How can you expect to understand reality if your philosophy is founded solely upon an inward only CONSCIOUSNESS knowledge gathering meditative practice?
You are deluding yourself.
You have to factor in outward CONSCIOUSNESS knowledge as well,
It’s about understanding consciousness!!! and your relationship to it.That’s more important than knowledge.
That would be true if perception were absolutely false. Optical illusions reveal the limited validity of perception by demonstrating that our brains actively construct reality based on assumptions and prior experiences, rather than passively recording it. They show that what we think we see is often a brain-generated prediction, not an objective truth, and that this perception is influenced by context, culture, and individual differences. Both science and religion teach us that the world is not what it appears to be on the surface. 20th century science gave us theories of relativity, uncertainty and incompleteness. The Overton Window shifts at an ever increasing rate these days.
It seems your reaction to a different metaphysical philosophy is to shut down. From the standpoint of metaphysical idealism the senses have been compared to icons on a desktop or flight controls on the dashboard of an airplane. Or to paraphrase Saint Paul we see reality as if through a darkened glass. If the senses delivered absolute reality there would be no need for discussion. We would all agree 100% of the time. So, if you didn’t want to entertain varying opinions why did you start the thread?
I have no problem entertaining different ideas, and I haven’t shut down. But I see no value in continuing a discussion with someone who denies the axioms of consciousness and objectivity. At that point, dialogue becomes a game of manipulating words detached from meaning. I take philosophy seriously, and my time and attention come with terms: coherence, honesty, and a shared commitment to reality. I started this thread to understand how people think. I remain open to rational discussion—but not with anyone who rejects the foundational truths upon which reason itself depends.
The world is entirely what it appears to be. Every trait corresponds to the essence of what exists, reduced to a level that can be processed and used.
Consciousness interprets what is present - existent - into a form ti can process and store - as appearance.
Appearances are not superficial, nor irrelevant, they are crucial to survival.
The evolution of methods of interpreting existence follow the rules of natural selection. The best ones help organisms survive.
Existence is not illusory.
Subjectivity is an interpretation of an objective world. Its quality determining success.
The inversions of experienced existence are nihilistic methods of escape - coping methods - which may lead to death if they are not sheltered or if they are never practiced.
Many of these morons claiming that existence is an illusion never behave as though they actually believe it, because if they did those “illusions” would have a very real effect on them.
They think it makes them sound deep to claim that knowledge consists of knowing that nothing can be known. But any attack on consciousness is self-refuting, and obviously so.
The irony is that they would have to have access to reality in order to form the concept of ‘illusion.’ Shaking my head.
Okay, instead of threatening to cut off dialogue just show me where I’m wrong. You can start with which of your foundational truths I have rejected.
They are not my foundational truths. They are everyone’s truths, even if they don’t realize it. I’ve already told you. You deny the axiom of consciousness and objectivity. They are the basis of reason, of knowledge, and of truth.
I accept both consciousness and objectivity. What are you talking about?
These are your words.
What are you a naive realist? This is a well known scientific fact. In other words objective. But not absolutely so, as that is not what empirical science gives us. Objectivity is a method of understanding. It is beliefs and attitudes that are objective in the primary sense. Only derivatively do we call objective the truths that can be arrived at in this way. To acquire a more objective understanding of some aspect of life or the world, we step back from our initial view of it and form a new conception which has that view and its relation to the world as its object. In other words, we place ourselves in the world that is to be understood. The old view then comes to be regarded as an appearance, more subjective and so on and so on. It’s not a closed system or finished process. And what do you suppose this implies for consciousness since apparently you somehow inferred that I rejected the “axiom of consciousness”?
You would probably call me a naive realist. I’m an Objectivst. I reject the representationalist view of perception and the rationalist view of universals. I have a realist view of perception, and if we are not directly aware of objects, then we are not conscious. Consciousness is awareness of some object, not a representation, not a mirror, not even a model, but direct awareness of reality in the form determined by the nature of our senses. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material brought in by the senses. Without that material, reason is impossible. Without a grounding in objective facts, concepts have no objective meaning. Our two views are incompatible, so we really have no basis for discussion.
What is a thought …..forget the electrical signal interpretation……what is a thought experientially to an individual?
In reality,thoughts consist of sounds and visions.
As there are 3 other senses,the main one being TOUCH (taste and smell) then Rene Descartes statement “I think,therefore I am” does not explain reality.He misunderstood reality.
Sounds/Visions (I am)=Sounds/Visions (I am) is the claim of an individual who doesn’t understand reality because they haven’t factored in the sense TOUCH.
Rene Decartes only focussed on the inward consciousness state (in the head consciousness state) with his false statement concerning reality.If he had considered the outward consciousness state as well then he would have factored in TOUCH.The sense touch make the connection between the body and the head.
This is how we know his claim “I think,therefore I am” is incorrect and does not reflect reality at all.
He didn’t understand consciousness and his relationship to it.Mainstream cognitively biased atheistic science doesn’t understand consciousness to this day.It’s the “hard problem”.
You need to understand consciousness experientially.
TOUCH is the connection between the physical and the metaphysical because merely sounds and visions (thoughts) alone CANNOT connect the physical with the metaphysical and vice versa.
The difference between the in and out of the moment consciousness states is the sense TOUCH.You cannot ignore the sense touch in your explanations concerning REALITY!!!
Spiritual (Abrahamics) and secular nihilists need the idea that the world is an illusion, because they cannot endure its injustices.
They need to believe that reality is the reverse of what it appears to be.
They need to believe that the world is subjectively malleable….
And…you are clueless Silenus…and?
You exist are not an illusion and claim absolute nonsense in your dead spiritual state.
Notice representationalism’s implicit assumption of an omniscient perspective. To know that our senses and perception do not provide us with awareness of objective reality, they’d have to know what reality is like apart from the senses and perception. Not only that, but they implicitly claim that they know what others perceive.
How do they know that perception does not bring us direct awareness of Objective reality? Not by sense perception. No, they infer it based on the flawed assumption that because consciousness has identity and it brings us awareness by a how, by a specific means, it can’t bring us awareness of how reality really is, but only of how it appears to our senses. But this applies to all consciousnesses, not just man’s. This is a straight denial of all consciousness. What they demand is knowledge no how, unfiltered and bypassing any specific means of awareness. But the fact that consciousness has identity is not a problem; it’s what makes it possible.
The other basic error is in replacing the object of awareness with the form of awareness. We aren’t aware of objects but of our subjective experience. Of existence? No, of our own subjective experience of our own subjective experience. Subjective experience of what? Blank out. We would have to be aware of existence in order to be aware of our awareness. Consciousness can not be a primary object, since it is not an entity but an attribute of an entity.
The axiom of consciousness is the formal recognition of the fact that something exists, and we know it. If consciousness does not bring us awareness of reality, then on what grounds do they call it consciousness? Blank out. If the senses don’t sense anything, then how can they be called senses? Blank out. If perception doesn’t perceive anything, then on what grounds do they call it perception? Blank out.
It is impossible for the senses and perception to distort reality. They are part of reality and operate automatically in accordance with the laws of identity and causality. They have no volition. They can’t deceive us. There’s no such thing as an error of perception. What there are are errors in identification. There are errors in reasoning.
This is why the representationalist view of perception denies the axiom of consciousness and objectivity.
Absolutism is part of nihilism, as I’ve defined it.
Absolutism, and inversions…and self-contradictions, because nihilists cannot survive in a world they’ve denied relevance.
Either/Or absolutism is also evident in their rejection of free-will.
Good/Evil - absolute order or absolute chaos.
They cannot process variances….and cannot tolerate uncertainties. Probabilities. They NEED finality….even if it is negative.
If a man is not absolutely free - metaphysically liberated from causality, need, suffering etc. - then he is absolutely unfree…..There is no degree.
If man is not omniscient then any absurd subjective perspective is the equal to any other.
After the announcement that their god of Abraham was debunked - they lost their scapegoats and their absolutes….their certainties. They need a totalitarian if not an authoritarian cosmos….if not god then absolute order. They need something to blame and use to justify their delusions.
This is why question number 6 is so important: What is the relationship between God as a subject of consciousness and any objects that it is aware of? If God exists and is conscious, then it has identity. So, the same problem obtains. God would be aware of how reality appears to its senses, not how it really is. However it is aware, it is somehow. Its awareness has identity. If it doesn’t have identity, then it simply doesn’t exist. If it has no specific identity and no specific means of awareness, then it is nothing in particular and does not exist. But wait, the theist places his god outside of reality, outside of the law of identity, and yet they claim it exists. Blank out.
If the senses and reason are invalid, then we can’t have knowledge of reality, and they are absolved of the responsibility to think. But the source they look to has the same problem. We can all imagine that this god does not have the same problem, that its consciousness is nothing in particular, but somehow still exists, but how is what we imagine not imaginary? Blank out.
Here is the procedure: