Are we really able to create an independent thing?

[bahman]

The point is that what one creates should be based on his/her experiences in the past, so it is not independent.

[Impenitent]

The point is that what one creates should be based on his/her experiences in the past, so it is not independent.

tell that to your children

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

The point is that what one creates should be based on his/her experiences in the past, so it is not independent.

Good point.

Note Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.
[mine]

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which deny the existence of a mind-independent world). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[2] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I am a philosophical anti-realist, i.e. there is no reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions [past, present, whatever].

[Age]

The point is that what one creates should be based on his/her experiences in the past, so it is not independent.

Good point.

Note Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.
[mine]

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which deny the existence of a mind-independent world). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[2] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I am a philosophical anti-realist, i.e. there is no reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions [past, present, whatever].

Would would you say if I said that there is a reality that exists BEFORE human beings came into existence and a reality AFTER human beings do not exist anymore.

WHY do you say, there is no reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions [past, present, whatever]?

WHAT do you mean when you say 'no reality', and when you say 'reality'?

[Age]

The point is that what one creates should be based on his/her experiences in the past, so it is not independent.

tell that to your children

-Imp

Are you suggesting, impenitent, that children are not dependent upon their parents?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.
[mine]

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which deny the existence of a mind-independent world). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[2] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I am a philosophical anti-realist, i.e. there is no reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions [past, present, whatever].

Would would you say if I said that there is a reality that exists BEFORE human beings came into existence and a reality AFTER human beings do not exist anymore.

WHY do you say, there is no reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions [past, present, whatever]?

WHAT do you mean when you say 'no reality', and when you say 'reality'?

It is "fact" the moon existed before there were human beings.

But the fact is, your,
"I said that there is a reality that exists BEFORE human beings came into existence and a reality AFTER human beings do not exist anymore"
is a claim or cognition itself that is ultimately dependent on human beings.

Note this;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Whatever is the conscious reality of past, present or future reality is at best a hallucination of the minimal degree.

As I had asserted whatever is our conscious reality is effectively a spontaneous emergent reality that we can work with in order to survive.

There is no way you can prove in the absolute [unconditional] sense of a reality that had existed in the past other than relying [thus dependent] on the human self.

[Age]

Note Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.
[mine]



I am a philosophical anti-realist, i.e. there is no reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions [past, present, whatever].

Would would you say if I said that there is a reality that exists BEFORE human beings came into existence and a reality AFTER human beings do not exist anymore.

WHY do you say, there is no reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions [past, present, whatever]?

WHAT do you mean when you say 'no reality', and when you say 'reality'?

It is "fact" the moon existed before there were human beings.

But the fact is, your,
"I said that there is a reality that exists BEFORE human beings came into existence and a reality AFTER human beings do not exist anymore"
is a claim or cognition itself that is ultimately dependent on human beings.

Note this;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Whatever is the conscious reality of past, present or future reality is at best a hallucination of the minimal degree.

As I had asserted whatever is our conscious reality is effectively a spontaneous emergent reality that we can work with in order to survive.

There is no way you can prove in the absolute [unconditional] sense of a reality that had existed in the past other than relying [thus dependent] on the human self.

I NEVER suggested otherwise. Did you just assume this, for some reason?

Are you under some sort of illusion, or maybe an hallucination of some degree perhaps, that it would be possible to communicate through a human self, and also not be dependent upon that human self?

It appears that your brain is hallucinating your conscious reality.

Does your brain hallucinate its conscious reality?

Will you answer that question?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Would would you say if I said that there is a reality that exists BEFORE human beings came into existence and a reality AFTER human beings do not exist anymore.

WHY do you say, there is no reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions [past, present, whatever]?

WHAT do you mean when you say 'no reality', and when you say 'reality'?

It is "fact" the moon existed before there were human beings.

But the fact is, your,
"I said that there is a reality that exists BEFORE human beings came into existence and a reality AFTER human beings do not exist anymore"
is a claim or cognition itself that is ultimately dependent on human beings.

Note this;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Whatever is the conscious reality of past, present or future reality is at best a hallucination of the minimal degree.

As I had asserted whatever is our conscious reality is effectively a spontaneous emergent reality that we can work with in order to survive.

There is no way you can prove in the absolute [unconditional] sense of a reality that had existed in the past other than relying [thus dependent] on the human self.

I NEVER suggested otherwise. Did you just assume this, for some reason?

Are you under some sort of illusion, or maybe an hallucination of some degree perhaps, that it would be possible to communicate through a human self, and also not be dependent upon that human self?

It appears that your brain is hallucinating your conscious reality.

Does your brain hallucinate its conscious reality?

Will you answer that question?

What is brain anyway?
The brain is made of various physical elements which is as asserted,

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

where the conscious reality include the brain itself.

The self itself is another form of hallucination.

Btw, if I 'hallucinate-CR' a train coming in my direction I will definitely avoid it.

[Age]

It is "fact" the moon existed before there were human beings.

But the fact is, your,
"I said that there is a reality that exists BEFORE human beings came into existence and a reality AFTER human beings do not exist anymore"
is a claim or cognition itself that is ultimately dependent on human beings.

Note this;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Whatever is the conscious reality of past, present or future reality is at best a hallucination of the minimal degree.

As I had asserted whatever is our conscious reality is effectively a spontaneous emergent reality that we can work with in order to survive.

There is no way you can prove in the absolute [unconditional] sense of a reality that had existed in the past other than relying [thus dependent] on the human self.

I NEVER suggested otherwise. Did you just assume this, for some reason?

Are you under some sort of illusion, or maybe an hallucination of some degree perhaps, that it would be possible to communicate through a human self, and also not be dependent upon that human self?

It appears that your brain is hallucinating your conscious reality.

Does your brain hallucinate its conscious reality?

Will you answer that question?

What is brain anyway?
The brain is made of various physical elements which is as asserted,

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

where the conscious reality include the brain itself.

The self itself is another form of hallucination.

Btw, if I 'hallucinate-CR' a train coming in my direction I will definitely avoid it.

My question was, Does YOUR brain hallucinate its conscious reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My question was, Does YOUR brain hallucinate its conscious reality?

Yes, I agree with this thesis;

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

But note, it is not in the degree like the schizo who hallucinated gnomes are real because he saw 'real' living gnomes and converse with them in his garden.

[Age]

My question was, Does YOUR brain hallucinate its conscious reality?

Yes, I agree with this thesis;

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

But note, it is not in the degree like the schizo who hallucinated gnomes are real because he saw 'real' living gnomes and converse with them in his garden.

How do you KNOW it is not in the degree like that?

'Hallucinate', experience a seemingly real perception of something not actually present, typically as a result of a mental disorder or of taking drugs.

In that definition of 'hallucinate' there is ONLY experiencing a perception of something seemingly real but which is not actually present.

So, according to you, your brain hallucinates your conscious reality, or in other words absolutely every thing your perceive as being real or reality is not actually present.

There may well be degrees of hallucination, like there are degrees of stupidity, abuse, greed, wrong doing, et cetera, but all are what they are. That is; stupidity is stupidity, hallucination is hallucination, et cetera, et cetera. So, if your brain hallucinates your conscious reality, then your brain experiences a conscious reality of a seemingly real perception, but which is really something not actually present.

By your own admission the brain within that head is experiencing or conjuring up some conscious reality that is not actually present nor real and true.

Based on that, WHY do you propose any one (if they are really there?) listens to what you say is real and true?

Or, will that brain, in that head, now hallucinate another conscious reality of and for a definition for 'hallucinate' that will then be TRIED TO be conformed into all of what it is that you are TRYING TO argue for?

If you really BELIEVE that your brain is hallucinating, a conscious reality, then could this be partly the reason WHY you come across here as so lost and bewildered, to me anyway?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My question was, Does YOUR brain hallucinate its conscious reality?

Yes, I agree with this thesis;

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

But note, it is not in the degree like the schizo who hallucinated gnomes are real because he saw 'real' living gnomes and converse with them in his garden.

How do you KNOW it is not in the degree like that?

'Hallucinate', experience a seemingly real perception of something not actually present, typically as a result of a mental disorder or of taking drugs.

In that definition of 'hallucinate' there is ONLY experiencing a perception of something seemingly real but which is not actually present.

So, according to you, your brain hallucinates your conscious reality, or in other words absolutely every thing your perceive as being real or reality is not actually present.

There may well be degrees of hallucination, like there are degrees of stupidity, abuse, greed, wrong doing, et cetera, but all are what they are. That is; stupidity is stupidity, hallucination is hallucination, et cetera, et cetera. So, if your brain hallucinates your conscious reality, then your brain experiences a conscious reality of a seemingly real perception, but which is really something not actually present.

By your own admission the brain within that head is experiencing or conjuring up some conscious reality that is not actually present nor real and true.

Based on that, WHY do you propose any one (if they are really there?) listens to what you say is real and true?

Or, will that brain, in that head, now hallucinate another conscious reality of and for a definition for 'hallucinate' that will then be TRIED TO be conformed into all of what it is that you are TRYING TO argue for?

If you really BELIEVE that your brain is hallucinating, a conscious reality, then could this be partly the reason WHY you come across here as so lost and bewildered, to me anyway?

In this case we are ignoring the conventional dictionary meanings and zooming into the neural basis of 'hallucination'.

It is like we are ignoring a diamond gem is totally different from a piece of pure charcoal in the conventional sense and zooming [shifting perspective] into its common element i.e. pure carbon. Thus a diamond and charcoal are made up of exactly the same thing [element] but different within a continuum [degrees] of its molecular structure.

Applying the above to the emergence of reality;

Note this
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
and the thesis presented by Ramanchandran [neuroscientist] on the same subject.

What they have done is to study the principles, mechanics and neural process of the emergence of reality and that of hallucinations and found that both are the same but of different degrees within the continuum in terms of its neural basis.

What you missed out is you extrapolated [rhetorically] from the conventional dictionary meaning and failed to shift perspective to a more refined perspective of reality in regard to the underlying neural basis of reality.

[Impenitent]

The point is that what one creates should be based on his/her experiences in the past, so it is not independent.

tell that to your children

-Imp

Are you suggesting, impenitent, that children are not dependent upon their parents?

not always

-Imp

[Age]

Yes, I agree with this thesis;

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

But note, it is not in the degree like the schizo who hallucinated gnomes are real because he saw 'real' living gnomes and converse with them in his garden.

How do you KNOW it is not in the degree like that?

'Hallucinate', experience a seemingly real perception of something not actually present, typically as a result of a mental disorder or of taking drugs.

In that definition of 'hallucinate' there is ONLY experiencing a perception of something seemingly real but which is not actually present.

So, according to you, your brain hallucinates your conscious reality, or in other words absolutely every thing your perceive as being real or reality is not actually present.

There may well be degrees of hallucination, like there are degrees of stupidity, abuse, greed, wrong doing, et cetera, but all are what they are. That is; stupidity is stupidity, hallucination is hallucination, et cetera, et cetera. So, if your brain hallucinates your conscious reality, then your brain experiences a conscious reality of a seemingly real perception, but which is really something not actually present.

By your own admission the brain within that head is experiencing or conjuring up some conscious reality that is not actually present nor real and true.

Based on that, WHY do you propose any one (if they are really there?) listens to what you say is real and true?

Or, will that brain, in that head, now hallucinate another conscious reality of and for a definition for 'hallucinate' that will then be TRIED TO be conformed into all of what it is that you are TRYING TO argue for?

If you really BELIEVE that your brain is hallucinating, a conscious reality, then could this be partly the reason WHY you come across here as so lost and bewildered, to me anyway?

In this case we are ignoring the conventional dictionary meanings and zooming into the neural basis of 'hallucination'.

BUT that IS an ACTUAL conventional dictionary meaning, which I quoted.

Just as I proposed would happen, happened: That brain, in that head, would hallucinate another conscious "reality" of and for a definition for 'hallucinate', as proven below. That brain did this to TRY TO "justify" its own already held assumptions and BELIEFS.

How the human brain works, and its predictability, can be very easily and simply known, and witnessed here.

Even AFTER writing what A human brain would do, you would think that that brain would do some thing rather different, just to prove Me wrong, however the power of BELIEFS, and the belief-system, is just to strong. Adult human beings are NOT in control. They are controlled by their own BELIEFS, and by their assumptions to a lesser extent.

Just read the following and see HOW the brain will try it's very hardest to TRY TO "justify" its very own already held assumptions and beliefs.

It is like we are ignoring a diamond gem is totally different from a piece of pure charcoal in the conventional sense and zooming [shifting perspective] into its common element i.e. pure carbon. Thus a diamond and charcoal are made up of exactly the same thing [element] but different within a continuum [degrees] of its molecular structure.

Applying the above to the emergence of reality;

Note this
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
and the thesis presented by Ramanchandran [neuroscientist] on the same subject.

What they have done is to study the principles, mechanics and neural process of the emergence of reality and that of hallucinations and found that both are the same but of different degrees within the continuum in terms of its neural basis.

What you missed out is you extrapolated [rhetorically] from the conventional dictionary meaning and failed to shift perspective to a more refined perspective of reality in regard to the underlying neural basis of reality.

[commonsense]

Veritas, what do you mean by "CR" as in the term, "hallucination-CR"? Please explain.