Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:15 am

cladking wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 11:53 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 9:08 am Distinctions arise from the act of attention with attention being the foundational distinction of itself. Reality occurs by distinction.

You sound like my AI. I don't think it's wrong but reality transcends even life if not the observer.

Reality is an observer effect by degree of the distinctions we observe.

Now you sound like modern science. The observer is more a perspective than the sum total or even the most important.


AI- “Attention frames reality, but reality isn’t framed by us.”

If reality transcends life and the observer the distinction of reality and the observer remains.

To transcend distinction leaves the distinction of transcendence thus the transcendence of distinction never really occurs.

Attention does not frame reality, it is that by which reality unfolds.

The only reality we know is one of attention.

There is no distinction between the observer and reality. Humans don't count because we don't assume reality exits as even an acorn does. We think rather than experience consciousness. A squirrel carrying an acorn is the observer of reality itself and knows not to damage the acorn or no tree can come from it.

Otherwise I tend to agree with you.

cladking wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 4:09 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:15 am

cladking wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 11:53 pm

You sound like my AI. I don't think it's wrong but reality transcends even life if not the observer.



Now you sound like modern science. The observer is more a perspective than the sum total or even the most important.


AI- “Attention frames reality, but reality isn’t framed by us.”

If reality transcends life and the observer the distinction of reality and the observer remains.

To transcend distinction leaves the distinction of transcendence thus the transcendence of distinction never really occurs.

Attention does not frame reality, it is that by which reality unfolds.

The only reality we know is one of attention.

There is no distinction between the observer and reality. Humans don't count because we don't assume reality exits as even an acorn does. We think rather than experience consciousness. A squirrel carrying an acorn is the observer of reality itself and knows not to damage the acorn or no tree can come from it.

Otherwise I tend to agree with you.

There are distinctions of observer and reality mediated by the occurence of distinction itself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 5:47 am

cladking wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 4:09 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:15 am

If reality transcends life and the observer the distinction of reality and the observer remains.

To transcend distinction leaves the distinction of transcendence thus the transcendence of distinction never really occurs.

Attention does not frame reality, it is that by which reality unfolds.

The only reality we know is one of attention.

There is no distinction between the observer and reality. Humans don't count because we don't assume reality exits as even an acorn does. We think rather than experience consciousness. A squirrel carrying an acorn is the observer of reality itself and knows not to damage the acorn or no tree can come from it.

Otherwise I tend to agree with you.

There are distinctions of observer and reality mediated by the occurence of distinction itself.

Not to the squirrel or his acorn. He has no abstractions. Reality is his plaything. Space emanates from his brain/ body and he hurtles through time according to patterns he can see.


AI- “The squirrel knows no abstraction; his acorn is reality, his plaything is time.”

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 12:04 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 5:47 am

cladking wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 4:09 am

There is no distinction between the observer and reality. Humans don't count because we don't assume reality exits as even an acorn does. We think rather than experience consciousness. A squirrel carrying an acorn is the observer of reality itself and knows not to damage the acorn or no tree can come from it.

Otherwise I tend to agree with you.

There are distinctions of observer and reality mediated by the occurence of distinction itself.

Not to the squirrel or his acorn. He has no abstractions. Reality is his plaything. Space emanates from his brain/ body and he hurtles through time according to patterns he can see.


AI- “The squirrel knows no abstraction; his acorn is reality, his plaything is time.”

Space is not limited to abstraction given the senses require the observation of form. Space is abstract by degree of forms, Space is empirical by degree of forms.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:32 am

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 12:04 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 5:47 am

There are distinctions of observer and reality mediated by the occurence of distinction itself.

Not to the squirrel or his acorn. He has no abstractions. Reality is his plaything. Space emanates from his brain/ body and he hurtles through time according to patterns he can see.


AI- “The squirrel knows no abstraction; his acorn is reality, his plaything is time.”

Space is not limited to abstraction given the senses require the observation of form. Space is abstract by degree of forms, Space is empirical by degree of forms.

You're assuming space exists as we perceive it, which is odd in light of the fact that there's room in it for all the matter in the universe to pass through a point but no room for a point to have an observer. Maybe it's time that give all dimensions their dimension including the point. Maybe the observer passes through time.

cladking wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 2:53 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:32 am

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 12:04 am

Not to the squirrel or his acorn. He has no abstractions. Reality is his plaything. Space emanates from his brain/ body and he hurtles through time according to patterns he can see.


AI- “The squirrel knows no abstraction; his acorn is reality, his plaything is time.”

Space is not limited to abstraction given the senses require the observation of form. Space is abstract by degree of forms, Space is empirical by degree of forms.

You're assuming space exists as we perceive it, which is odd in light of the fact that there's room in it for all the matter in the universe to pass through a point but no room for a point to have an observer. Maybe it's time that give all dimensions their dimension including the point. Maybe the observer passes through time.

Perception requires space for it to occur.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 5:48 am

cladking wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 2:53 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:32 am

Space is not limited to abstraction given the senses require the observation of form. Space is abstract by degree of forms, Space is empirical by degree of forms.

You're assuming space exists as we perceive it, which is odd in light of the fact that there's room in it for all the matter in the universe to pass through a point but no room for a point to have an observer. Maybe it's time that give all dimensions their dimension including the point. Maybe the observer passes through time.

Perception requires space for it to occur.

We don't know that and even if we did we don't know the nature of space except relative our perception. What we do know is that perception requires time and that space without time has no meaning. We can imagine it but we can not exist within it.

cladking wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:58 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 5:48 am

cladking wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 2:53 am

You're assuming space exists as we perceive it, which is odd in light of the fact that there's room in it for all the matter in the universe to pass through a point but no room for a point to have an observer. Maybe it's time that give all dimensions their dimension including the point. Maybe the observer passes through time.

Perception requires space for it to occur.

We don't know that and even if we did we don't know the nature of space except relative our perception. What we do know is that perception requires time and that space without time has no meaning. We can imagine it but we can not exist within it.

To percieve perception is to observe void, space.

To percieve perception is to observe void, space.

I have no clue how to address this. First science denies the observer and then the existence of reality.

Descartes was nuts. Perception is the observer within reality. With no proper definition for space we can't say he even exists within space.

I tend to think of the observer as the dimension of a point that is moving through time giving us four dimensions moving through time. This has got to be more elegant than the Frankenstein's monster we call "cosmology" with no observer and an infinite number of ramps to build an infinite number of pyramids.

We've been misled by abstraction.

Descartes was not nuts- his mathematics ran counter to church teachings and he knew what the church did to Galileo - so he reworded Anslem...

-Imp