Philosophy Now Forum

Hello,

I'm new here and philosophy isn't my forte. Please have patience with my ignorant question:

If reality doesn't exist unless it is being observed by a conscious being, then how do video cameras work? Or more accurately, WHY do video cameras work? Specifically, I'm talking about a situation where the camera is recording when there is no conscious observer such as a security camera recording an empty room.

Thanks in advance,
DudleyFerrell

DudleyFerrell wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:15 am Hello,

I'm new here and philosophy isn't my forte. Please have patience with my ignorant question:

If reality doesn't exist unless it is being observed by a conscious being, then how do video cameras work? Or more accurately, WHY do video cameras work? Specifically, I'm talking about a situation where the camera is recording when there is no conscious observer such as a security camera recording an empty room.

Thanks in advance,
DudleyFerrell

Who claims reality does not exist unless reality is being observed by a conscious being?

And, what are they basing this claim on, exactly?

By the way, how is the word 'reality' here being defined?

DudleyFerrell wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:15 am Hello,

I'm new here and philosophy isn't my forte. Please have patience with my ignorant question:

If reality doesn't exist unless it is being observed by a conscious being, then how do video cameras work? Or more accurately, WHY do video cameras work? Specifically, I'm talking about a situation where the camera is recording when there is no conscious observer such as a security camera recording an empty room.

Thanks in advance,
DudleyFerrell

The reality is made of minds and qualia. Qualia is created and experienced by the mind. The wave function contains information about a particle. This information is not precise because of the uncertainty principle. That is it. Actually, I like Bohm's picture!

DudleyFerrell wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:15 am Hello,

I'm new here and philosophy isn't my forte. Please have patience with my ignorant question:

If reality doesn't exist unless it is being observed by a conscious being, then how do video cameras work? Or more accurately, WHY do video cameras work? Specifically, I'm talking about a situation where the camera is recording when there is no conscious observer such as a security camera recording an empty room.

Thanks in advance,
DudleyFerrell

esse est percipi - Berkeley

to be is to be perceived... the call of every good empiricist...

how does the room on the other side of your house exist when you aren't observing it?

big brother... god... someone must be watching...

-Imp

DudleyFerrell wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:15 am Hello,

I'm new here and philosophy isn't my forte. Please have patience with my ignorant question:
If reality doesn't exist unless it is being observed by a conscious being, then how do video cameras work? Or more accurately, WHY do video cameras work? Specifically, I'm talking about a situation where the camera is recording when there is no conscious observer such as a security camera recording an empty room. Thanks in advance,
DudleyFerrell

Dudley,

The camera works because it is designed to register the same wave frequencies as would a biological subject, it maintains these frequencies to be then interpreted by one's biology. There are a number of scientific instruments which record wave frequencies that are not available to us, but take readings registering those frequencies and mark their presence in a form we can read.

DudleyFerrell wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:15 am Hello,

I'm new here and philosophy isn't my forte. Please have patience with my ignorant question:

If reality doesn't exist unless it is being observed by a conscious being, then how do video cameras work? Or more accurately, WHY do video cameras work? Specifically, I'm talking about a situation where the camera is recording when there is no conscious observer such as a security camera recording an empty room.

Thanks in advance,
DudleyFerrell

I think you are confusing doubt about reality with negation of reality. Negating reality means claiming a certainty, which in turn would need to be proved. It is like those atheists who say that God does not exist: it is just a different faith, because they cannot prove that God does not exist: any proof would need in turn other proofs, endlessly.
So, let’s start by clarifying that what philosophical reflection points out to our mind is doubt: we don’t know if reality exist, because, in order to give an answer, we cannot escape from this answer being filtered by our brain. So, actually, we not only don’t know if reality exists when it is not observed by us, but actually we don’t even know if it exists when we think that we are having a direct contact with it. This brings us the total doubt about everything. You cannot prove ultimately that your camera recorded something real. You cannot even prove that your camera exists. This drove Descartes to find some radical fact to be able to prove at least something, and he thought that he found it: I think, and this is an undeniable evidence that I exist, otherwise who is thinking? He didn’t realize that his reasoning was actually exposed to a lot of criticism. His conclusion can be easily demolished. We need to realize that doubt, when it starts attacking our thoughts, it goes until our most radical basis of thinking: actually we don’t have any idea about what reality is, what thinking is, any thought of us might be an illusion, a dream. Socrates thought that he was able at least to state one thing: I know that I don’t know. But even this statement can be easily criticized and demolished. Apparently, after this so radical doubting and criticizing, our only conclusion becomes saying nothing, be silent, stopping from making philosophy. This seems to be what Heidegger thought at the end. I think that actually philosophy has still a lot to say, it just needs to apply its ability to criticize itself, to redefine itself, to find new languages. A radical important question is, in my opinion: why should we think that the purpose of philosophy is understanding, grasping, building systems of ideas? Why not to have a different relationship with that experience that we call reality? We can, instead of trying to attack, grasp and conquer it through our concepts, try to have with it a different approach, a friendly one rather than the mentality of attacking and grasping. This is closer to the approach of art, literature. But philosophy can still maintain its specificity by building its own language of approaching thinking, experience, reality, doubt. This is something that the ancient Greek philosophers had already understood: they didn’t mean philosophy so much as grasping and caging reality like a prisoner inside our thoughts; they rather meant it as a spiritual exercise (see Pierre Hadot), a meditation, a way to contemplate and enjoy thinking, exploring views, interpretations, without expecting them to be able to ultimately explain reality or to explain anything.

Angelo,

Exellent! Start a thread!!!

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm

DudleyFerrell wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:15 am Hello,

I'm new here and philosophy isn't my forte. Please have patience with my ignorant question:

If reality doesn't exist unless it is being observed by a conscious being, then how do video cameras work? Or more accurately, WHY do video cameras work? Specifically, I'm talking about a situation where the camera is recording when there is no conscious observer such as a security camera recording an empty room.

Thanks in advance,
DudleyFerrell

I think you are confusing doubt about reality with negation of reality. Negating reality means claiming a certainty, which in turn would need to be proved. It is like those atheists who say that God does not exist: it is just a different faith, because they cannot prove that God does not exist: any proof would need in turn other proofs, endlessly.

But because you could NEVER prove this to be true, by your OWN "logic" here, then this could just be completely and utterly False, Wrong, and Incorrect, in and of its own self.

And, to prove how what you claim here is ACTUALLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect is done by just providing HOW EXACTLY NOT ALL 'proofs' NEED in turn other proofs, endlessly.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm So, let’s start by clarifying that what philosophical reflection points out to our mind is doubt: we don’t know if reality exist, because, in order to give an answer, we cannot escape from this answer being filtered by our brain.

That is ONLY if just the brain is being used. And, from what you have written here ONLY the brain is being used. This the reason WHY what you say and claim here is ALSO False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm So, actually, we not only don’t know if reality exists when it is not observed by us, but actually we don’t even know if it exists when we think that we are having a direct contact with it.

So WHY THEN are 'you' using the 'reality' word?

To me, OBVIOUSLY there is A Reality, and just as OBVIOUS is that It exists ALWAYS.

This can be PROVED True, VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm This brings us the total doubt about everything.

'you' are FREE to DOUBT absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing'. But who or what is doing the DOUBTING, and does 'it' DOUBT if 'it' is REAL or NOT?

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm You cannot prove ultimately that your camera recorded something real.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm You cannot even prove that your camera exists.

WHY NOT?

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm This drove Descartes to find some radical fact to be able to prove at least something, and he thought that he found it: I think, and this is an undeniable evidence that I exist, otherwise who is thinking? He didn’t realize that his reasoning was actually exposed to a lot of criticism. His conclusion can be easily demolished.

Will you PROVIDE examples of how that conclusion is EASILY 'demolished'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

And, could, what you class as EASILY 'demolishes' the, 'I think, therefore I am', conclusion, be EASILY 'demolished' AS WELL? Or, is that IMPOSSIBLE to 'demolish', TO YOU?

See, you can NOT have 'this' BOTH WAYS. That is you can NOT, logically, say that you can NOT prove ANY thing, but then CLAIM you can PROVE some things Wrong, False, or Incorrect.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm We need to realize that doubt, when it starts attacking our thoughts, it goes until our most radical basis of thinking: actually we don’t have any idea about what reality is, what thinking is, any thought of us might be an illusion, a dream.

Some of us KNOW, EXACTLY, what 'Reality' IS, what 'thinking' IS, and HOW to DECIPHER between what is Real, and True, and what is just an ILLUSION and /or a Falsehood.

Also, and by the way, there is ONLY One thing ONLY, which can be Truly KNOWN.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm Socrates thought that he was able at least to state one thing: I know that I don’t know. But even this statement can be easily criticized and demolished.

Absolutely ANY thing can be 'criticized', but this has absolutely NO bearing on Truth or NOT. And, if ANY thing can be 'demolished', then PROVIDE the ACTUAL PROOF of 'this', instead of just SAYING, "it can be demolished".

But, you are NOT ABLE to ACTUALLY 'demolish' absolutely ANY thing here, correct?

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm Apparently, after this so radical doubting and criticizing, our only conclusion becomes saying nothing, be silent, stopping from making philosophy.

What does the word 'philosophy' even mean, or refer to, to you?

To me, 'philosophy' is NOT some 'thing' made, but is some 'thing' that is either HAD or NOT HAD.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm This seems to be what Heidegger thought at the end. I think that actually philosophy has still a lot to say, it just needs to apply its ability to criticize itself, to redefine itself, to find new languages.

But 'philosophy', itself, does NOT say ANY thing.

Only 'you', human beings, say ANY thing here. And, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, 'you', human beings, still have a LOT to say, and, 'you' NEED to apply your ABILITY to criticize "yourselves", with 'critical thinking', to redefine "yourselves", to find new languages, words and meanings.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm A radical important question is, in my opinion: why should we think that the purpose of philosophy is understanding, grasping, building systems of ideas?

I do NOT know. WHY do 'you', and some "others", even 'think' that this is the purpose of 'philosophy', let alone even 'imagine' that 'you' SHOULD 'think' that way?

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm Why not to have a different relationship with that experience that we call reality? We can, instead of trying to attack, grasp and conquer it through our concepts, try to have with it a different approach, a friendly one rather than the mentality of attacking and grasping. This is closer to the approach of art, literature.

But WHO is even 'trying to attack, grasp, and conquer Reality' through 'concepts'? And, WHY do those of 'you' WHO do this, do 'it'?

If, and when, one can NOT YET SEE and UNDERSTAND 'Reality', then so be it. These ones just need to LEARN HOW-TO do 'it'.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 10:09 pm But philosophy can still maintain its specificity by building its own language of approaching thinking, experience, reality, doubt. This is something that the ancient Greek philosophers had already understood: they didn’t mean philosophy so much as grasping and caging reality like a prisoner inside our thoughts; they rather meant it as a spiritual exercise (see Pierre Hadot), a meditation, a way to contemplate and enjoy thinking, exploring views, interpretations, without expecting them to be able to ultimately explain reality or to explain anything.

WHO even 'thought' that this was NOT 'philosophy'?

And, the 'love-of-learning/becoming wiser' is 'philosophy'. Either one HAS 'philosophy' or they do NOT.

If, and when, one HAS 'philosophy', then they, OBVIOUSLY, contemplate and enjoy thinking, exploring views, interpretations, without expecting them to be able to ultimately explain reality or to explain anything.

Also, through this 'philosophy', Honesty, Openness, and serious Want to change, oneself, then what Reality Truly IS becomes UNCOVERED, and thus also becomes KNOWN.

"It is like those atheists who say that God does not exist: it is just a different faith, because they cannot prove that God does not exist: any proof would need in turn other proofs, endlessly."

Well not really. Propositions containing the word 'god' are rendered meaningless because of the nonsensical word 'god'. For the religious, it's not even a matter of bearing the burden of proof. Burdens of proof are for those who could possibly gather evidence in their favor. The burden of proof may be on me to prove the stock crash is due to x, or that a meteor is fixin to hit the erf... but I could never prove god existed because that word doesn't mean anything. There is no burden to prove what doesn't exist.

I could put the word 'wizzle dorp' in a proposition and present a logically sound and valid argument with said proposition. But logically sound and valid, while making a conclusion true, does not make the argument meaningful.

A shniggle whopter is an uncaused cause responsible for creating the universe. The universe was created. Therefore a shniggle whopter exists.

Can you prove to me that a shniggle whopter is not what I say it is?

That's a trick question.

There is no such thing as a shniggle whopter.

you could NEVER prove this to be true

This is true: I have not said that I can prove anything, otherwise my reasoning would be easily demolished.

by your OWN "logic" here

It seems to me that I have used a kind of logic shared by a lot of humans, or at least this is my perception, maybe I am wrong; in that case I would like to see how my reasoning is just my own logic.

to prove how what you claim here is ACTUALLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect is done by just providing HOW EXACTLY NOT ALL 'proofs' NEED in turn other proofs, endlessly.

I would like to see some proof that doesn’t need further proofs.

That is ONLY if just the brain is being used

No, it’s not, it is also when you add anything else, or even when you add other people’s opinion. Whatever instrument or people we add to our process of knowledge, the ultimate action is done by our brain: when you measure something, your brain finally decides to interpret the results of the instrument; when you ask for other people’s opinion, then your brain decides how to interpret their answer.

So WHY THEN are 'you' using the 'reality' word?

Being able to use a word does not mean that what we think that word points to exists. Otherwise saying “flying horses” would automatically mean that flying horses exist in what we call reality.

To me, OBVIOUSLY there is A Reality, and just as OBVIOUS is that It exists ALWAYS.

Being obvious does not grant existence. It is an almost everyday experience that what seems obvious to us reveals different in what we call reality. Putin thinks that he is obviously right in invading Ukraine. Try to convince him and his supporters that they are wrong.

This can be PROVED True, VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY.

How? And then, again, I would like to see if they are proofs that don’t need other proofs.

But who or what is doing the DOUBTING, and does 'it' DOUBT if 'it' is REAL or NOT?

This is Descartes, that I already referred to.

You cannot even prove that your camera exists.

WHY NOT?

Try.

Will you PROVIDE examples of how that conclusion is EASILY 'demolished'?

Descartes said “I think, then I exist”.
Objections:
Can you explain in a way that won’t need endless explanations the meaning of “I”, “think”, “then”, “exist”? Can you explain in a way that won’t need endless explanations the process that makes you jump from “I think” to “I exist”? Can you prove that while making this reasoning your mind was in full control of the whole process? Can you prove that nobody in the future will be ever able to find mistakes in your reasoning? Can you prove that your reasoning is a reasoning?

Sorry, I must stop here for now because I have no time to write. In meanwhile I will follow the discussion. See you later

And, could, what you class as EASILY 'demolishes' the, 'I think, therefore I am', conclusion, be EASILY 'demolished' AS WELL? Or, is that IMPOSSIBLE to 'demolish', TO YOU?

What I said cannot be demolished because they are essentially questions, not statements, and I don't even claim that my questions are coherent. What I said is like rubble, debris, ruins that I have thrown against your statements. You cannot demolish ruins because they are already demolished. This is the method of Socrates, who proceeded by questioning and questioning, so he cannot be demolished because he didn't build anything.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:36 am "It is like those atheists who say that God does not exist: it is just a different faith, because they cannot prove that God does not exist: any proof would need in turn other proofs, endlessly."

Well not really. Propositions containing the word 'god' are rendered meaningless because of the nonsensical word 'god'.

But propositions that propositions containing the word 'god' are rendered meaningless because of the nonsensical word 'god' are meaningless and nonsensical because of the meaningful and very sensible word 'god'.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:36 am For the religious, it's not even a matter of bearing the burden of proof. Burdens of proof are for those who could possibly gather evidence in their favor. The burden of proof may be on me to prove the stock crash is due to x, or that a meteor is fixin to hit the erf... but I could never prove god existed because that word doesn't mean anything.

When you say the word 'god' does NOT mean ANY thing, do you mean in relation to 'you' or in relation to EVERY one?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:36 am There is no burden to prove what doesn't exist.

But how do you know 'it' does NOT exist when, and if, you do NOT even know what 'it' is EXACTLY?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:36 am I could put the word 'wizzle dorp' in a proposition and present a logically sound and valid argument with said proposition. But logically sound and valid, while making a conclusion true, does not make the argument meaningful.

LOL A sound AND valid argument IS IRREFUTABLE.

AND, if you were to say, "a 'wizzle dorp' is ...", then the very first question I would ask you would be, 'What is a 'wizzle dorp', to you, EXACTLY?', and if you could NOT just answer that most SIMPLEST of CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, then do NOT expect that you could write a sound AND valid argument for 'it'.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:36 am A shniggle whopter is an uncaused cause responsible for creating the universe. The universe was created. Therefore a shniggle whopter exists.

AND, what is a 'shniggle whopter', to you, EXACTLY?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:36 am Can you prove to me that a shniggle whopter is not what I say it is?

OBVIOUSLY, we WILL have to WAIT to SEE what you SAY a 'shniggle whopter' is, EXACTLY.

Then, and ONLY THEN, could I INFORM 'you' of what I would be able to do here.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:36 am That's a trick question.

There is no such thing as a shniggle whopter.

Is there such a thing as a 'God', to you?

if no (or yes), then what is 'God', EXACTLY?

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am

you could NEVER prove this to be true

This is true: I have not said that I can prove anything, otherwise my reasoning would be easily demolished.

If absolutely NO thing could be PROVED, then what could reasoning by 'demolished' with or by, EXACTLY?

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am

by your OWN "logic" here

It seems to me that I have used a kind of logic shared by a lot of humans, or at least this is my perception, maybe I am wrong; in that case I would like to see how my reasoning is just my own logic.

You probably are NOT 'wrong' in that there are OTHERS who use that kind of so-called "logic". And, that that "logic" was YOURS, and YOURS ALONE, was NEVER what WAS MEANT.

What WAS MEANT was that; You could NEVER prove ANY thing you say true. Because by the very 'logic' that YOU USE, or in other words, 'by your OWN logic', you could NOT prove ANY thing.

So, what you THOUGHT I MEANT was just a MISINTERPRETATION.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am

to prove how what you claim here is ACTUALLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect is done by just providing HOW EXACTLY NOT ALL 'proofs' NEED in turn other proofs, endlessly.

I would like to see some proof that doesn’t need further proofs.

Words under the label and name "angelo cannata" here have ALREADY replied to words under the label and name "age" here.

That is the CLAIM. The PROOF for this CLAIM is HERE, before us.

Or, do you NEED FURTHER PROOFS?

If you do, then what do you NEED PROOFS OF, and FOR, EXACTLY?

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am

That is ONLY if just the brain is being used

No, it’s not, it is also when you add anything else, or even when you add other people’s opinion.

Like what 'anything else', and where do you think or envision people's opinions come from if NOT from 'the brain'?

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am Whatever instrument or people we add to our process of knowledge, the ultimate action is done by our brain: when you measure something, your brain finally decides to interpret the results of the instrument; when you ask for other people’s opinion, then your brain decides how to interpret their answer.

You said, "you don't know if reality exists".

I said, 'That is ONLY if just the brain is being used'. This STILL STANDS and NOTHING you have said here refutes this Fact.

Your INABILITY to KNOW if 'Reality' exists or NOT, just PROVES what I have said here.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am

So WHY THEN are 'you' using the 'reality' word?

Being able to use a word does not mean that what we think that word points to exists.

OF COURSE 'being able to use a word' does NOT mean what you said here.

But if ANY one is using a 'word', which HAS a definition, then 'that word' is POINTING TO some 'thing'. And, if 'it' is A 'thing', then 'it' MUST and HAS TO 'exist' in some form or another.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am Otherwise saying “flying horses” would automatically mean that flying horses exist in what we call reality.

But the words 'flying', 'horses', AND 'reality' MEANS some 'thing'. And, what 'that thing' IS, EXACTLY, AGAIN MUST and HAS TO exist in some form or another.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am

To me, OBVIOUSLY there is A Reality, and just as OBVIOUS is that It exists ALWAYS.

Being obvious does not grant existence.

But it CERTAINLY DOES to me. The 'OBVIOUS' word SHOULD have GIVEN THIS CLUE AWAY.

Just because 'you' are NOT YET ABLE to WORK OUT if there is a 'Reality' or NOT, does NOT mean NO one else, and has NO bearing AT ALL on what is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, to me anyway.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am It is an almost everyday experience that what seems obvious to us reveals different in what we call reality.

REALLY?

Maybe you would be better off FIRST 'considering' what SEEMS or APPEARS 'obvious', BEFORE accepting 'it' as 'fact'.

If what 'seems obvious' is turning out to be DIFFERENT, then maybe a CHANGE in the way you LOOK AT and SEE 'things' is REQUIRED.

Also, if some 'thing' ONLY 'seems' or 'appears' OBVIOUS, to you, then this in NO way means that this 'seeming' 'thing' is ACTUALLY True, Right, NOR Correct.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am Putin thinks that he is obviously right in invading Ukraine. Try to convince him and his supporters that they are wrong.

WHERE are 'you' OBTAINING this 'knowledge' that, "putin thinks that here is 'obviously' right", from EXACTLY?

If it is from the brain ONLY, then this is MORE PROOF of my CLAIM above.

Also, do NOT FORGET that you have ALREADY INFORMED us, that you do NOT know if this is a 'reality' or NOT.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am

This can be PROVED True, VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY.

How?

'Logically', WITH and THROUGH 'sound AND valid arguments', and 'empirical', WITH 'matter'.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am And then, again, I would like to see if they are proofs that don’t need other proofs.

Could you SEE the PROOF above that does NOT need other proofs, which I have ALREADY PROVIDED?

Or, did you STILL NEED MORE and OTHER FURTHER PROOFS?

If yes, then did you TELL us ALREADY what these OTHER PROOFS ARE, which you STILL NEED?

Now, if you would like me to PROVE that 'Reality' EXISTS if 'you' are HERE or NOT, then FIRST explain what the word 'Reality' means, or refers to, to you, EXACTLY.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am

But who or what is doing the DOUBTING, and does 'it' DOUBT if 'it' is REAL or NOT?

This is Descartes, that I already referred to.

You have MISSED THE POINT, AGAIN.

So, you do NOT DOUBT EVERY thing, correct?

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am

You cannot even prove that your camera exists.

WHY NOT?

Try.

This 'matter' formed into 'this shape' is called a 'camera'.

If you AGREE that 'this shape' of material is called a 'camera', then, as you can CLEARLY SEE, this IS 'a camera', and SEE that 'it' ACTUALLY EXISTS, at 'this moment'.

If you do NOT 'agree' that 'this matter' is called a 'camera' and/or that 'this matter/camera' does exist, then what does the word 'camera' and 'exist' actually mean or refer to, to you?

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 am

Will you PROVIDE examples of how that conclusion is EASILY 'demolished'?

Descartes said “I think, then I exist”.
Objections:
Can you explain in a way that won’t need endless explanations the meaning of “I”, “think”, “then”, “exist”?

YES. But do you BELIEVE that this is NOT possible?

'I', in the visible form, is ALL physical matter. And, 'I', in the invisible form, is the Mind.

'Think', is what happens within the human body. You KNOW when the brain is 'considering' some 'thing' or 'things', like just NOW.

'Then', refers to; at that time; at the time in question, after that; next; or afterwards.

'Exist', being alive. Which EVERY 'thing' does in one form or ANOTHER.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 amCan you explain in a way that won’t need endless explanations the process that makes you jump from “I think” to “I exist”?

What this REFERS TO, which partly EXPLAINS ALL-THERE-IS, and which WILL be FULLY UNDERSTOOD by human beings, is that the ONLY 'thing' that can be Truly KNOWN are 'thoughts', themselves.

And, because there are 'thoughts', and some 'thing' NOTICING these 'thoughts', then there is an 'I', who is AWARE.

And, because there is an 'I' AWARE of the 'thinking' going on within human bodies, then 'I' exist.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 amCan you prove that while making this reasoning your mind was in full control of the whole process?

Because there is NO "your mind", the rest of what you said and wrote here is just PLAIN ILLOGICAL or NONSENSE.

Once one can COMPLETELY 'step out of' 'thinking' and 'thoughts', themselves, and 'stand outside' of them, and just 'sit back' watching and observe 'thoughts' and 'thinking' within ALL bodies, including the body where the 'thinking' 'appears' or 'seems' to be the SAME, then that One who is Conscious, or consciously AWARE and NOTICING, is thee One who is IN FULL CONTROL of not just the whole process within one body but with the whole process within the Universe, Itself.

As we proceed ALL-OF-THIS WILL and DOES come-to-light.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 amCan you prove that nobody in the future will be ever able to find mistakes in your reasoning?

YES, and AGAIN, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

The future WILL PROVE what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Wrong here.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 amCan you prove that your reasoning is a reasoning?

ALL 'reasoning' is 'reasoning'. But if one's 'reasoning' is ACTUALLY reasonable, that is; 'able to be reasoned', then we WILL have to WAIT to SEE.

But, through 'logical reasoning', or in just other words, 'arguing', 'one's reasoning' can be PROVED IRREFUTABLE, or NOT, to, or from, "others".

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:08 amSorry, I must stop here for now because I have no time to write. In meanwhile I will follow the discussion. See you later

Let's try to concentrate on one question, otherwise answering each single word or sentence causes messages that are very long, dispersive, a maybe even less interesting.

I suggest to concentrate on the following point.

I assume that to write your answers you used your brain. How can you trust what you wrote and what you think, considering that, whenever we try to test the thoughts of our brain, we cannot avoid our brain interfering again in the operation of testing?

PS Can you avoid shouting certain words by using uppercase letters?

Actually i think there's no need of further discussion.
I can only surrender to your sentence

YES, and AGAIN, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

The future WILL PROVE what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Wrong here.

At this point I have nothing to add, I can only say: ok.