Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 2:46 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:35 pm First we do not see reality like that photo presents.

So the, "reality," you see is different from the, "picture," but you also think you see the picture as it is, but since the picture is just another element of reality you must not see that as it really is either. How can you possibly know the picture you think you see is not like reality as it actually is, since you cannot see either as they actually are?

GREAT QUESTION.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:24 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:59 am
It is obvious bacteria and viruses are distinctly different from animals with senses and the typical brain.
However, bacteria and viruses as living things [they cannot be like rocks] have some kind of very basic proto-'sense' which evolved to the human brain at present.

Mechanomicrobiology: how bacteria sense and respond to forces
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0314-2

Granted, they are not like rocks, they have metabolism and such. However, are the most fundamental organisms "self-aware"? For example, if a virus has awareness vis a vis having cellular metabolism or whatnot, then it seems like it would be the case that every single cell in my body should be self-aware independently of my brain. Self-awareness surely must be something that is created by a brain. Viruses especially seem like very basic organisms that merely replicate themselves in a host. My point with rocks is that the behavior of a virus seems like it may not be much more than inanimate processes (albeit relatively sophisticated ones). I wouldn't think a virus needs awareness to replicate itself. I would think it just behaves according to biological mechanisms and relies on brute numbers and chance probability to reproduce. I wouldn't think that alone would constitute any kind of awareness.

It's certainly possible that micro-organisms have awareness but it also seems possible to me that they may not. And since intentionality or qualia are knowable only in the first person, I suspect that we may never know for sure.

BTW, I've seen a lot of commotion from neuroscientists claiming to have proven various things about consciousness, but on further inspection, they usually seem to rest on speculation. There was a stir about "micro-tubulars" or something and there was a group of neuro-philosophers/scientists who speculated that they were the connection between consciousness and the brain or something like that, however, it doesn't appear that there is solid evidence of it from what I've read. I believe with Chalmers that consciousness is a potentially unknowable black box. It can't be seen or measured or anything by an outside observer.

I am not claiming viruses and bacteria has self-awareness and consciousness - that would be ridiculous.

What I am saying is, since they are living things and not non-living things, they have some sort of basic proto-sense i.e. sensing mechanism.

The main point related to the OP is, there is some relation between their basic proto-sense and the environment and reality they are in which is relatively different from other more advance living things.

But 'you' KEEP MAKING the SAME MISTAKE here "veritas aequitas". 'Reality', Itself, is NOT 'relatively different'. What IS 'relatively different' are the VIEWS and/or PERSPECTIVES that 'you', sentient things, HAVE.

SEPARATE and DISTINGUISH between the TWO DIFFERENT 'things', and then 'you' will NOT be AS LOST and AS CONFUSED as 'you' OBVIOUSLY ARE here "veritas aequitas".

Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:35 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 2:46 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:35 pm First we do not see reality like that photo presents.

So the, "reality," you see is different from the, "picture," but you also think you see the picture as it is, but since the picture is just another element of reality you must not see that as it really is either. How can you possibly know the picture you think you see is not like reality as it actually is, since you cannot see either as they actually are?

GREAT QUESTION.

Answer: a person can always choose to be agnostic if they are uncertain. Or, conversely, one may guess or assume and guessing or assuming right might be optimal, however, guessing or assuming wrong may very well be just as bad (or perhaps possibly worse) as not guessing or assuming at all depending upon what it is that is being perceived or what action is perceived as needed and what actually, perceptibly, happens as a result.

Perhaps if the only human resident of the world was a person who was blind from birth, then such a person might not even think twice about whether or not there was such a thing as eyes or vision. However, in the end, one often must guess and presumably everyone guesses on what they deem to be the "best" guess as to what the picture is and deliver the "best" response they know of to that picture.

However, I've encountered enough situations where I made bad guesses based on mistaken or otherwise incomplete pictures of reality to the point that I personally don't feel all that confident anymore about guessing. If you want to lean "all in" and "go for it", feel free. See what happens. You may find out one way or the other whether you made good guesses or whether you had bad guesses, or you may never find out all. It's up to you to choose and up to you to deal with any great rewards or else consequences. There's not much I can do to help other than to say, try to choose wisely if you can.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:38 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 2:46 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:35 pm First we do not see reality like that photo presents.

So the, "reality," you see is different from the, "picture," but you also think you see the picture as it is, but since the picture is just another element of reality you must not see that as it really is either. How can you possibly know the picture you think you see is not like reality as it actually is, since you cannot see either as they actually are?

I see a photo of a street and a street very differently.

Okay.

My vision never presents all the facets of the street (from that vantage) in focus at the same time. [/quote]

Does your vision EVER present ALL the facets of 'a street', in a photo, and/or of 'the photo of a street'?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:38 am Nor is it static, the street (with cars, etc). And while, yes, I don't see the whole photo, all its parts, at the same time, I come much closer to that, because it is small and two dimensional.

Okay. So, if you do NOT see the WHOLE photo, and ALL of 'its' parts, at the SAME time, then we are BACK to the QUESTION, which was posed and asked to you above here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:38 am When we look at a street we do build up something (perhaps also from memory if we know that street) a kind of internal photo along with the shifting, zooming and out experience of the street we have while there.

But the QUESTION was posed and asked TO 'you', DIRECTLY, in REGARDS TO 'you' "iwannaplato", ONLY. So, WHY now CHANGE 'your' ANSWER to being about 'we' INSTEAD of 'you'?

By the way, 'this behavior' was a VERY COMMON TRAIT, back in the days when this WAS being written.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:38 am The moving in and out of paying attention to portions of the street and then thinking about other things. I never have an experience of standing on a corner and seeing a street the way I see the street in the photo. Now I could come closer, and make that a goal. To try to not focus on parts and see the whole all at once, which is much more likely with the photo, but it will still never be the same as looking at the small photo I had on my screen, which was all in focus, as the street is not for me. In the two dimensional photo everything in the photo is actually the same distance from my eyes. So it is all in focus, my lenses do not need to adjust to now focus on something in the foreground or something in the background. I do not have to internally built up an overview, the overview is always there, while I am looking at the photo, 6 or 8 inches from my face.

This here is ALL VERY OBVIOUS, and probably ALREADY KNOWN by the 'posters' here. However, this has NOTHING REALLY TO DO WITH the ACTUAL QUESTION that was posed, and asked TO you. Which WAS:
How can you possibly know the picture you think you see is not like reality as it actually is, since you cannot see either as they actually are?

And no I do not see the picture as it is. [/quote]

This WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED BEFORE the ACTUAL QUESTION was posed, and asked TO you.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:38 am But I see the things represented in the photo, that scene, differently from how I see the scene if I am on that street.

This, ALSO, WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED, BEFORE the ACTUAL QUESTION was posed, and asked TO you.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:38 am You are seeing me make different claims than I was making. I think some peope think that when they look at a street they see it like a camera sees the street. This overall in focus image. They don't.

OFF TOPIC.

The ACTUAL QUESTION posed WAS and STILL IS asking you:

How can you possibly know the picture you think you see is not like reality as it actually is, since you cannot see either as they actually are?

your ACTUAL ANSWER to this ACTUAL QUESTION, IF provided, WILL BE INTERESTING to SEE. Well by me anyway.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:35 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 2:46 am
So the, "reality," you see is different from the, "picture," but you also think you see the picture as it is, but since the picture is just another element of reality you must not see that as it really is either. How can you possibly know the picture you think you see is not like reality as it actually is, since you cannot see either as they actually are?

GREAT QUESTION.

Answer: a person can always choose to be agnostic if they are uncertain.

Here we have ANOTHER example of ANOTHER ACTUAL QUESTION being MISINTERPRETED or MISUNDERSTOOD. Unless, OF COURSE, "rcsaunders", INFORMS us that this ANSWER DOES ACTUALLY ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and asked above here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am Or, conversely, one may guess or assume and guessing or assuming right might be optimal, however, guessing or assuming wrong may very well be just as bad (or perhaps possibly worse) as not guessing or assuming at all depending upon what it is that is being perceived or what action is perceived as needed and what actually, perceptibly, happens as a result.

you seem to be READING a completely DIFFERENT QUESTION from the one I am LOOKING AT and SEEING here.

The QUESTION I SEE, and Correct me if I am Wrong here, is ASKING; How can you possibly know the picture you think you see is not like reality as it actually is, since you cannot see either as they actually are?

With the word 'either' being in regards to NOT being ABLE TO SEE 'Reality' as 'It' ACTUALLY IS in BOTH 'a photo, of 'things', AND, in 'a DIRECT viewing of 'things'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am Perhaps if the only human resident of the world was a person who was blind from birth, then such a person might not even think twice about whether or not there was such a thing as eyes or vision.

I am NOT sure that 'might' is even an appropriate word here as, HOW could such a person EVER become AWARE OF and/or KNOW of such 'things' as 'eyes' and/or 'vision'?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am However, in the end, one often must guess and presumably everyone guesses on what they deem to be the "best" guess as to what the picture is and deliver the "best" response they know of to that picture.

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and asked, FROM my perspective. Which, HOPEFULLY, WILL BE Correct If my view IS Wrong here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am However, I've encountered enough situations where I made bad guesses based on mistaken or otherwise incomplete pictures of reality to the point that I personally don't feel all that confident anymore about guessing.

As I continually suggest, it is MUCH BETTER to NEVER GUESS NOR PRE/ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am If you want to lean "all in" and "go for it", feel free. See what happens. You may find out one way or the other whether you made good guesses or whether you had bad guesses, or you may never find out all. It's up to you to choose and up to you to deal with any great rewards or else consequences. There's not much I can do to help other than to say, try to choose wisely if you can.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The QUESTION just more or less ASKING, 'How can you KNOW some 'thing'?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:13 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:35 am

GREAT QUESTION.

Answer: a person can always choose to be agnostic if they are uncertain.

Here we have ANOTHER example of ANOTHER ACTUAL QUESTION being MISINTERPRETED or MISUNDERSTOOD. Unless, OF COURSE, "rcsaunders", INFORMS us that this ANSWER DOES ACTUALLY ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and asked above here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am Or, conversely, one may guess or assume and guessing or assuming right might be optimal, however, guessing or assuming wrong may very well be just as bad (or perhaps possibly worse) as not guessing or assuming at all depending upon what it is that is being perceived or what action is perceived as needed and what actually, perceptibly, happens as a result.

you seem to be READING a completely DIFFERENT QUESTION from the one I am LOOKING AT and SEEING here.

The QUESTION I SEE, and Correct me if I am Wrong here, is ASKING; How can you possibly know the picture you think you see is not like reality as it actually is, since you cannot see either as they actually are?

With the word 'either' being in regards to NOT being ABLE TO SEE 'Reality' as 'It' ACTUALLY IS in BOTH 'a photo, of 'things', AND, in 'a DIRECT viewing of 'things'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am Perhaps if the only human resident of the world was a person who was blind from birth, then such a person might not even think twice about whether or not there was such a thing as eyes or vision.

I am NOT sure that 'might' is even an appropriate word here as, HOW could such a person EVER become AWARE OF and/or KNOW of such 'things' as 'eyes' and/or 'vision'?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am However, in the end, one often must guess and presumably everyone guesses on what they deem to be the "best" guess as to what the picture is and deliver the "best" response they know of to that picture.

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and asked, FROM my perspective. Which, HOPEFULLY, WILL BE Correct If my view IS Wrong here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am However, I've encountered enough situations where I made bad guesses based on mistaken or otherwise incomplete pictures of reality to the point that I personally don't feel all that confident anymore about guessing.

As I continually suggest, it is MUCH BETTER to NEVER GUESS NOR PRE/ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am If you want to lean "all in" and "go for it", feel free. See what happens. You may find out one way or the other whether you made good guesses or whether you had bad guesses, or you may never find out all. It's up to you to choose and up to you to deal with any great rewards or else consequences. There's not much I can do to help other than to say, try to choose wisely if you can.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The QUESTION just more or less ASKING, 'How can you KNOW some 'thing'?

I'll leave you to your own adventure then. You clearly don't want or need my input or observations or else, maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it. If they're of no value to you or if you don't understand what I'm saying, then perhaps it's a moot point. In the famous words of Gilda Radner, "never mind."

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:18 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:13 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am

Answer: a person can always choose to be agnostic if they are uncertain.

Here we have ANOTHER example of ANOTHER ACTUAL QUESTION being MISINTERPRETED or MISUNDERSTOOD. Unless, OF COURSE, "rcsaunders", INFORMS us that this ANSWER DOES ACTUALLY ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and asked above here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am Or, conversely, one may guess or assume and guessing or assuming right might be optimal, however, guessing or assuming wrong may very well be just as bad (or perhaps possibly worse) as not guessing or assuming at all depending upon what it is that is being perceived or what action is perceived as needed and what actually, perceptibly, happens as a result.

you seem to be READING a completely DIFFERENT QUESTION from the one I am LOOKING AT and SEEING here.

The QUESTION I SEE, and Correct me if I am Wrong here, is ASKING; How can you possibly know the picture you think you see is not like reality as it actually is, since you cannot see either as they actually are?

With the word 'either' being in regards to NOT being ABLE TO SEE 'Reality' as 'It' ACTUALLY IS in BOTH 'a photo, of 'things', AND, in 'a DIRECT viewing of 'things'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am Perhaps if the only human resident of the world was a person who was blind from birth, then such a person might not even think twice about whether or not there was such a thing as eyes or vision.

I am NOT sure that 'might' is even an appropriate word here as, HOW could such a person EVER become AWARE OF and/or KNOW of such 'things' as 'eyes' and/or 'vision'?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am However, in the end, one often must guess and presumably everyone guesses on what they deem to be the "best" guess as to what the picture is and deliver the "best" response they know of to that picture.

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and asked, FROM my perspective. Which, HOPEFULLY, WILL BE Correct If my view IS Wrong here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am However, I've encountered enough situations where I made bad guesses based on mistaken or otherwise incomplete pictures of reality to the point that I personally don't feel all that confident anymore about guessing.

As I continually suggest, it is MUCH BETTER to NEVER GUESS NOR PRE/ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:53 am If you want to lean "all in" and "go for it", feel free. See what happens. You may find out one way or the other whether you made good guesses or whether you had bad guesses, or you may never find out all. It's up to you to choose and up to you to deal with any great rewards or else consequences. There's not much I can do to help other than to say, try to choose wisely if you can.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The QUESTION just more or less ASKING, 'How can you KNOW some 'thing'?

I'll leave you to your own adventure then.

THAT QUESTION was posed and ASKED, DIRECTLY, TO ANOTHER 'one', FOR CLARIFICATION. 'I' am just WAITING, PATIENTLY, for that "OTHER" 'one' TO ANSWER, and CLARIFY.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:18 am You clearly don't want or need my input or observations or else, maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it.

I think it is FAIRLY OBVIOUS what 'you' and 'I' am UNDERSTANDING and are NOT UNDERSTANDING here.

Also, I would LOVE 'your input AND observations'' WHEN 'your input, and observations' are IN DIRECT RESPONSE to the ACTUAL WORDS WRITTEN.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:18 am If they're of no value to you or if you don't understand what I'm saying, then perhaps it's a moot point. In the famous words of Gilda Radner, "never mind."

Okay.

Also, I have found 'those words' to be made so-called 'famous' by MANY of 'you', human beings, and NOT just one of 'them'.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:20 am Reality is consensus experience.

Just out of CURIOSITY, what numbers or proportion, EXACTLY, are involved in 'consensus' here?

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:20 am A bird or an amoeba senses the same reality at a different resolution with different senses.

I AGREE.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:20 am We are the standard bearer only because we are the ones who use language to express that experience to others.

Although OTHER animals may ALSO 'express' their experiences' to "others", of let us say, 'their kind' it is ONLY the human being animal, who speak of what the 'reality' word is 'POINTING' or 'REFERRING TO', that i KNOW OF and are AWARE OF anyway.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:34 am Okay.

Also, I have found 'those words' to be made so-called 'famous' by MANY of 'you', human beings, and NOT just one of 'them'.

If it is the case that you disapprove of the way "you human beings" are behaving, then maybe some suggestions as to how human beings ought to behave would help out, since you perhaps seem to know a better way? Or are we just too far gone to fool with?

Maybe the readers of this thread years and years down the road from now will realize the truth you speak about and it will be so evidently objective and so evidently true that it will become obvious to humans in the future that everyone before them ("us") was entirely wrong and we ("us") can all, therefore, be "canceled" or ignored? And if we can all be canceled or ignored then what makes you so sure that you are an exception to the rest of us and that you won't or shouldn't also be canceled or ignored?

Are you in some position of power? Is there some reason for you to think that generations of the future will look at your posts as uniquely more 'enlightened' or whatever than any of the rest of our posts?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:00 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:20 am Reality is consensus experience. A bird or an amoeba senses the same reality at a different resolution with different senses. We are the standard bearer only because we are the ones who use language to express that experience to others.

How do you know they are sensing the same reality?

BECAUSE there is ONLY One ACTUAL Reality, as even you just ALLUDED TO the Fact of in your next sentence.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:00 am Reality is always in flux where change is the only constant.

Did you NOTICE HOW you proposed 'this' as the ONLY True 'Reality'?

There is and could OBVIOUSLY ONLY be One 'Reality'. AND, by the way, I AGREE that 'this One and ONLY Reality' is IN FLUX and CONSTANT-CHANGE.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:00 am Note humans are almost like chimps who share 98% of the human genes.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... udy-finds/

WHO, REALLY, CARES?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:00 am Human intelligence is thus relatively not that far off from those of the chimps.

'you', REALLY, do 'make' me LAUGH "veritas aequitas" in the WAY 'you' can "CONCLUDE" some 'thing' from some 'thing' ELSE.

For example here, 'chimps, supposedly, share 98% of the same genes as humans'. Therefore, chimps and humans have roughly the EXACT SAME 'intelligence'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:00 am Therefore the human interpretation of reality is limited to that extent.

And further STILL your "CONCLUDING" continues.

So, to 'you', BECAUSE humans SUPPOSEDLY have the EXACT SAME 'intelligence' as chimpanzees 'you', human beings, MUST HAVE a limited interpretation of reality AS WELL.

LOL I would say 'you', older human beings, HAVE a LIMITED 'interpretation' of 'Reality', Itself, BECAUSE 'you', generally and mostly, LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from a VERY LIMITED and SMALL viewpoint and/or perspective. Which, as far as i am AWARE OF NO other animal does.

As far as i am AWARE NO other animal LIMITS 'their views/perspectives' by BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS ANYWHERE AS MUCH as 'you', adult human beings, OBVIOUSLY DO.

ALL animals, including the young of 'you', human beings, LOOK AT and SEE 'things' as 'they' REALLY ARE. It is ONLY 'you', older human beings, who INTERPRET 'things'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:00 am Note the progressive humanity realization of reality from Newton to Einstein to QM and other possibilities in the future.

Note the NON progression CAUSED by BELIEFS, PRESUMPTIONS, and ASSUMPTIONS

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:00 am It is possible for human liked aliens who are 100x more intelligent and cognizant than humans would recognize a more refined reality than human do at present.

WHEN 'you', adult human beings, evolve ENOUGH, then 'you' WILL REALIZE that it is 'you', human beings, who are the MOST INTELLIGENT animal there IS, although 'you' can, OBVIOUSLY, ALSO BE the MOST STUPIDEST animal, AT TIMES. Which, in the days when this is being written, could sometimes appear to be the MOST STUPIDEST TIME of human beings, in the continually evolving Creation of Life, Itself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:00 am Thus is it not possible for humanity and humans to be the standard bearer of reality at all times.

The word 'reality' and 'its conception' has ONLY EVER been IN Existence WITH 'you', human beings.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:00 am What I meant what-is-reality to humans at present is not THE REALITY as it is.

If 'this' IS what you MEANT, then WHY did you NOT SAY 'this' PREVIOUSLY?

Also, HOW do you KNOW that what-is-reality to 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written IS NOT 'Reality', Itself?

Saying that one KNOWS that 'one' IS NOT 'the other', of ANY 'thing', IMPLIES that 'that one' KNOWS what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:00 am In any case, there is no absolutely absolute reality

Here we have, ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER example of PROCLAIMING that 'there is NO ACTUAL Truth', while PROCLAIMING 'it' TO BE an ACTUAL TRUTH.

The CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY here, I HOPE, is STARTING TO BECOME FULLY RECOGNIZED and MORE EASILY ABLE TO BE SPOTTED and SEEN for what 'it' Truly IS. Namely, ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS, in the EXTREME. Or, just PLAIN OLD STUPIDITY, itself.

To make 'this' EVEN WORSE, this one just SAID and CLAIMED that the 'current' 'what is reality' is NOT 'THE REALITY' as 'it' IS. Which, in and of itself, IMPLIES that this one KNOWS of THE ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTE REALITY. Which IS Truly LAUGHABLE considering what 'it' just now CLAIMED IS TRUE.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:00 am but whatever the progressive realization of reality in the future by humans or human-liked humans they are always in entanglement with humans or the realizers of reality.

SO, there ARE so-called "realizers" of 'reality', BUT there is NO, ACTUAL, so-called 'absolutely absolute reality', anyway.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:34 am Okay.

Also, I have found 'those words' to be made so-called 'famous' by MANY of 'you', human beings, and NOT just one of 'them'.

If it is the case that you disapprove of the way "you human beings" are behaving,

DO you APPROVE of the way 'you', adult human beings, ABUSE children and "others"?

If no, then it is the case that you disapprove of the way 'you', human beings, are so-called 'behaving', right?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:52 am then maybe some suggestions as to how human beings ought to behave would help out, since you perhaps seem to know a better way?

WHEN I RECEIVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, THEN I WILL RESPOND WITH CLARIFICATION, CLARITY, and/or CLARIFYING ANSWERS.

ALSO, if it is the case that you disapprove of the way 'human beings' are MISBEHAVING, which you OBVIOUS DO, RIGHT?

SO, since it now appears that you perhaps seem to KNOW a BETTER WAY, then maybe some suggestions, provided by 'you', "gary childress", as to HOW human beings 'ought' to BEHAVE would help out, RIGHT?

Or, does 'this' work DIFFERENTLY here, NOW?

Or, do you ACTUALLY and REALLY 'approve' of ALL of the 'behavior' that 'human beings' DO?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:52 am Or are we just too far gone to fool with?

NOT AT ALL.

In Fact the EXACT OPPOSITE is True.

We just have to WAIT, PATIENTLY, for those who are Truly INTERESTED, in LEARNING.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:52 am Maybe the readers of this thread years and years down the road from now will realize the truth you speak about and it will be so evidently objective and so evidently true that it will become obvious to humans in the future that everyone before them ("us") was entirely wrong and we ("us") can all, therefore, be "canceled" or ignored?

What do you even mean by, 'entirely wrong'?

This is ANOTHER example of what was referred to as 'black and white thinking', or, 'things HAVE TO BE either, or'.

OBVIOUSLY, the peoples in the days when this was being written were NEVER 'entirely wrong', but just AS OBVIOUS is the Fact that those peoples, and ALL of the peoples BEFORE 'them' HAD some Wrong, and some Right, thinking.

Just being ABLE to DISTINGUISH between the two has made living, and life, FAR MORE EASIER, and SIMPLER, for 'us'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:52 am And if we can all be canceled or ignored then what makes you so sure that you are an exception to the rest of us and that you won't or shouldn't also be canceled or ignored?

Being so-called 'canceled' or 'ignored' was NEVER absolutely ANY 'thing' I have even thought about, let alone ever mentioned or alluded to here.

Being 'canceled or ignored' was ALL of 'your' OWN making "gary childress", and AGAIN 'it' came from some Wrong ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS of 'YOURS' here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:52 am Are you in some position of power?

This is ANOTHER GREAT example of just how FAR, and how SIMPLE and EASY, these ones REALLY WERE LED completely ASTRAY because of some pre-existing BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS, WITHIN.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:52 am Is there some reason for you to think that generations of the future will look at your posts as uniquely more 'enlightened' or whatever than any of the rest of our posts?

LOL It is FROM posts like 'yours', "gary chidlress", that "others" WILL, ARE, and HAVE become MORE ENLIGHTENED.

It is FROM 'you', posters, here WHY 'the future' became MUCH BETTER FOR EVERY one.

ALSO, 'you' got to 'this' from me just saying, that I found the words 'never mind' were 'made famous' by more than just one person.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 10:50 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 9:01 pm
"Where's the milk?" asked Jennifer. "Oh, so you want to brew some tea, add milk and su .." said Helen. "No, not really," clarified Jennifer. "Oh, so you want to drink milk? I have chocoloate to go with that," Helen offered. "No, I don't wanna drink milk either. I just want some milk," Jennifer spoke, mildly annoyed. "Whatever for Jen?" Helen queried, slightly taken aback by it all. "That's exactly what I want to ask my philosophy professor tomorrow - whatever for? He instructed us to each bring a pomegrenate. I don't get why." Helen, helpful as usual, "he must've given you guys a hint. Professors love doing that!" Jennifer looked at Helen, "milk", she said, "milk is the hint!"

Well, at least Jennifer shouldn't end up crying over spilt milk if she hasn't got any. Perhaps her professor will accept a cloud with a silver lining instead of a pomegranate.

I'm, it seems, on the verge of ... yet another ... breakdown. Sic vita est.

Morality is not all one thing; there are age -related stages of moral sensitivity. (Kohlberg and others) Some human individuals never attain the ultimate standard of moral sense and behaviour, and a few do so. The Buddha, Muhammad, and Jesus are supposed to be individuals who have attained and never veered from the ultimate standard of morality.