You differentiate between the real, and reality. Does this mean reality is unreal?

Non-answer: Non-being. Chaos. The void.
The non/pre-conceptual answer: Being-ness
Idealist answer: Awareness and its ideas.
Materialist answer: That which can be observed and measured with the five senses
Pragmatic answer: Whatever has consequences

This is a rather pathetic set of assumptions and attitude. It's one thing to be lazy and not to care; it's another to be proudly parading that attitude as an example to others. You don't know what the people who post on here do or do not do regarding the global warming issue. You also don't know how many people who don't themselves contribute read and and are influenced by what they read on this site. :roll: — Janus

Well, I like to exaggerate a bit for affect. I'm sure many people benefit from this site.

Voting for those who agree with you is better than trying to save the world by saving a gallon of gas. Voting to force everyone else to comply is good. They don't have a "right" to fuck the planet. We can tread on them if they are treading on us. — James Riley

So we are going to vote Big Oil out of business? The higher ups are already working on "Smart Cities"...all this other 2030 initiative stuff. I don't know the details. But if you look around, there seems to be a consensus among those in power that there are, and have been, plans underway to induce a fourth industrial revolution.
I doubt our vote really counts for much unless Big Oil (etc) already agreed ahead of time...

Quote from World Economic Forum
"We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before."

But the issue of climate change, like other issues, should still be much higher on our priorities. We cannot act on it unless we acknowledge and prioritize it— however we then go on to contribute to solving it. We should be educating more people, organizing with others, making climate change an essential voting issue, and demanding appropriate funding to transition to renewables and help fortify the country from effects that are already locked in. All this is achievable, if people pay attention and lose their hopelessness. — Xtrix

We just have to educate and organize?
Sounds simple enough.
So should each of us try to organize groups in our towns or cities? (or find and join)
Demand our mayors and governors and local business leaders participate in meetings? (or maybe they are already and we need to join in)

Do you really think anybody on this forum is going to do anything other than talk about what we all need to do?

I have sold my soul to complacency.
I know I ain't gonna do squat. I think its better to be honestly lazy than to pretend to care about climate change, or any of these other issues. True caring about real issues is proven by doing, not by talking on internet forums. Nobody serious about in-acting change would come here to initiate that start. This is where people come to kill time.

Something a machine can never bring to it — Gary M Washburn

What if there aren't any machines? What if that is just a concept we project onto experience?

Imagine you have a dream. In the dream there is AI that communicates to you. The reality would be that this AI in the dream is a symbolic representation of your subconscious, or a collective unconscious etc. If Idealism is true (perhaps a big if), then the whole world is either a collective consciousness or singular consciousness. Either way, it would mean that AI would be stemming from consciousness, even though the AI (carrier of the message) itself could just be a projection or thought form, not itself possessing the consciousness.

Its kind of like......no matter how good a book is, how intelligently written, how lively the characters in the book, we know that it is only a carrier of a message, and not the intelligence itself.

Part of the problem is that taking responsibility can work at cross-purposes to your goal. If I save a gallon of gas, I increase the supply, which lowers the price, which stimulates demand, and allows other to roll coal while I walk. It's like the guy who wants to take our Saddam Husain taking his deer rifle, boarding a plane to Bagdad and trying to hunt him down on his own. Is he a hypocrite for not doing so? No. It's just smart to have solidarity on some issues. It takes all of us to build an interstate highway system.

So it's no wonder people want to be lead. We just have leaders that are owned by the Plutocracy. — James Riley

The plutocracy is very small compared to the majority, yet they rule. Their power isn't based on money, but deception of the masses. They convinced the majority to sell their soul's to paper. To work in servitude in quiet desperation to corporations. The same corporations that rule the government which they convince us is there to "protect our freedom"(rights).
Imagine it.... convincing people that they can be Ruled and Free at the same time, and that in fact their Freedom depends on there being Rulers to enforce the freedom. Forced freedom! But we get to choose who will Rule us! We are too stupid and irresponsible o rule ourselves, but we are smart and responsible enough to know who could be a good ruler for us!

Anyway, its becoming kind of a rant at this point.

I feel out of my element. Your post is well written, but I will offer a chain of thought. My predilection is toward systems thinking.

If Climate Change is the big issue, and the bull of the Petroleum Hydrocarbons industry is the final boss monster causing it. Then that means the Petoleum Hydrcarbons Industry's lack of accountability is a fundamental issue.
Why isn't it held accountable? Maybe because governments aren't being held accountable? So government lack of accountability is a fundamental issue of our time.
Why isn't government being held accountable? Could it be because "we the people" don't stand up to them? Why don't we stand up to them? Could be because most of the world is preoccupied with basic survival? Then that is also a fundamental issue.
And the less poor are divided, distracted, and unclear about the issue at foot, no? So lack of solidarity if a fundamental issue.
Solidarity leads to power. Power leads to ability to hold people accountable. Accountability leads to Petroleum Hydrocarbons Industry ceasing to cause Climate Change.
This is probably super ultra overly simple.... but that is partly my point. We can talk about simple things, but how to actually do anything. It seems very complex, for us microbes on a gnats ass, impossible?

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly. — Xtrix

Do the majority of scientists agree that climate change is the "the issue of our time"? I would be interested in seeing a study. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

I hear about climate change now and again. I'm surprised I don't hear about it all the time in the news. Who is to blame that this issue is not given more attention?

If the super rich and smart people like Bill Gates thought climate change was absolutely the issue, couldn't they do something about it? At least make world leaders learn, or educate the public. Quick google search says "Bill Gates pledges $1.5 billion for climate change projects if Congress passes infrastructure bill" 1.5 billion. That's not much. Why has Bill Gates been more concerned about viruses?

I'd also like to hear an argument why this is "the issue of our time."
Why is it a bigger issue than:
Poverty. (and extreme inequality of wealth distribution)
Religious conflict & war
Political polarization
Government unaccountability
Food and water. (Currently, 1 in 9 people lack access to clean water across the world, a quick search revealed)

I don't know if you look at me as some kind of Troll or something. But perhaps you would like to respond for those who are following your thread.

I don't think its necessarily easy, especially for us laymen to determine what is the most important issue of our time.
And even among experts... people are usually experts in specific fields. I'm not sure there is anyone qualified to speak on a global scale about what is the most important issue for everyone.

Food for thought.

Society tends to confuse functional with meaning sane. and dysfunctional with insanity. But function here usually means functioning by the rules of agreed upon society

Wisdom: a mean between common sense and imagination. (Other names could include skepticism and open mindedness)
Imagination reveals possibilities, inspirations. Common sense filters to probabilities. Grounds toward the pragmatic and actionable.

For context:
T Clark:
Am I hallucinating, or was there a thread called "Life Advice" that has disappeared? What happened? It was a pretty inoffensive thread.
Hey, @Yohan, was that your discussion?

Yohan:
Yes. I imagine its deletion was because I didn't state any particular position, provide arguments, nor ask some kind of question to spark discussion.
If its ok with the mods I'll start a new discussion in The Lounge with a stated intention for it to be a place to drop inspiring and or practical life advices. (Didn't receive a reply after a day, so I figured it would be OK)

Caldwell
↪Yohan
Maybe you could request a reason why it was deleted.

T Clark
Threads with a lot less going on in the OP have been left in place. It doesn't make sense. What about my deep and insightful words of wisdom? Lost to posterity.

Read the OP again, it’s full of contempt. — AJJ

Contempt is a strong word. Don't confuse petty defensiveness for true contempt.

It is easy to feel smart next to these guys, isn’t it? But then I feel like the bully picking on the weakest kids. Remorse sets in. I really don’t hold them in contempt— I just think they’re delusionally wrong. — Xtrix

I'm glad you don't hold anybody in contempt.
I'm glad to see that its just you think people are delusionally wrong.
I think people could take things the wrong way at times.

essence of Buddhism is enlightenment of self, essence of science is truths for practical life — Corvus

I like these definitions. Crisp.
It sounds to me like you are using 'essence' to mean very basic definitions of things. Distilling something down to it essence. These are essences of uniqueness. There could be another essence, the essence of reality, of being itself. Perhaps we all have an essence to what makes us unique from others, but at the same time we all share a common essence. In Buddhist terms, this may be "Buddha nature"?

So then, how to "reach" essence?
The only path left may be intuition.

I believe every "path" uses Intuition, logic, and observation with different degrees of emphasis.
Spirituality emphasizes intuition.
Philosophy emphasizes logic
Science emphasizes observation — Yohan
I don't think this is wrong, but I think it is oversimplified. You also haven't defined what you mean by intuition, logic, or observation. As I've seen reading the posts in this thread, intuition means different things to different people. — T Clark

I didn't want to get too academic I guess. Sometimes academia takes away the flavor, grace, and accessibility.

All in all, it's a well-presented chain of thought.

Before we get started, I'll give my habitual spiel. I say it all the time, but I think it's especially important when we address your points. Here it is - The issues you are discussing - materialism, idealism, realism, and other philosophical approaches are metaphysical. They're not true or false, they're more or less useful in a particular situation. I was reading somewhere in the last couple of days - mathematicians tend to be idealists and physics tend to be materialists. Are idealists attracted to math or does studying math make you see things in a idealistic way? There is no doubt, for me at least, that both idealism and materialism are appropriate ways to look at things in some situations. Not in others. — T Clark

Thanks
I don' disagree with this.

1. Materialists don't consider appearances as things in themselves. They actually concede the point that all that we have to work with are appearances but...they say...the thing in themselves exist independent of the mind. — TheMadFool

I'm not saying the materialist does it consciously. They are engaged in double-think. They see and touch what is beyond perception. It sounds absurd, but this is literally what they think is going on. I know, because I was raised in a materialist culture, and I still do this double-thinking most of the time.

Idealists don't claim that concepts are maps of appearances, that creates a gap between appearances and concepts as if appearances are independent of the mind, they're not (according to the idealist). What idealists are averring though is that the thing in themselves are concepts, the appearance being merely how these concepts present themselves to us. — TheMadFool

I don't think Idealists literally think fundamental reality is conceptual. They believe the phenomenal world is conceptual. They believe in. Awareness --->conceptualization----->world.

But there may be some commonality between all humans of what it I like to be human, even if its also unique to each. — Yohan
Yes, that was what I asked on my 1st question. — Corvus

I don't think such could be expressed in words. And I do think we may be surprised to what an extent one human's experience of being may be different than another's depending on culture, upbringing and biology.

Can list some special capacities we have that known earth animals seem to lack:
Metacognition. Thinking about thinking
Long distance future contemplation and planning and dwelling on long distant past.
Feel more refined or exalted emotional states such as reverence, or the feeling of the sacred, as well as appreciation for art and music, as well as humor and irony.
Higher levels of self-discipline and moral considerations.
Care about and seek meaning beyond base survival and pleasure gratification.

I think very few people have attained full human development. Most of us suffer from arrested development, mostly acting like animals.

It doesn't really say much to say that what makes humans humans is an internal quality. That's why external definitions are more pragmatic. — Yohan
As long as they are meaningful enough. — Corvus

Yeah. I don't see why it would be hard to define essential outer human characteristics. At least while there are not many species that resemble us, on earth at least.

It would be registering in one's own memory as it changes. But the change is not the point. The point is that it is all unique and exclusive. So how could it have anything to do with the essence of human being?

For instance, I don't know your being-yourself-ness at all. Only you know it. How could that concept have anything to do with my essence of human being? and vice versa. — Corvus

I didn't mean to say that my experience of being myself is human, or a universal definition for humans. But there may be some commonality between all humans of what it I like to be human, even if its also unique to each. It doesn't really say much to say that what makes humans humans is an internal quality. That's why external definitions are more pragmatic.

As far as I know, the difference between idealism and materialism is that in the case of the former, whatever you perceive is mind-generated i.e. the universe itself is, in a sense, imagined by (a) mind(s). Materialism, on the other hand, claims that this isn't the case and that all that which we perceive do exist out there and that the mind has no role in the universe, existentially that is. — TheMadFool

If you want to get into this, we should probably start very basic, starting with definitions of mind, matter, and reality.
If you define reality as being the objective material world, then your definition already presumes materialism as true. We need to start with a definition of reality that doesn't assume either idealism or materialism, if possible.
I don't know, do you feel this would be worth the effort?
I lean toward feeling this would be a vain pursuit.

Again the uniqueness and self contained exclusion of each DNA can be problem for being universal essence. — Corvus

Kind of losing me

It may be that being-one-self-ness is a shared universal quality present "in" all beings. — Yohan
The name "being-one-self-ness" seems totally meaningless without the content of it, which is bound to be all different and unique. — Corvus

Doe this mean your being-yourself-ness is constantly changing as the content of your experience changes? If so, who or what is registering the changes?

Problem would be the fact that each and every human being is different in its psychological state, personalities, experience and even bodily structure in strict sense. In that case, would it be possible to apply the concept of form to define human essence?

But there are some common points in human beings such as they have 2 arms and 5 fingers and 1 head ...etc, but then there are cases that they don't, even if minority. Therefore would it be meaningful attempt for reaching essence in this regard? — Corvus

Perhaps "form essences" as I called it, might be more pragmatic generalization than truly essential. It may not be possible to find a perfect fit definition for what is minimally required to be a human. On the other hand, I imagine the closest thing, if we want to be very scientific about it, might depend on human DNA.

You talk about your being-yourself-ness. But what is that? It is something unique to your own self, which is contingent and syllogistic belief or emotion. What significance can it give to the rest of the others? — Corvus

It may be that being-one-self-ness is a shared universal quality present "in" all beings.

That's the abstract for what I wrote. But it indeed covers all! :smile: — Duepietri

So simple in the end. I be what I be. it be what it be. It all just be. Be.

But part of me worries this simplicity is an illusion. I guess I will always doubt in the end.

Forget about the concept. Just explain what essence means from your thoughts. That is your concept of essence. — Corvus — Yohan

There is form essence and essence essence.
Form essence is what form qualities are necessary to call something a particular kind of form. Eg, a human must have this that and the other to be called a human.

However, while I have humanness, if I were to undergo biological transformation into another type of life form, I would still, at least in theory, retain the most essential part of myself, my being-myself-ness...Just as my being-myself-ness was always here through the various stages of my biological and psychological development or de-development. (Unless the memories of having been myself in the past are illusions and I am a new being which has inherited another's memories and have mistaken them for my own)

We are basically making order of our concepts. But what is the essence of a concept? And where do concepts come from? — Yohan
I was asking you that question. — Corvus

I thought you asked me what the definition of essence is? I would have to use concepts to define it. But what if concepts are lacking in essence? Then what use would a conceptual definition of essence be?

I thought all the fuss was about what you call apperances - the phenomenal world. Is the phenomenal world all conceptual or all material? I'm out of my depth. — TheMadFool

The phenomenal world is a mixture of experience and conceptual organization of that experience, creating the sense of objects having objective material existence. Not different than how when we dream our dream experiences are conceptualized into appearing three dimensional and solid, even though its all technically flat...2-d or 1-d. Three dimensionality, I hold, to be an emergent property grounded in 2d or 1d. Something like that! I don't grasp what 2-d or 1-d are grounded in without a 3-d reality. Its out of my depth as well. For some reason, I have a great faith in eastern doctrines which call the phenomenal world "Maya". Something about it rings true to me, and I've had brief moments where the external world seemed like it was within my consciousness.

Labels? It is an unusual naming. Label is a piece of blank sticky paper, you write on something, and stick to something for ID.

We use concepts, definitions and names. You define things and concepts with words and more concepts with logical clear meaningful linguistic expressions. — Corvus

We are basically making order of our concepts. But what is the essence of a concept? And where do concepts come from?

How can one reach to essence, when the essence is not define-able? — Corvus

Things aren't defined by labels. labels are defined by things

Essence is rigorous. Whatever is expressed in words could be further questioned.
If I keep asking of every term used in an expression "And what is this thing, essentially?" I could keep going with every response given. Which, would either lead to an endless cycle of going from one concept to another, or to a stripping away of concepts until essence is arrived at.

But can the essence be expressed in words?

I have tried to imagine a consciousness before language and society, and there is not really much there without those socially derived concepts.

It would seem, there would have to have been some sort of cognition / intuition but it would have been a far cry from what we enjoy now.

I was trying to highlight how indebted we are to socially derived knowledge for our present state of consciousness, and I wonder what we could have intuition about without this socially derived knowledge? — Pop

I don't know.

Your entire Op is informational structure. The words that you use represent concepts that are entirely socially derived. Without this socially derived informational structure, what sort of intuition would you posses at all? — Pop

You are implying intuition comes after and or is dependent upon socially acquired concepts? This may be true.
Perhaps we start as observers, gradually developing concepts and higher order thinking, and eventually develop intuition as the crowning achievement.

I imagine the intuition was always there, however, guiding the process unconsciously / subconsciously.

Both logic and ideals are developed over time through experience. A baby learns through intuition - so both rational as well as idealistic thinking is attained through intuition. — Hermeticus

I guess every view is rooted in an intuition.

I'm not sure why sensory observation would be furthest away though. My intuition tells me that while matter may not be THE essence, it certainly comes off as quite essential. — Hermeticus

Notice that scientists often don't contemplate essentials. What is truth? What is meaning? Because they are too far away from essence, is my guess. Philosophy being closer to intuition and essence, is consciously trying to attain the essential. However, one could argue that science is closer to essence, or already has it, so it need not think about it. It's possible that no path is inherently more likely to be closer to essence.

I don't think we are in same library, yet alone on the same page. I don't think I can engage with you.

↪Nickolasgaspar I'm using "chaos" in the context of an exchange with Yohan. Read in context the meaning is clear: not conforming to the laws of nature. Do laws of nature conform to some other (more general ... ad infinitum) laws of nature? If you think so, explain it to me. If they don't, then the laws of nature are, in these terms, chaotic. — 180 Proof

I won't debate the issue any more. Honestly I am confused about which of us are right.
But I'd like to ask. How do axioms like the law of non-contradiction fit into chaotic natural law? How can manifest reality conform to disorderly laws?

Edit. I guess I kind of get it. They would not be disorderly relative to manifest reality. Just in and of themselves....

just as north of the north pole doesn't make sense, order to which order conforms is nonsense. — 180 Proof

Order is conformity with principle. Principles are not order or chaos. They are the source of both order and apparent chaos.

And "the laws of nature" – they came to be without "conforming to laws of nature" — 180 Proof

The fundamental principles of reality cannot be created, destroyed, or violated. All activity is contingent upon them. Only their expressions come in and out of being.

That's how fundamental chaos is — 180 Proof

How can a negative be fundamental? Chaos = absence of order.
Perhaps you mean "primordial substance" has no "order". But if primordial substance has any possibilities inherent in it, those possibilities would be contingent upon some inherent principle.

↪Yohan e.g. Noise, radiactivity, vacuum, incompressible strings, thermal equilibrium... You're quite mistaken. — 180 Proof

Everything that happens in nature is in conformity with the laws nature.
Everything that happens makes sense in light of the rules of nature.
If something appears to not make sense, it means there is an of yet undiscovered or not fully understood law of nature.

I am drawing a parallel between "making sense" and order, and "not making sense" with chaos.

Edit: I might go so far as to say that to understand means to make/perceive order

Edit ps. I don't know about radioactivity, vacuums, impressible strings, or thermal equilibrium.