Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:33 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:12 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:06 am

Considering we were talking about Consciousness, Itself, then in regards to 'that', then what 'that' or 'this' label is, is 'Consciousness'.

Also, it does NOT matter one iota what 'labels' are used. What Truly matters is what the 'label' refers to EXACTLY, and how the 'label' is being defined.

Yet use is defined through the subjective angle it is applied, one label can have many meanings.

Which was what I was POINTING OUT and SHOWING.

So, what you wrote here "eodnhoj7" is VERY, VERY True.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:14 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:33 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:12 am

Yet use is defined through the subjective angle it is applied, one label can have many meanings.

Which was what I was POINTING OUT and SHOWING.

So, what you wrote here "eodnhoj7" is VERY, VERY True.

Then inversely multiple labels may observe the same thing.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:27 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:14 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:33 am

Which was what I was POINTING OUT and SHOWING.

So, what you wrote here "eodnhoj7" is VERY, VERY True.

Then inversely multiple labels may observe the same thing.

I do NOT recall any, at this very moment. Can you?

If yes, then will you provide them?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:37 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:27 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:14 am

Then inversely multiple labels may observe the same thing.

I do NOT recall any, at this very moment. Can you?

If yes, then will you provide them?

A horse may be called a:

Mammal
Mustang
Organism

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:38 am Reality is all-there-is.

All-there-is is represented by real phenomena which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].

Whatever phenomena that is not known yet [if claimed to be possibly real] must at least be empirically and philosophically possible to be verified and justified within a FSK.
E.g. a square-circle is not empirically and philosophically possible.
A thing-in-itself is not empirically and philosophically to be real within reality - all-there-is.
Human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away is an empirical and philosophically possibility.

Thus what is real within reality cannot be independent of a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR/FSK].

However there are many [philosophical realists] who claimed there is "something prior" i.e. real objective reality for reality - all-there-is and all phenomena that is beyond what are perceived or appeared.

• What is that "something prior?"
  
  Let say you saw [perception 1] a mirage of water in the middle of a desert.
  
  But you think this is based on perception [2] of "something prior" i.e. the replication of actual water.
  
  On more closer perception[3] the truth is the actual water is something of a liquid.
  
  On more closer perception[4] the liquid is wet.
  
  On more closer perception[5] using a microscope, the wet liquid is make H20 molecules.
  
  On more closer perception[6] using an electron microscope, the cellulose molecules [H20] are comprised of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms.
  
  On more closer perception[7], those molecules are a bundle of generic atoms
  
  On more closer perception[8], those atoms are a bundle of generic electrons and proton,
  
  On more closer perception[9], there are various types quarks
  
  On more closer perception[10], it is bundle of either wave or particle depending on how it is perceived. So, what is seemingly ultimate is not something objectively real but rather subjectively [observer's based] real.
  
  Thereafter, we are lost and do what know what is the ultimate substance - the Objective Reality of the water we perceived[2] earlier.

From the above, there is a reducing range of something prior and no one has discovered what the ultimate prior something is.

As far as science is concern, it merely ASSUMEs there is an ultimate something prior, thus for science that something prior is an impossibility to be real scientifically.

So there is no other credible way we can ever find what is the real ultimate something prior that is independent of human-based framework and system of reality..

Science being the standard bearer of truth [the most credible] deny such 'other reality beyond it' exists as real and that it is impossible to be scientifically real, thus merely ASSUMES it exists.

Why philosophical realists are so desperate to reach for the 'other reality beyond it' -the impossible to be real - is due to subliminal psychological existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, else they will feel suspended and very uneasy.

I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
Answers??

Views?

“The danger is not that the soul should doubt whether there is any bread, but that, by a lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry.” ~ Simone Weil

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 5:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:38 am Reality is all-there-is.

All-there-is is represented by real phenomena which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].

Whatever phenomena that is not known yet [if claimed to be possibly real] must at least be empirically and philosophically possible to be verified and justified within a FSK.
E.g. a square-circle is not empirically and philosophically possible.
A thing-in-itself is not empirically and philosophically to be real within reality - all-there-is.
Human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away is an empirical and philosophically possibility.

Thus what is real within reality cannot be independent of a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR/FSK].

However there are many [philosophical realists] who claimed there is "something prior" i.e. real objective reality for reality - all-there-is and all phenomena that is beyond what are perceived or appeared.

• What is that "something prior?"
  
  Let say you saw [perception 1] a mirage of water in the middle of a desert.
  
  But you think this is based on perception [2] of "something prior" i.e. the replication of actual water.
  
  On more closer perception[3] the truth is the actual water is something of a liquid.
  
  On more closer perception[4] the liquid is wet.
  
  On more closer perception[5] using a microscope, the wet liquid is make H20 molecules.
  
  On more closer perception[6] using an electron microscope, the cellulose molecules [H20] are comprised of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms.
  
  On more closer perception[7], those molecules are a bundle of generic atoms
  
  On more closer perception[8], those atoms are a bundle of generic electrons and proton,
  
  On more closer perception[9], there are various types quarks
  
  On more closer perception[10], it is bundle of either wave or particle depending on how it is perceived. So, what is seemingly ultimate is not something objectively real but rather subjectively [observer's based] real.
  
  Thereafter, we are lost and do what know what is the ultimate substance - the Objective Reality of the water we perceived[2] earlier.

From the above, there is a reducing range of something prior and no one has discovered what the ultimate prior something is.

As far as science is concern, it merely ASSUMEs there is an ultimate something prior, thus for science that something prior is an impossibility to be real scientifically.

So there is no other credible way we can ever find what is the real ultimate something prior that is independent of human-based framework and system of reality..

Science being the standard bearer of truth [the most credible] deny such 'other reality beyond it' exists as real and that it is impossible to be scientifically real, thus merely ASSUMES it exists.

Why philosophical realists are so desperate to reach for the 'other reality beyond it' -the impossible to be real - is due to subliminal psychological existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, else they will feel suspended and very uneasy.

I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
Answers??

Views?

NOW is prior to the process of existence. Just like a moth is attracted to the light of the sun, the seed of the soul of Man is attracted to the light of our source. The physical body profits by searching for food when hungry and the seed of the soul pursues the light of our source because of its need. If it denies the need it may die of substance starvation.

“The danger is not that the soul should doubt whether there is any bread, but that, by a lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry.” ~ Simone Weil

How many seeds of souls die prematurely and never get the chance to grow only because they've been conditioned by a lie?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:00 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 5:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:38 am Reality is all-there-is.

All-there-is is represented by real phenomena which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].

Whatever phenomena that is not known yet [if claimed to be possibly real] must at least be empirically and philosophically possible to be verified and justified within a FSK.
E.g. a square-circle is not empirically and philosophically possible.
A thing-in-itself is not empirically and philosophically to be real within reality - all-there-is.
Human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away is an empirical and philosophically possibility.

Thus what is real within reality cannot be independent of a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR/FSK].

However there are many [philosophical realists] who claimed there is "something prior" i.e. real objective reality for reality - all-there-is and all phenomena that is beyond what are perceived or appeared.

• What is that "something prior?"
  
  Let say you saw [perception 1] a mirage of water in the middle of a desert.
  
  But you think this is based on perception [2] of "something prior" i.e. the replication of actual water.
  
  On more closer perception[3] the truth is the actual water is something of a liquid.
  
  On more closer perception[4] the liquid is wet.
  
  On more closer perception[5] using a microscope, the wet liquid is make H20 molecules.
  
  On more closer perception[6] using an electron microscope, the cellulose molecules [H20] are comprised of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms.
  
  On more closer perception[7], those molecules are a bundle of generic atoms
  
  On more closer perception[8], those atoms are a bundle of generic electrons and proton,
  
  On more closer perception[9], there are various types quarks
  
  On more closer perception[10], it is bundle of either wave or particle depending on how it is perceived. So, what is seemingly ultimate is not something objectively real but rather subjectively [observer's based] real.
  
  Thereafter, we are lost and do what know what is the ultimate substance - the Objective Reality of the water we perceived[2] earlier.

From the above, there is a reducing range of something prior and no one has discovered what the ultimate prior something is.

As far as science is concern, it merely ASSUMEs there is an ultimate something prior, thus for science that something prior is an impossibility to be real scientifically.

So there is no other credible way we can ever find what is the real ultimate something prior that is independent of human-based framework and system of reality..

Science being the standard bearer of truth [the most credible] deny such 'other reality beyond it' exists as real and that it is impossible to be scientifically real, thus merely ASSUMES it exists.

Why philosophical realists are so desperate to reach for the 'other reality beyond it' -the impossible to be real - is due to subliminal psychological existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, else they will feel suspended and very uneasy.

I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
Answers??

Views?

NOW is prior to the process of existence. Just like a moth is attracted to the light of the sun, the seed of the soul of Man is attracted to the light of our source. The physical body profits by searching for food when hungry and the seed of the soul pursues the light of our source because of its need. If it denies the need it may die of substance starvation.

“The danger is not that the soul should doubt whether there is any bread, but that, by a lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry.” ~ Simone Weil

How many seeds of souls die prematurely and never get the chance to grow only because they've been conditioned by a lie?

NOW is now, how can it be prior, i.e. the past?

You made the presumption there is a soul [that survive physical death] without proving it is real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:00 am What is real is the empirical self i.e. the "I that think" and "I that Act".
There is no "I AM" as the independent soul that survives after physical death.
Once the body is dead, there is no more "I" nor a soul.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:00 am I asked [in the above],
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans" i.e. in your case, there is a soul?
Answers??

Why you think there is a soul is using "the idea of a soul" as a consonance to deal with an existential dissonance.

NOW is now, how can it be prior, i.e. the past?

You made the presumption there is a soul [that survive physical death] without proving it is real.

What is real is the empirical self i.e. the "I that think" and "I that Act".
There is no "I AM" as the independent soul that survives after physical death.
Once the body is dead, there is no more "I" nor a soul.

Why you think there is a soul is using "the idea of a soul" as a consonance to deal with an existential dissonance.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:21 am V A

NOW is now, how can it be prior, i.e. the past?

You made the presumption there is a soul [that survive physical death] without proving it is real.

What is real is the empirical self i.e. the "I that think" and "I that Act".
There is no "I AM" as the independent soul that survives after physical death.
Once the body is dead, there is no more "I" nor a soul.

Why you think there is a soul is using "the idea of a soul" as a consonance to deal with an existential dissonance.

What is NOW? It has no dimensions. NOW IS.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:21 am The PROCESS of existence and its dimensions occur within NOW. NOW without dimensions is neither small nor large: NOW IS and the relativity of existence (involution and evolution) takes place within NOW. The seed of the soul is the potential evolving part of the human organism beyond physical evolution.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:21 am You deny so hard that you appear closed to the idea of the meaning and purpose of our universe through conscious contemplation.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:21 am V A

NOW is now, how can it be prior, i.e. the past?

You made the presumption there is a soul [that survive physical death] without proving it is real.

What is real is the empirical self i.e. the "I that think" and "I that Act".
There is no "I AM" as the independent soul that survives after physical death.
Once the body is dead, there is no more "I" nor a soul.

Why you think there is a soul is using "the idea of a soul" as a consonance to deal with an existential dissonance.

What is NOW? It has no dimensions. NOW IS. The PROCESS of existence and its dimensions occur within NOW. NOW without dimensions is neither small nor large: NOW IS and the relativity of existence (involution and evolution) takes place within NOW.

The seed of the soul is the potential evolving part of the human organism beyond physical evolution. You deny so hard that you appear closed to the idea of the meaning and purpose of our universe through conscious contemplation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:31 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:21 am V A

NOW is now, how can it be prior, i.e. the past?

You made the presumption there is a soul [that survive physical death] without proving it is real.

What is real is the empirical self i.e. the "I that think" and "I that Act".
There is no "I AM" as the independent soul that survives after physical death.
Once the body is dead, there is no more "I" nor a soul.

Why you think there is a soul is using "the idea of a soul" as a consonance to deal with an existential dissonance.

What is NOW? It has no dimensions. NOW IS. The PROCESS of existence and its dimensions occur within NOW. NOW without dimensions is neither small nor large: NOW IS and the relativity of existence (involution and evolution) takes place within NOW.

The seed of the soul is the potential evolving part of the human organism beyond physical evolution. You deny so hard that you appear closed to the idea of the meaning and purpose of our universe through conscious contemplation.

Note "is" is not a predicate, "is" is merely a copula that joined the 'subject' to the 'predicate'.

For example when we say,

This thing is a dog,
the "is" is not significant to reality
but 'what is a dog' is.

'What is a dog' then must be verified and justified with a specific FSK, in this case the most reliable is the scientific FSK.

When you state 'NOW IS' that is meaningless and unrealistic without a realistic predicate.
The "is" is merely a copula and in the above is not connecting to anything realistic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:31 am What is realistic should be
Now is the time after the past and before the future time.
This can be empirically measured.

But when you state 'NOW IS"
if it is to be realistic then it has to be "Now is that"
the question is "what is that?"

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:31 am But you are unable to verify and justify 'that' within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:31 am What you are doing is merely throwing words and statements at me which is going no where.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:31 am I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
i.e. a soul or "NOW IS"?
Answers??

Why you think there is a soul is using "the idea of a soul" as a consonance to deal with an existential dissonance.

Note "is" is not a predicate, "is" is merely a copula that joined the 'subject' to the 'predicate'.

For example when we say,

This thing is a dog,
the "is" is not significant to reality
but 'what is a dog' is.

'What is a dog' then must be verified and justified with a specific FSK, in this case the most reliable is the scientific FSK.

When you state 'NOW IS' that is meaningless and unrealistic without a realistic predicate.
The "is" is merely a copula and in the above is not connecting to anything realistic.

What is realistic should be
Now is the time after the past and before the future time.
This can be empirically measured.

But when you state 'NOW IS"
if it is to be realistic then it has to be "Now is that"
the question is "what is that?"

But you are unable to verify and justify 'that' within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK].

What you are doing is merely throwing words and statements at me which is going no where.


I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
i.e. a soul or "NOW IS"?
Answers??

Why you think there is a soul is using "the idea of a soul" as a consonance to deal with an existential dissonance.

The Only Thing That Is Constant Is Change. Nothing endures but change.

psycho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:03 pm There is no way to determine a general characteristic in any element of nature.

The general characteristics are obtained by induction. I mean, by probability.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:41 pm

psycho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:03 pm There is no way to determine a general characteristic in any element of nature.

The general characteristics are obtained by induction. I mean, by probability.

I know this is the kind of nonsense every crackpot philosophy professor is promoting these days in the universities, so I don't blame you for thinking this up, as if anyone who could think for five minutes could believe these absurdities.

So think for yourself. Have a look a any periodic chart of the elements (they are ubiquitous online), and ask yourself, "are the properties which describe sulfur only statistically likely? Is it possible that sulfur is sometime actually bismuth, or yellow jello? How could you tell? You could tell because if anything with the properties of bismuth is bismuth, not sulfur. The essential properties of every element on the periodic chart are not what is, "statistically likely," they are what a substance must have to be that element, "absolutely." It is not possible for any element to not have any property identified for that element and be that element.

All this nonsense comes from the anti-science anti-intellectual absudities promoted by the logical-positivists and post modernists and their total misunderstanding of the nature science (along with metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, and common sense). No science has ever been based on or established by means of what is called, "inductive," reason. No truth can be established on the basis of how many or much of anything is observed, except for the number of observations, if the observer can count.

See my article, "Science Philosophy,"here on Philosophy Now.

Since you've probably been taught you cannot know anything for certain, have a look at another of my articles, "Certain Knowledge."

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:41 pm

psycho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:03 pm There is no way to determine a general characteristic in any element of nature.

The general characteristics are obtained by induction. I mean, by probability.

I know this is the kind of nonsense every crackpot philosophy professor is promoting these days in the universities, so I don't blame you for thinking this up, as if anyone who could think for five minutes could believe these absurdities.

So think for yourself. Have a look a any periodic chart of the elements (they are ubiquitous online), and ask yourself, "are the properties which describe sulfur only statistically likely? Is it possible that sulfur is sometime actually bismuth, or yellow jello? How could you tell? You could tell because if anything with the properties of bismuth is bismuth, not sulfur. The essential properties of every element on the periodic chart are not what is, "statistically likely," they are what a substance must have to be that element, "absolutely." It is not possible for any element to not have any property identified for that element and be that element.

All this nonsense comes from the anti-science anti-intellectual absudities promoted by the logical-positivists and post modernists and their total misunderstanding of the nature science (along with metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, and common sense). No science has ever been based on or established by means of what is called, "inductive," reason. No truth can be established on the basis of how many or much of anything is observed, except for the number of observations, if the observer can count.

See my article, "Science Philosophy,"here on Philosophy Now.

Since you've probably been taught you cannot know anything for certain, have a look at another of my articles, "Certain Knowledge."