Is Reality Simply a Mental Construct?

[Atla]

Apparent reality is true to the biology experiencing it; if the biology/organism is damaged, damage will be reflected in its perception of what is considered apparent reality. Organisms have different experiences of apparent reality due to differences in biology. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things on a subjective level. Biology introduces meaning into an otherwise meaningless world.

Maybe, maybe not. It's your subjective level assessment that the world is completely devoid of meaning outside biology, although by and large I agree with it.

A subjective level of assessment is all that is possible.

Sure, but the question is whether or not our subjective assessments are informed by objective reality to a non-negligible degree.

[Flannel Jesus]

We only know experience, what is then to be said of reality?

Whatever you can gather from experience, obviously. You kinda just have to do your best, reverse engineer what reality must be like from your experienices.

I actually think human beings do a pretty good job. For example, we only experience the visible light spectrum, and yet we've figured out somehow that visible light is only a small range of the spectrum of light. So with the limited range of experience available to us, we're able to manipulate the pieces of physical reality around us into figuring out more than what's easily directly available to us. I think that's pretty fucking cool!

True...it is very cool and impressive. But can you reverse engineer reality from your experiences, without it being an experience?

"without it being an experience" - whaat is "it"? idk what youre referring to here.

[popeye1945]

Maybe, maybe not. It's your subjective level assessment that the world is completely devoid of meaning outside biology, although by and large I agree with it.

A subjective level of assessment is all that is possible.

Sure, but the question is whether or not our subjective assessments are informed by objective reality to a non-negligible degree.

It is, of course, relative; it must be somewhat non-negligible in that it is consistent with the constitution of our biological nature, that which is hard is relative to the softness of our bodies. This is not unlike the statement, there is no such thing as large or small, but only by comparison. It is the relation between energy forms.

[popeye1945]

Whatever you can gather from experience, obviously. You kinda just have to do your best, reverse engineer what reality must be like from your experienices.

I actually think human beings do a pretty good job. For example, we only experience the visible light spectrum, and yet we've figured out somehow that visible light is only a small range of the spectrum of light. So with the limited range of experience available to us, we're able to manipulate the pieces of physical reality around us into figuring out more than what's easily directly available to us. I think that's pretty fucking cool!

True...it is very cool and impressive. But can you reverse engineer reality from your experiences, without it being an experience?

"without it being an experience" - whaat is "it"? idk what youre referring to here.

Reverse engineering occurs after the outside world has altered one's biology, giving experience, which becomes the sole property of a conscious subject on a subjective level. This experience is not of what is out there. It is how what is out there affects/alters one's biology, and you are experiencing your altered biology, not the object itself. This is reverse engineered with one's projection of the acquired meaning of the body and its understanding onto a meaningless world as if the property of the meaning belonged to it and not to its relative effects/alterations of the body. Our entire experience of our subjective apparent reality is of this nature. Everything you experience is a biological reaction that is then projected onto the physical world.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is exactly how not to think. Reality has no actual parts, we just divide it into parts for everyday convenience. But when we start talking about actual central points, relationships, working through another, mediums, effects etc. between parts, we are merely going crazy.

You claim reality is absent of parts and yet what we know of reality is experience and there is an experience of dividing it into parts.

Yeah because "physical" reality is the same as experience (unless shown otherwise). That's what the Western dualist civilization doesn't know.

The distinction of the physical and abstract is an experience. The interior space of abstractions and the exterior space of the senses, and the space of distinction between these things....is all space. You are literally dividing spaces through space.

[Eodnhoj7]

Whatever you can gather from experience, obviously. You kinda just have to do your best, reverse engineer what reality must be like from your experienices.

I actually think human beings do a pretty good job. For example, we only experience the visible light spectrum, and yet we've figured out somehow that visible light is only a small range of the spectrum of light. So with the limited range of experience available to us, we're able to manipulate the pieces of physical reality around us into figuring out more than what's easily directly available to us. I think that's pretty fucking cool!

True...it is very cool and impressive. But can you reverse engineer reality from your experiences, without it being an experience?

"without it being an experience" - whaat is "it"? idk what youre referring to here.

Reality.

[Eodnhoj7]

True...it is very cool and impressive. But can you reverse engineer reality from your experiences, without it being an experience?

"without it being an experience" - whaat is "it"? idk what youre referring to here.

Reverse engineering occurs after the outside world has altered one's biology, giving experience, which becomes the sole property of a conscious subject on a subjective level. This experience is not of what is out there. It is how what is out there affects/alters one's biology, and you are experiencing your altered biology, not the object itself. This is reverse engineered with one's projection of the acquired meaning of the body and its understanding onto a meaningless world as if the property of the meaning belonged to it and not to its relative effects/alterations of the body. Our entire experience of our subjective apparent reality is of this nature. Everything you experience is a biological reaction that is then projected onto the physical world.

What I said to atla:

The distinction of the physical and abstract is an experience. The interior space of abstractions and the exterior space of the senses, and the space of distinction between these things....is all space. You are literally dividing spaces through space

[Flannel Jesus]

True...it is very cool and impressive. But can you reverse engineer reality from your experiences, without it being an experience?

"without it being an experience" - whaat is "it"? idk what youre referring to here.

Reality.

Reality is reality. Your experience of reality is your experience. Idk what you're saying here tbh.

[Atla]

You claim reality is absent of parts and yet what we know of reality is experience and there is an experience of dividing it into parts.

Yeah because "physical" reality is the same as experience (unless shown otherwise). That's what the Western dualist civilization doesn't know.

The distinction of the physical and abstract is an experience. The interior space of abstractions and the exterior space of the senses, and the space of distinction between these things....is all space. You are literally dividing spaces through space.

Distinction has no space. Interior and exterior space is nonsensical, if you meant abstract space and Einsteinian space, then abstract space is located in Einsteinian space (our heads are located in spacetime just like everything else is). There is no dividing, especially no "literal" dividing.

[popeye1945]

The reality of an organism is how the physical world affects its body; its judgment of said experience is then projected outward onto a meaningless world. Without biological consciousness, the world ceases to be, on a subjective level, the only level known as a world.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yeah because "physical" reality is the same as experience (unless shown otherwise). That's what the Western dualist civilization doesn't know.

The distinction of the physical and abstract is an experience. The interior space of abstractions and the exterior space of the senses, and the space of distinction between these things....is all space. You are literally dividing spaces through space.

Distinction has no space. Interior and exterior space is nonsensical, if you meant abstract space and Einsteinian space, then abstract space is located in Einsteinian space (our heads are located in spacetime just like everything else is). There is no dividing, especially no "literal" dividing.

There is exterior space, the senses, and interior space, the abstract thoughts. The distinction of a circle has the space within the circle, the space outside the circle, and the space between these spaces as the circle itself.

[Age]

The distinction of the physical and abstract is an experience. The interior space of abstractions and the exterior space of the senses, and the space of distinction between these things....is all space. You are literally dividing spaces through space.

Distinction has no space. Interior and exterior space is nonsensical, if you meant abstract space and Einsteinian space, then abstract space is located in Einsteinian space (our heads are located in spacetime just like everything else is). There is no dividing, especially no "literal" dividing.

There is exterior space, the senses, and interior space, the abstract thoughts. The distinction of a circle has the space within the circle, the space outside the circle, and the space between these spaces as the circle itself.

If "obvious leo" was 'still around' you would have been told, 'There is no space, there is only time'.

And, if you listened, and considered, what it could show, and prove, then you too would also see that, 'There is no space'. Although, 'There is no time', neither. Well not in 'the way' quite a few of you people, here, consider 'time' anyway.

[Atla]

The distinction of the physical and abstract is an experience. The interior space of abstractions and the exterior space of the senses, and the space of distinction between these things....is all space. You are literally dividing spaces through space.

Distinction has no space. Interior and exterior space is nonsensical, if you meant abstract space and Einsteinian space, then abstract space is located in Einsteinian space (our heads are located in spacetime just like everything else is). There is no dividing, especially no "literal" dividing.

There is exterior space, the senses, and interior space, the abstract thoughts. The distinction of a circle has the space within the circle, the space outside the circle, and the space between these spaces as the circle itself.

Again, exterior space / the senses and interior space/abstract thoughts is nonsense. You don't understand what abstractions are, never have and maybe never will.

And an abstract circle doesn't need to have a width so in that case it doesn't even stretch across any abstract space. Nor is a circle a distinction, it's a circle. A distinction about the inner space - circle - outer space arrangement is a higher level abstraction.

You will nevet get any good at this, might as well give up.

[Eodnhoj7]

Distinction has no space. Interior and exterior space is nonsensical, if you meant abstract space and Einsteinian space, then abstract space is located in Einsteinian space (our heads are located in spacetime just like everything else is). There is no dividing, especially no "literal" dividing.

There is exterior space, the senses, and interior space, the abstract thoughts. The distinction of a circle has the space within the circle, the space outside the circle, and the space between these spaces as the circle itself.

Again, exterior space / the senses and interior space/abstract thoughts is nonsense. You don't understand what abstractions are, never have and maybe never will.

And an abstract circle doesn't need to have a width so in that case it doesn't even stretch across any abstract space. Nor is a circle a distinction, it's a circle. A distinction about the inner space - circle - outer space arrangement is a higher level abstraction.

You will nevet get any good at this, might as well give up.

A circle is not a distinction? Wow.....okay, fortunately this will be the last response from me you get on these forums because I have have not seen a level of intelligence that low.

I don't mean to insult you, I really do not...wow...you would have been better in saying "2+2=3 because it feels like it right now". Human nature never ceases to amaze me...sometimes I wish it wouldn't

You can have the last say, I will no longer be conversing with you from this point forward.

[Atla]

There is exterior space, the senses, and interior space, the abstract thoughts. The distinction of a circle has the space within the circle, the space outside the circle, and the space between these spaces as the circle itself.

Again, exterior space / the senses and interior space/abstract thoughts is nonsense. You don't understand what abstractions are, never have and maybe never will.

And an abstract circle doesn't need to have a width so in that case it doesn't even stretch across any abstract space. Nor is a circle a distinction, it's a circle. A distinction about the inner space - circle - outer space arrangement is a higher level abstraction.

You will nevet get any good at this, might as well give up.

A circle is not a distinction? Wow.....okay, fortunately this will be the last response from me you get on these forums because I have have not seen a level of intelligence that low.

I don't mean to insult you, I really do not...wow...you would have been better in saying "2+2=3 because it feels like it right now". Human nature never ceases to amaze me...sometimes I wish it wouldn't

You can have the last say, I will no longer be conversing with you from this point forward.

No, a circle is a circle, it's a conceptual 2d shape in a conceptual abstract space. It's not a distinction by itself, it becomes a distinction when we decide to make it into one (thereby adding another layer of abstract thinking). Because the rules on how we handle abstract objects can be pretty much arbitrary. Circles don't literally exist, so we make a rule that something that doesn't literally exist, becomes a distinction anyway. This is pretty basic stuff, except the basis of your philosophy is that you can't tell the difference between abstract and concrete things.