|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 7, 2019 18:52:52 GMT
01. Real = is able to be analyzed?
a. "What brain sees that reality is" doesn't imply "there's no reality except what the brain sees";
b. "The Unseeing reality" exists as "unseeing reality", and doesn't exist as "the reality that could be seen as soon as good tools would be handed";
c. Analyzing the reality is an act of speculations about the reality i.e. watching realities in your head only;
d. Any realities exists in a head as plural construction: one reality = one anything;
x.y.z Rx → φy. → .ψz → .x=y=z
e. Something that might be a reality appears iff it might be analyzed.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 8, 2019 1:04:42 GMT
01. Real = is able to be analyzed? a. "What brain sees that reality is" doesn't imply "there's no reality except what the brain sees"; b. "The Unseeing reality" exists as "unseeing reality", and doesn't exist as "the reality that could be seen as soon as good tools would be handed"; c. Analyzing the reality is an act of speculations about the reality i.e. watching realities in your head only; d. Any realities exists in a head as plural construction: one reality = one anything; x.y.z Rx → φy. → .ψz → .x=y=z e. Something that might be a reality appears iff it might be analyzed. Can you analyze analysis without falling into a fallacy? If not, is analysis real? |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 8, 2019 14:50:05 GMT
01. Real = is able to be analyzed? a. "What brain sees that reality is" doesn't imply "there's no reality except what the brain sees"; b. "The Unseeing reality" exists as "unseeing reality", and doesn't exist as "the reality that could be seen as soon as good tools would be handed"; c. Analyzing the reality is an act of speculations about the reality i.e. watching realities in your head only; d. Any realities exists in a head as plural construction: one reality = one anything; x.y.z Rx → φy. → .ψz → .x=y=z e. Something that might be a reality appears iff it might be analyzed.
To negate the existence of reality beyond what one may consciously experience, is to reject reality that oneself is excluded from, but which is nevertheless experienced by others. Or, to put it in simpler terms: The world continues to exist after I'm gone, whether I like it or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 8, 2019 18:43:40 GMT
I would like to make a further comment on this:
b. "The Unseeing reality" exists as "unseeing reality", and doesn't exist as "the reality that could be seen as soon as good tools would be handed";
We can see images taken of galaxies that are, at this point in time, beyond the Hubble radios. This means that we are separated from them in space and time, and no "tools" could be invented to bring us in contact with whatever conscious life might exist there. But that conscious life doesn't depend on us being aware of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 8, 2019 19:57:52 GMT
01. Real = is able to be analyzed? a. "What brain sees that reality is" doesn't imply "there's no reality except what the brain sees"; b. "The Unseeing reality" exists as "unseeing reality", and doesn't exist as "the reality that could be seen as soon as good tools would be handed"; c. Analyzing the reality is an act of speculations about the reality i.e. watching realities in your head only; d. Any realities exists in a head as plural construction: one reality = one anything; x.y.z Rx → φy. → .ψz → .x=y=z e. Something that might be a reality appears iff it might be analyzed. Can you analyze analysis without falling into a fallacy? If not, is analysis real? I don't think that fallacy is the one. Even analyzing analysis makes things clearer. Direct conclusions act the same as synonyms and equivalent phrases (if I didn't confuse anything Prodicus who taught Socrates practiced it), or translation to something other than the first one shape. I'm not sure that "real" referring to any realities is what I need to bother (for/about). Instead of "real" reality why shouldn't I use something unreal? Isn't un-reality as unreal as our real reality we're imagining? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 8, 2019 20:15:54 GMT
01. Real = is able to be analyzed? a. "What brain sees that reality is" doesn't imply "there's no reality except what the brain sees"; b. "The Unseeing reality" exists as "unseeing reality", and doesn't exist as "the reality that could be seen as soon as good tools would be handed"; c. Analyzing the reality is an act of speculations about the reality i.e. watching realities in your head only; d. Any realities exists in a head as plural construction: one reality = one anything; x.y.z Rx → φy. → .ψz → .x=y=z e. Something that might be a reality appears iff it might be analyzed.
To negate the existence of reality beyond what one may consciously experience, is to reject reality that oneself is excluded from, but which is nevertheless experienced by others. Or, to put it in simpler terms: The world continues to exist after I'm gone, whether I like it or not.
(I guess I've made my thought pretty unclear. Means I need to analyze what I write before giving any analyzes.) I didn't want to make any existential conclusions there. Why I reckon that it's important to move along all this statements like - the experience of others, an existence of the world, etc? - Because, I guess, that I need to go as far as possible from that a posteriori facts. Considering them is not very well for any analyzes. Oh, yes. There's no need to object this facts like an existence of the outer world or similar. I'm not denying realism. I'd say I'm very keen realism views. Here, however, I needed to put things in this way, because I thought it would help me to get rid of singular or mono imagine of reality in our heads. Or to say it differently: reality is what grounds not on wholeness (oneness), but rather on separateness (pluralness), and this might support a view that to analyze reality to take it as whole thing would never be enough to understand it or even mention it. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 8, 2019 20:32:31 GMT
I would like to make a further comment on this: b. "The Unseeing reality" exists as "unseeing reality", and doesn't exist as "the reality that could be seen as soon as good tools would be handed"; We can see images taken of galaxies that are, at this point in time, beyond the Hubble radios. This means that we are separated from them in space and time, and no "tools" could be invented to bring us in contact with whatever conscious life might exist there. But that conscious life doesn't depend on us being aware of it. The view of other life forms are placed somewhere at galaxies doesn't seem unreal. Consciousness is quite harder to put in on, because, e.g. we need to answer on the question what conscious-carriers are? And, firstly, how many forms of different info-carriers may exist? Despite on what could we achieve here, my thesis went pass through it. I didn't care about whether it was possible to any consciousness outside my mind to perceive smth, etc. Actually, the answer on the question about an existence of mine or others mind is very hard. I can stick by my nose (be confused) eternally about - it this a man or a man-looked person I'm seeing now? (The last one statement, I guess, can be illustrated perfectly in jury's practice and investigator's practice example: "I see John" is less accurate than "I see a person who looks like John".) Also, as I never know - has an ultimate weapon of producing terminators who looks like human been created yet - means - I will never know what do I see: human beings or just its copies - terminators. My thought is that one inductive conclusion based on another one (on/in) every next iteration increases the risk of appearing a fault in conclusions. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 8, 2019 21:59:02 GMT
Can you analyze analysis without falling into a fallacy? If not, is analysis real? I don't think that fallacy is the one. Even analyzing analysis makes things clearer. Direct conclusions act the same as synonyms and equivalent phrases (if I didn't confuse anything Prodicus who taught Socrates practiced it), or translation to something other than the first one shape. I'm not sure that "real" referring to any realities is what I need to bother (for/about). Instead of "real" reality why shouldn't I use something unreal? Isn't un-reality as unreal as our real reality we're imagining? That is the problem, it becomes a loop and recursive continuum ad infinitum...and you are left with a fallacy. However if you don't analyze it then you are left with an unjustified assumption as to what analysis is. See the paradox? Analysis is always right and wrong, with right and wrong strictly being the alignment to a context. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Oct 8, 2019 22:48:39 GMT
01. Real = is able to be analyzed? a. "What brain sees that reality is" doesn't imply "there's no reality except what the brain sees"; b. "The Unseeing reality" exists as "unseeing reality", and doesn't exist as "the reality that could be seen as soon as good tools would be handed"; c. Analyzing the reality is an act of speculations about the reality i.e. watching realities in your head only; d. Any realities exists in a head as plural construction: one reality = one anything; x.y.z Rx → φy. → .ψz → .x=y=z e. Something that might be a reality appears iff it might be analyzed.
To negate the existence of reality beyond what one may consciously experience, is to reject reality that oneself is excluded from, but which is nevertheless experienced by others. Or, to put it in simpler terms: The world continues to exist after I'm gone, whether I like it or not.
Why would it ever not exist anyway? These denials go without saying, so no one should bring them up. It's a straw man, as if anyone who deserves to be in the discussion would ever say that they don't exist if outside of his experience or lifespan. Bertrand Russell taking seriously "the class of things that don't belong to any class" started this Twentieth Century waste of time on irrational considerations. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Oct 8, 2019 22:58:22 GMT
To negate the existence of reality beyond what one may consciously experience, is to reject reality that oneself is excluded from, but which is nevertheless experienced by others. Or, to put it in simpler terms: The world continues to exist after I'm gone, whether I like it or not.
(I guess I've made my thought pretty unclear. Means I need to analyze what I write before giving any analyzes.) I didn't want to make any existential conclusions there. Why I reckon that it's important to move along all this statements like - the experience of others, an existence of the world, etc? - Because, I guess, that I need to go as far as possible from that a posteriori facts. Considering them is not very well for any analyzes. Oh, yes. There's no need to object this facts like an existence of the outer world or similar. I'm not denying realism. I'd say I'm very keen realism views. Here, however, I needed to put things in this way, because I thought it would help me to get rid of singular or mono imagine of reality in our heads. Or to say it differently: reality is what grounds not on wholeness (oneness), but rather on separateness (pluralness), and this might support a view that to analyze reality to take it as whole thing would never be enough to understand it or even mention it. In physics, I don't see the point in making a big fuss over a Grand Unified Theory. It's just scientists thinking of some impractical quest to waste time on and, since I don't like the personality of anyone who would invent importance, they're also after grant money. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 8, 2019 23:39:12 GMT
To negate the existence of reality beyond what one may consciously experience, is to reject reality that oneself is excluded from, but which is nevertheless experienced by others. Or, to put it in simpler terms: The world continues to exist after I'm gone, whether I like it or not.
Why would it ever not exist anyway? These denials go without saying, so no one should bring them up. It's a straw man, as if anyone who deserves to be in the discussion would ever say that they don't exist if outside of his experience or lifespan. Bertrand Russell taking seriously "the class of things that don't belong to any class" started this Twentieth Century waste of time on irrational considerations. Strawman, brain impulses are thoughts as well. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 9, 2019 7:06:22 GMT
To negate the existence of reality beyond what one may consciously experience, is to reject reality that oneself is excluded from, but which is nevertheless experienced by others. Or, to put it in simpler terms: The world continues to exist after I'm gone, whether I like it or not.
(I guess I've made my thought pretty unclear. Means I need to analyze what I write before giving any analyzes.) I didn't want to make any existential conclusions there. Why I reckon that it's important to move along all this statements like - the experience of others, an existence of the world, etc? - Because, I guess, that I need to go as far as possible from that a posteriori facts. Considering them is not very well for any analyzes. Oh, yes. There's no need to object this facts like an existence of the outer world or similar. I'm not denying realism. I'd say I'm very keen realism views. Here, however, I needed to put things in this way, because I thought it would help me to get rid of singular or mono imagine of reality in our heads. Or to say it differently: reality is what grounds not on wholeness (oneness), but rather on separateness (pluralness), and this might support a view that to analyze reality to take it as whole thing would never be enough to understand it or even mention it.
I agree on what you wrote in your second post:
""I see John" is less accurate than "I see a person who looks like John"."
It's more accurate from your viewpoint, since you cannot, from just seeing that it looks like John, conclude that it really is. Similarly, to refer to your second example, someone might be able to construct artificial intelligence so convincing that you find yourself unable to conclude whether it actually has consciousness or not. And if both John and the terminator disappears beyond the Hubble radius afterwards, you will never get a second chance to examine it any further. But irregardless, whether it actually was John is true or false, and whether it was a terminator or a human is also true or false.
This, I regard as separate from the question: "Does an object that doesn't have consciousness exist independently from whether it may be observed?" For while that question can be tricky to answer, it's straightforward to conclude that since John has consciousness, he knows fullwell whether he exists or not.
It's difficult to contest your last point. You could very well be right that we can never piece together a full and consistent view of reality. It's now speculated in physics that there could be parallel universes with different laws from what we find in this universe. Some also suggest that laws might change over time. And, it could very well be that this is beyond what we could ever know. It's not given that, if it's so that laws could change over time, that we'd be able to identify a more fundamental law that will allow us to predict this change. So I'll leave it as an open question as to whether you're right or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 9, 2019 9:33:47 GMT
I don't think that fallacy is the one. Even analyzing analysis makes things clearer. Direct conclusions act the same as synonyms and equivalent phrases (if I didn't confuse anything Prodicus who taught Socrates practiced it), or translation to something other than the first one shape. I'm not sure that "real" referring to any realities is what I need to bother (for/about). Instead of "real" reality why shouldn't I use something unreal? Isn't un-reality as unreal as our real reality we're imagining? That is the problem, it becomes a loop and recursive continuum ad infinitum...and you are left with a fallacy. However if you don't analyze it then you are left with an unjustified assumption as to what analysis is. See the paradox? Analysis is always right and wrong, with right and wrong strictly being the alignment to a context. Indeed. I think I got it. But what my point is? Comparing analyzing with synthesizing (synthesising? I'm not sure about how to spell this word correctly) I'd like to prefer the first one. Analyzing seems dogmatic while synthesizing is that that arrange the situation to make more risks for mistake. Analytic truth is quite less faulty because of logic, than synthetic truth. In real life, usually I presume many of us prefer synthetic truths. They appear to be more useful. Despite of any this paradoxes only what I've wanted to try to show that reality may be analyzed, and the reality is not something that is not whole, oneness, but discrete, plural. Synthetic investigation shows it too, but as an helpful element, not the central one (a confirm truth, or the element which is in the theory of Bayes increase probability of the thesis). |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 9, 2019 16:38:49 GMT
That is the problem, it becomes a loop and recursive continuum ad infinitum...and you are left with a fallacy. However if you don't analyze it then you are left with an unjustified assumption as to what analysis is. See the paradox? Analysis is always right and wrong, with right and wrong strictly being the alignment to a context. Indeed. I think I got it. But what my point is? Comparing analyzing with synthesizing (synthesising? I'm not sure about how to spell this word correctly) I'd like to prefer the first one. Analyzing seems dogmatic while synthesizing is that that arrange the situation to make more risks for mistake. Analytic truth is quite less faulty because of logic, than synthetic truth. In real life, usually I presume many of us prefer synthetic truths. They appear to be more useful. Despite of any this paradoxes only what I've wanted to try to show that reality may be analyzed, and the reality is not something that is not whole, oneness, but discrete, plural. Synthetic investigation shows it too, but as an helpful element, not the central one (a confirm truth, or the element which is in the theory of Bayes increase probability of the thesis). Plurality is still a synthetic statement as it is "one" generalization...paradox again with this paradox observing a dualism allowing for synthesis. This is the old school problem old one and many or general and particular. Modern means use the word "or": one or many and general or particular. I think this is mainly because of the assumption of analysis as a focal beginning point...the west is a "vs" culture and this is grounded in the zeitgeist of how we assume things. Most of this is due to linear reasoning and choice theory: you have a fork in the continuum which branches into 2 or more continuums...which continuum do you choose? In reality thought most choices do not exist if we see these continuums in a state of superpositioning. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 21, 2019 20:21:28 GMT
To negate the existence of reality beyond what one may consciously experience, is to reject reality that oneself is excluded from, but which is nevertheless experienced by others. Or, to put it in simpler terms: The world continues to exist after I'm gone, whether I like it or not.
Why would it ever not exist anyway? These denials go without saying, so no one should bring them up. It's a straw man, as if anyone who deserves to be in the discussion would ever say that they don't exist if outside of his experience or lifespan. Bertrand Russell taking seriously "the class of things that don't belong to any class" started this Twentieth Century waste of time on irrational considerations. Everything is meaningless, and its meaningless becomes meaningful as soon as meaning starts fulling its meaning less. |
|
