You seem to have forgotten about forgetting. — Ø implies everything

Although I'm sure I have forgotten many things when it comes to this argument, I think I've covered that one. I'll quote myself here because I believe it applies to what you're talking about.

Even if my consciousness did exist before it was aware of its consciousness, then in what reality did that unconscious mind exist? — vanzhandz

Didn't really sound like you were trying to please me. It was more like you wanted to get a witty little burn to make yourself feel good.

I appreciate where you're coming from. Although, I think there's more value in actually expressing that criticism than just making references to it.

Then I'd suggest that you reconsider your "I may only work within the confines of my own subjective reality". — Banno

You're taking my words out of context to make an assumption about how I interact with the truth of other people. I've literally been trying to find an argument that discounts the relevance of that statement this entire time and I'm pretty sure I didn't even say anything near what you claimed I said.

You are a member of a community, and you learned to divide the world up thus-and-so as a member of that community, and overwhelmingly, you are in agreement with that community. The very fact that you are reading this shows that there is more going on than just your "perceptions".

And if you think not, then solipsism has you and there's no point in your conversing here. — Banno

Also, these are some pretty big assumptions you're making about what I believe. You know nothing other than I've made arguments in one specific area of thought and now apparently I'm on the brink of being "trapped" in solipsism.

What you said looks like a complex, hidden, tricky way, of just reviving Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”. If not, what is the difference between what you said and Descartes? — Angelo Cannata

I would say that the usefulness of a particular statement is not limited by someone else having already made one similar to it. Ultimately I believe there is more value to be found in one's own reasoning towards truth than simply reading the works of someone else and taking their thoughts for granted.

We know that this point of Descartes, like any philosophical point aimed at gaining power, grasping existence, is exposed to criticism. Still, it seems that after centuries this human desire is irresistible to our psichology and our mind carries on devising stratagems to comfort ourselves and think that there is still hope to get some kind of ultimate power, ultimate control, able to finally withstand every possible present and future criticism. — Angelo Cannata

This is also a very bold assumption. In no way is the idea behind "I think, therefore I am," limited to representing the human pursuit of what you call "power" or some form of excuse to rise above criticism. I would view it more as a stepping stone, a truth that stands alone, that can then be built upon in any which way you desire. Even so, it still would not justify any sort of belief in invalid truths.

I think the main issue with only referencing previous thinkers when responding to an argument is you ultimately limit your understanding of the argument before you. There is an inherent assumption in saying that Descartes' and my argument are the same, an assumption that applies your interpretation of Descartes' words to my words when Descartes's reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with my reasoning. If you truly sought to understand my argument then you wouldn't simply compare it to someone elses. I understand the value of studying past thinkers but when it comes to understanding any one particular argument we should first judge the merit of the argument ourselves before comparing it to the work of others.

While I don't understand calling it the "Base Reality" if it were the case, I think it's being casual with language. — Dale de Silva

I agree that the term "base reality" is somewhat vague and doesn't really lend itself to the argument I'm making. Overall, I'm looking for a line of reasoning that describes a base or foundation of experience that can then be used moving forward. To me, this argument is not meant to reach a definite conclusion on whether or not there is some sort of foundational reality in which all other realities exist, that question is unanswerable. Thus @Banno pointing out the "irrelevant" nature of the argument because the ultimate goal of this argument is to move past it entirely. Although, I do think that knowing what can and can not be proven is very important when it comes to Ethical arguments, which is where I do most of my work.

Consider that we might live in a simulation. The reality that created the simulation could itself be a simulation of a 3rd reality, and so on and so forth. They're all still objective realities (in which we all have our own subjective experiences), but they're still infinite as you describe above. — Dale de Silva

This just seems to be another way of expressing the sentiment you were trying to get away from, it doesn't seem any different than the infinite regression of "subjective realities," all that's been changed is the setting. We agree that language is a key part of these arguments, so calling something "objective reality," although it IS a reality that objectively exists in some way, doesn't really change anything about the argument. They would all still be simulated in some sense. But that is nitpick and I don't disagree with what you're saying here.

I feel like you'd probably agree with that aspect, as it's not what you originally intended.
Thoughts? — Dale de Silva

Yes, if that were the case, I would agree. "Base reality" is just bad terminology on my part. I guess another goal of mine here is to use this argument of a foundational idea of reality to then justify our notions of cause and effect. This is an entirely different argument from the original post, however.

You know what Banno, I was mean there, sorry. I stand by my previous comment but I get what your saying.

Base reality Babyyy.

Thanks for your response Dale.

I would say that even if my own subjective reality is the result of another’s subjective reality, the question still can be asked: In what reality does this “other” exist, to enable them to them to create my subjective reality?

Ultimately I believe this to be an unanswerable question. There is no limit to this idea of one subjective reality creating another subjective reality. We can go on saying that this subjective reality could be the result of the next subjective reality and that reality the result of the one before that and so on forever. This is is an infinite process.

With that being the case, in what reality does this infinite process of subjective realities creating subjective realities take place? And if the process of infinite creation is what makes up reality as a whole, then can’t that infinite process be called the “base reality.”

I disagree that it’s irrelevant. Maybe the overall question ends up to be irrelevant but the line of reasoning can be used to further many arguments. I haven’t even attempted to use it in that way, yet you assumed that it has no use. I guess because your reading of Wittgenstein told you to? I was looking for feed back on my logic, not the parroting of other peoples ideas.

Yeah, they would. I wouldn’t disagree with that.

I appreciate your response. You are correct in saying that my terminology is most likely flawed, I need to do better.

My point wasn't exactly meant to be deterministic, as much as it was to just simply point out that you can't say whether an event is a mistake or not because you would have to apply your own human definition of what a mistake is to the event. I don't think we should do this because human perception has no affect on the rules which govern reality, thus it does not matter what happens within reality it will always just be the result of the rules of reality taking their course.

I do agree that reality is simply deterministic. One could say that the events of the present moment create the future, but I do not believe that they determine it.

Thank you for your question.

But what do you mean by "meaning"? How can meaning be created as an illusion or as something real and does the distinction make sense? Humans create all sorts of things and even meaning as an illusion has causal power. It makes humans do things and create things in reality which means that meaning is just as real as everything else. If humans and there minds are part of reality, then meaning is part of reality. — Harry Hindu

I agree with you that "meaning" must exist within reality alongside the humans that create it. My definition of however is based on human interpretation of reality. Meaning is the reasoning a consciousness gives itself for the actions it takes, in such a way that it assigns worth to these actions. In my mind meaning is meant to give a consciousness enough feeling of worth in order for that consciousness to desire the prospect of going on living. Ultimately the meaning we give ourselves is up to us, it is not based on what we have observed but it is based upon our interpretations of what we have observed. Just as our concept of self is based upon how we have interpreted the life experience that we have had.

Well it's a good question, but I'm not sure if it's required to understand my argument.
I am not saying that one can prove whether the reality they witness is the true reality or not, but that there must be a base reality outside of human observation. Without a base reality to exist within than where would our consciousness reside? And within this base reality there must be a reason why a being that is conscious can create meaning.

I understand the concept you're getting at. I am not however trying to prove whether "Meaning" is an illusion or not. My idea is based upon humanities ability to create meaning and how we can rationalize the existence of this human ability.

Thank you very much for pushing me to expand upon my points. I agree that I did a poor job explaining them and that I really ought not call them "proofs."

The fact that we can tell past from present is not a proof that time exists, it's a definition of what time is. — T Clark

Yes, my proposition on time is based on humanities ability to perceive it. I would like to separate human observation from human perception. Human observation relies upon the senses, where as human perception relies upon the consciousness itself interpreting information. We could say that we can observe change within the world around us, but then that leaves the door open for the doubt of human observation. The question of whether or not we can unequivocally prove that our observations are correct? I am of the mind that there is now way to prove this, so then I fall back upon human perception, which does not require outside information in order to prove the existence of time. As a human you can perceive a time which has already passed without needing to reference this with any outside influence. You can understand that at one point your consciousness did not exists and then at another moment it came into existence and persisted ever since. This is my justification for the existence of time.

Since reality is the standard by which whether something is a mistake is determined, saying that reality can not make mistakes is a tautology. — T Clark

I would agree that my wording of this does not do my point any justice. I wish I could find a better word then "mistake." What I am saying is; the events that happen within reality can not be classified as mistakes because in order to do so we would have to apply our human perception of a mistake to said event. Human perception, although it exists within reality, does not however have any affect on the rules which govern reality. And because all events that happen within reality are subject to the rules of reality, including the advent of human consciousness, then you can not classify any event within reality as mistake. It is the result of the rules which govern reality taking their course.

When you say "universal laws" I assume you are talking about what are called "laws of nature," e.g. special and general relativity, the law of conservation of matter and energy, and the second law of thermodynamics. I don't think these are laws or blueprints in the sense you mean. They don't determine or regulate or how the universe works, they only describe it. They are generalizations from experience. — T Clark

The universal laws I was referring to were not eluding to the "laws of nature" as you describe them, all though that terminology is much better than my own. I am not referring to any specific set of rules that we as humans have already come up with to explain how the universe operates. I am proposing that there must be laws which can explain why reality is capable of having things exist within it in the first place. We as humans would be subject to these laws, considering we exist within reality, meaning that within these laws of existence there is the capacity for beings such as ourselves to exists. And for beings such as ourselves to create meaning in the way that we do.


This is the perspective I hold. Again, I thank you for you comments.

Thank you for your response.

What a human is ‘meant to do’, then, is open-ended. How long is a piece of string? Was Hitler doing what a human was meant to do? I don’t think meaning is quite that simple. — Possibility

I appreciate your well rationalized definition of what a mistake is and I agree said definition. I think however that you have taken my words as some form determinism. Although they could be used in that way, it was not my intention. My idea is; that when you separate human perspective from reality (the world in which we exist) this leaves no room for human concepts such as mistakes, good or bad, correct or incorrect. Reality exists outside of human perception, all we can do is observe it, but these observations have no affect on the laws of nature which govern reality. Meaning, if an event occurs within reality, because all things within reality are subject to these laws of nature, it can not be classified as a mistake. One planet crashing into another planet is not a mistake, it is the result of reality and the laws which govern it taking its course. Thus, if human consciousness exists within reality, it is subject to these same laws of nature, meaning the advent of humanities ability to create meaning is not a mistake. It is the result of events within reality taking their course, devoid of an intention to do so.