Apparent reality is just such an indirect view of what is real. Spinoza taught us how we come to know an outside physical world; it was by the world of objects making alterations to the state of our biology, our bodies, this, processed through the understanding is our everyday reality or apparent reality. For us, it is our only subjective reality and for us, there is no direct knowledge of reality. I propose that apparent reality is a biological readout, a self-simulation for the world of objects that is indirect in that it is the world's or the cosmos' energies altering our bodies that give us the impression of there being objects. Those energies are objects only to biological consciousness, a melody played that only the conscious subject hears or rather sees. So, the apparent reality is how we experience the energies around us, but the fact remains, all there is, is energy. If we saw this energy as simply energy, that would be direct realism, a place/state/field of no things.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nothing-solid-everything-energy-scientists-explain-world-djurisic#:~:text=Scientists%20began%20to%20recognize%20that,is%20made%20out%20of%20energy.&text=Quantum%20physicists%20discovered%20that%20physical,its%20own%20unique%20energy%20signature.

Value is relative to biological needs and wants/desires.

Come on, this is a philosophy site, WRONG is inadequate, point out the faulty reasoning, or don't comment at all.

In the past I watched a lot of programs about crime and criminals, the bad guys with no moral fiber. One day after a good deal of consumption of such material, I was stunned to realize most of them were victims either of the former context/s or some mental biological handicap. Some committed horrendous crimes against others, and I realized that they had lost their humanity over a long period of time because their environment/context didn't really treat them in a humane way. Some I realized preferred jail to the constant struggle on the outside, which they never were prepared for. The bulk of criminality is due to people not being equipped to function properly and productively in society. So, society cannot really complain about too much with integrity, for whether it is seen as a doable thing to ensure an even playing field, it is apparent that this is the source of most criminality. Society just hasn't evolved so that it can properly serve the child and adolescent to ensure an adapted adult.

Come on people, you don't even know what your next thought is going to be, free will?

Progress is that which is life sustaining and life-enhancing in its broadest sense.

I couldn't agree more, one's first environment after the womb is the family, and often this is not an ideal nurturing context. Realizing that there is seldom an even playing field for the parent or the newborn, some process should be in place to at least protect the newborn. Protection, which in all probability was not available to its parents. Yes, society should be responsible for all new born innocence brought into this world.

NATO has been usurped by the United States as its own vehicle of aggression, placing its nuclear weapons in each added member state; ever usurping the sovereignty of each state that joins. If it were an individual, we were talking about we'd call him a psychopath.

That is what these philosophy sites are about, enlighten me.

Knowlege is experience, through which meanings are gained though fallible. Which can only be found fallible through another biological experience.

As a possibility, probably not.

When one comes into this world one is pure essence with no identity, gaining identity through successes and failures in its reactions to its context/environment. This creates an identity that is a healthy one or a defeated one and one's essence either enjoys or suffers under the state of its relationship with its environment/context. Damaged individuals, and defeated individuals tend to be poor models for their offspring, simply on the basis that one can only provide for your child what you have gained for yourself. In the case of the defeated this means a poverty situation for the offspring of these particular individuals. Providing as they would, an impoverished environment/context for their children.

Biology is the measure and meaning of all things and what is valued is what is either needed or desired by said biology to satisfy needs or desires. The satisfaction of need is life sustaining, that of desire is also life sustaining; in the sense of bringing the organism pleasure which is opposite of pain. So, things of value are life sustaining things.

The United States has been not only a superpower since the second world war but has been the greatest imperialist power the world has ever seen. It believes in might makes right with the greatest war machine the world has ever seen, and its ambitions are no different than those of the Third Reich. It should have learned its lesson in Vietnam that in a game of chess, you cannot play checkers, their day of reckoning is here. America, the world has your number.

Interesting to that all the NATO countries wanting access to Russia's border, are all post-colonial countries; maybe one or two that are economically colonized by the United States and so bought and paid for. The other half of the world, the BRICS, are post-colonies and are now saying no to their past masters.

E=M times the speed of light squared.

Anything which is not adaptive and which is detrimental to our life support system/environment, cannot be considered progress; damage to either the subject or the world as object threatens all.

Knowledge is experience whether second hand or no.

You need to do a little catch-up on your science.

Do tell me what matter is made of then.

Free will depends entirely upon the concept of willful actions on the part of an agent of free will. There is however no such thing as human action, there is but human reactions. All organisms are reactive creatures and the fact that they must be motivated to move spells reaction not action. Reactions are the process of organisms functioning in the world of being of the world. Reactions are what biological evolutionary adaptation work through. The is not one example anyone could give me that would indicate that an individual could commit an unmotivated action, there just is no such creature.

LOL!!! Live long and prosper!! What is it you looking for, someone lying to you about how they feel? Try this on, you feel things through the alterations things make to the constitution of your body, and this is feeling/sensing/experience/knowledge and meaning. There are but three basic emotions, pain, pleasure, and desire, all other emotions are compounds thereof.

You missed the point, there is no such creature. Emotions like any experience are true to the biology having them.

You've taken it out of context, must be a Christian---lol! The quote is. Atheists are those who still feel the weight of the chains they have shed.

Tom, ok nice to know it ultimately has a positive effect on some people, in individual debate it just seems like banging one's head against a wall. Thanks for the insight! Wouldn't the message be better served if people refused to debate about sacred nothingness? Why is it an acceptable topic on a philosophy forum, when both sides know there is nothing there to substantiate or negate.

How many Americans believe the elections are street theatre for the public, that it really doesn't matter which party wins. That there is a psychopathic power elite that believes democracy is a joke.

Most Americans do not know the history of their own country; they do not know America's history of imperial aggression. Their government is just fine with that. American mythology works just fine.

We believe we feel things but things are not the source energies are. Any emotion is genuine to the consciousness experiencing it, judgment, the understanding is fallible. Experience/emotions are true to the biology experiencing those emotions, even where they have no foundation, a phobia might be an excellent example; defined as irrational but just might be ill-understood, but the emotions are true to its biology.

Just an added thought, all organisms are reactive organisms, emotions are reactions.

What makes something moral is that something does not harm me or my like kind, this is only partially extended to other creatures. Really, it is an expanded concept of the self, a self which is to be protected.

The only source of knowledge is experience and meaning to biological consciousness. For biology is the measure and meaning of all things. A conscious subject is the sole holder of meanings and thus knowledge.

The essence of what you are experiences the world. Identity is formed from essences successes and failures in relation to environmental context. Think of it this way, identity clothes your essence, but it is your essence that feels the cold.

It's called hindsight.

I am not confusing anything by stating that irrational religious meanings need to be negated. I fully agree that which is evil is a bad experience, painful, unpleasant and/or life diminishing

I am simply stating that the apparent reality that you perceive, your everyday reality, is energy and not a world of objects. All objects are in fact energy forms, they are only objects to biological consciousness which is only another energy form. Others in your world are energy forms as well, and their expressed emotions are energy expressions of negative or positive emotions. If these are directed at you, you sense them as life-supporting or life-negating, the same as you experience all other energy forms that you sense as objects in this way. Apparent reality is truer to your experience than it is to actual energetic reality.

The war is America against Russia, which reads American aggression. This is one regime change the States attempts which will not work, no matter how many people/Ukrainians they kill. Long live the BRICS! Perhaps too, someone could tell me how when Nixon visited China, America had no problem with China and Taiwan being the one China, that wasn't that long ago.

Evil is irrational religious baggage, much of which is about offending an imaginary friend. It is so much a part of the culture it is difficult for the culture to let go of it. It is an unhealthy concept that needs to be abandoned.

Your statement are you OK, is often used to undermine the opinions of others. It is a passive aggressive negative. If I've misinterpreted you, you have my apology.

That which experiences is, in fact, anonymous simply the essence of life and what is that, life itself. The essence of life has no identity until it starts reacting to its environmental context. What is experienced is objects while what is, is energy. If you think what experiences is your identity you are mistaken. Structure and form determine experience, but essence is the same across the board, experiences differ across species/structure and form, essence is common to all life forms.

Thanks, the style some have difficulty with, but one doesn't think in point form it rather flows; one can pick out the points of contention/discussion.