The Paradox of Understanding

[Fairy]

Then probabilism is not self-evident to you, as there are no self-evident things to you, and you seem to have a system not universally coherent even though you claim you do.

Probabilism isn't self-evident to me, like I just said. Why isn't it universally coherent?

Because it is not universally self-evident, coherence requires self-evidence for it is self-evident that something is coherent for that is what makes it coherent.

If all is probablistic than probalism is subject to its own nature.

Exactly!

https://youtu.be/Wn73f09N5QU?si=mEff9oq_Rje__oua

Philosophy and Consciousness - Ghost in the Machine

[Fairy]

Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”


———

Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.

Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone. It simply is and precedes any thought about it.

The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it. Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.

[Belinda]

Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”


———

Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.

Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone. It simply is and precedes any thought about it.

The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it. Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.

Nicely put.
"Precedes" implies time or space. Our language simply is not fit for the purpose of metaphysics. "Precedes " is a useful image but it isn't the only image.
Another image of reality is wraparound reality that encloses all thought and perception, but is itself inscrutable.
I don't think Age will be satisfied with mentalistic descriptions, as he did stipulate physical reality, he possibly believes reality means physical unlike you and me who know and understand trains of thought.

[Fairy]

Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”


———

Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.

Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone. It simply is and precedes any thought about it.

The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it. Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.

Nicely put.
"Precedes" implies time or space. Our language simply is not fit for the purpose of metaphysics. "Precedes " is a useful image but it isn't the only image.
Another image of reality is wraparound reality that encloses all thought and perception, but is itself inscrutable.
I don't think Age will be satisfied with mentalistic descriptions, as he did stipulate physical reality, he possibly believes reality means physical unlike you and me who know and understand trains of thought.

Why thanks Belinda

Welcome aboard the thought train!

[Age]

Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”


———

Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.

IF 'this', what you just SAID and CLAIMED, here, WERE TRUE, then what you just SAID and CLAIMED, here, WOULD ONLY BE A DISTORTION OF 'REALITY', AND, ONLY AN ARTIFICIAL REPRESENTATION MODEL, and NOT 'IT', correct?

Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone.

ABSOLUTELY NO one that I AM AWARE OF has SAID NOR CLAIMED that 'IT' is.

It simply is and precedes any thought about it.

But, 'your perception or thoughts about 'it', IS just an illusory secondary overlay, right?

And, if yes, then what you just SAID and WROTE, here, would just be ONLY A DISTORTION of 'it'.

The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it.

BUT there is NO such 'thing' as A so-called 'mind's model of ANY thing, let alone reality', itself.

Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.

Okay, But, 'this perception, or thought, of yours', here, Is just AN ILLUSORY SECONDARY OVERLAY, and IS ONLY A DISTORTION, right?

Or, do you BELIEVE that 'your perceptions or thoughts' are AN ACTUAL ACCURATE and CORRECT VERSION OF 'REALITY', ITSELF?

Can you, YET, SEE the CONTRADICTIONS, and HYPOCRISY, here?

[Age]

Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”


———

Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.

Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone. It simply is and precedes any thought about it.

The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it. Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.

Nicely put.
"Precedes" implies time or space. Our language simply is not fit for the purpose of metaphysics.

So, is 'your language', here, SIMPLY FIT for the purposes OF EXPLAINING 'things', here? Or, NOT FIT?

"Precedes " is a useful image but it isn't the only image.
Another image of reality is wraparound reality that encloses all thought and perception, but is itself inscrutable.

AND, THEN there IS the OTHER and True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct IMAGE, and BIG and FULL, CRYSTAL CLEAR, Picture.

Which, AGAIN, IF ANY one IS Truly INTERESTED IN SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING, the let 'us' have AN ACTUAL DISCUSSION, here.

I don't think Age will be satisfied with mentalistic descriptions,

AGAIN, you ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO think or BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing of YOUR CHOOSING, and LIKING.

as he did stipulate physical reality,

WHEN have I EVER STIPULATED so-called 'physical reality'? And, in WHAT CONTEXT, EXACTLY?

he possibly believes reality means physical unlike you and me who know and understand trains of thought.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'This one' COULD NOT BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL Truth OF THINGS, here.

[Eodnhoj7]

You simply can't process pointers, metaphors, can you. A pointer like "lack/absence" is only a literal thing when you reify it to be a literal thing. For the n-th time, you can't tell abstracta and concreta apart, you have a fundamental cognitive problem.

Pointers and metaphors are distinctions....apparently those are self-evident to you if "nothing" is those things.

Why should I tell them apart if self-evidence is not universal to you?

Word salad. Sorry but you can't tell abstracta and concreta apart.

But these things are not self-evident to you, nothing is.

[Eodnhoj7]

Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”


———

Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.

Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone. It simply is and precedes any thought about it.

The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it. Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.

Occurence is the foundation of all as occurence, things just are and what make them what they are is change.

[Eodnhoj7]

Probabilism isn't self-evident to me, like I just said. Why isn't it universally coherent?

Because it is not universally self-evident, coherence requires self-evidence for it is self-evident that something is coherent for that is what makes it coherent.

If all is probablistic than probalism is subject to its own nature.

Exactly!

https://youtu.be/Wn73f09N5QU?si=mEff9oq_Rje__oua

Philosophy and Consciousness - Ghost in the Machine

The conversations I have some days with Atla.....

Anyhow:

Didn't watch the whole video because I agreed with much of the premise already.

The reality is the mind and body may be simultaneously connected and seperated due to the inherently paradoxical nature of distinctions. The video proves the first half, research on NDE's and out of body experiences argues the latter, both are most likely true. Most likely we are multidimensional beings as evidenced by the multiple dimensions that compose us.

[Atla]

Pointers and metaphors are distinctions....apparently those are self-evident to you if "nothing" is those things.

Why should I tell them apart if self-evidence is not universal to you?

Word salad. Sorry but you can't tell abstracta and concreta apart.

But these things are not self-evident to you, nothing is.

Yes but you likely still don't know what "self-evident" or "nothing" even means.

[Belinda]

Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”


———

Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.

Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone. It simply is and precedes any thought about it.

The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it. Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.

Nicely put.
"Precedes" implies time or space. Our language simply is not fit for the purpose of metaphysics.

So, is 'your language', here, SIMPLY FIT for the purposes OF EXPLAINING 'things', here? Or, NOT FIT?

"Precedes " is a useful image but it isn't the only image.
Another image of reality is wraparound reality that encloses all thought and perception, but is itself inscrutable.

AND, THEN there IS the OTHER and True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct IMAGE, and BIG and FULL, CRYSTAL CLEAR, Picture.

Which, AGAIN, IF ANY one IS Truly INTERESTED IN SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING, the let 'us' have AN ACTUAL DISCUSSION, here.

I don't think Age will be satisfied with mentalistic descriptions,

AGAIN, you ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO think or BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing of YOUR CHOOSING, and LIKING.

as he did stipulate physical reality,

WHEN have I EVER STIPULATED so-called 'physical reality'? And, in WHAT CONTEXT, EXACTLY?

he possibly believes reality means physical unlike you and me who know and understand trains of thought.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'This one' COULD NOT BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL Truth OF THINGS, here.

Age, there is physical reality and there is mental reality. There may be more aspects of reality however the physical and the mental are the only aspects of reality we can know.

[Age]

Nicely put.
"Precedes" implies time or space. Our language simply is not fit for the purpose of metaphysics.

So, is 'your language', here, SIMPLY FIT for the purposes OF EXPLAINING 'things', here? Or, NOT FIT?

"Precedes " is a useful image but it isn't the only image.
Another image of reality is wraparound reality that encloses all thought and perception, but is itself inscrutable.

AND, THEN there IS the OTHER and True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct IMAGE, and BIG and FULL, CRYSTAL CLEAR, Picture.

Which, AGAIN, IF ANY one IS Truly INTERESTED IN SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING, the let 'us' have AN ACTUAL DISCUSSION, here.

I don't think Age will be satisfied with mentalistic descriptions,

AGAIN, you ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO think or BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing of YOUR CHOOSING, and LIKING.

as he did stipulate physical reality,

WHEN have I EVER STIPULATED so-called 'physical reality'? And, in WHAT CONTEXT, EXACTLY?

he possibly believes reality means physical unlike you and me who know and understand trains of thought.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'This one' COULD NOT BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL Truth OF THINGS, here.

Age, there is physical reality and there is mental reality.

There is, ACTUALLY, ONLY One 'Reality', which CONSISTS OF BOTH 'physicality' and 'mentality'.

And, the Fact that it has been 'I' who has been SAYING and CLAIMING 'this', it could make one WONDER WHY 'you' are TELLING 'me' that there IS a so-called 'physical reality' AND a 'mental reality'.

There may be more aspects of reality however the physical and the mental are the only aspects of reality we can know.

Okay. If this is what you want to BELIEVE is true, then this is perfectly fine and okay, with me.

[Eodnhoj7]

Word salad. Sorry but you can't tell abstracta and concreta apart.

But these things are not self-evident to you, nothing is.

Yes but you likely still don't know what "self-evident" or "nothing" even means.

How can anyone when self-evidence is not universal according to you?

[Atla]

But these things are not self-evident to you, nothing is.

Yes but you likely still don't know what "self-evident" or "nothing" even means.

How can anyone when self-evidence is not universal according to you?

Missed the point again

[Fairy]

Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”


———

Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.

IF 'this', what you just SAID and CLAIMED, here, WERE TRUE, then what you just SAID and CLAIMED, here, WOULD ONLY BE A DISTORTION OF 'REALITY', AND, ONLY AN ARTIFICIAL REPRESENTATION MODEL, and NOT 'IT', correct?

Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone.

ABSOLUTELY NO one that I AM AWARE OF has SAID NOR CLAIMED that 'IT' is.

It simply is and precedes any thought about it.

But, 'your perception or thoughts about 'it', IS just an illusory secondary overlay, right?

And, if yes, then what you just SAID and WROTE, here, would just be ONLY A DISTORTION of 'it'.

The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it.

BUT there is NO such 'thing' as A so-called 'mind's model of ANY thing, let alone reality', itself.

Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.

Okay, But, 'this perception, or thought, of yours', here, Is just AN ILLUSORY SECONDARY OVERLAY, and IS ONLY A DISTORTION, right?

Or, do you BELIEVE that 'your perceptions or thoughts' are AN ACTUAL ACCURATE and CORRECT VERSION OF 'REALITY', ITSELF?

Can you, YET, SEE the CONTRADICTIONS, and HYPOCRISY, here?

Excessive verbosity is obviously your thing Age, no offence, but it’s how you prefer to style your responses . . and is why interacting with you often becomes boring and tedious.

Try to understand that "true knowledge" is a pleonasm, meaning that truth and knowledge are the same thing. That’s the paradox of understanding; which is, there’s nothing to understand.