observe the 'totality' of x."

A strawman is a caricature of my argument.

It's not a straw man, because I'm not presenting that as your argument. You had said that what I wrote re clarification of what naive realists are saying wasn't clear. So I was explaining it in other words.

[Sculptor]

It's not a straw man, because I'm not presenting that as your argument. You had said that what I wrote re clarification of what naive realists are saying wasn't clear. So I was explaining it in other words.

What you said was; "Then we have no grounds for saying that we actually view retinas rather than something that's possibly a complete fantasy."
Which is a childish caricature of what I am saying. I never said or impkied that any thing we see is a complete fantasy.
So - I think we are done here.