Philosophy Now Forum

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 7:47 pm Do you now understand my position? And why I need not provide reasoning for my position beyond pointing out that no reasonable evidence has been given for your claim?

Ah, I see! So, since I introduced the topic, it is only on me to back up what I offered for consideration. All responders (such as yourself) may interject their own sure positions without any need to back those up. Got it! Not really worth starting topics if that's how it works: like throwing meat in the water for dead-eyed sharks.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:41 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 7:47 pm Do you now understand my position? And why I need not provide reasoning for my position beyond pointing out that no reasonable evidence has been given for your claim?

Ah, I see! So, since I introduced the topic, it is only on me to back up what I offered for consideration. All responders (such as yourself) may interject their own sure positions without any need to back those up. Got it! Not really worth starting topics if that's how it works: like throwing meat in the water for dead-eyed sharks.

Your objection is a straw man. Evidently you still don't "see". You don't seem to understand that Russell's Teapot applies to claims that are unfalsifiable. And especially to claims that are also extraordinary. Since your claim qualifies, especially since it qualifies on both accounts, I do not need to provide reasoning for my contrary position beyond pointing out that no reasonable evidence has been given for your claim. Try walking back through the Russell Teapot and then applying it to our discussion. You still seem to be lost.

You should really consider taking classes in critical thinking and conceptual thinking. It might help you to better understand where your reasoning is flawed. They really are skills. You seem to struggle with both. In my experience, most people aren't very good at either - if that makes you feel better.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 4:03 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 10:41 am There is one - and only one - reality that we live in.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 6:10 am How do you know that?

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 1:56 am Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 6:10 am There's no reasonable evidence for it, either... right?

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 10:41 am Hopefully you understand the fallacy in that and mean that tongue in cheek.

Please explain the fallacy you see. How is my suggestion automatically a fallacy, but yours isn't?

Why do you automatically believe 'thinkofone's" suggestion is a fallacy?

What is the fallacy you see?

(Not that you would ever answer and clarify.)

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 4:03 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 10:41 am What kind of things do you have in mind there?

I offered the following general and visible examples of what I look to for considering natural patterning and apparent potential:

'This', obviously, is really not saying nor explaining any thing, let alone a lot, at all.

What I read and see in 'this' is that because "lacewing" 'currently' believes, absolutely, that there could be or are multi dimensional realities, "lacewing" then 'looks to' there being multi dimensional realities. Therefore, what it 'looks to' for considering what it believes could possible exist, then this is the so-called 'evidence' that there could be many possibilities for multi dimensional realities.

Which is just a complete round about and Incorrect way of 'trying to' claim that one is 'open' when one is absolutely clearly not.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 4:03 pm

There are, however, a vast range of realities that we can see people believing in and living in... and there are indications of many seemingly 'supernatural' energies that we don't fully understand... so that inspires me to question the idea of a 'single reality' based in our human terms.

It seems more reasonable to me that there would be multi-dimensional realities... even perhaps overlapping. Whereas, a linear model -- and singleness of anything -- doesn't seem in alignment with what we see in nature, where there's an explosion of possibilities continually evolving for no apparent reason.

Why would I need to get any more specific? What are you basing your 'what is' on?

I genuinely find the nature and potential of 'our reality' interesting to ponder.

Why do you continually use that misnomer, 'our reality' for, exactly?

After all you keep showing and proving 'your many human based, so-called, realities', to be absolutely False and Wrong, anyway.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 4:03 pm No offense is intended in my questioning! I would very much appreciate it if you (or anyone) would meet me in the middle for the questioning, instead of simply claiming how it is (especially without offering what that is being based on).

you are joking with your claim that you would appreciate others, 'meet you in the middle'. you just want others to accept and acknowledge agreement with your own steadfastly held onto beliefs, here.

As I keep pointing out and showing, here, you, "lacewing", are, still, doing what you have been doing, here, for years now, which is, doing, exactly, what you criticise others for doing. Which is you want others to follow and abide by your own 'current' views and beliefs, here. you want others to 'see' things on 'your terms', only.

"lacewing" believes, absolutely, that there are 'many possibilities', and as such is not open to be met in 'any middle', nor is even open to be questioned, at all. "lacewing" just wants to claim, 'that is, how it is', and thus is not open to absolutely anything else.

The contradiction, and hypocrisy, here, has been absolutely blindly obvious.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 4:03 pm I am open to considering other perspectives/ideas... just not absolute claims that I don't think are possible to know, and which shut down further questioning and mutual discussion.

Once more, you show just how Truly closed and shut off you really are, here.

Imagine going through Life, Itself, believing that you are 'open' while not even recognising and seeing how Truly closed you really are being. The very 'one' who has and is shutting down further questions, here, is "lacewing", itself. As it has, once again, just shown and proved to be absolutely True and Correct.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 4:03 pm I don't care what everyone thinks/believes... I care how they got there.

I think NATURE is a wonderful example for considering broader potential.

'This', again, is one of the weakest attempts at 'trying to' deceive and fool others into believe what one, "itself", has fooled and deceived "itself" into believing that it is open.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pm You don't seem to understand that Russell's Teapot applies to claims that are unfalsifiable. And especially to claims that are also extraordinary.

So... my attempt to share my considerations about reality based on my observations of nature, are considered to be definitive CLAIMS that must provide evidence. There is no sharing of ideas/possibilities here.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pmI do not need to provide reasoning for my contrary position beyond pointing out that no reasonable evidence has been given for your claim.

How convenient.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pmTry walking back through the Russell Teapot and then applying it to our discussion. You still seem to be lost.

I don't have to follow your steps. If you're unable to casually share ideas back and forth, then we're really not compatible for discussion.

That's okay. Many people aren't.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pmYou should really consider taking classes in critical thinking and conceptual thinking.

I'm doing just fine.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 5:02 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 4:55 pm...

You seem to be asking me to offer the burden of proof for what I've suggested... as if I even could!

If one can not provide any proof at all for what one is suggesting exists, then this is a sign of, and a great example of, 'delusional thinking', itself.

YET, you are offering no such thing for your own claim? Where's your burden of proof?

What I think "thinkofone" was and is 'getting at', (and of course and as always if I am Wrong, then please Correct me), that since you, "lacewing", started this thread claims things, first, then the 'burden if proof' is 'up to you'.

Also, the analogy in relation to you claiming some thing, which some might believe can not be disproven, is not sufficient all all in proving or showing your claim is 'more true' than anothers is.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 5:02 pm What is your claim based on? (I've offered at least that much.)

The only 'thing' 'your claims' is based on is your own 'current' beliefs, which are based upon nothing at all but your own, what I call, APE-thinking.

Believing, or Assuming, that there are actually 'many different realities', just because human beings, of all things, perceive, and so-call, 'live in', 'different realities', is absolutely absurd, also known as, 'delusional thinking'.

Look "lacewing", you claim, 'There are a vast range of realities that we can see people believing in and living in'.

Now, will you or will you not provide a list of some of these so-claimed, 'vast range of realities', which you claim that you and some others can, supposedly, 'see', and which you people are, supposedly, 'living in'?

If you will not, then why not?

From my perspective, anyway, it appears because you believe that you 'see' and 'live in' a so-called 'different reality', than you believe others do, then this means, well to you, that there actually exits so-called 'different realities'.

Which, by the way, is what I think "thinkofone" is alluding to in regards to how some people just do not 'grow up' with 'the skills needed to recognise and see 'delusional thinking', itself.

Ultimately, it is obvious that every thing has to be 'living' under, or within, One, ultimate, Reality.

Even if one is just 'living' in a simulation or an alternate reality, that one and everything else, ultimately, 'lives' under, and in, the One banner called 'Reality', Itself..

For example, if all of 'you', human beings, actually do only 'exist', or are only 'living in', some simulation, which was created by some so-called 'teenager', which some might even refer to as 'God', Itself, absolutely all of 'you', human beings, 'teenager', 'God', and absolutely every thing all of 'you' are 'living with' ALL exists in some One and only, ultimate, Reality.

And, absolutely none of 'you' could refute this Fact.

And, again, if absolutely any one is interested in the actual, irrefutable, proofs for this Fact, as always let 'us' have A discussion.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 5:36 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 5:10 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 5:02 pm You seem to be asking me to offer the burden of proof for what I've suggested... as if I even could! YET, you are offering no such thing for your own claim? Where's your burden of proof? What is your claim based on? (I've offered at least that much.)

At this point I'm asking for clarification as to what you have in mind. Why are you refusing to give it?

What claim of mine do you have in mind?

I have already offered more for my comments than you have for yours.

Just offering 'more words' does not necessarily mean that you have actually 'said', nor 'explained', 'more', itself.

As I shows above, what you have 'offered' as 'more' is just illogical nonsense.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 5:36 pm Are you playing games with me, or do you really not see your lack of follow-through in offering explanation (or clarification and burden of proof) for your own claim... as you seem to require of me?

you "lacewing" started this thread, and have made the first claim, therefore, well from my perspective anyway, the,'burdon of proof' lays with 'you', firstly.

I have, obviously, already countered your claims. And, as always, if absolutely any one would like further and/or actual proof for absolutely any thing that I say and write, here, then by all means let 'us' have a discussion.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 5:36 pm You said:

There is one - and only one - reality that we live in.

I asked:

How do you know that?

you also asked with a particular emoji, revealing a particular belief and/or presumption that you have, correct?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 5:36 pm You responded:

Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?

I've asked:

What is your reasoning in support of it? Is your only answer that there's no reasonable evidence to the contrary... therefore, it is and must be? What kind of logic is that? Where did you come up with that idea/belief in the first place?

Would it not be great if every one just answered, openly and honestly, all of the questions that they were asked, for clarification, elaboration, and/or for verification in this 'philosophy forum'?

Also, would it be great if every one just asked each other questions, from a Truly open perspective, only, here, in this 'philosophy forum'?

As can be clearly seen above, here, some questions are asked from a Truly 'closed' perspective, as though no 'justification' could ever be provided, which really is not being 'open' at all, which in turn is not helpful, at all, especially on a 'philosophy forum'.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 7:47 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 5:36 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 5:10 pm

At this point I'm asking for clarification as to what you have in mind. Why are you refusing to give it?

What claim of mine do you have in mind?

I have already offered more for my comments than you have for yours. Are you playing games with me, or do you really not see your lack of follow-through in offering explanation (or clarification and burden of proof) for your own claim... as you seem to require of me?

You said:

There is one - and only one - reality that we live in.

I asked:

How do you know that?

You responded:

Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?

I've asked:

What is your reasoning in support of it? Is your only answer that there's no reasonable evidence to the contrary... therefore, it is and must be? What kind of logic is that? Where did you come up with that idea/belief in the first place?

Evidently you've either lost perspective on this discussion OR you don't understand the Russell Teapot thought experiment.

You started this thread with the following claim:
"Some considerations about reality...Most of us are likely capable of noticing how many different 'realities' human beings can live in. If we contemplate the implications of that, what might we consider or conclude?...Perhaps there are potentially infinite possibilities that can be seen, imagined, and experienced -- collectively and individually -- each reality appearing as real or valid to each individual/collective who experiences it."

And the following elaboration:
"that inspires me to question the idea of a 'single reality' based in our human terms...It seems more reasonable to me that there would be multi-dimensional realities... even perhaps overlapping.. Whereas, a linear model -- and singleness of anything -- doesn't seem in alignment with what we see in nature "

Yours is an extraordinary claim that is unfalsifiable AND made without any reasonable evidence. Per the Russell Teapot, the burden of proof is on the one making such a claim. The burden of proof is not on the individual who disputes it. In saying, "There is one - and only one - reality that we live in. The problem is that a very high percentage of humans do not live in that reality. In other words, they live in delusion". I was indicating that I was disputing your claim. By saying "Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?" I was indicating that you haven't provided any reasonable evidence.

Consider the Russell Teapot. If "someone claims that a tiny teapot, too small to be seen with telescopes, orbits the sun between Earth and Mars" and someone indicates that they were disputing that claim by saying, "There's no teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars", the burden of proof is on the original claimant and not on the person disputing that claim. They need only point out that there is no evidence to support the original claim. That's the point of the thought experiment.

As such, the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence.

Do you now understand my position? And why I need not provide reasoning for my position beyond pointing out that no reasonable evidence has been given for your claim?






"

Most of what you are saying, here, I think highlights "lacewings" 'blindness', here.

However, I would like to note, that from my perspective anyway, that a 'burden of proof' rests upon absolutely any one who makes absolutely 'any claim'. For example, in regards to the 'tiny teapot' analogy, if one was dispute 'that' by some thing like, 'i do not think there is a teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars', then one never has to 'prove' what one just thinks is, or thinks could be, true. However, if one claims that, 'There is no teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars', then they do have 'a burden' to 'prove' 'that claim'.

However, in saying this, and again, "lacewing" presented the 'first claim', so the, first, 'burden of proof' rests with "lacewing". Then, if any one wants to claim some thing like, 'There is one - and only one - reality that we live in', then they, also, are 'burdened' with 'proving' 'their claim', but secondly.

Now, and obviously, if the 'first one' can 'prove' 'their claim' True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, then the 'second one' could not possibly be able to 'prove' 'their claim' if it is 'in opposition' of the 'first claim'. And, vice-versa, of course.

I would also like to point out any 'burden of proof' is never on one to provide 'evidence', but is always on one to provide 'actual proof', instead.

As of 'now', if absolutely any one would like to claim that there exists;

'Many realities'.

'One only reality', or One Reality'.

'A combination of these'. Or,

Something else, here, then I will again suggest be prepared to be questioned and/or challenged over ones claims.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:41 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 7:47 pm Do you now understand my position? And why I need not provide reasoning for my position beyond pointing out that no reasonable evidence has been given for your claim?

Ah, I see! So, since I introduced the topic, it is only on me to back up what I offered for consideration.

In regards to what you said, and claimed, in what you have introduced, here, then 'who else' could be it be 'on' to back up and support what 'you', "yourself", have offered for so-called 'consideration'?

If some one said to you, 'Consider that there is one, and only one, reality', besides the obvious Fact that you would not even 'consider' this, are you, here, suggesting that it would not be 'one them' to back up, and/or support, what 'they' want 'you' 'to consider'?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:41 pm All responders (such as yourself) may interject their own sure positions without any need to back those up. Got it! Not really worth starting topics if that's how it works: like throwing meat in the water for dead-eyed sharks.

Now that you have made 'your point', would you 'now' like to back up and support what you believe is absolutely true and right, here, which is, 'There are many realities'?

If no, then why not?

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:41 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 7:47 pm Do you now understand my position? And why I need not provide reasoning for my position beyond pointing out that no reasonable evidence has been given for your claim?

Ah, I see! So, since I introduced the topic, it is only on me to back up what I offered for consideration. All responders (such as yourself) may interject their own sure positions without any need to back those up. Got it! Not really worth starting topics if that's how it works: like throwing meat in the water for dead-eyed sharks.

Your objection is a straw man. Evidently you still don't "see". You don't seem to understand that Russell's Teapot applies to claims that are unfalsifiable.

1. Why do you believe, absolutely, that "lacewing's" claim is so-called 'unfalsifiable'? To me, "lacewing's" claim is very Falsifiable. And, to me, I have already shown, and proved, how.

2. Can you 'see' what "lacewing' is saying, and claiming, about it is, also, up to 'you', as a 'responder' to also back up and support your 'opposing claims', as well? Surely one does not have a 'burden of proof', to 'their own claims', based on because they just made 'their claim' 'after' another one made thiers?

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pm And especially to claims that are also extraordinary.

What do you mean by the 'extraordinary' word, here, exactly?

That 'the claim' is not aligned with 'your, ordinary, claim', then 'it' is, so-called, 'extra ordinary'? Or, is it because you might think or believe that 'your claim' is 'more ordinary' than "lacewing's" claim is? Or, do you think or believe that more people align with 'your claim' than with "lacewing's" claim, here, so then 'your claim' is 'ordinary', which makes any 'different claim' 'extra ordinary'? Or, something else, here?

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pm Since your claim qualifies, especially since it qualifies on both accounts, I do not need to provide reasoning for my contrary position beyond pointing out that no reasonable evidence has been given for your claim.

Has any so-called 'reasonable evidence' been given, to you, for 'your claim'? Obviously, no so-called 'reasonable evidence' has been 'given', for 'your claim', here, in this thread.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pm Try walking back through the Russell Teapot and then applying it to our discussion. You still seem to be lost.

But, well to me anyway, you, "yourself", seem to be 'lost', or at least 'confused', in regards to "lacewing's" claim, here, and that 'it' is unfalsifiable, for some reason.

Will you provide 'reasonable evidence' why you think or believe that a 'many realities interpretation' is 'unfalsifiable', exactly?

Surely, if one thinks or believes that 'there is only one reality', then they have 'reason/s' to think or believe 'this'. And, so if there are 'actual reasons' for the 'one reality interpretation', then some sort of 'proof' exists, which then could be used to 'falsify' the 'opposing interpretation', right?

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pm You should really consider taking classes in critical thinking and conceptual thinking.

Could it be a possibility that there is even 'more that 'you', 'yourself", could learn, here, regarding 'critical and/or conceptual thinking', "thinkofone"?

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pm It might help you to better understand where your reasoning is flawed.

Just out of curiosity, is 'your own reasoning', here, "thinkofone", 'flawed', at all?

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pm They really are skills. You seem to struggle with both. In my experience, most people aren't very good at either - if that makes you feel better.

When 'you' say, and write, 'most people', here, does that include 'you', as well?

Either way, and again just out of curiosity, 'Why is that most, if not all, adult human beings, think or believe that their 'own' 'critical and/or conceptual reasoning' skill are 'not flawed', but it 'others' who 'are flawed'?

Once 'the answer' is learned, and known, and understood, then this is when more open, honest, and peaceful discussions really 'took off', or began.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:26 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pm You don't seem to understand that Russell's Teapot applies to claims that are unfalsifiable. And especially to claims that are also extraordinary.

So... my attempt to share my considerations about reality based on my observations of nature, are considered to be definitive CLAIMS that must provide evidence. There is no sharing of ideas/possibilities here.

'Sharing' ideas is one thing, but also claiming that you are not open to 'other, opposing, ideas', which is what you are also doing, here, is 'another thing'.

Also, what you are 'trying to' say, and claim, here, would be like to 'trying to' say, and claim, that there are 'other possibilities', and every one should 'consider' the 'other possibilities', as though 'the claim' that 'the earth revolves around the sun' is not actually absolutely true and right.

Just because you have not yet fully understood 'some thing' this never means that what you, personally, have not yet understood has not yet already been proved, and known, by others, and that your claim that 'it' can not be known, and/nor understood, and therefore 'other possibilities' 'must exist' is true and right.

Once you stop being so 'closed', here, then you will start 'seeing' 'more'.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:26 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pmI do not need to provide reasoning for my contrary position beyond pointing out that no reasonable evidence has been given for your claim.

How convenient.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pmTry walking back through the Russell Teapot and then applying it to our discussion. You still seem to be lost.

I don't have to follow your steps. If you're unable to casually share ideas back and forth, then we're really not compatible for discussion.

And, because 'you', "yourself", are not able to casually share ideas back and forth, then you really are not compatible for discussions, with others, as well.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:26 pm That's okay. Many people aren't.

'This' is very True in relation to you, adult human beings, anyway.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:26 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:06 pmYou should really consider taking classes in critical thinking and conceptual thinking.

I'm doing just fine.

Again, 'another one' who believes that it is 'them' who is fine, not just in 'critical thinking skills', but also in who 'does good and right, in Life', as well.

A very 'common thread' among the adult population, in the days when this was being written, was it was just about always, and if not, then it was always, 'the other' who 'did wrong', 'though incorrectly', or who 'did not see things clearly', and that 'they', "themselves", were 'just right'.

I haven't read the responses but:

Our definitions of existence / reality are very critical.
If we define existence as all that affects anything else that exists,
then one's own personal interpretation / experience of reality -
still is part of the greater existence - no separate.

What is possible, imo, is based on our ignorance. Our ignorance is vast, so too, the potential possibilities.
I think we know very little about the scope of existence / reality, and all it has the capacity for.

Prioritizing one's efforts is wise.
There may be very pressing issues in our internal / external environment,
which reasonably call for more attention than problems that may never be resolved.
It appears more productive to resolve that which is attainable,
before reaching for that which may never be grasped.

We can learn from anything. Lessons reside all around.
Our well being is worthy, and a respectable goal.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 11:57 pm I haven't read the responses but:

Our definitions of existence / reality are very critical.

Are 'our definitions' in regards to every thing equally critical?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 11:57 pm If we define existence as all that affects anything else that exists,
then one's own personal interpretation / experience of reality -
still is part of the greater existence - no separate.

What is possible, imo, is based on our ignorance. Our ignorance is vast, so too, the potential possibilities.
I think we know very little about the scope of existence / reality, and all it has the capacity for.

But, what 'you think' does not necessarily have to align with 'Reality', Itself, at all, correct?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 11:57 pm Prioritizing one's efforts is wise.
There may be very pressing issues in our internal / external environment,
which reasonably call for more attention than problems that may never be resolved.

And, there may well be so-called and so-claimed 'very pressing issues' in regards to countless other things, as well. But, then again, there may well be no 'actual pressing issues' at all, here.

But, why even wonder 'what might be'? Especially considering 'what actually is' can be 'looked at', and 'addressed', instead.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 11:57 pm It appears more productive to resolve that which is attainable,
before reaching for that which may never be grasped.

I agree.

And, the scope of 'Existence' and 'existence', and, 'Reality' and 'realty' are, already, known. Although 'this' is obviously contrary to what others think, here.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 11:57 pm We can learn from anything.

But, we can only learn if we are 'open' to learning.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 11:57 pm Lessons reside all around.

Yet, some, still, think or believe that 'the scope of' 'learning' some things can not and thus will not be 'learned', nor 'known'.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 11:57 pm Our well being is worthy, and a respectable goal.

Does this have any thing to do with any thing, here?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

Age wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 6:34 pm

You are correct, Sir. And, this is known because humans, with their short arms and legs, and because they are smaller than reality, cannot touch the whole elephant all at once, so those portions of the elephant never touched or not currently touched are called, a separate reality.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 11:57 pm What is possible, imo, is based on our ignorance. Our ignorance is vast, so too, the potential possibilities.
I think we know very little about the scope of existence / reality, and all it has the capacity for.

We can learn from anything. Lessons reside all around.

Agreed. It has been my nature to observe and experiment -- and through that, it has been my experience to notice connections and patterns. That has worked very well for me. Nature seems bursting with examples. Recognizing potential and possibilities for myself has expanded the world/reality that I've experienced.

If a person believes that life (or anything) can only be a certain way, that's likely their experience. They might be capable of other experiences, but they will not open the door to anything else if they don't believe it's there. That's okay. I do not know what other people are capable of... or what they might be intent on experiencing.

For me, considering indications of potential allows it to be so. I recognize that there are people who aren't interested in doing that. Although there is much we do not know... recognizing that there are always other ways, and other possibilities to work with and experience, has been extraordinarily useful to me. I have not limited myself to the restrictions or specifics that other people have taught or insisted upon. That may truly represent their only reality -- I don't know. I guess we all speak of what we experience. I speak of potential that I experience, and my life is my 'evidence' for it -- but, granted, that may be meaningless to anyone else.