Reality is Inaccessible

[jayjacobus]

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.

Each retina captures different light waves and the brain creates 2 images. Each image is independent of the other. But i doubt that there are two realities only two images of reality. Alternatively there are two fantasies which are also independent of each other.

[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.

Each retina captures different light waves and the brain creates 2 images. Each image is independent of the other. But i doubt that there are two realities only two images of reality. Alternatively there are two fantasies which are also independent of each other.

The brain interprets these two upside down images as 3D ,and colour is added.
it's quite remarkable, and naturaly "clever"
The question for the thread is, given that, how can we claim that reality is accessible, when there is such a process involved?

Much the same question can be drawn about sounds. Music is, like colour, a thing that can only happen in the brain.
When we hear music, the component sounds are obscured from us and we react with emotion.

Also there is nothing that can mandate the smells we feel. I'm sure shit smells lovely to a sloth or a housefly, but is vicerally abhorant to must humans. Some of us can smell things that others cannot.

It all goes to demonstrate that perception is not to be understoond by the naive realist. There is much to consider.

[RCSaunders]

The brain interprets these two upside down images as 3D ,and colour is added.
it's quite remarkable, and naturaly "clever"
The question for the thread is, given that, how can we claim that reality is accessible, when there is such a process involved?

And that's why photography is impossible, too. A camera focuses the light reflected from every entity in a scene as an upside down image on a piece if material (like acetate) which is smeared with four layers of silver salts filtered by cyan, magenta, and yellow absorbing pigments that are chemically changed by light, which are then treated with solvents that dissolve the unexposed silver salts, just to produce an image. How could photography even be possible where there is such a process involved?

Seems a little ludicrous to explain why something doesn't work by describing how it works.

[attofishpi]

The brain interprets these two upside down images as 3D ,and colour is added.
it's quite remarkable, and naturaly "clever"
The question for the thread is, given that, how can we claim that reality is accessible, when there is such a process involved?

And that's why photography is impossible, too. A camera focuses the light reflected from every entity in a scene as an upside down image on a piece if material (like acetate) which is smeared with four layers of silver salts filtered by cyan, magenta, and yellow absorbing pigments that are chemically changed by light, which are then treated with solvents that dissolve the unexposed silver salts, just to produce an image. How could photography even be possible where there is such a process involved?

Seems a little ludicrous to explain why something doesn't work by describing how it works.

...sorry Mr Sculptor - if i may jump in

RC:- where has anything been explained here that doesn't work by describing how it works?

Sculptor is NOT describing how consciousness works - nobody can or does (although he may have other opinion) - what is obvious is that REALITY is perceived BY our consciousness. So if light comes in via one pupil and from an offset to the other pupil, it is consciousness (unexplained) that amalgamates the two to create our perception of 3 dimensions.

On further reading of your RC post - you are aware that if you wear a pair of mirrored spectacles for a period of time that inverse the vertical view (flip it - as the retina actually receives the electromagnetic waves) that eventually the brain will adjust and reimage such that the wearer of the inverted image - sees the image the correct way up?

[attofishpi]

I think at least one fundamental question on this particular topic should be:-

If a particular arrangement of atoms pertains to you, your own perceptible conscious reality (that POV is uniquely you within the universe), then if one could perfectly replicate the same arrangement of atoms perhaps 2 metres away - then why should you not perceive BOTH perceptions of consciousness from two POVs?

Indeed, what is it that makes up that combination of atoms that makes YOU and your UNIQUE perception?

The answer suggests that there is something more underlying - more 'sub-atomic' to such a configuration.

Not dissimilar to a pointer in C programming language, that is required to ascertain YOUR existence like a block of memory in RAM.

So to further clarify, you could have two identical sets of data (or DNA within 'matter') within the OS - but each can only exist with input and output via the fact that there is a pointer addressing\referencing each.

[Terrapin Station]

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 don't get why you can't understand that I'm not presenting that as something that you're saying when I make as much explicit.

[Sculptor]

The brain interprets these two upside down images as 3D ,and colour is added.
it's quite remarkable, and naturaly "clever"
The question for the thread is, given that, how can we claim that reality is accessible, when there is such a process involved?

And that's why photography is impossible, too.

1) Look up : "Strawman argument"
2) fuck off

[RCSaunders]

The brain interprets these two upside down images as 3D ,and colour is added.
it's quite remarkable, and naturaly "clever"
The question for the thread is, given that, how can we claim that reality is accessible, when there is such a process involved?

And that's why photography is impossible, too. A camera focuses the light reflected from every entity in a scene as an upside down image on a piece if material (like acetate) which is smeared with four layers of silver salts filtered by cyan, magenta, and yellow absorbing pigments that are chemically changed by light, which are then treated with solvents that dissolve the unexposed silver salts, just to produce an image. How could photography even be possible where there is such a process involved?

Seems a little ludicrous to explain why something doesn't work by describing how it works.

...sorry Mr Sculptor - if i may jump in

RC:- where has anything been explained here that doesn't work by describing how it works?

If you don't understand it, don't worry about it. It is a little subtle, perhaps.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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!

Here is Sculptor's perspective [as a Philosophical Realist] as I understand it.
[I don't agree with it in the Ultimate Sense as highlighted in the OP].

• 1. Sculptor is a Philosophical Realist.
  
  2. When Sculptor 'sees' a cat, there is an objective cat in reality out there.
  
  3. What is perceived is the phenomena-cat as a representation of the really real objective noumena-cat-in-itself.
  
  4. What is inaccessible is the really-real objective noumena-cat-in-itself.
  
  5. The noumena-cat is always separated from the phenomena cat due to the inherent human conditions to grasp its reality via intermediate elements.
  
  6. The above is the same with all of reality, thus reality-in-itself is inaccessible. But this inaccessible-reality nevertheless exists as an independent really-real-objective-reality 'out there.'

Note;

• [Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved..
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

which imply the really-real-objective-reality will always and eternally be inaccessible.
Only its approximation can be improved but humans can never know 100% what reality really is.

The ultimate philosophical question is;
is there such a supposedly external independent really-real-objective-reality as claimed by the Philosophical Realists?
My answer is no, but my claim is not of Subjectivism.

Subjectivism claims what is real is ONLY in the mind, e.g. Berkeley's subjective Idealism and other similar others. Subjectivism do not recognize the existence of any noumena-cat-in-itself but only perceptions. Esse is Percipi.

Btw, in general, one is either a philosophical realist or anti-philosophical realist.
If you claim reality and its things exist externally and independent of the human mind [human conditions] then you are a Philosophical Realist and you must then agree with Sculptor.
There is no other way [rare exceptions] unless you are a typical subjectivist, idealists, and the likes who claimed things are all in the mind only.

As such Sculptor is not a subjectivist nor hold on to subjectivism.

My stance is empirical realism [totally different from philosophical realism] thus not subjectivism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, if I could actually see a cat, how would it be different from what is only a representation of a cat?

That you will never know. But we can guess how, say, a bat might perceive a cat.
But the cat initself is not availble to any perceiver.

I know you will not understand this, but that, "representation of a cat," is exactly what I mean by seeing a cat. It only has to be a correct representation of a cat to be seeing a cat.

Then you agree that reality is not accessible - only a version of it.

There's only reality, not different versions of it. If the cat is real the representation of that real cat is access to reality. I don't have to able to see everything in order to see something. So long as what is represented is a representation of any aspect of reality, that is access to reality.

You seem to be saying unless one is able to perceive every aspect of reality in its totality it is not perceiving reality. I'm saying whatever aspect of reality is perceived, no matter how limited, that is access to reality. Furthermore, everything else about reality that can be known must be discovered by means of what is perceived, by the physical sciences, for example. If what is perceived is not reality as it is, none of the physical sciences are valid, because it is what is perceived, directly or indirectly (by instruments and electronics for example), that is all the evidence science has to reason from or about.

Note my post above.

In general, one is either a philosophical realist or anti-philosophical realist.
The majority are in the Philosophical Realist camp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

• [Philosophical] Realism about a certain kind of thing [...] is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

If you claim reality and its things exist externally and independent of the human mind [human conditions] then you are a Philosophical Realist and you must then agree with Sculptor, i.e. reality-in-itself, the noumena-cat-in-itself is inaccessible.
There is no other way for you unless you are a typical subjectivist, idealists, and the likes who claimed things are all in the mind only.

My stance re Empirical Realism is unique which not Philosophical Realism per se nor Subjectivism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

REALITY

Are you familiar with DMT?
Here's DMT and art.

What It's Like to Make Art on DMT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ONm-r1d2Mg

The Art Created From 20 Different Drugs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETLkxwPCJ-M

If you google "image: dmt art" you can see thousands of such arts you produced in your posts.


As such most people can induced similar spiritual and 'divine' state in the brain by merely taking DMT or other similar hallucinogens. I am quite sure I will experience the same if I were to take DMT.
I have been doing meditation for a long time and regularly experienced displays of psychedelic colors in various unfolding patterns from an infinite source.

You may not be taking DMT but it happened to you spontaneously, but such a spontaneous event [e.g St. Paul and many others] are merely brain activities which can be induced artificially or triggered in many other ways and by things that happened to the brain.

[attofishpi]

REALITY

Are you familiar with DMT?
Here's DMT and art.

What It's Like to Make Art on DMT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ONm-r1d2Mg

The Art Created From 20 Different Drugs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETLkxwPCJ-M

If you google "image: dmt art" you can see thousands of such arts you produced in your posts.


As such most people can induced similar spiritual and 'divine' state in the brain by merely taking DMT or other similar hallucinogens. I am quite sure I will experience the same if I were to take DMT.
I have been doing meditation for a long time and regularly experienced displays of psychedelic colors in various unfolding patterns.

You may not be taking DMT but it happened to you spontaneously, but such a spontaneous event [e.g St. Paul and many others] are merely brain activities which can be induced artificially or triggered in many other ways and by things that happened to the brain.

Oh, what a surprise, an atheist wants to pick out THE most psychedelic picture, making everything I have stated irrelevant and out of context, while supporting his own claim of some brain disturbance..idiot
Gutless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you familiar with DMT?
Here's DMT and art.

What It's Like to Make Art on DMT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ONm-r1d2Mg

The Art Created From 20 Different Drugs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETLkxwPCJ-M

If you google "image: dmt art" you can see thousands of such arts you produced in your posts.


As such most people can induced similar spiritual and 'divine' state in the brain by merely taking DMT or other similar hallucinogens. I am quite sure I will experience the same if I were to take DMT.
I have been doing meditation for a long time and regularly experienced displays of psychedelic colors in various unfolding patterns.

You may not be taking DMT but it happened to you spontaneously, but such a spontaneous event [e.g St. Paul and many others] are merely brain activities which can be induced artificially or triggered in many other ways and by things that happened to the brain.

Oh, what a surprise, an atheist wants to pick out THE most psychedelic picture, making everything I have stated irrelevant and out of context, while supporting his own claim of some brain disturbance..idiot
Gutless.

Point is other than your own experiences and pictures, where is your proper justifications and argument to support your claims?
As I had stated there a wide range of reasons merely based on brain activities [due to brain damage, hallucinogens, meditation, natural, etc.] that generate similar altered states of consciousness similar to yours. Show proof why they are different from yours claimed to be from a divine source.

I just picked one picture to avoid taking up too much space.

If you [as I have done] research thoroughly and extensively on supposedly 'Divine' experience of altered states of consciousness you will note they come in a wide variety of experiences.
The cause of such 'divine' experiences is only due to activities within the brain and nothing relating to any divine presence.
Besides I have also personally experienced such supposedly "divine" experiences but of course I am aware they originate from my brain.

It not only divine and spiritual experiences, the above sources [brain activities] also cause demonic, evil and painful experiences for others.

[attofishpi]

Are you familiar with DMT?
Here's DMT and art.

What It's Like to Make Art on DMT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ONm-r1d2Mg

The Art Created From 20 Different Drugs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETLkxwPCJ-M

If you google "image: dmt art" you can see thousands of such arts you produced in your posts.


As such most people can induced similar spiritual and 'divine' state in the brain by merely taking DMT or other similar hallucinogens. I am quite sure I will experience the same if I were to take DMT.
I have been doing meditation for a long time and regularly experienced displays of psychedelic colors in various unfolding patterns.

You may not be taking DMT but it happened to you spontaneously, but such a spontaneous event [e.g St. Paul and many others] are merely brain activities which can be induced artificially or triggered in many other ways and by things that happened to the brain.

Oh, what a surprise, an atheist wants to pick out THE most psychedelic picture, making everything I have stated irrelevant and out of context, while supporting his own claim of some brain disturbance..idiot
Gutless.

Point is other than your own experiences and pictures, where is your proper justifications and argument to support your claims?
As I had stated there a wide range of reasons merely based on brain activities [due to brain damage, hallucinogens, meditation, natural, etc.] that generate similar altered states of consciousness similar to yours. Show proof why they are different from yours claimed to be from a divine source.

I just picked one picture to avoid taking up too much space.

If you [as I have done] research thoroughly and extensively on supposedly 'Divine' experience of altered states of consciousness you will note they come in a wide variety of experiences.
The cause of such 'divine' experiences is only due to activities within the brain and nothing relating to any divine presence.
Besides I have also personally experienced such supposedly "divine" experiences but of course I am aware they originate from my brain.

It not only divine and spiritual experiences, the above sources [brain activities] also cause demonic, evil and painful experiences for others.

You are an agnostic atheist, I get it. As per above, instead of reading about meditaions and 'divinine' experiences in consciousness (btw, scientistist know next to sweet FA about how an arrangement of atoms uniquely provides you or i consciousness)

So. Instead or reading the wack job presumtious shite that you have been reading, perhaps read books written by phycisists, and then explain to me how what I am stating is implausible, beyond some brain impairement!

This is the thread, where you can argue your case V mine, where I THEN can continue to prevent you placing things OUT OF CONTEXT.

Take me on, fair play or wot?
viewtopic.php?t=33214

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are an agnostic atheist, I get it. As per above, instead of reading about meditaions and 'divinine' experiences in consciousness (btw, scientistist know next to sweet FA about how an arrangement of atoms uniquely provides you or i consciousness)

So. Instead or reading the wack job presumtious shite that you have been reading, perhaps read books written by phycisists, and then explain to me how what I am stating is implausible, beyond some brain impairement!

This is the thread, where you can argue your case V mine, where I THEN can continue to prevent you placing things OUT OF CONTEXT.

Take me on, fair play or wot?
viewtopic.php?t=33214

I am a non-theist who is very certain ASC of whatever kind are traceable to within the brain of the experiencer alone.
I have posted a reply to the link.
viewtopic.php?p=523508#p523508