Reality is Inaccessible

[roydop]

The problem with Nonduality is that it says: "Everything is one"

What philosopher or philosophy ever said that?

This is my understanding of the basic tenet of Nonduality.

[RCSaunders]

The problem with Nonduality is that it says: "Everything is one"

What philosopher or philosophy ever said that?

This is my understanding of the basic tenet of Nonduality.

Dualism is the philosophical view that there are two fundamentally different kinds of existence usually called the physical (ontological or natural) and non-physical (spiritual or supernatural). Their are other dichotomies as well.

Monism is the philosophical view that there is only one fundamental existence.

Neither monism or dualism assumes any limit to the number of existents there are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point with "Reality is Inaccessible" is that philosophically one should dig deeper and wider into what the statement really means.
...it is actually an impossibility and eternally that we will NEVER ever access that really real reality 'out there'.

Reality is what our consciousness perceives.

It matters not whether we are brains-in-vats or we indeed are carrying around mass in the form of a human being, what we perceive IS reality.

We cannot be absolute certain that "Reality is what our consciousness perceives".
Berkeley became a punchbag of philosophers during his time and even now with is 'Esse is Percipi".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/esse-e ... i-doctrine

Re Common Sense and conventional sense I agree, most of what we see is reality

But if we move to a more refine level of deliberation, i.e. Science, the most reliable source of knowledge we have, we cannot confirm 'what we perceive IS reality'.
Note what Sculptor wrote [which I agree to that extent] with detailed explanation prior to your post;
viewtopic.php?p=523041#p523041

At the more refined level of philosophical reflection, we have Philosophical Realism which claims, what we perceive is not reality; reality exists independently and objectively of the human conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

However Philosophical Realism is countered by anti-Philosophical_Realists, in my case, Empirical Realism [transcendental idealism] which claim reality is not independent of the human conditions.

In your case as a theist, God is real and reality, but you cannot see or perceive God.

None of the above need to be rejected but in each of the above claims one has to bedeliberated in the contexts and perspective of the claims then consider the pros and cons of each claim, then weigh its optimality to one's or a group's conditions on hand.

[attofishpi]

Plenty of empirical evidence I have provided that there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality here:- Simulation or Divine Reality? - evidence of God\'God':- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

..when I state empirical evidence in this case, I am not talking about statements in my OP about my personal EMPIRICAL experiences, which could be all lies, wack-job, UFO material etc..

I am talking about observable evidence that I am able to project on this very forum, for you and all and sundry to observe and make your own minds up, as to whether the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, that indeed it is likely there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality.

Wow, two reading assignments in the same day!

2500 years of science, and what I imagine is some admixture of God, aliens and quantum physics!

You were pipped at the post by uwot - I'll be reading and responding to his thing first.

If I forget, don't be offended, just remind me.

Sure, uwot actually understands that there were many priests through time that made some amazing contributions to science. Your problem appears to be, a lack of understanding that wankers at the top - as in Popes etc, (..and for that matter politicians atheist and theist) would rather save face than face scientific facts. Unfortunately, you are one of those that think God is incompatible with scientific comprehension. - science v religion - it ain't that simple.

BTW:- I recall you stating that in the Bible there is a statement that the Sun revolves around the Earth - please cite the reference.

The below attributes that I have ascribed to this 3rd party intelligence (God) were garnered from analysis of my experiences since 1997 (when God introduced itself to me). You are welcome within the thread to challenge me, as to how I had these attributes empirically proven (to me).

I don't want to comment on this because it's something you believe, and is important to you.

It's not something I merely believe, it is something I have knowledge of.

I assume that's why you are defending to the hilt your claim that empiricism doesn't necessarily require verification. To my mind, empiricism does require verification, and therein lies the problem - that what you describe there is personal to you.

You really do lack reading comprehension. I stated that within that thread NOT to rely on my personal account of of my personal EMPIRICAL observations, since sure, could be lies, could be UFO, could be wack-job brain farting.

I STATED, you are not expected to rely on the above account of what MY empirical observations were, I STATED:-
I have provided observable evidence that I am able to project on this very forum, for you and all and sundry to observe and make your own minds up, as to whether the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, that indeed it is likely there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality.

It is on that point, that you, nor any other agnostic atheist has made a challenge to within that thread - it is irrefutable EVIDENCE.

If next time God pops in for a chat, you'd introduce me - I'd be extraordinarily grateful, but until then I can't accept that your experiences are empirical. What I would say, is that..

I'd say you are contradicting your own insistence that EMPIRICISM MUST be scientifically verifiable. (Wally )


Again:- I recall you stating that in the Bible there is a statement that the Sun revolves around the Earth - please cite the reference.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The problem with Nonduality is that it says: "Everything is one" and just leave it at that. This is too simplistic of a model.

The analogy is that of looking into a mirror. I can say: "That's me" while simultaneously possessing the inherent intuition: "I am not that." The ego "your name here" is the mirror image. The Nondualists are saying by default that the reflection is at par with that which is looking into the mirror. It's incomplete and they end up with big troubles trying to address suffering so they try to sweep it under the rug.

The following addresses your "Things" point:

WESTERN THOUGHT AND THE PROBLEM WITH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Western thought is heavily biased toward materialism. Particle physics is based upon the assumption that physical “things” are fundamental reality; the frame of reference; source. This bias is expressed in/as the language we use to define reality itself. This language then forms our view/conceptualization of reality.
Our conceptualization of a “thing” as something that exists and that thing is physical. Our conceptualization of “nothing” is as something that does not exist; a void; as a lack of anything and/or everything. The reason why is “thing” is expressed in italics is to show that “thing” is the foundational word for all of reality. Given that “thing” is ingrained in consciousness as referring to physical objects, the bias is obvious.
This bias is clearly seen by the following, more comprehensive model:
- 0 +
NON-THINGS POTENTIAL THINGS
The stark dualistic, simplistic system of either “thing” or “nothing” has been replaced by the more comprehensive system where: that which was “nothing” (a non-existent phenomenon – a paradox) now becomes a phenomenon that exists and is not physical in nature. This is a “non-thing”. I have extrapolated this “non-thing” phenomenon to be thought (the “voice in your head”). Thought: A: Exists. B: is not physical (this is taken to be self-evident). Also, the zero, which previously represented “nothing” now represents “potential”. This is the comprehensive, fundamental model/metaphor expressed in the following systems:

NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE
MIND SPIRIT BODY HOLY GHOST FATHER SON
YIN TAO YANG
FUTURE PRESENCE PAST
FEMALE SELF MALE
THOUGHT REALITY PHYSICAL
WAVE FUCTION OBSERVER PARTICLE
DEATH LIFE BIRTH
Human consciousness’s ingrained bias toward all phenomena on the right column is expressed/manifests in/as society. The connotation toward “Negative” is self-evident. The inequality between female and male; the assigning of non-physical phenomena as “nothing”; our fear and avoidance of death; our inability to know the future as well as the past, are all expressions of the bias of attention toward the right column.
A new, unbiased and comprehensive model has 0 = potential and “nothing” changes from “the lack of a thing/things” to “nothing that can be described.” This model is in line with Taoism where: “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.” These are expressions/metaphor of the fundamental workings of Reality. They are all pointing to a singular Truth. The purpose of the game is singular in nature, and this is why all expressions at this fundamental level spit out the same model, using different metaphors.

My background is in Eastern Philosophy.
So I can agree with your point re the Tao above.
I have no issue if Tao culminate and emerge as in the 10th picture [Zen],

• 
  10. In the World
  Barefooted and naked of breast, I mingle with the people of the world.
  My clothes are ragged and dust-laden, and I am ever blissful..
  I use no magic to extend my life;
  Now, before me, the dead trees become alive.

Here there is no thinking of the space-between-two-thoughts whatsoever.

Note also the tetralemma of Buddhism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma

[Veritas Aequitas]

lets see, science and religion would disagree with you on that. both agree the universe was before there was mankind, so reality most certainly is with or without humans therefore without human conditions.

so actually your whole premise, if that's what it is, is invalid.

Religion??
Of course the Abrahamic religion would not agree with me.

However, Hinduism [1 billion + followers] which is theistic, believe there is no Absolute Reality except God [Brahman].
Buddhism, Jainism which are non-theistic believe there is "Nothing" ultimately while accepting the empirical is real.
So at least religions like Buddhism and other non-theistic plus Hinduism agree with me.

• In the Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy, Maya is "the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

Not all scientists and their science believe the Universe pre-existed mankind.
see this;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

As for the Science in General, Science can only ASSUME there is an ultimate reality to be discovered.
What Science can confirm as scientific theories or truths are merely 'polished conjectures' and not absolutely certain truths.

As for Philosophers, note Russell and others;
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814
Despite raising the the above doubt Russell still believe there is objective reality out there.

So, your 'lets see' is false.

we're not stupid here we already know you can find some evidence you can interpret to support you line of thinking. but anyone with any sense knows where of i speak on this. and so do you. beside are you going to tell me you're a Buddhist or a scientist? or maybe a off the beaten path scientific Buddhist and that's what inspired you to think this dump ass shit.

Did you read the OP fully?
Therein I discussed the ins an outs of the point plus the pros and cons of it.
In addition I took the trouble to counter and address your point rationally.
Then the most you can counter is "dump ass shit" which reflect your lack of intellectual and philosophical incompetence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you are saying that the mechanism of sight is not real?
Yes or no?

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no?

That is not a good analogy. I'm not asking him if he STILL thinks a thing.
My question is strightforward with no assumptions.

I will not speak for TS, but the mechanisms of sight you described were as correct as can at present be known, and describe exactly how and why what we see by means of that mechanism are things as they actually are.

So you are saying that the mechanisms of sight I describe are real.
So there are things concerned directly with the sense of seeing which are invisible to you. The fact is you cannot what is "out there", any more than when you are watching Angela Jolie on a film screen you are seeing her in the flesh.
What you "see" is both more than is there and is less than is there. You cannot see everything in front of you and there are things you are seeing which your brain is supplying such as colour and meaning.
When a dog hears a symphony they can hear far more than you in terms of vibration but they cannot hear "music" for that you require human neurology. Some humans are blessed with perfect pitch, some cannot understand jazz. this is because we cannot hear what is "real" - we hear more than is there, and less than is there.

Agree with all the above which is scientific and rational, but with reservations re what is stated in the OP.
viewtopic.php?p=522603#p522603

[Veritas Aequitas]

This strange view that has infected philosophy for a long time has always bewildered me.

You should try thinking more, and invinting your mind to break away from your naive realism.

So you think I should deny the irrefutable evidence of my own perception and reject the world as I actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste it, and embrace some mystical world I cannot see, hear, feel, smell or taste, or even know, as the real existence. I should take the word of philosophers and academics who assure me they know what the really real world is and reject the world in which I actually live, breath, work, and love.

No thanks! Your arguments sound suspiciously like the woman's who got caught by her husband in bed with another man: "Are you going to believe your own eyes against the world of your loving wife?"

Think I'll stay naive and believe what I see. I cannot see any advantage to being sophisticated enough to believe the world I perceive isn't real, but some other world I cannot perceive is.

Your problem is you do not differentiate but conflate all the senses together, i.e. common sense, conventional sense, etc. scientific sense, philosophical sense, to insist upon your conclusions.

It is so obvious what humans are capable of are only the cognitions via their senses and rationality of the human representations of reality.

The fact is there are so many counter arguments and contraries which can prove that what is perceived and cognize [representations] do not always correspond precisely to what-is-actually-real i..e. things-as-they-really-are.
The very obvious counter-arguments are cases of hallucinations and various natural and necessary illusions.
Sculptor had also given so many examples and explanations of how what-are-representations which vary to different conditions and different people implying there must be something real "out there".

Take for example an event that happened in front of 1 million people.
To determine the precise details, it is likely there will be 1 million different description of what is supposedly to be real of what happened.
But there is something that happened, so philosophically [not common sense, not Science] there must be something that really had happened and it is objective and independent of individual views.

In the above case, you are forcing yourself to be ignorant and refuse to dig deeper [philosohically] into the higher truths of reality. In this case, philosophically, Sculptor is one-step up on you.

But there are further and deeper philosophical truths that can be dug as in the OP.

[Vitruvius]

The below attributes that I have ascribed to this 3rd party intelligence (God) were garnered from analysis of my experiences since 1997 (when God introduced itself to me). You are welcome within the thread to challenge me, as to how I had these attributes empirically proven (to me).

I don't want to comment on this because it's something you believe, and is important to you.

It's not something I merely believe, it is something I have knowledge of.

I assume that's why you are defending to the hilt your claim that empiricism doesn't necessarily require verification. To my mind, empiricism does require verification, and therein lies the problem - that what you describe there is personal to you.

You really do lack reading comprehension. I stated that within that thread NOT to rely on my personal account of of my personal EMPIRICAL observations, since sure, could be lies, could be UFO, could be wack-job brain farting.

I STATED, you are not expected to rely on the above account of what MY empirical observations were, I STATED:-

I have provided observable evidence that I am able to project on this very forum, for you and all and sundry to observe and make your own minds up, as to whether the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, that indeed it is likely there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality.

It is on that point, that you, nor any other agnostic atheist has made a challenge to within that thread - it is irrefutable EVIDENCE.

If next time God pops in for a chat, you'd introduce me - I'd be extraordinarily grateful, but until then I can't accept that your experiences are empirical. What I would say, is that..

I'd say you are contradicting your own insistence that EMPIRICISM MUST be scientifically verifiable. (Wally ) Again:- I recall you stating that in the Bible there is a statement that the Sun revolves around the Earth - please cite the reference.

So you're in direct contact with God? That's an extraordinary claim - and as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What you describe as evidence is paranoid pattern recognition, not dissimilar to the reading of tea leaves, casting the bones, auspices etc, a mode of thinking quite common in human history, which by no means constitutes extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claims. And you're wrong about empiricism too! Sorry, I didn't want to say that to you, but you insisted!

[Sculptor]

If we can't actually see objects, then we can't really see retinas, right?

So you are saying that the mechanism of sight is not real?
Yes or no?

No. I'm saying that we can't argue that our knowledge of retinas allows us to conclude that we can't actually observe things that are external to us, because if we argue that, then we couldn't observe retinas in the first place to reach this conclusion.

Yes, there are "real things" intimately associated with sight that we are unaware of when we "see" and that these, as many other things, are immediately hidden from us and are inperceptible to sight.
The only way your objection could stand, and it is a valid one, is to firmly assert that there is a gap between the "out there objective reality" and the part of it we can see. In this we are in agreement. Despite you changing the definition of reality to be something personal (above), we can safely conclude that the "objective" reality, posited by the thread question is not exactly what we are seeing, but some representation of it via a mechanism designed by the luck and flaw of natural selection, and that our particular version of this is unile other species in many respects.
Yes, there are "real things" intimately associated with sight that we are unaware of when we "see" and that these, as many other things, are immediately hidden from us and are inperceptible to sight.

In other words, saying "We can't actually observe objects (external things, etc.)" is nonsense that can't be supported by arguments about what retinas are like, because if we accept the conclusion, then we couldn't observe retinas in the first place.

You are repeating yourself here.
Quelling the objections of the naive realists in this matter quote defended his position by saying
We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word, therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the perception as an effect of something external that must be the proximate cause —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f.

[Sculptor]

You cannot see everything in front of you and there are things you are seeing which your brain is supplying such as colour and meaning.

How odd! How does the brain know which color to supply when I see something.

My mummy had a very similar neurology and told me how to nominate colours.
She had colour in her head too and had learned by convention what words to use to for each one.
What no one can say is whether or not each of us see the same thing. What might be blue for you is read for me.
What this shows is that there is an external reality, but we are only seeing an interpretation and representation of it.
Indidentally neurologial differences mean that people do not have the same spectrum in their heads. There is what is called colour blindness, and some human groups that can see more than the average westerner.
So we cannot even tell is we see the same thing and know for sure that different people have different specra and more or less resolution.

Until it was understood that the colors one sees directly correspond to particular wave lengths of light, one might have believed that, but now that we know when we see, "red," it is always the same wave lengths of light, for the brain to be supplying the color it would have to know what wave lengths of light to supply that color to. How does know what wave lengths of light are being seen?

No this makes no difference whatever. In fact the discovery that colour is only wavelengths strengthens my case.
Wavelengths are a continuum wherase colour are not. Red and blue differ in Quality, wavelength differ in Quantity

The conscious experience of red is how we see actual things that are red.

Naive realism

If that is not how they ought to be seen, to be seeing red as it actually is, how should it be seen? Or are you saying it is not possible to be conscious of things as they actually are in any way whatsoever?

If what you are perceiving is not what it actually is, how do you know it? Is nothing what it appears to be?

Strawman

[Sculptor]

This strange view that has infected philosophy for a long time has always bewildered me.

You should try thinking more, and invinting your mind to break away from your naive realism.

So you think I should deny the irrefutable evidence of my own perception and reject the world as I actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste it, and embrace some mystical world I cannot see, hear, feel, smell or taste, or even know, as the real existence. I should take the word of philosophers and academics who assure me they know what the really real world is and reject the world in which I actually live, breath, work, and love.

Fucking hell - you really have it bad.
Its all really real? Even Love?
I think you should stop to consider that the world you think you are living in and the life you think you are leading is a construction that actually happens in side your head.
That is irrefutable.

No thanks! Your arguments sound suspiciously like the woman's who got caught by her husband in bed with another man: "Are you going to believe your own eyes against the world of your loving wife?"

Think I'll stay naive and believe what I see. I cannot see any advantage to being sophisticated enough to believe the world I perceive isn't real, but some other world I cannot perceive is.

You sound really scared.

[Sculptor]

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no?

That is not a good analogy. I'm not asking him if he STILL thinks a thing.
My question is strightforward with no assumptions.

I will not speak for TS, but the mechanisms of sight you described were as correct as can at present be known, and describe exactly how and why what we see by means of that mechanism are things as they actually are.

So you are saying that the mechanisms of sight I describe are real.
So there are things concerned directly with the sense of seeing which are invisible to you. The fact is you cannot what is "out there", any more than when you are watching Angela Jolie on a film screen you are seeing her in the flesh.
What you "see" is both more than is there and is less than is there. You cannot see everything in front of you and there are things you are seeing which your brain is supplying such as colour and meaning.
When a dog hears a symphony they can hear far more than you in terms of vibration but they cannot hear "music" for that you require human neurology. Some humans are blessed with perfect pitch, some cannot understand jazz. this is because we cannot hear what is "real" - we hear more than is there, and less than is there.

Agree with all the above which is scientific and rational, but with reservations re what is stated in the OP.
viewtopic.php?p=522603#p522603

KANT
We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word, therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the perception as an effect of something external that must be the proximate cause —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f.

[Vitruvius]

KANT
We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word, therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the perception as an effect of something external that must be the proximate cause —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f.

Nominally, that's true, but irrelevant! How perception works is secondary to overwhelming evidence that perception works the same for you and I, and is accurate to an objective reality. Subjectivism ignores this, denies it - as you do here:

My mummy had a very similar neurology and told me how to nominate colours.
She had colour in her head too and had learned by convention what words to use to for each one.
What no one can say is whether or not each of us see the same thing. What might be blue for you is read for me.

People have meaningful discussions about Van Gough's use of light and colour that simply couldn't occur if 'what might be blue for you, might be red for me.' In evolution, fruit advertise their ripeness with colour - red fruit against green trees, and that strategy - attracting birds and monkeys to spread the seed, would not work if the mechanisms of sensory perception were not accurate to reality. If perception were not accurate to reality, the human species could not have survived. Subjectivism is false - a lie constructed to deny science the authority of truth, starting with Descartes cogito ergo sum, while Galileo was on trial for his life, and ending with 'Trump digs coal!'

[Sculptor]

KANT
We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word, therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the perception as an effect of something external that must be the proximate cause —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f.

Nominally, that's true, but irrelevant! How perception works is secondary to overwhelming evidence that perception works the same for you and I, and is accurate to an objective reality. Subjectivism ignores this, denies it - as you do here:

No. It is not relavant that perceptions works the same for you and I, and Kant is not adressing that anyway. Since we share the same cerebral anatomy it is not a surprise that we perceive the same thing. The question here would be, to what degree is human perception partial, and we know that is true since other animals percieve things better than us, and some perceive things we cannot.

My mummy had a very similar neurology and told me how to nominate colours.
She had colour in her head too and had learned by convention what words to use to for each one.
What no one can say is whether or not each of us see the same thing. What might be blue for you is read for me.

People have meaningful discussions about Van Gough's use of light and colour that simply couldn't occur if 'what might be blue for you, might be red for me.'

Total rubbish. Discussion and diagreements in art lead us to the conclusion that we call see in our own way. We cannot eevern agree if a dress is blue or gold on the internet.
It obvious that colour is in the head not out there. Variations in wavelength are quantitative; colour perception is qualitative.

In evolution, fruit advertise their ripeness with colour - red fruit against green trees, and that strategy - attracting birds and monkeys to spread the seed, would not work if the mechanisms of sensory perception were not accurate to reality. If perception were not accurate to reality, the human species could not have survived. Subjectivism is false - a lie constructed to deny science the authority of truth, starting with Descartes cogito ergo sum, while Galileo was on trial for his life, and ending with 'Trump digs coal!'

Not relevant. Not true.
If we could not hold subjective views we would have no grounds for disagreement.
Evey page on this forum shouts SUBJECTIVE.