For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Exactly!Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 2:33 amBecause it is not universally self-evident, coherence requires self-evidence for it is self-evident that something is coherent for that is what makes it coherent.
If all is probablistic than probalism is subject to its own nature.
Nicely put.Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 am Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”
———
Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.
Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone. It simply is and precedes any thought about it.
The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it. Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.
Why thanks BelindaBelinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:42 amNicely put.Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 am Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”
———
Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.
Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone. It simply is and precedes any thought about it.
The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it. Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.
"Precedes" implies time or space. Our language simply is not fit for the purpose of metaphysics. "Precedes " is a useful image but it isn't the only image.
Another image of reality is wraparound reality that encloses all thought and perception, but is itself inscrutable.
I don't think Age will be satisfied with mentalistic descriptions, as he did stipulate physical reality, he possibly believes reality means physical unlike you and me who know and understand trains of thought.
IF 'this', what you just SAID and CLAIMED, here, WERE TRUE, then what you just SAID and CLAIMED, here, WOULD ONLY BE A DISTORTION OF 'REALITY', AND, ONLY AN ARTIFICIAL REPRESENTATION MODEL, and NOT 'IT', correct?Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 am Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”
———
Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.
ABSOLUTELY NO one that I AM AWARE OF has SAID NOR CLAIMED that 'IT' is.
But, 'your perception or thoughts about 'it', IS just an illusory secondary overlay, right?
BUT there is NO such 'thing' as A so-called 'mind's model of ANY thing, let alone reality', itself.
Okay, But, 'this perception, or thought, of yours', here, Is just AN ILLUSORY SECONDARY OVERLAY, and IS ONLY A DISTORTION, right?
So, is 'your language', here, SIMPLY FIT for the purposes OF EXPLAINING 'things', here? Or, NOT FIT?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:42 amNicely put.Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 am Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”
———
Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.
Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone. It simply is and precedes any thought about it.
The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it. Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.
"Precedes" implies time or space. Our language simply is not fit for the purpose of metaphysics.
AND, THEN there IS the OTHER and True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct IMAGE, and BIG and FULL, CRYSTAL CLEAR, Picture.
AGAIN, you ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO think or BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing of YOUR CHOOSING, and LIKING.
WHEN have I EVER STIPULATED so-called 'physical reality'? And, in WHAT CONTEXT, EXACTLY?
LOL
But these things are not self-evident to you, nothing is.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 6:29 amWord salad. Sorry but you can't tell abstracta and concreta apart.
Occurence is the foundation of all as occurence, things just are and what make them what they are is change.Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 am Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”
———
Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.
Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone. It simply is and precedes any thought about it.
The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it. Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.
The conversations I have some days with Atla.....Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:08 amExactly!
https://youtu.be/Wn73f09N5QU?si=mEff9oq_Rje__oua
Philosophy and Consciousness - Ghost in the Machine
Age, there is physical reality and there is mental reality. There may be more aspects of reality however the physical and the mental are the only aspects of reality we can know.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 2:36 pmSo, is 'your language', here, SIMPLY FIT for the purposes OF EXPLAINING 'things', here? Or, NOT FIT?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:42 amNicely put.Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 am Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”
———
Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.
Reality is not actually happening to anyone, or is for anyone. It simply is and precedes any thought about it.
The mind’s model of reality is like observing a train of thought end, and never returning to it. Reality has no mind to receive an image of it.
"Precedes" implies time or space. Our language simply is not fit for the purpose of metaphysics.AND, THEN there IS the OTHER and True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct IMAGE, and BIG and FULL, CRYSTAL CLEAR, Picture.
Which, AGAIN, IF ANY one IS Truly INTERESTED IN SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING, the let 'us' have AN ACTUAL DISCUSSION, here.AGAIN, you ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO think or BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing of YOUR CHOOSING, and LIKING.
WHEN have I EVER STIPULATED so-called 'physical reality'? And, in WHAT CONTEXT, EXACTLY?
LOL
LOL
LOL
'This one' COULD NOT BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL Truth OF THINGS, here.
There is, ACTUALLY, ONLY One 'Reality', which CONSISTS OF BOTH 'physicality' and 'mentality'.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:46 pmAge, there is physical reality and there is mental reality.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 2:36 pmSo, is 'your language', here, SIMPLY FIT for the purposes OF EXPLAINING 'things', here? Or, NOT FIT?AND, THEN there IS the OTHER and True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct IMAGE, and BIG and FULL, CRYSTAL CLEAR, Picture.
Which, AGAIN, IF ANY one IS Truly INTERESTED IN SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING, the let 'us' have AN ACTUAL DISCUSSION, here.AGAIN, you ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO think or BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing of YOUR CHOOSING, and LIKING.
WHEN have I EVER STIPULATED so-called 'physical reality'? And, in WHAT CONTEXT, EXACTLY?
LOL
LOL
LOL
'This one' COULD NOT BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL Truth OF THINGS, here.
Okay. If this is what you want to BELIEVE is true, then this is perfectly fine and okay, with me.
Excessive verbosity is obviously your thing Age, no offence, but it’s how you prefer to style your responses . . and is why interacting with you often becomes boring and tedious.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 2:30 pmIF 'this', what you just SAID and CLAIMED, here, WERE TRUE, then what you just SAID and CLAIMED, here, WOULD ONLY BE A DISTORTION OF 'REALITY', AND, ONLY AN ARTIFICIAL REPRESENTATION MODEL, and NOT 'IT', correct?Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 am Age wrote: “Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?”
———
Response: Our perception or thoughts about physical reality would be an illusory secondary overlay, which would only be a distortion of it, an artificial representational model, and not it.ABSOLUTELY NO one that I AM AWARE OF has SAID NOR CLAIMED that 'IT' is.But, 'your perception or thoughts about 'it', IS just an illusory secondary overlay, right?
And, if yes, then what you just SAID and WROTE, here, would just be ONLY A DISTORTION of 'it'.BUT there is NO such 'thing' as A so-called 'mind's model of ANY thing, let alone reality', itself.Okay, But, 'this perception, or thought, of yours', here, Is just AN ILLUSORY SECONDARY OVERLAY, and IS ONLY A DISTORTION, right?
Or, do you BELIEVE that 'your perceptions or thoughts' are AN ACTUAL ACCURATE and CORRECT VERSION OF 'REALITY', ITSELF?
Can you, YET, SEE the CONTRADICTIONS, and HYPOCRISY, here?