Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 7:15 pm It can be perplexing and chaotic to have a discussion from countless perspectives of varying depths and spans.

Human language/concepts/forms limit discussion further.

I can SEE how human beings only LOOKING AT 'things' from their own perspective and definitions of 'things' could and does VERY EASILY and VERY QUICKLY limit discussions moving further forward, but how exactly does human language, itself, limit human discussion further? Especially considering that absolutely EVERY thing has had a name/label placed on it through, and by, human language.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 7:15 pm But we keep trying to describe (in limited language) what is beyond description of our world of concepts/forms.

But there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 'beyond' description of the 'world' of concepts/forms.

Also, if you limit language, then so be it. But language, itself, is NOT limited.

To me, saying things like, "limited language" and "beyond description" is just another form and another example of a human being 'limiting' what is essentially NOT limited at all.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 7:15 pmIf we were to agree on a singular truth/reality, what would we do with that?

Whatever 'you' or 'we' CHOOSE to do with it.

Just use the singular truths/realities that you agree with now, and what you do with them, as an example of what 'you' do actually do with 'it' as an indication of what you would do with 'it'.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 7:15 pm Would we do something differently than what we are doing now?

Depending on the ACTUAL singular truth/reality then the answer would be an ABSOLUTE, 'YES'.

For example, when 'you', human beings, agree on the singular Truth that 'you', human beings, NEED air, which has NOT been over polluted, to keep on living and existing. And, also when 'you' learn and agree that it is because ALL of you adult human beings are greedy which is what is causing the air to become polluted, then ALL of you adults would DEFINITELY do something DIFFERENTLY. Especially considering when you learn and understand FULLY HOW and WHY ALL of 'you' adult human beings, have become 'greedy', then you will DEFINITELY 'change', for the better, so that your children do NOT end up being 'greedy creatures' as well.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 7:15 pmOr, if we were to get a sense that everything is fine and as it should be, what might we do with that?

OBVIOUSLY, if ANY one thinks or believes that EVERYTHING is just fine, and as IT "should be", then that one will DEFINITELY NOT do absolutely ANY thing at all differently, to 'change'.

Why would ANY even WANT to 'change', or do absolutely ANY thing differently, let alone actually do ANY thing to 'change' and do things differently if, to them, EVERYTHING is FINE, and "as IT should be"?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 7:15 pmIs there a greater truth beyond (and somehow detached from) the fullness/potential of any present moment?

NO.

But if 'you', or ANY one "else", can SEE and RECOGNIZE the ACTUAL Truth, at any present moment, which is actually beyond the "truth" that you or them think or believe that you "recognize" and "see" at any present moment, is a whole other matter.

As I have explained previously what is happening at EVERY present moment is EXACTLY how things 'should be', or is 'meant to be'. But just like ALL and EVERY 'WRONG' behavior in the past, which human beings WERE doing but which has now STOPPED, 'changed', and is 'frowned upon', so to will ALL of the WRONG human beings' behavior, in the present days of when this is being written, will STOP, be 'changed', and be 'frowned upon' by future generations of human beings.

But behavior can only STOP, and change, ONLY AFTER it has been 'frowned upon' and ACCEPTED as being WRONG, which means that what behavior is happening now, which is ACTUALLY NOT 'fine' and NOT 'as it should be', can only be gotten rid of when ACCEPTED and AGREED upon as being WRONG or NOT all right behavior. But, OBVIOUSLY, if ANY thinks or believes that, at any given moment, EVERYTHING is 'fine', and 'as IT should be', then they are ONLY DELUDING "themselves".

If ANY one ACTUALLY thinks or believes that 'things' can NOT become or be 'better', then they are just living a DELUSIONAL 'life'. If ANY thinks or believes that they can NOT 'change', for the better, then they are ONLY FOOLING ""them" 'self', and "their" 'self' ONLY.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:20 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:08 am
How can there be a loop if there is an infinite regress which is an absurd idea?
If you rely on any infinite regress, that is entering la la land.

I never said infinite regress I said loop.

One degree of consciousness repeats through another as fractals, consciousness thus maintains itself through a variation. Consciousness thus loops itself through a variety of states.

However Infinite regress is necessary if everything continually changes ad infinitum. If change is not infinite it is not continual.

I believe "consciousness" is strictly confined to humans and never beyond humans.

The term "consciousness" in more details is such a complex idea that is not well understood within human terms [hard problem of consciousness], thus term [consciousness] provide no solid grounds for it to be extended beyond humans.

This is why I insist your use of the term 'consciousness' beyond humans is leaping into la la land as driven by a psychological impulse.

Yet human consciousness is empty in itself thus necessitating a regress to a conscious which is above humans, ie humans are mere fractals of a higher consciousness.

If consciousness is not well defined it cannot be limited to humans. To argue consciousness ends with humans, with consciousness not being well defined, is to argue what is not well defined ends with humans and you are making an assumption that humans are even conscious at all.

Consciousness, as not well defined according to you, ends up being an empty term which can equivocate to anything.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:20 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:13 am
I never said infinite regress I said loop.

One degree of consciousness repeats through another as fractals, consciousness thus maintains itself through a variation. Consciousness thus loops itself through a variety of states.

However Infinite regress is necessary if everything continually changes ad infinitum. If change is not infinite it is not continual.

I believe "consciousness" is strictly confined to humans and never beyond humans.

The term "consciousness" in more details is such a complex idea that is not well understood within human terms [hard problem of consciousness], thus term [consciousness] provide no solid grounds for it to be extended beyond humans.

This is why I insist your use of the term 'consciousness' beyond humans is leaping into la la land as driven by a psychological impulse.

Yet human consciousness is empty in itself thus necessitating a regress to a conscious which is above humans, ie humans are mere fractals of a higher consciousness.

If consciousness is not well defined it cannot be limited to humans. To argue consciousness ends with humans, with consciousness not being well defined, is to argue what is not well defined ends with humans and you are making an assumption that humans are even conscious at all.

Consciousness, as not well defined according to you, ends up being an empty term which can equivocate to anything.

Human consciousness is what we have understood so far empirically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Such consciousness can be studied by science, social science, psychology, neuro-sciences.
There is still more to learn about human consciousness but whatever that is to know about human consciousness, it has to be empirically-based.
There is no issue with infinite regress in this case.

The problem is when people start to speculate what is consciousness metaphysically and ontologically based on the little we know from science and common sense.
You are leveraging on the metaphysical-ontological basis [not empirical science] in speculating about what is ultimate consciousness and thus driven to leaping into la la land by a primal psychological impulse.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 5:31 am
In the case of humans and the emergence of reality, what is behind and enable the emergence of reality are the neural algorithms in the physical brain and body which is deterministically connected back to the Big Bang, which spiral back to the emergence of reality.

You were going so good then "veritas aequitas", that was; Until you COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED "your" 'self' here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 5:31 am As for reality, Hoffman as a scientists has to [imperative] ASSUMES there is a fundamental reality which he term 'consciousness' with 'conscious agent', else his whole theory cannot work.

This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of why it is BETTER to NEVER ASSUME absolutely ANY thing, to NEVER make up and create a 'theory', and to NEVER even LOOK AT and USE a 'theory'. Instead what is MUCH BETTER is to just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what ACTUALLY IS, ALONE.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 5:31 am He insisted this consciousness and conscious agents has nothing to do with God, creative intelligence or any thing theistic BUT is merely and ASSUMPTION.

I don't agree with Hoffman's need for the above assumption, but as a scientist he has no choice but to assume that to enable his theory to work.

LOL The ABSOLUTE HILARITY in and of this statement is just PURE.

Are you even AWARE "veritas aequitas" of what the VERY REASON IS, WHY you will NEVER achieve what 'it' IS that you are SO DESPERATELY 'trying to' ACHIEVE HERE?

In fact, do you even KNOW what 'it' IS that you are 'trying to' achieve here?

To percieve a phenomenon is to be imprinted by it, to be imprinted by it is to accept it, to accept it is to assume it.

If this is what 'you' do, then so be it.

And, if this is what 'you' actually do, and this is NOT what 'I' actually do, then WHY I suggest to just try to do the things, which I do, makes even MORE SENSE.

What you are saying here PROVIDES MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF for what I have been SAYING, and MEANING.

The reason WHY 'you', human beings BELIEVE the things that you do, which are (obviously) False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, is because you ASSUME and ACCEPT them to be true, right, and/or correct.

I suggest you just LOOK AT what ACTUALLY IS, BEFORE you start ASSUMING, and then ACCEPTING ANY thing.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm All reality is assumable given it is that which is imprinted. Any experience, that is accepted "as is" is assumed.

OF COURSE, and OBVIOUSLY, ALL 'things' are ASSUMABLE. But, contrary to YOUR BELIEF, they do NOT have to be ASSUMED, OBVIOUSLY.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm Assumptions which align with prior assumptions are true,

LOL How could this even be CLOSE to the Truth, when the ACTUAL Truth IS; ALL assumptions can be COMPLETELY, or partly, False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm assumptions which fail to align with prior assumptions are false.

LOL Witnessing some of what you write is ABSOLUTELY humorous AND amusing, as; IF the first or prior assumption is actually false but the next or further assumption fails to align with that prior assumption, then the next or further assumption could actually be True.

YOUR ASSUMPTION here AGAIN is just FURTHER PROOF of HOW and WHY ALL ASSUMPTIONS can ALWAYS just be COMPLETELY or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm Thus truth value is symmetry and this symmetry is order. An assumption is thus true or false based upon its alignment with other assumption.

If this is what YOUR ASSUMPTIONS tell 'you' IS TRUE, then this MUST BE TRUE, to 'you', correct?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm Given the continual expansion of context of one assumption to many, all assumptions are thus simultaneously true and false given the expansion of context necessitates some assumptions connected to other's while other's being false.

If you say so, but, unlike 'you', 'I' MUCH PREFER to just LOOK AT what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, and then START from there ONLY.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:49 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:20 am
I believe "consciousness" is strictly confined to humans and never beyond humans.

The term "consciousness" in more details is such a complex idea that is not well understood within human terms [hard problem of consciousness], thus term [consciousness] provide no solid grounds for it to be extended beyond humans.

This is why I insist your use of the term 'consciousness' beyond humans is leaping into la la land as driven by a psychological impulse.

Yet human consciousness is empty in itself thus necessitating a regress to a conscious which is above humans, ie humans are mere fractals of a higher consciousness.

If consciousness is not well defined it cannot be limited to humans. To argue consciousness ends with humans, with consciousness not being well defined, is to argue what is not well defined ends with humans and you are making an assumption that humans are even conscious at all.

Consciousness, as not well defined according to you, ends up being an empty term which can equivocate to anything.

Human consciousness is what we have understood so far empirically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Such consciousness can be studied by science, social science, psychology, neuro-sciences.
There is still more to learn about human consciousness but whatever that is to know about human consciousness, it has to be empirically-based.
There is no issue with infinite regress in this case.

The problem is when people start to speculate what is consciousness metaphysically and ontologically based on the little we know from science and common sense.
You are leveraging on the metaphysical-ontological basis [not empirical science] in speculating about what is ultimate consciousness and thus driven to leaping into la la land by a primal psychological impulse.

Yet this empirical base is defined through the abstractions attached to it with these abstractions being the formation of the very same mind studying itself. Consciousness thus is studying consciousness and a circular loop occurs. The study of consciousness is thus the literal going around in circles thus relegating consciousness as following a form, a loop in this case, which exists above it and guides it.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:50 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:37 am

You were going so good then "veritas aequitas", that was; Until you COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED "your" 'self' here.



This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of why it is BETTER to NEVER ASSUME absolutely ANY thing, to NEVER make up and create a 'theory', and to NEVER even LOOK AT and USE a 'theory'. Instead what is MUCH BETTER is to just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what ACTUALLY IS, ALONE.



LOL The ABSOLUTE HILARITY in and of this statement is just PURE.

Are you even AWARE "veritas aequitas" of what the VERY REASON IS, WHY you will NEVER achieve what 'it' IS that you are SO DESPERATELY 'trying to' ACHIEVE HERE?

In fact, do you even KNOW what 'it' IS that you are 'trying to' achieve here?

To percieve a phenomenon is to be imprinted by it, to be imprinted by it is to accept it, to accept it is to assume it.

If this is what 'you' do, then so be it.

And, if this is what 'you' actually do, and this is NOT what 'I' actually do, then WHY I suggest to just try to do the things, which I do, makes even MORE SENSE.

What you are saying here PROVIDES MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF for what I have been SAYING, and MEANING.

The reason WHY 'you', human beings BELIEVE the things that you do, which are (obviously) False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, is because you ASSUME and ACCEPT them to be true, right, and/or correct.

I suggest you just LOOK AT what ACTUALLY IS, BEFORE you start ASSUMING, and then ACCEPTING ANY thing.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm All reality is assumable given it is that which is imprinted. Any experience, that is accepted "as is" is assumed.

OF COURSE, and OBVIOUSLY, ALL 'things' are ASSUMABLE. But, contrary to YOUR BELIEF, they do NOT have to be ASSUMED, OBVIOUSLY.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm Assumptions which align with prior assumptions are true,

LOL How could this even be CLOSE to the Truth, when the ACTUAL Truth IS; ALL assumptions can be COMPLETELY, or partly, False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm assumptions which fail to align with prior assumptions are false.

LOL Witnessing some of what you write is ABSOLUTELY humorous AND amusing, as; IF the first or prior assumption is actually false but the next or further assumption fails to align with that prior assumption, then the next or further assumption could actually be True.

YOUR ASSUMPTION here AGAIN is just FURTHER PROOF of HOW and WHY ALL ASSUMPTIONS can ALWAYS just be COMPLETELY or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm Thus truth value is symmetry and this symmetry is order. An assumption is thus true or false based upon its alignment with other assumption.

If this is what YOUR ASSUMPTIONS tell 'you' IS TRUE, then this MUST BE TRUE, to 'you', correct?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm Given the continual expansion of context of one assumption to many, all assumptions are thus simultaneously true and false given the expansion of context necessitates some assumptions connected to other's while other's being false.

If you say so, but, unlike 'you', 'I' MUCH PREFER to just LOOK AT what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, and then START from there ONLY.

Give an example of something which cannot be taken on assumption. Facts are subject to change thus falsifiability as well. For example eggs yolks where once viewed as good then bad, or the fact of Pluto being a planet changed to Pluto no longer being a planet. The fact that a car is red is falsifiable given a long enough timeline where the paint jobs rusts.

Everything as subject to change necessitates facts as changing as well.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:24 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:17 am
You are groping around in la la land.
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

False I am following your logic of "no thing in itself".

You contradict yourself.

What?? You are not following my logic.

There is no thing-in-itself, therefore there is no consciousness-in-itself,
but on the contrary,
you are claiming there is consciousness-in-itself beyond normal human consciousness.

"veritas aequitas" you just stated that there is "no thing-in-itself", and, " therefore there is "no consciousness-in-itself" ", and if you want to commit to this CLAIM, then you will also have to ADMIT that there is NO "normal human consciousness" in itself ALSO.

Objective means as objective as possible, not transcendent access to truth. Reality means our external experience, not transcendent access to the universe.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:49 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:34 am

Yet human consciousness is empty in itself thus necessitating a regress to a conscious which is above humans, ie humans are mere fractals of a higher consciousness.

If consciousness is not well defined it cannot be limited to humans. To argue consciousness ends with humans, with consciousness not being well defined, is to argue what is not well defined ends with humans and you are making an assumption that humans are even conscious at all.

Consciousness, as not well defined according to you, ends up being an empty term which can equivocate to anything.

Human consciousness is what we have understood so far empirically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Such consciousness can be studied by science, social science, psychology, neuro-sciences.
There is still more to learn about human consciousness but whatever that is to know about human consciousness, it has to be empirically-based.
There is no issue with infinite regress in this case.

The problem is when people start to speculate what is consciousness metaphysically and ontologically based on the little we know from science and common sense.
You are leveraging on the metaphysical-ontological basis [not empirical science] in speculating about what is ultimate consciousness and thus driven to leaping into la la land by a primal psychological impulse.

Yet this empirical base is defined through the abstractions attached to it with these abstractions being the formation of the very same mind studying itself. Consciousness thus is studying consciousness and a circular loop occurs. The study of consciousness is thus the literal going around in circles thus relegating consciousness as following a form, a loop in this case, which exists above it and guides it.

Wrong again.
You are in a orgy of conflation.
It is the empirical self that is relying upon human consciousness to study its empirical self which is verifiable and justifiable by science.

Note non-humans don't rely on their consciousness to study their empirical self.

What you are doing is straying from science into the metaphysical woo woo of la la land.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:49 am
Human consciousness is what we have understood so far empirically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Such consciousness can be studied by science, social science, psychology, neuro-sciences.
There is still more to learn about human consciousness but whatever that is to know about human consciousness, it has to be empirically-based.
There is no issue with infinite regress in this case.

The problem is when people start to speculate what is consciousness metaphysically and ontologically based on the little we know from science and common sense.
You are leveraging on the metaphysical-ontological basis [not empirical science] in speculating about what is ultimate consciousness and thus driven to leaping into la la land by a primal psychological impulse.

Yet this empirical base is defined through the abstractions attached to it with these abstractions being the formation of the very same mind studying itself. Consciousness thus is studying consciousness and a circular loop occurs. The study of consciousness is thus the literal going around in circles thus relegating consciousness as following a form, a loop in this case, which exists above it and guides it.

Wrong again.
You are in a orgy of conflation.
It is the empirical self that is relying upon human consciousness to study its empirical self which is verifiable and justifiable by science.

What you are doing is straying from science into the metaphysical woo woo of la la land.

But the empirical self is an hallucination, according to your stance, as it is a result of neurons forming the hallucination.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:50 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm

To percieve a phenomenon is to be imprinted by it, to be imprinted by it is to accept it, to accept it is to assume it.

If this is what 'you' do, then so be it.

And, if this is what 'you' actually do, and this is NOT what 'I' actually do, then WHY I suggest to just try to do the things, which I do, makes even MORE SENSE.

What you are saying here PROVIDES MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF for what I have been SAYING, and MEANING.

The reason WHY 'you', human beings BELIEVE the things that you do, which are (obviously) False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, is because you ASSUME and ACCEPT them to be true, right, and/or correct.

I suggest you just LOOK AT what ACTUALLY IS, BEFORE you start ASSUMING, and then ACCEPTING ANY thing.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm All reality is assumable given it is that which is imprinted. Any experience, that is accepted "as is" is assumed.

OF COURSE, and OBVIOUSLY, ALL 'things' are ASSUMABLE. But, contrary to YOUR BELIEF, they do NOT have to be ASSUMED, OBVIOUSLY.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm Assumptions which align with prior assumptions are true,

LOL How could this even be CLOSE to the Truth, when the ACTUAL Truth IS; ALL assumptions can be COMPLETELY, or partly, False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm assumptions which fail to align with prior assumptions are false.

LOL Witnessing some of what you write is ABSOLUTELY humorous AND amusing, as; IF the first or prior assumption is actually false but the next or further assumption fails to align with that prior assumption, then the next or further assumption could actually be True.

YOUR ASSUMPTION here AGAIN is just FURTHER PROOF of HOW and WHY ALL ASSUMPTIONS can ALWAYS just be COMPLETELY or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm Thus truth value is symmetry and this symmetry is order. An assumption is thus true or false based upon its alignment with other assumption.

If this is what YOUR ASSUMPTIONS tell 'you' IS TRUE, then this MUST BE TRUE, to 'you', correct?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:00 pm Given the continual expansion of context of one assumption to many, all assumptions are thus simultaneously true and false given the expansion of context necessitates some assumptions connected to other's while other's being false.

If you say so, but, unlike 'you', 'I' MUCH PREFER to just LOOK AT what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, and then START from there ONLY.

Give an example of something which cannot be taken on assumption.

The human body needs air, water, and nutrients to keep existing.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am Facts are subject to change thus falsifiability as well.

How do you define the word 'fact'. To me, a 'fact' is NOT subject to change and thus is NOT falsifiable at all.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am For example eggs yolks where once viewed as good then bad,

LOL If you REALLY thought or BELIEVED that either was a 'fact', then there is NO wonder you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that a 'fact' is subject to CHANGE and thus IS FALSIFIABLE as well.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am or the fact of Pluto being a planet changed to Pluto no longer being a planet.

ONCE MORE LOL AGAIN. Some of what you say "eodnhoj7" REALLY do AMUSE me and make me LAUGH sometimes.

The object that some of 'you', human beings, call a "planet", or "not a planet", does NOT make what 'you' call 'it' A FACT.

What makes some 'thing' A FACT is that 'it' has been or can be PROVEN True. Like, for example, some of 'you', human beings, call an object, away from earth, "pluto", AND, that some of 'you' say that, what is sometimes known as "pluto", "is a planet" and some say, "it is not a planet". This is A FACT, which can be and has been PROVEN True, and which is NOT subject to 'change' and is NEITHER 'falsifiable'. Which is what ACTUALLY and EXACTLY makes a 'fact' A FACT.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am The fact that a car is red is falsifiable given a long enough timeline where the paint jobs rusts.

No one, with proper and correct thinking, would say; "A car is red", to begin with and CLAIM that to be 'A FACT'.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am Everything as subject to change necessitates facts as changing as well.

This is just AN ASSUMPTION of YOURS "eodnhoj7", which is based on YOUR CURRENTLY HELD BELIEFS ALONE, and which OBVIOUSLY could be False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

And to FALSIFY YOUR ASSUMPTION and CLAIM here "eodnhoj7" has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:02 am Objective means as objective as possible, not transcendent access to truth.

PERFECT description, although an unsuitable definition, but which I will still use anyway.

And, the MOST 'objective' and BEST way to gain access to thee ACTUAL truth of things is just from the perspective of the MOST 'things' possible.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:02 am Reality means our external experience, not transcendent access to the universe.

To me, this definition for the word 'reality' is one of the reasons WHY most human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are still a long way off from discovering and/or learning and understanding what 'reality' ACTUALLY is, and what the 'truth' ACTUALLY IS ALSO.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:52 am
Yet this empirical base is defined through the abstractions attached to it with these abstractions being the formation of the very same mind studying itself. Consciousness thus is studying consciousness and a circular loop occurs. The study of consciousness is thus the literal going around in circles thus relegating consciousness as following a form, a loop in this case, which exists above it and guides it.

Wrong again.
You are in a orgy of conflation.
It is the empirical self that is relying upon human consciousness to study its empirical self which is verifiable and justifiable by science.

What you are doing is straying from science into the metaphysical woo woo of la la land.

But the empirical self is an hallucination, according to your stance, as it is a result of neurons forming the hallucination.

There is no issue here,
the whole lot, i.e.
"It is the empirical self that is relying upon human consciousness to study its empirical self which is verifiable and justifiable by science"
within a hallucination.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:49 am
Human consciousness is what we have understood so far empirically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Such consciousness can be studied by science, social science, psychology, neuro-sciences.
There is still more to learn about human consciousness but whatever that is to know about human consciousness, it has to be empirically-based.
There is no issue with infinite regress in this case.

The problem is when people start to speculate what is consciousness metaphysically and ontologically based on the little we know from science and common sense.
You are leveraging on the metaphysical-ontological basis [not empirical science] in speculating about what is ultimate consciousness and thus driven to leaping into la la land by a primal psychological impulse.

Yet this empirical base is defined through the abstractions attached to it with these abstractions being the formation of the very same mind studying itself. Consciousness thus is studying consciousness and a circular loop occurs. The study of consciousness is thus the literal going around in circles thus relegating consciousness as following a form, a loop in this case, which exists above it and guides it.

Wrong again.
You are in a orgy of conflation.
It is the empirical self that is relying upon human consciousness to study its empirical self which is verifiable and justifiable by science.

Is there ANY empirical 'thing', which is NOT verifiable and justifiable by 'science'?

If no, then there was NO using adding on the last seven words. But I am ALREADY AWARE that you like to use the 'science' word as often as you can as you BELIEVE that using that word will help in you in backing up and supporting your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true.

By the way, who and/or what EXACTLY is the, so called, "empirical self"?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:05 am Note non-humans don't rely on their consciousness to study their empirical self.

Do ALL non-human 'things' have such a thing as a "non-human consciousness"?

And what is the difference between, so called, "human consciousness" and "non-human consciousness"?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:05 am What you are doing is straying from science into the metaphysical woo woo of la la land.

And, what 'you', "veritas aequitas" do is use the 'science' word consistently as though using that word somehow backs up and supports your FAULTY thinking and reasoning. By the way, some have suggested, 'your OVERUSE of the 'science' word' here.

[quote=Age post_id=486455 time=1609047931 user_id=16237]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=486440 time=1609045520 user_id=7896]
[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=486431 time=1609044758 user_id=14533]

Yet this empirical base is defined through the abstractions attached to it with these abstractions being the formation of the very same mind studying itself. Consciousness thus is studying consciousness and a circular loop occurs. The study of consciousness is thus the literal going around in circles thus relegating consciousness as following a form, a loop in this case, which exists above it and guides it.
[/quote]
Wrong again.
You are in a orgy of conflation.
It is the empirical self that is relying upon human consciousness to study its empirical self which is verifiable and justifiable by science.[/quote]

Is there ANY empirical 'thing', which is NOT verifiable and justifiable by 'science'?

If no, then there was NO using adding on the last seven words. But I am ALREADY AWARE that you like to use the 'science' word as often as you can as you BELIEVE that using that word will help in you in backing up and supporting your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true.

By the way, who and/or what EXACTLY is the, so called, "empirical self"?

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=486440 time=1609045520 user_id=7896]
Note non-humans don't rely on their consciousness to study their empirical self.[/quote]

Do ALL non-human 'things' have such a thing as a "non-human consciousness"?

And what is the difference between, so called, "human consciousness" and "non-human consciousness"?

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=486440 time=1609045520 user_id=7896]
What you are doing is straying from science into the metaphysical woo woo of la la land.
[/quote]

And, what 'you', "veritas aequitas" do is use the 'science' word consistently as though using that word somehow backs up and supports your FAULTY thinking and reasoning. By the way, some have suggested, 'your OVERUSE of the 'science' word' here.
[/quote]

Age, it's entirely possible someone could answer all your questions, but not if you never stop asking them or won't stick around to see how the answers fit together or accept any of the answers anyway, etc.