Objective is relative for what is objective is context dependent just like what is subjective is context dependent.
Is the above meant to be a "non-context dependent" statement? If so, then your statement begs to stand separately from other statements as being an "objective" one that applies across the board under all circumstances. If it's true, then it disproves itself. If it's false, then it is false. Relativism is its own worst enemy.
Context provides the context for all contexts thus context is everpresent where infinite contexts within and without effectively leave a void that contains all contexts.
Is the above meant to be a "non-context dependent" statement? If so, then your statement begs to stand separately from other statements as being an "objective" one that applies across the board under all circumstances. If it's true, then it disproves itself. If it's false, then it is false. Relativism is its own worst enemy.
Context provides the context for all contexts thus context is everpresent where infinite contexts within and without effectively leave a void that contains all contexts.
We do not experience an objective reality; we experience our subjective biological reality, for the experience of apparent reality is the experience of your own body. You do not experience what is out there; you experience how what is out there alters, changes, or affects your biology, giving you an experience of that changed body. Apparent reality is a biological readout; whatever is out there remains meaningless unless the experiences and understanding of the changes made to the organism's biology are projected outwardly. Your apparent reality is the experiences of the body projected outwardly onto a meaningless world. For us, nothing is objective; our reality is subjective. In this subjective reality, the body is the measure and the meaning of all things and the only source of meaning in the world. Science is a meaning, a projection, and an extension of human biology.
Context provides the context for all contexts thus context is everpresent where infinite contexts within and without effectively leave a void that contains all contexts.
We do not experience an objective reality; we experience our subjective biological reality, for the experience of apparent reality is the experience of your own body. You do not experience what is out there; you experience how what is out there alters, changes, or affects your biology, giving you an experience of that changed body. Apparent reality is a biological readout; whatever is out there remains meaningless unless the experiences and understanding of the changes made to the organism's biology are projected outwardly. Your apparent reality is the experiences of the body projected outwardly onto a meaningless world. For us, nothing is objective; our reality is subjective. In this subjective reality, the body is the measure and the meaning of all things and the only source of meaning in the world. Science is a meaning, a projection, and an extension of human biology.
If I don't experience reality, then how can I even assume that I don't experience reality?
We do not experience an objective reality; we experience our subjective biological reality, for the experience of apparent reality is the experience of your own body. You do not experience what is out there; you experience how what is out there alters, changes, or affects your biology, giving you an experience of that changed body. Apparent reality is a biological readout; whatever is out there remains meaningless unless the experiences and understanding of the changes made to the organism's biology are projected outwardly. Your apparent reality is the experiences of the body projected outwardly onto a meaningless world. For us, nothing is objective; our reality is subjective. In this subjective reality, the body is the measure and the meaning of all things and the only source of meaning in the world. Science is a meaning, a projection, and an extension of human biology.
If I don't experience reality, then how can I even assume that I don't experience reality?
Modern physics tells us that it is all energy and that ultimate reality is a place of no things. Put that aside for the time being. Let's just assume that we live in a world of things, but how do we come to know this world of things? As Spinoza pointed out, these energy forms called things alter, change, or affect our biology, giving us experience, not of the object/thing itself, but how that object/thing changes us. In its simplest form, one can consider one's apparent/everyday reality to be your biological experiences. Your reality is a biological readout. It is through experience and understanding of the significance of this alteration of our body that meaning arises, and biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Biology is the only source of meaning in the world. This is what it is to be a subjective organism with an entirely subjective everyday reality. This emerges from the objects' effect on the processes of one's biological nature, change the biology, and you change your experience, and this changes your apparent reality. When you experience your everyday reality, what you are experiencing is your own biology.
If I don't experience reality, then how can I even assume that I don't experience reality?
Modern physics tells us that it is all energy and that ultimate reality is a place of no things. Put that aside for the time being. Let's just assume that we live in a world of things, but how do we come to know this world of things? As Spinoza pointed out, these energy forms called things alter, change, or affect our biology, giving us experience, not of the object/thing itself, but how that object/thing changes us. In its simplest form, one can consider one's apparent/everyday reality to be your biological experiences. Your reality is a biological readout. It is through experience and understanding of the significance of this alteration of our body that meaning arises, and biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Biology is the only source of meaning in the world. This is what it is to be a subjective organism with an entirely subjective everyday reality. This emerges from the objects' effect on the processes of one's biological nature, change the biology, and you change your experience, and this changes your apparent reality. When you experience your everyday reality, what you are experiencing is your own biology.
OK. But you've just made a statement concerning what "reality" is. Therefore, you or someone must know what reality is.
If I don't experience reality, then how can I even assume that I don't experience reality?
Modern physics tells us that it is all energy and that ultimate reality is a place of no things. Put that aside for the time being. Let's just assume that we live in a world of things, but how do we come to know this world of things? As Spinoza pointed out, these energy forms called things alter, change, or affect our biology, giving us experience, not of the object/thing itself, but how that object/thing changes us. In its simplest form, one can consider one's apparent/everyday reality to be your biological experiences. Your reality is a biological readout. It is through experience and understanding of the significance of this alteration of our body that meaning arises, and biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Biology is the only source of meaning in the world. This is what it is to be a subjective organism with an entirely subjective everyday reality. This emerges from the objects' effect on the processes of one's biological nature, change the biology, and you change your experience, and this changes your apparent reality. When you experience your everyday reality, what you are experiencing is your own biology.
OK. But you've just made a statement concerning what "reality" is. Therefore, you or someone must know what reality is.
As I have stated above, science says all is energy and that ultimate reality is a place of no things. So, reality, according to this, is unmanifested energy. If it is unmanifested, it necessarily is not a reality to anything or creature. Do you agree with how our apparent reality comes into being?
Modern physics tells us that it is all energy and that ultimate reality is a place of no things. Put that aside for the time being. Let's just assume that we live in a world of things, but how do we come to know this world of things? As Spinoza pointed out, these energy forms called things alter, change, or affect our biology, giving us experience, not of the object/thing itself, but how that object/thing changes us. In its simplest form, one can consider one's apparent/everyday reality to be your biological experiences. Your reality is a biological readout. It is through experience and understanding of the significance of this alteration of our body that meaning arises, and biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Biology is the only source of meaning in the world. This is what it is to be a subjective organism with an entirely subjective everyday reality. This emerges from the objects' effect on the processes of one's biological nature, change the biology, and you change your experience, and this changes your apparent reality. When you experience your everyday reality, what you are experiencing is your own biology.
OK. But you've just made a statement concerning what "reality" is. Therefore, you or someone must know what reality is.
As I have stated above, science says all is energy and that ultimate reality is a place of no things. So, reality, according to this, is unmanifested energy. If it is unmanifested, it necessarily is not a reality to anything or creature. Do you agree with how our apparent reality comes into being?
You are literally saying "reality, according to this, is unmanifested energy." So do you know what "reality" is or do you not? It's one or the other.
OK. But you've just made a statement concerning what "reality" is. Therefore, you or someone must know what reality is.
As I have stated above, science says all is energy and that ultimate reality is a place of no things. So, reality, according to this, is unmanifested energy. If it is unmanifested, it necessarily is not a reality to anything or creature. Do you agree with how our apparent reality comes into being?
You are literally saying "reality, according to this, is unmanifested energy." So do you know what "reality" is or do you not? It's one or the other.
Ultimate reality, as unmanifested energy, is what science says. I'll not bother supporting that, but do you or do you not understand how your apparent/everyday reality comes about? Reality for the conscious subject amounts to biological reactions to outside stimulus, and its experiences are reality for it and only for it. Please acknowledge positively or otherwise, so we know where we are. Think of Tyla's statement about understanding reality when he says to think in terms of energy, frequencies, and vibrations. It is this ultimate reality that biology plays you like its instrument, and the melody it plays on you is your apparent reality.
As I have stated above, science says all is energy and that ultimate reality is a place of no things. So, reality, according to this, is unmanifested energy. If it is unmanifested, it necessarily is not a reality to anything or creature. Do you agree with how our apparent reality comes into being?
You are literally saying "reality, according to this, is unmanifested energy." So do you know what "reality" is or do you not? It's one or the other.
Ultimate reality, as unmanifested energy, is what science says. I'll not bother supporting that, but do you or do you not understand how your apparent/everyday reality comes about? Reality for the conscious subject amounts to biological reactions to outside stimulus, and its experiences are reality for it and only for it. Please acknowledge positively or otherwise, so we know where we are. Think of Tyla's statement about understanding reality when he says to think in terms of energy, frequencies, and vibrations. It is this ultimate reality that biology plays you like its instrument, and the melody it plays on you is your apparent reality.
Does biology play you like an instrument as well? And if it does, then how do you know it plays you like an instrument? For example, how do you know that your belief that biology is playing you like an instrument isn't part of biology's alleged facade?
You are literally saying "reality, according to this, is unmanifested energy." So do you know what "reality" is or do you not? It's one or the other.
Ultimate reality, as unmanifested energy, is what science says. I'll not bother supporting that, but do you or do you not understand how your apparent/everyday reality comes about? Reality for the conscious subject amounts to biological reactions to outside stimulus, and its experiences are reality for it and only for it. Please acknowledge positively or otherwise, so we know where we are. Think of Tyla's statement about understanding reality when he says to think in terms of energy, frequencies, and vibrations. It is this ultimate reality that biology plays you like its instrument, and the melody it plays on you is your apparent reality.
Does biology play you like an instrument as well? And if it does, then how do you know it plays you like an instrument? For example, how do you know that your belief that biology is playing you like an instrument isn't part of biology's alleged facade?
Your question shows you have not understood the previous explanation; biology does not play you like an instrument, the forces of the cosmos and the earth do as causes from without.
Ultimate reality, as unmanifested energy, is what science says. I'll not bother supporting that, but do you or do you not understand how your apparent/everyday reality comes about? Reality for the conscious subject amounts to biological reactions to outside stimulus, and its experiences are reality for it and only for it. Please acknowledge positively or otherwise, so we know where we are. Think of Tyla's statement about understanding reality when he says to think in terms of energy, frequencies, and vibrations. It is this ultimate reality that biology plays you like its instrument, and the melody it plays on you is your apparent reality.
Does biology play you like an instrument as well? And if it does, then how do you know it plays you like an instrument? For example, how do you know that your belief that biology is playing you like an instrument isn't part of biology's alleged facade?
Your question shows you have not understood the previous explanation; biology does not play you like an instrument, the forces of the cosmos and the earth do as causes from without.
Again, you are failing to make a coherent statement. You said "biology plays you like its instrument", now you say "biology does not play you like an instrument". You should give up. You're in over your head.
Does biology play you like an instrument as well? And if it does, then how do you know it plays you like an instrument? For example, how do you know that your belief that biology is playing you like an instrument isn't part of biology's alleged facade?
Your question shows you have not understood the previous explanation; biology does not play you like an instrument, the forces of the cosmos and the earth do as causes from without.
Again, you are failing to make a coherent statement. You said "biology plays you like its instrument", now you say "biology does not play you like an instrument". You should give up. You're in over your head.
If you cannot read more carefully, this dialogue must come to a close.
Your question shows you have not understood the previous explanation; biology does not play you like an instrument, the forces of the cosmos and the earth do as causes from without.
Again, you are failing to make a coherent statement. You said "biology plays you like its instrument", now you say "biology does not play you like an instrument". You should give up. You're in over your head.
If you cannot read more carefully, this dialogue must come to a close.
I will read more carefully when you write more carefully.
Again, you are failing to make a coherent statement. You said "biology plays you like its instrument", now you say "biology does not play you like an instrument". You should give up. You're in over your head.
If you cannot read more carefully, this dialogue must come to a close.
I will read more carefully when you write more carefully.
