Maybe intersubjective reality? Pretty nifty

Another experiment:
Science: Examining reality
Philosophy: Examining thought.
Spirituality: Examining the examiner

thanks.
I think it sounds better: an emphasis on not contradicting axiomatic principles.

I doubt this distinction is precisely accurate but is may be vaguely useful?
Philosophy: Abstract speculation, with an emphasis on not contradicting axiomatic intuitions.
Science: Concrete speculation, with an emphasis on not contradicting sense experience.

Interesting. Can you give a practical example of that?
(I read about contradictions in your description but could not actually find any paradoxicality ...) — Alkis Piskas

I don't think so. I think I was more trying to be inspiring than offering solid logic. I am more an artist than a philosopher. Maybe I should confine myself to the Lounge.

What is the "apparent" thing in your example-question? That there's a fork on the road? What if there's a cross on the road and you have to select from among three roads? Where would the contradiction be? Yet, the problem is very similar in both cases ... — Alkis Piskas

My lawyer tells me I shouldn't answer this question.

So what the big scandal in COVID, as seen by dissenters? That's the question. — Olivier5

Problem, reaction, solution.
Its part of the plan to destroy the economy to make way for a new economy, usher in a fourth industrial revolution, and eventually a technocracy.

I'm sure you will be vehemently defensive of the elites plans every step of the way, up to and including when they want to microchip every man woman and child for our "safety"

"Primitive" in your sentence codes for "evil", right? — Olivier5

Yes, I think you are evil. Even though I know, on some level, you are just a product of nature and nurture.

I notice you capitalize 'man', giving some sort of recognizable distinction. Others do this by allocating the belief of a soul. You have much in common with those you wish to differentiate yourself from. — Outlander

True.

You know in some cultures people are stoned to death for adultery. — Yohan
And what? That's evil?
As I said, ignore evil at your peril. — Olivier5

Keep your primitive notions of good and evil if they help you sleep at night.

So you would like to be treated like an animal? — Olivier5

Depends. Humans can be far more cruel to humans than animals, since they don't usually label animals as evil when they are maladjusted. I'd rather be treated like a dumb animal than judged as a evil human and treated accordingly.

You know in some cultures people are stoned to death for adultery.
I bet they use the same kinds of arguments used in this thread for when it is justified being un-gentlemanly.

↪Yohan Evil exists. We ignore it at our peril. — Olivier5

The most destructive idea Man ever came up with was that people fall into the categories of good or evil.

Animals are not good or evil. Its easy to recognize, if a dog is disagreeable it probably had disagreeable experiences that made it distrustful or cynical of others.
Or it has rabies. Or its starving and will kill anyone for a meal.
Nature or nurture. What other cause could there be?

If you think humans are any different, its probably because you are holding onto archaic religious concepts of a soul.

Trump? — Olivier5

“You know, it really doesn`t matter what (the media) write as long as you`ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”
― Donald Trump

Some people have no decency and they don't deserve to be treated decently. They are just assholes. — Olivier5

Name one person who has no decency. It's clear everyone is mixed. Some people have sunk more into their greedy selfish side, some have risen higher toward their selfless side.

But if such absolute categories help you to sleep at night...well, I can't argue the importance of sleep!

“I stole this from Zen Master Suzuki Roshi: If it's not paradoxical it's not true!”
― C.B. Murphy

The law of non-contradiction appears to work "opposite" when applied to relative vs essential truth. An apparent thing must be one thing or the other. Do I turn left or right to get to this specific destination?

But if we are talking about the "ultimate" "destination", as it were, its not confined to left, right, up or down, forward or backward. Above or beneath. Its not everywhere, nor is it nowhere, nor is it both, neither, nor both and neither, nor neither both nor neither?

Any answer that is limited is limited. It can't be a complete answer, and thus falls short. The answer must be infinite to be fully true. Yet no answer is truly infinite, is it? Or is everything complete?

So we are limited to saying what the absolute truth is not? Or is there no real limitation?

In summary? Because the absolute truth is one, not two (any two must share a single reality or else each could not be grouped together), therefor any statement which says 'two' would contradict the truth of 'one'. Therefor all dualistic 'this, not that' statements are ultimately not true. Even though they may be pragmatically true. Eg, we may have to turn left.

"well it depends what you mean by physical. Physical, in science is a label we apply on specific type of Impressions. We need to distinguish "mental" from "physical" impressions....and this is why we use this label."
i.e. You may dream or imagine to be rich, but in our reality you can only be what your physical impressions "dictate". So concepts like existence, emergence, manifestation are valid only within our physical impressions!"

Maybe when we die in this world we also wake up to a realer reality. Everything in this world is relative and transitory. Its practically real, just as our dreams are real enough when we are dreaming them. In dreams we can make a distinction between our thoughts, and our (apparent) sense impressions. But those are different layers of experience in the mind, levels of immersion!

"-No that was never Philosophy's goal and it can never be. Those are idealistic goals, things to strive torwards but they are unattainable. Even in the most systematic and epistemically successful intellectual we conceived, science, Ultimate and Absolute knowledge or certainty are out of the question. This is why we can only verify/falsify claims in science but we can not Prove anything to be an ultimate truth claim.
Doubt is what drives our efforts to produce more credible methods of evaluation and improve our epistemology. We need to acknowledge our limitations in our empirical nature, logic and methods of investigation."

I can be certain that I exist. Also, if there can be no certainty about anything, then that means we can't even be certain that our probability estimates are valid! We have to start at some kind of certainty, or else our root starting point may be nothing but a guess. For me I say, I don't know the probability of anything I experience being accurate, but the apparent consistency of experience is the best I have.

"-That isn't possible. Faith is the belief that lacks objective empirical evidence. The fact that thinking agents are around you is a verifiable statement. You even act based on those facts...this is why we have this conversation. Sure you can not prove anything to be absolute...but you only have to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt....and the available evidence does that."

There is a lack of objective empirical evidence that there are other thinking agents. All I have are correlations. Bodies act similar to me so I induce its likely they correlate with conscious experience. I think its a reasonable assumption, but I'm still not sure. There is at least a little faith. I didn't say its only faith.

"The existence of matter does not depend on minds. The label of the quality (hardness) does depends on minds to exist, but Hardness as a property has real world implications specially when two material structures happen to interact with each other(a diamond scratching a mirror). We as observers view those implications and we label that property...hardness."

How do we falsify the claim that there is something which does not depend on minds? I don't deny these apparent realities. I deny that they are necessarily more than appearances, however
consistent.


"You and I know that experiences like thinking a speeding car or a real speeding a car speeding towards us should be treated accordingly to their known ontology. We should not be alerted if we imagine a car running over us...and we should run if we see one racing towards us.
We even have institutions to protect those who are unable to distinguish those different types of impressions!"

Because our memory tells us getting hit by an apparent speeding car will hurt and possibly lead to death of the body. I also try to avoid having nightmares because nightmares are painful. Doesn't mean nightmares are real, except pragmatically real.

"-This is a common confusion. Everyone should be coming from a science forum BEFORE deciding to form and address ANY philosophical question! How one can ever be capable of doing meaningful metaphysics without using verified epistemology as his foundation."

Perhaps both science and philosophy will be lacking in some degree without the other.
Science can be shallow in the sense of just going by superficial appearance of how things appear without looking for essence.
Philosophy can be shallow in being empty speculation without proving or grounding with observation.


"Its like trying to hypothesize the trajectory of a pen I just threw....without knowing the planet and the acceleration of its gravity I am on!
Wise claims can only be produced from Knowledge claims. Philosophy is the intellectual endeavor of "producing wise claims in order to understand the world"....its not making up claims without knowing if the foundations of my hypotheses were epistemically correct."

And science without philosophy can be like trying to determine what reality is without first having a clear axiomatic definition of reality.

Pretty good discussion. Sorry for my way of quoting. My old computer and browser has started displaying the page in a different way where I don't see the buttons to make quotes. I don't have the patience to manually type in the quote commands.

My "assertions" are Pragmatic Necessities that everyone needs to accept and act in relation to their Limitations and Regularities or else we endanger our existence. Even you bother to get up, earn money, answer my comments.....because its a Necessity that you need to play along. Our Cataleptic Impressions and everything that is verified objectively is all that we have to work with sir! — Nickolasgaspar

I don't need to assume reality is physical. I only have to assume it is consistent.

-Well you sound like you are misusing the word "know". If you stated that you can not provide an absolute proof I would be with you on that.....but knowledge is based on the available facts within our Raw Impressions...so yes you know that you are awaken and you act according to that condition. — Nickolasgaspar

Sure pragmatically the world has effects on us. It is real in at least a pragmatic sense. But for me, the ultimate goal of philosophy is to arrive at absolute certainty. Otherwise, I will always be riddled with a sense of doubt. Never totally sure about anything. Who wants to live like that?

-What do you mean....do you act on a faith based belief when you respond to a comment, kiss your wife, enjoy listening to your children, watch your favorite players on tv. — Nickolasgaspar

That there are other minds is indeed based on faith, in my case.

What are those foundational assumptions...do you mean to make an argument based on a begging the question fallacy. — Nickolasgaspar

Example the assumption that the appearance of matter and the sensation of hardness proves there is mind independent matter.

So you are here talking with others while rejecting that we all share some kind of reality with a limited access to it??????? So why on earth are you in a philosophical forum? — Nickolasgaspar

I reject certainty of it, that is all. What better place to enquire about it further than on a philosophy forum? I can ask...why come to a philosophy forum if we aren't going to question such things. This isn't a science forum. I can go to a science forum if I want to learn about what popular science has to say.

How on earth can we question "foundational assumptions" without data or methods that can inform us about alternative assumptions? Are we going to play the game...here is how I want reality to be?
Are you asking from other people..who question their existence to pseudo philosophize with you ?
I don't get what you are asking. — Nickolasgaspar

data or methods that can inform us about alternative assumptions? Not sure I get you. I mean I don't get you. Anything that can be questioned is probably not foundational. I can't question foundational axioms like the law of non-contradiction. However, I can question at least some of the general assumptions of naturalistic science.

@Nickolasgaspar
Never mind. To me you are just making assertions based on a belief in science. For me, I don't even know if I am awake or dreaming, yet alone if there are other minds, and yet alone that any of these minds have verified the existence of "matter".
So we can quit this discussion, I think, unless you want to question foundational assumptions.
Thanks

I think what was quoted was brilliant. I am going to start using it to discredit anyone who believes something I don't believe.
It can even be used to argue against those who don't believe in God, as you can see here:
---------------------
"To those continuing to fight against God:

"Your questions and demands for evidence will always outweigh whatever can be given, and will shift once the answer or evidence has been given. It's like whack-a-mole. That's why I encourage others not to get into the weeds, but to always keep in mind the bigger picture. It's not driven by good-faith assessment of the data -- it's picking and choosing data. It's the same tactic that Materialists use: poke as many holes as you can, identify apparent contradictions, mis-quote, tell half-truths, etc. When all else fails, shift to an entirely different question.

"What this all comes down to, ultimately, is the fact that this issue has been politicized. Like the issue of the spiritual change of the social climate, because it's been politicized there are all kinds of laymen, especially online, making claims about the Son, about Supernatural variation, about spiritual scientists, etc. You see them on YouTube, on Facebook, on Twitter. But they're all repeating things they've heard from their sources, and their sources happen to be completely and demonstrably wrong, and their arguments don't hold any water when analyzed in detail.

"The anti-Christs (forgive the label) are doing exactly the same thing. It's a mistake -- simple as that.

"If you're afraid to give God a shot and want to find reasons for not opening your heart to Him, even after centuries and billions of miracles, and after every major religious and spiritual organization in the world recommends prayer, then you'll certainly find reasons.

"If you're already convinced the religious establishment is untrustworthy, and that overwhelming consensus and advice can be ignored, then you'll find reasons for believing that -- and no amount of debate will change your mind, especially on the Internet.

"The question is: why so afraid of God in the first place? And why so distrustful of religion and divine intervention?

"It seems to me it's a selective skepticism.

Mental properties are properties of matter. Mental properties might not have physical qualities but they are properties of the physical world(matter). — Nickolasgaspar

Is this a metaphysical claim, or an empirical claim? Deductive or inductive? Can you provide a syllogism or a way in which I can empirically test this claim?

Natural(phenomenon) is any observable measurable event that occurs without the intervention of an thinking agent and without breaking established laws of nature. — Nickolasgaspar

How do we logically deduce or induce such a thing exists? Or empirically verify that what we observe and measure exists independently of our observation of it?
Additionally, can we observe and measure the mind? If not, what does that mean about the mind? Can we observe and measure truth? If not, what does that mean about truth? It seems to me there are many things we cannot directly observe and measure. I would go so far as to say the observable, and quantifiable aspects of life make up a fraction of life.

-"Is math natural, unnatural, supernatural?"
-All human languages of logic are part of nature. — Nickolasgaspar

Then we should be able to observe and measure logic?

Theories describe Natural processes — Nickolasgaspar

Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. There can be metaphysical theories, ethical theories, economic theories etc. Theories are not the sole tool of the physics.

Science(Methodological Naturalism) doesn't exclude the supernatural from being an actual realm. It only excludes it from its Frameworks because we currently don't have any tools or methods to verify and investigate that type of ontology. — Nickolasgaspar

My question was how does one (including a methodological naturalist) verify ontological truth?
Is ontology any way related to matter? How is it in the domain of methodological naturalism to tell us what the nature of what is observed is? It seems to tell us how the observed appears to us, or what it appears to be doing. I don't see how observing the observed has any means of telling us that what we observe has ultimate existence independent of us.

I am an anti-vaccer myself.
I would like to apologize for any un-gentlemanly behavior done by other anti-vaccers on that thread.

It is a deeply sensitive topic, and we are not all emotionally self-aware enough to deal with difference of opinions.

Reality is like.... this thing, you know. This big vast thing that, like, we are all a part of, you know? It's like, everywhere.. Reality is you, me, the trees outside. The sky above. The ground below. Its like this vast cosmic web of interconnected interdependent web of being. And its like, composed of these tiny little things called atoms, made of eternal energy. And it burst into existence before there was time or space. Reality is a trip, dude.

I don't know what you are seeing there. I don't consider cheer a necessary factor in acceptance, but I do consider it the most inherently pleasing response one can have toward a fact. I'd rather be cheerful than merely neutral, or worse, begrudging.

Edit:
If we consider reality one big fact or collection of facts, what do you think is the best response?
Gratitude, neutrality, or disappointment?

Why? — TheMadFool

Being reluctantly accepting of everything is painful.
Being neutrally accepting of everything is emotionally pointless.
Being cheerfully or gratefully accepting of everything is an end in itself. Inherently "good" in that it feels good, may be good for one's health, and may be contagious. Further, its easier to be accepting when you're feeling gratitude.

↪Yohan To accept & to resign, to use a chess analogy, seems to be aware of what pieces are still in the game, where they are, then to strategize for a win/draw/stalemate & to realize that checkmate is a foregone conclusion, there being no point playing any further respectively. — TheMadFool

If you and your opponent are in equal positions, say at the start of the game, your acceptance of that fact is probably emotionally neutral.
If your position is advantageous to your opponent, if you appear to be likely to win, or have won, you may accept that fact cheerfully.
If you are in a disadvantageous position to your opponent, or have lost, you may accept the fact reluctantly or begrudgingly. However, if one has no skin in the game, one may resign without any dislike of the fact.
However I do agree that the word choices aren't the important distinction.
And that the distinction of attitudes of acceptance are important. The ideal would be to accept everything cheerfully.

You mean to say that a person, the sage obviously, who accepts truths/facts doesn't gain happiness/pleasure/contentment from it? — TheMadFool

Hard truths, like that we are all going to die some day, may start out as begrudging acceptance, but eventually lead to peace and joy. "Begrudgingly" means one has not fully adapted yet, psychologically.
That's my current understanding anyway. If you aren't interested in discussing it, that's your prerogative. :smile:

Why is some adaptation done begrudgingly and some done cheerfully?
I think resignation and acceptance may have to do with the degree of one's adaptation. In resignation one adapts one's behavior, while the mind stays fixed in old expectations. If the mind also adapts, it becomes acceptance.
Or, how does the distinction of resignation and acceptance fir into the question of wisdom?

Fair enough I guess.

The first part of the transformation of data to information and knowledge makes sense to me, but the last phase does not make sense to me. It sure does not happen naturally. — Athena

How about data, information, and knowledge are various parts of a car, while wisdom is the one that steers the car? One actually has to practice driving to get good at it. Reading about cars, roads, and driving isn't enough

The way it seems to me is both acceptance & resignation involve adapting oneself to facts, the former cheerily and the latter begrudgingly. — TheMadFool

You can accept things that are hard to accept. Cheer doesn't have to factor into it.
From google definitions:
begrudgingly: reluctantly or resentfully.
"he somewhat begrudgingly accepted a reduced role for the better of the team" (Google's example sentence. Underline added)

Resign: accept that something undesirable cannot be avoided.
synonyms: reconcile oneself.
I don't like that I will have to die some day. But I don't begrudge the fact. Its a neutral word, though its application is to undesirables.

Resignation = give up prematurely on something good and possible, due to discouragement (self-doubt etc) This is a reactive response to adversity. To run away.
Acceptance = "I gave it my best shot and it didn't work out for me. At least I tried my best. Time to move on and try another approach, or change to a more realistic goal." This means to stop resisting a fact.
There is also stop resisting what needs to be done: "This will be tough. I accept that this isn't going to be an easy thing to achieve, but I'm willing to sacrifice short term minor comfort for long term superior comfort"
Acceptance is dynamic and adaptable. Resignation is giving up due to inability to adapt to things not conforming to plans?

I think in life I tend to resign more often than accept. I am a master procrastinator.

:nerd:

Supernatural is an instance of breaking the laws of nature and the immediate reaction is to ascribe the supernatural event to some kind of being (god/demons/angels/spirits/etc.) — TheMadFool

I think you lost consistency of definition of 'nature' at this last point.
Per your definition of nature, the the supernatural would mean breaking the laws of normality. I don't think normality has laws...other than like you said, when we experience something enough times, it seems normal.
So the categories could be: normal, un-normal, and super-normal.
Supernormal would very inconsistent with the norm.
Is that right?

The natural is what is measurable, calculable, mathematizable
We can oppose it to the personalistic , which is perspectival and specific to a contingent context of use. — Joshs

It would make it the phenomenologically experienced — Joshs

So a computer is natural, because it is measururable, calculable, mathematizable? And my personal experience of the computer is not natural?

So we can say a mountain pass is much less complex than a beaver. A beaver's damn is more complex than a mountain, but less than a beaver, as this creature consists of billions of particles plus all the relevant biological stuff, which is quite complex in itself. — Manuel

This leads to intent. A beaver made the dam intentionally. The mountain was formed, perhaps without intention. The more sophisticated something is, the more likely we are to think that thing may possess the quality of having intent.

I think it is more simple and straightforward to acknowledge that we are part of nature.
Anything else could be the case, but we are just adding unnecessary complications. — Manuel

But the question is what does natural mean. So I am trying to strip the concept of anything that is not necessary. So far, I not seeing the exact difference between natural and artificial. On the one hand, everyone seems to be saying everything is natural. On the other, there seems to be a consensus that, somehow, some things are more or less natural than other things.

I don't even understand what an alternative to "natural" means. By "natural" I mean belonging to nature, — Manuel

Imagine this scenario: You are a conscious robot who spent his whole life on a technologically sophisticated "planetoid" with no organic life. The technologies are capable of self-replication and evolution. You have no idea who created you or the planetoid. For you and the robots, this planetoid may seem natural, rather than artificial.
Eventually, you find planet earth. You observe humans and plants etc. You conclude that the humans and plants must have been created by conscious robots, because it seems inconceivable to you that technology could have naturally(unconsciously) produced these kind of things.

How do we determine if we and our world are 'natural' or artificial?

My position is that 'concreteness' is meaning we give to some experiences. I don't believe 'concreteness' is an inherent quality.

Natural denotes, at minimum, not imaginary (or abstract). — 180 ProofThere is abstract vs concrete, actual vs possible... but 'natural' I think means something else. Nature may or may not be abstract or concrete. — Yohan

I'm not sure what I said makes sense. I guess I think that both the abstract and the concrete are abstractions. But that probably sound nonsensical too.

Srap,
Are dams artificial (in the sense of not naturally occurring) because beavers make them, rather than rivers?
Is there a difference in naturalness vs unnaturalness between beavers making dams and humans making dams?

Why isn't the mental natural? The mind is a part of nature. — Manuel

"Nature" is a pretty abstract term. I am not convinced the mind is part of the so called material world.

The mental being immaterial is questionable. It arises out of brains, which are physical systems. — Manuel

Brains being physical and/or being the source of minds is, to me, questionable. I believe intelligence produces the appearance of so called matter, rather than the reverse.

Natural denotes, at minimum, not imaginary (or abstract). — 180 Proof

There is abstract vs concrete, actual vs possible... but 'natural' I think means something else. Nature may or may not be abstract or concrete.

↪Yohan The natural is what is measurable, calculable, mathematizable — Joshs

So what would that make anything which is immeasurable, un-calculatable, or non-mathematizable?

Chaotic data?
Refine data so that makes sense? = information
Organize information into a comprehensive map of reality= knowledge
When enough diverse knowledge is obtained, the opposites of perspectives cancel out resulting in emptiness of opposition, and one obtains poised equilibrium resulting in behavior that is in Buddhism called the 'middle way' and in Christianity 'straight and narrow' = wisdom?

The Real – the ineluctable, encompassing horizon (that exhausts – exceeds – categories, concepts, symbolic systems (e.g. randomness, void)). — 180 Proof

Per Wikipedia ""Supreme Brahman" that which is beyond all descriptions and conceptualisations. It is described as the formless (in the sense that it is devoid of Maya) that eternally pervades everything, everywhere in the universe and whatever is beyond."

Reality – the ground, including logical / phase-spaces (i.e. reason), encompassed [by the encompassing horizon (i.e. the real)]. — 180 Proof

Per Wikipedia: "For the Nondualists, maya is thus that cosmic force that presents the infinite brahman (the supreme being) as the finite phenomenal world. "

Sounds like you are contrasting the Infinite with the Finite?