Philosophy Now Forum

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 12:15 am Reality is experience.

That which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:25 pm Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.

Reality is the following possibilities:

Heaven's deceased being computers - translator of Samantha Worzeil's crystal speed
Negative to positive revelation as MMG logistic - translator, of MMG logistic's terminology
Evil Evil - translator, of Actual Mistake logistic for MMG logistic

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 12:15 am Reality is experience.

That which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?

Iwannaplato,

The only way of knowing that something exists is cognitively and in fact, the science of modern physics states that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things, so, yes, there are no things where there are no life forms. If we accept what science tells us, it is all wave frequencies but no things. The effect of some of those wave frequencies upon the biology of life forms is what creates things and indeed it is the only possible way of knowing things. Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.

[quote=popeye1945 post_id=572735 time=1652483544 user_id=21999]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=572612 time=1652445639 user_id=3619]
[quote=popeye1945 post_id=571562 time=1652051739 user_id=21999]
Reality is experience.
[/quote]
That which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?
[/quote]

Iwannaplato,

The only way of knowing that something exists is cognitively and in fact, the science of modern physics states that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things, so, yes, there are no things where there are no life forms. If we accept what science tells us, it is all wave frequencies but no things. The effect of some of those wave frequencies upon the biology of life forms is what creates things and indeed it is the only possible way of knowing things. Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.
[/quote]

You're right. And it's easier to use Actuality for the transcendent version, or Aether... leaving reality to be reality-to-us.

Advocate,

Sounds like we are on the same page. Thanks for the affirmation!

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 12:15 am Reality is experience.

That which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?

Iwannaplato,

The only way of knowing that something exists is cognitively and in fact, the science of modern physics states that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things, so, yes, there are no things where there are no life forms.
If we accept what science tells us, it is all wave frequencies but no things. The effect of some of those wave frequencies upon the biology of life forms is what creates things and indeed it is the only possible way of knowing things.

Good points.

Science cannot be certain that fundamental things are waves or particles but rather what is true or real is dependent on the observer within the specific scientific framework [scientific method, peer review, empirical evidences, verifiability, etc.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#:
Besides scientific [also mathematical] facts whilst the most credible at present are at best merely polished conjectures [Popper].

I have quoted this often which define what is fact, truths and it is applicable to reality;

A fact is something that is true.
The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.

Facts are independent of individuals' belief and of knowledge and opinion, but they cannot be independent of the human-made framework they emerged from.
What are astronomical facts only has authority with reference to the community of astronomers in consensus. It is the same with other framework-specific-facts or reality which are all constructed and maintain by humans in consensus.

Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.

This is a bit tricky.
There should not be any concession to the above question.

The pursuit and impulse for things in the absence of humans is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.
As such the hypothesis "things in the absence of humans" is a non-starter which is very evident since humans first proposed such a non-starter hypothesis.

As such, we should address the psychological issue rather than try to find an answer to a non-starter hypothesis. This is what Buddhism [& others of the likes] does.
This is the same as the God exists hypothesis which is a non-starter.
An analogy is 'a square-circle exists' which is glaringly a non-starter.

advocate: The only way of knowing that something exists is cognitively and in fact,

YOu just shifted the topic. The statement I reacted to was 'Reality is experience'. That implies that only that which is experienced is real. If it doesn't mean that, he or she could clarify. If it does mean that, it's a different claim from we can only know what we experience. The latter statement allows for things to exist that we or life has not experienced. The assertion I reacted does not allow for that. Reality is experience is an ontological claim and a very strong one. There was nothing before life began experiencing. Only that which has been experienced is real. Ontological assertions. YOu are arguing an epistemological position that is not the same. Yours is parsimonious, the one I responded to is not.

]the science of modern physics states that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things, so, yes, there are no things where there are no life forms.

Give me a link to where modern physics says that. There is no consensus that consiousness is necessary for the collapse of the wave. Yes, some think that, others do not. But, again, this is not the same issue. We would still have waves. His quote did not say The only things are experienced or experience. He said reality. Unless you are arguing that waves are not real.

If we accept what science tells us, it is all wave frequencies but no things.

Not exactly, but then there are no things anywhere if that statement is true.

The effect of some of those wave frequencies upon the biology of life forms is what creates things and indeed it is the only possible way of knowing things.

And again not supporting the assertion I questioned.

Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.

and this too is a different issue.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:12 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:56 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:25 pm Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.

Given what set of circumstances?

Always, everywhere, in all ways. Reality refers to that of which we can be most certain, which is an explicit knowledge claim.

Some people are most certain that God exists while some people are most certain that God does not exist.

Therefore, according to your claim here, when we speak of 'reality' we are referring to 'that', of which God does AND does not exist, correct?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 12:15 am Reality is experience.

That which exists is that which is experienced?

Are you ASKING or TELLING us this?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?

Here is ANOTHER statement, with a question mark on the end of it.

Either way it does NOT logically follow anyway.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm Was there nothing before experiencers arose?

There, obviously, HAS TO BE SOME 'thing' BEFORE absolutely ANY 'thing' could come into existence. So, there was SOME 'thing' BEFORE 'experiences' arose.

The Fact that there WAS SOME 'thing' is HOW 'experiences' came-to-exist, and experience.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 12:15 am Reality is experience.

That which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?

Iwannaplato,

The only way of knowing that something exists is cognitively and in fact, the science of modern physics states that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things,

Well, in 'ultimate reality' the so-called "science of modern physics" is a LONG WAY BEHIND, in 'time' and in 'knowing'.

See, if some place of NO things is 'ultimate reality', and "the science of modern physics" exists in a place of SOME things, then "the science of modern physics" exists ONLY in a 'world' of "apparent reality" and thus NOT in 'ultimate reality'.

Which is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS with the CLAIM that you just made above here.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am so, yes, there are no things where there are no life forms.

Are you ABLE TO EXPLAIN to the rest of us, EXACTLY HOW you, LOGICALLY, arrived at this conclusion?

If yes, then WILL YOU EXPLAIN to us HOW, EXACTLY?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am If we accept what science tells us, it is all wave frequencies but no things.

But so-called "science" tells us that the Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING, which is, OBVIOUSLY, False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. AND, if you WANT TO ACCEPT absolutely EVERY 'thing' that is told to you by just ONE group of people, then who knows WHERE 'you' WILL END UP.

Also, so-called "science" tells us 'global warming' is A 'thing', AND, NOT A 'thing'.

Now back to YOUR CLAIM here that "science" tells 'you' that; "it is all wave frequencies but NO things".

Now, WHAT, EXACTLY, is, supposedly, ALL 'wave frequencies'?

Even if 'it' is ALL 'wave frequencies', THEN 'wave frequencies' are a 'thing' are they not?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am The effect of some of those wave frequencies upon the biology of life forms is what creates things

Do 'you', human beings, REALLY NOT SEE, what I SEE as, BLATANTLY OBVIOUS CONTRADICTIONS, like HERE in THIS EXAMPLE?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am and indeed it is the only possible way of knowing things.

What does the 'it' word REFER TO, EXACTLY, here?

One minute you are saying, there are absolutely NO 'things' AT ALL, EVER, Next minute you are saying; ACTUALLY there ARE 'things'. AND, it is 'wave frequencies' upon THOSE 'things', which is what CREATES 'things'. AND, that SOMEHOW this 'process' is the ONLY way POSSIBLE in the ENTIRE NO 'thing' Universe, that the ACTUAL living 'things', KNOWN AS 'life forms', are ABLE to KNOW 'things'. Which, SUPPOSEDLY, there are NONE OF.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.

Just because 'things' are NOT KNOWN, just because there is NO KNOWER, then this does NOT AT ALL mean that there ARE/WERE NO 'things'. The ILLOGICAL FALLACY of this CLAIM speaks for ITSELF, and IS BLINDINGLY CLEAR for ALL TO SEE, here.

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 11:48 am Are you ASKING or TELLING us this?

I was asking popeye.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?

Here is ANOTHER statement, with a question mark on the end of it.

I write, sometimes, as I speak, which includes statements with a questioning tone at the end, or here, writing, with a question mark. I can understand it might be confusing
It is a question. I think Reality is experience might mean different things. I am looking for a clarification.

Either way it does NOT logically follow anyway.

Perhaps you know his position well. But I'll wait for his answer.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?

There, obviously, HAS TO BE SOME 'thing' BEFORE absolutely ANY 'thing' could come into existence. So, there was SOME 'thing' BEFORE 'experiences' arose.

The Fact that there WAS SOME 'thing' is HOW 'experiences' came-to-exist, and experience.

So, it seems you are disagreeing with the notion that only experienced things exist. I don't know if that is what he meant, but if it is what he meant, I assume you will disagree with him or have already.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:25 pm Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.

It is both depending on context.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 4:33 am Advocate,

Sounds like we are on the same page. Thanks for the affirmation!

Yes, it seems like you are both confusing the epistemological issue with the ontological claim made that Reality is experience. Could someone actually say what that means?

Do memories of experiences count? Or only as experiences of remembering? For example.

What are you ruling out?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:46 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:25 pm Reality is an epistemological term not a metaphysical one.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

All terms are epistemological. "Meatphysics," is epistemological.

If that is the case then "epistemological" is also a metaphysical idea.

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=572842 time=1652553552 user_id=3619]
[quote=popeye1945 post_id=572746 time=1652499218 user_id=21999]
Advocate,

Sounds like we are on the same page. Thanks for the affirmation!
[/quote]
Yes, it seems like you are both confusing the epistemological issue with the ontological claim made that Reality is experience. Could someone actually say what that means?

Do memories of experiences count? Or only as experiences of remembering? For example.

What are you ruling out?
[/quote]

Reality is all experience, regardless of whether it's a real illusion, delusion, or later disproved. Later validation is part of a future reality. Actuality continues existing as undifferentiated stuff all the way through; identical for all intents and purposes, before during and after that experience.