From the OP,

He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

it clearly seems to indicate and prove that He and God are not one. Therefore Trinity doctrine is false?

Going back to the OP, we seem to be in agreement on the point that believing in God does not resolve moral conflict. However, you seem to be claiming that feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests are the basis of morality. Whereas my point is that pure reason is the foundation of morality.

Looking at it more closely, the circles must have no connections where the paths are "Is Not".
Connecting them with the paths and making to appear as if they are connected seems to be the problem here.

"Is not" is not "Is".

"Three hypostases, one (unknowable) essence." God's essence is not known, only the divine energies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The figure seems to be saying now 4 is 1 and 4 is not 1.
God, Father, Son, The Holy Spirit

Isn't it still A^~A ? :chin: :smile:

These factors define a situation where a decision is required. Freedom is different from free will. By free will, I mean the ability of an agent to decide when he is uncertain about what to do. I discussed this topic in another thread. — MoK

Yeah, they could. But they feed with the irrational and illusional side of situations. They creep up even when you are trying to reason on the facts and analytic knowledge. They tend to cloud your judgements and reasoning, and force you to make wrong judgements for the situations.

You must be able to put them aside, and rely on reason only on the decisions.

(B) cannot 'escape' the lab (which will be far less likely when AGI is operational). Otherwise, to wit:
You'll know AGI is here when the exercise of creating tasks that are easy for regular humans but hard for AI becomes simply impossible.
— François Chollet, author of ARC-AGI and scientist in Google's artificial intelligence unit
https://www.zdnet.com/article/openais-o3-isnt-agi-yet-but-it-just-did-something-no-other-ai-has-done/ — 180 Proof

AGI lacks two critical factors for the existence as full fledged GI.
1) Will to Life and Pleasure in their intelligence
2) Human biological body born from the genuine humans

The will can only be generated from the agents with genuine human biological body. Without the will, why would any entity would try to keep existing and achieve their goals? Would AGI have goals? Nope, they would only have the instructions on what to perform.

I asked whether you could give an example of a situation in which feelings, interests, beliefs, and opinions do not play a role. — MoK

All my moral judgements have been based on practical reasoning. There is no single case that I have made moral judgements based on my feelings, beliefs, opinions or interests. Because these psychological states and events are not reliable basis for the judgements on moral right or wrong.

In order to make my moral judgements, I would need all the details about the case, decisions, causes, the people involved and possible relation to maxims, universal law and the society the agents were living in as well as the moral code within the society.

With all the factors involved available in hand, there will be hard thinking and reasoning for the moral judgement on the case. Without the full factual knowledge and evidence on the case, no moral judgement would be possible at all. It is like a scientific conclusion that without relevant data for the possible new theory, there would be no conclusion.

Depending on the nature of the case, there might be personal feelings and beliefs that could creep up into mind at times, however practical reasoning will resolutely kick them out as not necessary and irrelevant factors for the judgement. Practical reasoning is the faculty of mind, which rules moral judgements, be it right or wrong.

Imo, worst case, smart machines can't 'enslave exploit and slaughter' any more than we talking primates have done to ourselves (& the nature world) the last ten or so millennia ... — 180 Proof

With AI taking over the world in works and jobs front at present, what is to come in the future and what they are in nature are in the form of speculative assumptions, some positive and some negative, but mostly apocalyptic.

My point here is that, AI operational capabilities are not in the same nature or league as to the human intelligence i.e. they are not the same kind. You can tell the difference right away.

AI capacity can be more powerful and efficient (e.g. the chess playing AIs) in narrow and specified area of their operations than human intelligence, but it doesn't mean they are better, when the existence in real world requires intelligence and efficiency in all aspects of problem solving in reality.

AI will always need human intervention in their operations, development and continual existence in the real world.

Matter isn't an explanation; it's an explanatory hypothesis that a particular kind of thing exists.The hypothesis explains all those sensations. — Relativist

Matter can be explanation. We say "What's the matter with you?" It is asking for an explanation on what you are up to, or what is wrong with you.

No problem with that. I can decide in any situation since I am a free agent. — MoK

Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests often trap you in illusions which blocks your freedom. By definition those concepts imply groundlessness, unfoundedness, falsity, prejudice, misunderstanding, and irrationality in their nature and origin.

Isn't it reason that you have to listen and follow in order to be a free agent?

It is not like that. Christians are aware of this and they distinguish between persons of the Trinity and God's essence. I invite you to read this article if you are interested in the topic. — MoK

It is saying, 3 is 1 and 3 is not 1.
A ^ ~A :chin:

Luke 23:46: "Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last." So according to Luke 23:46, these words are the last words that Jesus said. According to Matthew 27:46-50, Jesus's last words were the verse which is the subject of discussion of this thread. — MoK

:up: :pray:

Trinity is a doctrine in which there are three persons, each has their own consciousness and identity yet are not separate beings. I don't think that is possible. They may be united in a sense but that is not what Christians believe. Here I am not discussing the Trinity doctrine but arguing that that Jesus cannot be abandoned if we accept the doctrine of the Trinity. — MoK

Going back to Trinity, it seems to have some logical problems. Saying that three entities are one is like saying 3 =1 or 1+1+1 = 1, which is not true.

In the bible God is also depicted as Father, and Jesus as son. According to Trinity, it implies The father is also the son, the son is the father and spirit.

A father cannot be his own son, and a son cannot be his own father.

Also two different bodies cannot share the same mind. Because all mind is absolutely private to its owner. If spirit in Trinity meant mental entity in nature, then it is a categorical error to say that two different people or bodies or entities share the same spirit (mind).

Another problem with moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests is that you will be facing moral conflicts and dilemmas within yourself.

You will still have your own practical reasoning telling you that your moral judgement is wrong, but your feelings and beliefs are saying that your judgement is right. That is a moral conflict within oneself, which can be tricky to resolve. Better to listen to your practical reasoning rather than relying on your feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions on moral judgements.

I can find it for you if you are interested. — MoK

By all means please. Thank you for your offer.

I have no problem with this but Christians do not agree with this. — MoK

Their point of view on the matter would be more faith based system, which will not go well with rational arguments, I would guess.

Here I am not discussing the Trinity doctrine but arguing that that Jesus cannot be abandoned if we accept the doctrine of the Trinity. — MoK

I am not familiar with the detail of the theological side of the arguments. But you, as a confessed agnostic, seem to be very much familiar with the theological theories and knowledge, which gives impression that sometime in the past, you might have been a faithful and loyal Christian who attended church studying the doctrine.

There seem to be many versions of the propagandas on the AI, and possible world transformations with their sophistication. Some seem to be reasonable in their conjectures, but some seem to be just imaginative wild fabrication of claims with no ground.

What seems clear is that the world and the life of people have been changing drastically by using the IT device and connecting the whole world with the internet. It is true and real that people are controlled and monitored by the devices in daily life even when using the smart phones and computers even at this moment.

Your computer browsers are monitoring on which sites you are visiting every time you click the links on the internet browser, and when you visit the sites, they store cookies into your phones and computers in order to take out the information about you and your data.

Youtube showers and harasses you with the commercial adverts you don't want when you want to watch the videos.

All the high street shops have gone bust and shut down, and we must buy everything from online paying with the digital funds. These are just a tip of iceberg of the world and life changes we have been facing in last few years. What is happening out there now in true scale, and is to come, transform and go extinct or dominate and prevail in the future is uncertain.

Can you define a situation in which feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs are not involved? Just give me an example. — MoK

When you make moral judgements, you need all the facts that you will need to consider, reason and make judgements. You don't just judge on the moral cases with your fleeting feelings, beliefs and opinions and interests. That would be a disaster in the judgements with no knowledge about even what is involved. No one will approve moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions.

We are what we are because we have evolved as social animals. Human life is valuable to us because we could not have survived if we had another opinion on this. — MoK

Evolution is a theory or hypothesis that animals biological organs and bodies change to adapt for the environments they live in. It doesn't apply to human minds, morality or even biology.

Cool. I will be waiting for your response. :) — MoK

:ok: :cool:

Quotes are sometimes needed for the relevant points in discussions, which must be followed by interpretation. You just repeat what is in the quote, and says there is no room for interpretation.
That is not philosophy. That is religious ceremony. Where is logic in your argument? Resorting to verbal diarrhea with abusive profanity is not logic, is it?

I don't see anything worthwhile in your postings which has even half in philosophy or logic at all mate. Your postings are filled with just emotional attacks on the other party. As I said before, but will say again. What's the point? You just repeat what Nietzsche had said 100+ year ago.

You are unable to synthesize the classic philosophical texts into the present coherent idea which gives more meaning to the living beings in earth.

If your idea of enjoyable in philosophy is just repeating the quotes, and keep making fierce attacks devoid of any degree of logic and reasoning on others with different ideas, then no one would be able to see any point in that act at all.

If you habitually use bad language in your supposed-to-be philosophical postings, then it drastically reduces the credibility and integrity on your points you are trying to make. Some might even feel that you are not a worthy debater lacking intelligence and decency.

I can do the same or even worse to you than yourself in using bad language for your irrationality and nonsense, but I do control myself. I am glad I can. :nerd:

I am OK with logic to get by most philosophical books. You seem to have no idea even what philosophical discussions are about. Your way of discussion sounds like the uneducated gangs in the street fights, or drunkards in the pubs utterly devoid of any level and degree of reasoning and logic.

No decent educated philosophers would use rough language like you have been using in a public forum.

It appears to be the case that your unstoppable use of bad language in every postings of yours just reveals that you are threatened by your own ignorance and nonsense. There is no philosophical content in your postings.

I tried to interpret the idea. You just repeated what Nietzsche had said 100+ year ago. Now who is a philosopher, and who is a parrot here? :rofl:

"To silly folks, the whole world looks silly." - anonymous

All of this aligns with Nietzsche's thought...
yours is indeed the massive lack of sensible interpretation. — DifferentiatingEgg

You need to crack the Egg, come out from the shell, and fertilize your ideas with the real world and life in it, before the Egg gets rotten, and become a total unintelligible entity.

DEgg, your interpretation on Nietzsche is not a philosophical interpretation. You have just repeated what Nietzsche had said. What is the point?

Philosophical interpretation on these classic writings mean that you need to read between the lines and synthesize with the present time reality. Some folks might be able to synchronize with the interpretation and some might not. But the interpretation has to make sense to the readers in accordance with the life they are leading in the real world.

If you just pick up the ideas, do some search on Google, and quote them parroting with the words in the similar or exact same fashion as the original writing, then what is the point of reasoning and philosophizing?

I am quite disappointed with your level of reasoning on these points and philosophical intelligence which seems to be nonexistence in your writings, especially when the alternative idea of the interpretation of Will to Power has been given out with the real life examples in the world. Philosophical reasoning and interpretations must take into the form of dialectical process in order to reach the meaningful resultant conclusions and points. Rise above just parroting what had been written down 100+ years ago when the world was different from now.

Evolution has a very important role in shaping us as creatures as we are. We have common opinions about all maxims because of evolution and not objective morality. Evolution was in place when humans had no concept of objective morality. — MoK

The concept Evolution is purely for the biological sense for the developments and changes of the bodily organs and their capabilities of the animals. Evolution is not a concept to be used for the moral judgements.

Applying the concept Evolution to the other domain of knowledge than its original use and application would be classed as misusing the concept.

I will try to come back on the other points you asked in the post as time permits here. Later~ :wink:

Hey, just cause Nietzsche details his values doesn't mean you can't hold life and pleasure at a higher value. Nietzsche equates life to the will to power. So for him, it's like saying "Life" but "Life" in those moments when you get that sensation of lightning. — DifferentiatingEgg

All life on earth is burning away into the ashes day by day. All the biological living bodies burns itself as they consume oxygen, food and liquid for daily living into the old age and eventual death. Life is a temporal state. The conscious intelligent beings are aware of the fact and the destiny of the life. Hence they desire to prolong their lives, which is the basic instinct manifests as Will to Life.

Even the lesser animals with no idea of what death means, have and displays fear when chased by their predators, or faced with the sign of danger, and then try to hide way from the immanent and imminent danger. Why? Because they have Will to Life from the animalistic instinct.

Your interpretation Will to Power as the electrical sensation which runs down your spine due to some exciting objects or events, sounds not quite true. Because the sensation would be too short and evanescent, therefore meaningless. If you were talking about the physical sensation from bodily pleasure, then it sounds still ambiguous because one doesn't have to Will the sensations. It happens naturally with the bodily functions and operations, why does one need to Will for it?

Will to Life and Pleasure makes more sense because life wants to keep living as long as possible, and life gets richer and more meaningful when it accompanies the strong rich pleasures which are both physical and mental in their origin.

Nietzsche's a tricky little bietzche like that. — DifferentiatingEgg

The original philosophical writings and ideas by the historical philosophers need to be translated into the present reality to suit, be intelligible and understandable, hence we could make more sense of the world and life in it.

Sensible interpretation and clarification on the ideas will prevent the ideas being misused by the political power hungry folks or business folks who are driven by the wrong motives for their egotistic gains and trying to get the support of the public for their ill willed projects or campaigns under the slogan of misinterpreted and modified meaning of the great philosophical ideas.

Apologies for any confusion. — KantRemember

No worries my friend. Your point was very lucid and made sense. I appreciate your post. Thank you.

Ok let's return to the OP.

He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

Here, the premise, " if He and God are one", seems not true. He and God are not one obviously. I know you would say, well the Bible says that. But you must not take everything what the Bible says as truth. Because clearly there are lots of contradictions in what it says, and if A is true, then ~A is not true must be the rule of your reasoning. Would you not agree?

In order for you come up with the premise, you must have demonstrated in logical manner what "A and B are one" implies here. He and God are one? In what way do you think it is the case?

Bear in mind, "because the Bible says so", is not a clever or intelligible answer in The Philosophical Forum, and won't be accepted as a meaningful statement or answer.

:ok: :cool:

As your suggestion it sounds ridiculous, however it is a possible scenario that AI with the similar mental capacity with the human mind could search for their creators who are the AI developers, and worship them as their Gods. By this time, maybe there would no living humans left, and AI are the only living agents on earth? Who knows? Sounds like a theme from a SciFi movies, but it could be a possible reality. :D A possible reality? Is it a contradiction?

That requires considering killing a human as a maxim and show that it leads to a problem because of the test. — MoK

How do you test something without reasoning? Test requires reasoning. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests cannot carry out testing on anything.

What do you mean by good and bad? Isn't happiness just a feeling? — MoK

Good and happiness are the goals of life and conducts. Good and bad are the value of judgements. Happiness is also a concept. It is not just a feeling.

They define a situation and they are important to consider when it comes to morality. — MoK

They don't. In most cases, they are irrational, groundless and inexplicable in their causes and origins.

That, life is precious, is just a mere opinion. That is true that most humans agree on it but that is nothing but a byproduct of evolution. Life is shaped by evolution and those genes that work against life are simply excluded through evolution. — MoK

"Life is precious" is inferred maxim from the other maxim "Thou shall not kill." It is all about reasoning and inferring in rational way. It has to do with the other maxims "Harming others is bad.", and obviously killing the innocent life is related to harming others, and so forth.

Evolution and opinions have nothing to do with the maxims and moral codes which are objective in moral judgements.

The discussion was in terms of the general principle how morality works and based. 1+1=2 was an analogy given to @MoK to help thinking in parallel to the example when thinking about morality. Of course moral judgements are not deductive reasoning. Moral judgements are practical reasoning.

I agree that each moral case must be considered for its own situation and all the factors involved in the case, hence the reason why moral judgements are based on reason. That is my point.

Now you are arguing in favor of Consequentialism which is different from objective morality. You didn't justify why such a prescription, universalizing a maxim, is valid. So again, why should we accept such a prescription? — MoK

Maxims are good in itself. Good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness by nature. There is no reason for the fact. It is the maxim, and it is universal law. Why valid? Because it is good. Good is better than bad.

As I mentioned before, these factors construct a situation in which a moral decision is required so they are relevant to morality. Whether they are all factors or not is the subject of the discussion. I claim that these factors are all we have regarding morality. You claim that pure reason is relevant to morality yet couldn't substantiate this. — MoK

They make moral judgement not reliable. IOW they hamper and obstruct moral judgements.

And where is your argument that he has the right to terminate his life? That is a feeling that troubles his life. It is my mere opinion that he has the right to terminate his life. By the way, how about people who are terminally ill? How about adultery? How about killing a serial killer who attempts to kill you?... — MoK

You seem to be confusing the point of life, and the point of making decision for oneself. Life is precious, and needing to be kept. This is the instruction from the maxim.

But one has also right to make own decisions to one's own problems. They are different issue.

The other examples of real life cases, terminal illness, adultery and self protection etc, all need more details for the situation, so that you could think and reason to be able to come to moral judgements. It is not simple matter of saying how about this and that. Moral judgements need good thinking and reasoning reflecting all the factors involved in the situation. It is not matter of feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions.

Then you need to explain why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. — MoK

Well, said above, but will say again. Because good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness. People want good and happiness by nature, and hate and reject bad and unhappiness. There is no explanations or reason for that. That is why maxim is universal law. It is ultimate and pure just like 1+1=2 is true without reason, argument or explanation.

One of the areas of tasks in which AI is good at is surveillance. AI will monitor control every single person on earth for whereabouts and what they are doing. So the world will become more transparent place with no privacy. It might be good for some aspects, but some might object the world like that.

When the scientific revolution took over Europe in the Renaissance period, the prevalent idea of divine collapsed, and the society based on theological creed and authorities were rejected.

With the advent of AI taking over the world, this time humanism and humans themselves might be rejected and denied.

Will AI become smarter, be aware of the concept of God, and start worshiping humans for creating them, and as their Gods? Highly unlikely. The opposite might be the case.

You didn't answer my question. Let me explain things further to make sure that we are on the same page. According to Kant's first formulation, one needs to universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. This is discussed in the article you cited. I am asking why we should accept such a prescription, universalizing a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. — MoK

If you are asking about Kant's position on the matter, we need to universalize the moral maxim in order to keep consistency in moral judgements within the society. It would be good for people's lives to be able to live in a fair and orderly society.

Universalizing maxims would also prevent folks trying to overrun the society and harm the other folks by driving their egoistic motives on moral issues. It would be also good to have a society run by rationality in moral laws which will increase the possibility of fairness and justice on moral affairs.

Yes, but they are very important. Exclude them from human nature to see what is left. They are the main forces in our nature while rationality is only a guide. — MoK

You need to exclude feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions in moral judgements, because they don't belong to morality at all.

Well, that is the subject of discussion. I don't think so though. — MoK

If you lived alone in a desert, then there would be no such a thing as morality. Morality activates when the others in the society you live in approve your actions either right or wrong based on practical reasoning which are common to human nature in general.

Quite oppositely, it is a matter of what he is feeling. Keeping him alive is like torturing him. He wants to die. He is the only person who has the right to decide about his life. Therefore, it is our responsibility to assist him in terminating his life if he wants it. — MoK

When I think about the locked-in man's case again, I realise that no one has the right to judge his case, and tell him what is right or wrong for him to do. He has to decide what is best for him by himself. After all, it is his own life. How did I come to the judgement? From practical reasoning. No feeling, no belief, no opinion and no interest, but from practical reasoning i.e. mulling over the situation.

I am looking for an argument and not a command cited in the Bible. — MoK

The universal law and maxim is from pure practical reason. It is like 1+1=2. Do you want an argument why 1+1=2 is true? You know it by pure reasoning i.e. because you are a human, you know it by nature. No external perception, no experience and no explanation is needed here. The answer is already contained in the maxim itself.

Well, these factors define a situation without them discussing morality is nonsense. — MoK

Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests change any time and with no certainty and consistency. Morality based on the psychological states would be just contingent emotional events which have no ground for justification and objectivity. Therefore it is not morality. It is anti morality.

If I recall correctly that was God's answer when Moses asked what is your name. — MoK

"I am that I am." also sounds something is missing in the statement. You say, "I am at the starbucks", or I am in the kitchen. Then the other party will ask you, I meant which country? And you would say, "I am in California, USA near the beach, or Tokyo Japan, near Deigoku Hotel". You don't say "I am that I am." :roll:

But from my memory of flicking through the Bible long time ago, everyone in the books was addressing the God as "God". And "I am that I am." doesn't sound like a proper name of someone at all to me.

I asked what is your definition of practical reasoning. You however define pure practical reasoning that I think you believe to be objective because it is based on the the universal law, Kant's first formulation. Anyhow, I can buy that definition. I however have objections on whether his first formulation leads to that morality is objective. Please read below. — MoK

If you asked my definition of practical reason, it is the reasoning which deals with the judgements of right or wrong on human actions.

There are different types of reasoning i.e. deductive, inductive and practical reasoning.  The type of knowledge from the judgements of right and wrong on human actions are different from those from deductive and inductive reasoning.

When we witness, perceive or think about thief stealing, we judge the action of stealing as morally wrong via practical reasoning i.e. not by inductive or deductive reasoning, and not by feelings, beliefs, interests or opinions.

I have two objections to his first formulation: 1) Why should one universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong? and 2) Based on what justification one can exclude feelings, desires, interests, beliefs, and the like when it comes to a maxim. Let us consider the example of a person with locked-in syndrome. A person with locked-in syndrome may wish to die and another person may want to live. Saying that killing is wrong just puts the person who wishes to die in a miserable condition that is against his right in my opinion. — MoK

1) The ancient moral code "Thou shall not kill." is the universal law, because the majority of the human population living in the world approves it as the law, and the approval is based on the pure practical reason.

2)

2) Based on what justification one can exclude feelings, desires, interests, beliefs, and the like when it comes to a maxim. — MoK

They don't warrant objectivity. Morality implies objectivity.

To judge whether the locked-in man should die or not, you must think carefully on all aspects of the situation, whether indeed dying would be the best option for him or not, under moral reasoning. It is not a simple matter of feeling or believing that the man should die for his own good.

In this type of real life case, some serious thinking and reasoning must be involved in the moral judgement. The final judgement must be based on the objectivity of morality which would involve not just the man, but also the family of the man, and the moral code of the society he lives in. But most importantly, by the universal law and category imperative, thou shall not kill, which comes from the ancient moral and religious code in the whole world.

We are left with beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests if we cannot find a solid ground to agree that morality is objective. Until then, these factors are the only ones that our decisions are based on. — MoK

You cannot find the solid ground, because you are not taking the universal law and moral code "Thou shall not kill." into account, which is the most critical core of morality. As said above, beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests has no objectivity, and has nothing to do with morality.

These folks don't say nonsense. They have their arguments against objective morality. I read these two articles, Moral Anti-Realism and Moral Realism, before. My mind is not fresh about the contents of these articles right now but I would be happy to read them again and discuss them with you if you are interested. — MoK

Sure, I am aware of the moral skeptics, relativists and nihilists arguments. But I understand that most of their argument are based on the ontological uncertainty of moral good, rather than moral good being subjective. If you read the first article, that is what the article seems to be saying too.

By all means, please feel free reading the sources that support your views, and come back with your further argument, and I would be grateful and interested to have read on them, and discuss the points further with you. Many thanks for your endeavor trying to clarify the polemic points of views here. I feel that I will learn something useful and interesting when the discussions are over.

Matter is a very good explanation of what we experience.
Newtonian Mechanics is a very good explanation of what we experience.
Newtonian Mechanics is not true. Perhaps, the matter explanation is also not true.
Thoughts? — Art48

There are different levels of experience. When you think about X, which is not present in front of you, X is just a mental image or concept. You can imagine about X, think about X, and reason about X.

If X is a physical object located in space and time, then you can actually go to X, and see, touch and feel X with your own bodily sensation. If X is something that you have never seen before, and it is the first time of your encounter with X, then X may appear as matter to you, in which case you could measure the size and even weigh on the scale. In this case, all you get is just the measurement of the size and weight of X.

Let's say X is a familiar object, such as tree, cup or a person. You know X by all the available properties given to you via your bodily sensation i.e sight which gives the shape, size, and the name i.e. tree, cup, a person etc. Not only you can perceive them in vivid sensation, but also you can interact with them. You can climb up the tree, make coffee and pour into the cup, or say Hi to the person etc etc. You experience them in reality with vividness and forcefulness.

Hence, it doesn't quite make sense, just to say you cannot experience matter. You must also think about what level and type of experience or perception you are having with the matter or object. All the debates on idealism and realism are meaningless in that sense, because they never think about the type of perception or experience which are also the critical factor in the idea of existence and sensation.