Topic: Coronavirus

What does philosophy have to do with this? Isn't it a medical issue???

mean that if “life” is in fact a false distinction from other inanimate chemistry and simply a very complex physical process that gives the impression of “self reference” or emergence of ego, then it stands to reason that awareness is just a product of chemical/energetic reactions. And if that is the case then perhaps all chemical interactions in the universe are to some degree observing the other ones. This is along the lines of Panpsychism where awareness is a fundamental property like space, time, matter etc — Benj96

It's very good that you brought up the element of "chemical reactions". However, I don''t see that you mention the brain at all, which functions basically on them, but instead you attribute them to awareness (as a possibility). I don't know, are you attempting to identify brain with awareness? Anyway, I have already explained their differences. Yet, here's a little more about them:

We --the scientists, actually-- know really a lot about the brain, its structure and its functions. How much, in contrast, we know about awareness? For one thing, Science talks very little, if not at all, about it. All that is known about awarencess comes from Philosophy. So, these two elements seem to belong to two different fields of knowledge.

About Panpsychism: Although I have not studied it, but since you brought it up, it speaks about the mind, not about awareness. (Panpsychism, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/). And I undestand that it represents an effort to "reconcile", if I may say," physicalism with dualism.
Anyway, I don't belong to any "-ism", but if I had to choose a "camp", this would certainly be "dualism", because the distinction between mind and body is very clear to me.

OK, If it makes you feel better: Thanks for noticing my infamous "pleonasm." — charles ferraro

No, it doesn't make me feel better. Because this was not my intention. Neither was my intention to force you to acknowledge it, as it seems you did. Your response shows that you still don't understand what pleonasm is, as this is evident from the quotation marks you put around the word as well as characterizing it ironically as infamous. You have misjudged my corrective remark as a criticism. Sorry about that.

For example an observer is not external to reality. We are intrinsic to it. We are one facet of reality that happens to register itself. — Benj96

Our bodies belong to (physical) reality. Our brain cannot observe. It can only handle signals --receive them, process them and transmit them. The "observer" is you, a spiritual being, an awareness (consciousness) unit, and therefore not part of reality. Observation requires attention and intention. The brain, which is indeed part of the physical world (universe) cannot do that.

This is also applicable if the concept of observer-ship or awareness is either illusory and doesn’t really exist in any distinct sense from the rest of the interacting physical world or if awareness is fundamental to reality and physics. — Benj96

You are aware of the physical world, aren't you? And you are or can be aware that you are or can be aware. Isn't that so? If yes, how can awareness be illusory and not existing? It is you, yourself. And if you think you are an illusion, well, I hope not! :grin:

is there any objective discernible difference between the state of observing and the state of being observed. Are they entirely interchangeable. Is the rest of the universe simultaneously observing us just as we observe it? — Benj96

I am not sure what you mean by "the state of being observed". Me observing and me being observed? And being observed by the physical universe? How can that be? I don't undestand this.
Also, I don't see how this is related to the question of your topic, namely, "Does reality require an observer?". Maybe I miss something. If you could explain it to me, esp. with an example, I could maybe be able to answer this question.

OK

And, if nothing else, for alerting us to the word 'pleonasm', which I, for one, had never previously encountered :clap: — Wayfarer

Thanks (for the applause)! :smile:
More "officially" (from Merriam-Webster), Pleonasm: "The use of more words than those necessary to denote mere sense (as in the man he said): REDUNDANCY"

Political philosophy. — Xtrix

Thanks. But isn't "corporation" a business term (large company)? Wouldn't the term "organization" fit better? Anyway, whatever you call it, I don't think that politics have anything to do with corporate administration and management. They are never part of the daily agenda.

On the other hand, "Political philosophy or political theory is the philosophical study of government" (Wikipedia)

How, then, given your position, was it at all possible for so many philosophers to have tried to describe or explain ultimate reality throughout the ages? — charles ferraro

I don't think they were using the term "Ultimate Reality" itself but they talked about what does that represent. In fact, I found a single definition of the term "Ultimate Reality", in Merriam Webster: "something that is the supreme, final, and fundamental power in all reality". Even Wikipedia refers to Merriam Webster and that definition. Then, if you read Wikipedia's article on "Ultimate reality", or similar articles from other sources, you will see how this concept is viewed differently among different religions.

So, I believe my comment about defining "Ultimate Reality" was correct.

But, even if you don't want to give me credit for that comment, you could at least do it for my first comment about the title of the topic. I don't know, something simple, like "Thanks for noticing it!"

Applied ethics — Isaac

Nice. Thanks.

Topic: Characterizing The Nature of Ultimate Reality



First of all, "Characterizing The Nature of Ultimate Reality" is a pleonasm, since the word "nature", as it is used here, means the characteristics of something. So, it's as if you are saying "characterizing the characteristics"! :smile:

Then, what do you mean with "Ultimate Reality"? It's certainly not something so commonly discussed so that it's meaning is more or less obvious. You should therefore define or describe it. Otherwise, how can one talk about its nature?

Can you please help me see how this is a philosophical topic? If so, to which category in TPF does it belong?

Can you please help me see how this is a philosophical topic? If so, to which category in TPF does it belong?

Reality is bound by what we can say. — Banno

You bring up just a statment as a "correction", without being able to argue why what I am saying is wrong or what you are saying is correct. Your link doesn't explain what you are stating here, either.

Anyway, even if accept your "dogmatic" statement as such, I can say this: in order that we can speak about something, we must first have perceived it (or known or thought about it). Perception always comes first. Now, if you can't refute this, it means that my statement is correct. And since you like Wittgenstein, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". (Figuratively speaking, of course! :smile:)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/578896

Do you know absolutely and objectively what language this post uses — Banno

Saying that someone knows something absolutely and/or objectively has no meaning, since if someone knows something he just knows it. Even if he thinks he knows it but in fact he doesn't, i.e. he is mistaken, he is still certain that he knows it.

Do you know what language this post uses? Of course you do, It's English. — Banno

The fact that the language used in this post and even the English language itself are not absolute and/or objective things. They don't exist somewhere "out there", outside our minds. There's no sign or indication whatsoever in the universe about the above fact or the language itself. English, like the other about 7,000 languages (as it is believed) that are spoken in the world are created by Man. And if you know and I know that we are communicating in English, it is because we agree that the language we are communicating in is English. But even if English were created by the universe, we, as humans, must first give it a name, "English", then still recognize it as such and also agree that it is that exact language. That would be not much different than a rock that has been created by nature!

Common reality, agreed upon reality is not absolute reality. Even if all the people on Earth agree upon something, that something will be common, agreed upon reality, not an absolute reality.

An absolute reality would be something that exists or occurs "out there", independently of the human perception and knowledge. But then, and this was my point: "Who would be able to tell?"

So, our reality is bound by what we can perceive. (It also contains a lot of other things but this is another topic!)

So a simple solution is to leave out "absolute, objective". — Banno

I agree! :smile:

Reply to answer of your topic: Does anyone have any absolute, objective understanding of reality?

I can bring up a lot of reasons why and prove that there is no objective or absolute reality or truth. This is a "light" one:
If there were a unique and absolute reality (about anything) who would be able to tell?

I write down a number and ask people to tell me what it is. No guessing, no tricks, no cheating; actually knowing. It is impossible for anyone except myself to know, is it? But even if someone knows and says what the number is, it is only myself again that I could tell if he is correct or not, isn't it?

So, only the creator of something knows exactly, absolutely and with certainly what this something is. And if this something is the whole physical universe, this creator would be called, e.g. a "god". But this is a totally different topic ...

I'm afraid I can't afford to be called "acquainted with Wittgenstein" yet. I happened to skim through some of his works recently. Therefore, I would reserve from giving improper answers to the two questions you asked. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Fair enough!

They are definitely good questions to investigate, however. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Certainly there are!

Not quite the response I was expecting. — TheMadFool

Sorry about that! :smile:

I forget who claims that there are ineffables that are true — TheMadFool

No problem. We don't necessarily need names ... Indeed there are.

hyperfocused on a narrow band of the language spectrum - the written & spoken word - and overlooked body language... — TheMadFool

Right.

it's the cerebellum that learns/knows how to ride a bicycle. — TheMadFool

I have no idea about the mechanics of learning these things ... I leave it to the specialists. I just want to enjoy my riding! :grin:

The gist of my posts is the reality of ineffables — TheMadFool

Yes, I got that! :smile: Indeed, the word "ineffable" fits perfectly. Pity that we can't ask Wittgenstein "What about ineffables?" :grin:

But then a parent doesn't have the benefit of knowing the specific person's experiences or evaluations in the world, so ergo the "most people" defense — schopenhauer1

Yes, this is true and acceptable.

Thank you for your response. This gives a good perspective on how Wittgenstein used the term "language". It remains to know what he exactly meant by "my world" ...

So, since it looks like you are acquainted with Wittgensttein's work, I would like to ask you the following:
1) Do you know if Wittgenstein has ever negated his principle "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"?
2) Has he defined what exactly he meant by "my world"?

(I could of course study Wittgensttein's work myself but right now I have other priorities.)

What we know we must be able to tell
— Socrates
What is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.
— St. Augustine — TheMadFool

Cute quotes! :smile: As I understand them, they both mean that if I cannot describe something in words, it means that I don't actually know it, right? Well, as I already said, language is not the only way that an experience, a fact or knowledge in general can be comminicated. In fact, sometimes it is impossible to describe something that we know with language, including "body" language, symbols and whatever else can be called "language".

Here's another example: I know how to ride a bicycle. But however well I know my laguage, it is impossible to describe in words (or any language) what bicycle riding is to someone who has never seen a bicycle. And even if he/she knows what a bicycle is, it is totally impossible to teach him/her with just words (or other language) how to ride a bicycle. We all know this well.

Now, let someone tell me that I don't know how to ride a bicycle! :grin:
(Or that riding a bicycle is not in "my world" or that it's not true or a fact that I can ride a bicycle ... in whatever form one wants to place it.)

Bottom line: I can classify this kind of statements-quotes as only indicative, true in part or "half-truths". They cannot be used as actual truths or proofs (e.g. logical arguments in a discussion). To express a truth or present an argument as a proof, my statement and the truth it represents must always stand logically or be a provable fact.

OK

You were right, you were always right! — TheMadFool

Thanks. (I'm not sure though about "always". I hope it is not ironic!)

This exchange leads nowhere. Let's drop it, OK?

All that is fine.
Here's another idea: If we replace "most people" with "the other person", the proposition becomes "What the other person (or group) would want". Because your action is directed to a specific person (or group) and thus it is more direct and fair than considering what others in general would want ...

This exchange leads nowhere ... So, let's drop it, OK?

I see. Maybe then you have to look up the word confusion. Well, I'll make it easier: "Uncertainty about what is happening, intended, or required", "a situation of panic or disorder, the state of being bewildered or unclear in one's mind about something", "a situation of panic or disorder" (Ofxord LEXICO). Did I "look" I was in any of these states? :gasp: :worry: :yikes:

For once! :grin:

No, I was certainly not confused about Wittgenstein's quote. If I was confused about something, this was with your overall response. Which is evident, since ended with questions ...
And I didn't get "brighter" with your new response.
It's not a big deal, though. Let's pass over it, shall we?

Thank you for your response. You didn't have to assume that I have not read Wittgenstein's work, Tractatus, because it is very evident from my statement "I have recently been presented with Wittgenstein's statement-quote ..." ... which you quoted also yourself here! :smile:
In fact, I asked for people their opinion and views, not a suggestion on what book should I read.

Great. Thanks.

I have already praised your response to the topic, @Antony Nickles! Not olny personally, in my reply to your response, but also in public! (I prompted them to read your exemplary response to get inspired as I did!) :smile:

I might very well be off the trail at this point. Thanks for the response. — Cheshire

That's OK, @Cheshire.

An orator can touch the hearts of a hundred thousand people with one speech. — TheMadFool

... So can a silent magician! :smile:
... So could Charlie Chaplin in the era of silent movies! :smile:

Thank you very much for your reply to my comment, @schopenhauer1.
I am not familiarized with the subjects of "natalism" and "antinatalism". But what you say makes sense to me. Otherwise, I think we can conclude that there are cases where the principle of "most people" is or can be justified and other in which it isn't or can't. And certainly, we have to exclude the case of "always being justifiable and/or wise or ethical"!

Wittgenstein wrote a book called the Tractatus. — Banno

I asked for personal opinions and views, not suggestions what book should I read, @Banno. More specifically, at the end of the description of the topic I asked: "I would really like to hear your opinion on all this".
So, if you have read a book that explains this quote and my questioning, you could present your view.
BTW, please note that @Antony Nickles has already covered the topic very successfully. I could even consider it "closed".

Thank you all for your responses!

I am happy that this topic helped to clarify the meaning of this statement-quote by Wittgenstein. More specifically, I suggest that you read @Antony Nickles's response, which I deem not only very inspiring, but also an exemplary demonstration of how to handle such a kind of topic.

Less familiar? Sure. Less real? No. I just wanted to point out that the idea of language limiting our worlds is not uncommon. — T Clark

When I said not real I meant Tao Te Ching.
But then, aren't both statements 1) "the unnamed world is identified as 'non-being'" and 2) "the world does not exist until it is named" implied by Wittgenstein's statement?

What can be said does not limit what can be seen. Language represents or pictures the world, it cannot do so if it is not seen. It does not begin to be seen only when one begins to say things. — Fooloso4

Right. I agree.

Almost everything in my was direct quotes from the Tractatus including his numbers. The numbers should not be ignored. — Fooloso4

I see. OK, thanks!