It’s so simple, even the cave men got it.
These people are cowards and hypocrites.
Like I said….a product of sheltering and uncontrolled reproduction.
This is their coping method.
Admittedly existence is difficult to accept…..and this is why a man must have the right constitution to be a philosopher.
Was he. I did not know that.
Existence isn’t imaginary.Existence is real,it just doesn’t possess life.
Many individuals claim that the observer and the observed are imaginary.No they’re not.They’re real.
There is life (the I AM) in everything.
Binary processing dualistic reasoning (software),
Life/Life
Life/Death
Death/Life
Death/Death
The claim of the biological machine bot. Is as follows,
I exist because I need to exist to claim that I don’t exist.If I claim that I don’t exist then I am a liar that exists who doesn’t possess life because I am a binary processing biological machine bot.
Don’t confuse existence with life.They are not the same.
How is your belief that change has identity not merely based on habit and custom rather than a logical deduction or inherent knowledge of stable existence?
What you are calling reality is what modern science calls phenomena. For science, it is the data of sensory experience that requires explanation. But, that explanation changes as more and more data is accumulated and analyzed. Science never reaches final, ultimate reality. Kant’s epistemology is consistent with this. We are conscious of the phenomenal world (objects and events as they appear to us) through outer senses, and of our inner psychological states (thoughts, feelings) through inner sense not the world as it ultimately is. Consciousness itself is a process of differentiating and synthesizing these sensory inputs using our understanding which structures and unifies it into our life world. Dismissing that as “not consciousness”, I suppose, an instance of your objectivist absolutism.
Kant was deeply influenced by David Hume’s empiricist skepticism, which questioned fundamental concepts like cause and effect that could not be directly observed through the senses. He agreed with empiricists that our knowledge of the world starts with sensory input; “concepts without percepts are empty”. But, he rejected the empiricist idea, which I think you hold, of the mind as a passive “blank slate”. Instead, he saw the mind as actively structuring our experience through innate frameworks.
If denying the perfect validity of perception is to commit the “stolen concept” fallacy, because the very concepts used to question perception are derived from it, this makes the reliability of perception vacuous. For example, if only accurate perception counts as perception, then the claim “perception is accurate” becomes an empty tautology. You seem to use perception and consciousness interchangeably. What’s up with that?
Kant concludes that our concepts are true because they must correspond to the phenomena**(appearances) of objects as they are structured by our minds, not the unknowable noumena (things-in-themselves). Truth is established through the synthetic unity of apperception , meaning our distinct experiences are organized and unified by the mind’s innate categories (like space, time, and causality) into a coherent, shared world, thus validating our structured concepts against empirical data. The fact that multiple individuals, operating with the same cognitive machinery, arrive at the same conclusion validates that the categories have been properly applied and that the judgment holds for everyone. But, that doesn’t make such judgment absolute or final.
Reality is the non-dual pure existence, consciousness Absolute, unchanging, infinite, and beyond the limitations of time, space and individual identity. What we ordinarily perceive as the world of multiple separate objects is not ultimately real. It is impermanent, ever changing, relative, uncertain, approximate and incomplete. We ordinarily experience the dualities of life such as subject and object, happiness, and sorrow, and the distinction between ourselves and others, which are the products of our ignorance. The path to liberation is not paved with wishes, but with knowledge and spiritual discipline. Truth requires a person to discriminate between the Eternal and the ephemeral (the world). Happiness is not found in the fulfillment of wishes, but in the realization that bliss is the inherent nature of one’s true self.
It’s not a logical deduction. I can observe change and identify it.
Yes, axiomatic concepts identify primary absolutes. You’ve already told me that my philosophical system is internally consistent and logically coherent.
Hume’s mistake was viewing causality as a relationship between events, instead of a relationship between an entity and it’s own actions.
The validity of the senses is axiomatic because the senses are our primary and only contact with reality. If consciousness is valid, then so are its means. Plus, the senses are self-validating in a non-circular way.
Truth is correspondence between a proposition and reality, not correspondence between a proposition and appearances. If nothing appeared to our senses, we could not have
awareness. This goes for any consciousness. Again, and for the last time, the fact that our consciousness works by specific means does not invalidate consciousness; it’s what makes it possible. But confusing the form in which we perceive with the objects of perception is an error that has plagued philosophers for centuries. Objectivism corrects that error by recognizing that if consciousness exists, it has identity, and if consciousness exists, then it is consciousness of something that exists. I’ve already explained why it is impossible for the senses to distort our perception of reality. Expecting consciousness “nohow” is irrational.
Then this could only mean that your concepts don’t represent anything real and have no meaning. You are looking at words when you should be looking at reality, but you reject your means of knowing reality, so all you have are words. This will be my last response to you. You just keep repeating the same points that I’ve already refuted. You may not think that I have refuted them, but I know that I have. I’ve learned what I wanted to learn, unless you have something new to add.
The perennial problem of being and becoming is the fundamental philosophical paradox of how things can change and yet remain the same. It explores the tension between the apparent reality of constant flux (becoming) and our intuition of a stable, underlying identity (being). This deep-seated metaphysical riddle has been central to Western philosophy since ancient Greece. You think you have solved it, and that I just don’t get it. I get it.
I see your absolutism as misplaced. Logic and reason as applied to phenomena of the the senses are not absolute.
That’s not an accurate portrayal of Hume’s philosophy. Hume did focus on the relationship between events (like a ball hitting a window) as the basis for our causal belief. Your alternative view —causation as an entity acting on itself or another entity—is a different philosophical position, possibly relating to concepts of agent causation, which emphasizes the power of an agent to initiate an effect, rather than just event A preceding event B. You would have to elucidate what you mean further.
This claim is problematic because the process of using one sense to verify another could be seen as circular or at least as a limited form of internal consistency, not an absolute external validation. Using sight to verify touch and touch to verify sight is often cited as a self-validating process. But, if the entire sensory system is flawed, this cross-verification doesn’t prove anything external. The system is only verifying itself. For a non-circular validation, you would need to step outside of your sensory experience, which is impossible.
In contrast, scientific validation relies on intersubjective verification, where different observers confirm the same phenomena, and instrumental verification, using technology to confirm what the senses alone cannot. Even so, this process is built on the collective and technological extension of human sensory experience, not an escape from it. And it produces theoretical models. It isn’t a means of producing absolute truth.
Mental reflection is necessarily the copy or repetition of the originally presented world of perceptions. Concepts, therefore, are representations of representationn or re-representations. So what Schopenhauer calls them ‘abstract representations’ or ‘conceptual thinking’. They entail meta-consciousness. I.e., consciousness of being conscious. The process is recursive: one can have re-representations of re-representations of re-representations, etc.
If you don’t wish to talk further that’s your choice. It seems a bit odd though: to come on a religion forum, pose a series of questions for religionists and then refuse to engage with a religionist about them. Anyway, ciao.
“Hume’s mistake was viewing causality as a relationship between events, instead of a relationship between an entity and it’s own actions.”
So yer sayin’ an ‘entity’ isn’t an event… which means you have two types of causality happening now. The causality that conducts affairs in the material world of forces and then the causality that conducts some second substance’s (not subject to the causality conducting the first substance) interaction with the material world of forces.
The second causality ‘steps in’ sometimes and overules the first causality… like when you make a decision to stand up as opposed to not having to decide to keep your heart beating because it’s a subject of the first causality.
The classical problem with this one is explaining how these two substances interact causally - how does the cartesian driver touch the material controls in the brain?
And more, does this cartesian driver have any choice to decide what it is? I don’t mean in the world where it can and does here… i mean, was it able to decide prior to acting on the world what it would be? Does the cartesian driver have the same causal responsibility for what it is?
There would be an infinite regress of entities inside entities like china dolls that exercise freewill to decide what they are before they decide what they will do in the body. If not, you’d end up with an entity with agency that has freewill in the world but has no choice about what it is.
This realm of second substances where the cartesian driver comes from. Not this world. This one’s the material realm. In that world, how does it go about being what it is. I mean, does it have to make decisions? Is it engaged with some kind of world? Does it develop an identity through a series of decisions?
If so, you’d have another splitting of substances. Now, there’s the first substance (this world), the second substance (cartesian driver), and another… a substance that is the world of forces the cartesian driver acts on casually in the other realm. You’d be pushed into the same problem of worlds and agencies acting on them.
The only way out of this is to say the cartesian driver has no identity prior to its arrival in this world, a blank slate. But if you say that you have to take the position of the emergent dualist and abandon the substance dualism you wanna keep.
Spinoza pointed out this problem. You can have an attribute of the single substance called ‘mind’ that has a capacity to be self-aware and recognize identity, but it is not ontologically independent of the single causal order of events and does not reduce further than the single substance (without causing logical problems).
The infinite regress of substance worlds with cartesian drivers with freewill problem was inspired by one Harris, Sam.
No, I’m not saying anything like that. I’m saying that Hume looked for a necessary connection between events and couldn’t find it. From that error, he concluded ther wasn’t one and there isn’t. The necessary connection is between a thing and it’s own actions, so when you see wind moving the leaves on the trees, you are seeing causality. It’s the nature of a thing that determines what kind of actions it can take. Just go on a causality walk. Notice that the sun warms your skin, heats the asphalt, makes the water look sparkly, and causes plants to grow. Notice the wind ruffles your hair, makes the tree branches sway, causes ripples on the water, and makes leaves and papers fly around. Things act and interact with each other according to their nature.
“The necessary connection is between a thing and it’s own actions, so when you see wind moving the leaves on the trees, you are seeing causality.”
For Hume, the same terms would apply there as well. Just because the wind moved the trees ninety-nine times in the past doesn’t mean it will again in the future. And it could be the case that the leaves are moving themselves and just happen to do so every time the wind blows. There’d be no way to know.
Correct because he looked for necessity in the wrong place. You’re telling me that a bird flying by flapping its wings is just a coincidence. On Hume’s view, you could say that the bird singing could just as likely be the cause. And that is not the only error he made. Just replace on of his billiard balls with a soap bubble and there will be a very different effect.
Duality is in the physical because everything vibrates due to balanced attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interactions NN,NS,SN,SS hence the formula N/S=N/S.This formula holds all matter together and produces binary code which is contained within the varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves which are emitted from all matter.The spin speed of the particles regulating the frequency of the push/pull interactions and thus the amount of heat emitted from a matter type which has its own unique binary code characteristics built into it because it was designed that way.
So matter and energy don’t cancel out.
The individual interprets binary data (converted into sounds/visions/touch/taste/smell) produced from electromagnetic energy waves produced from vibration,via the five senses
Binary data is balanced ACROSS the fence.
0/1=0/1
Science is simple and yet profound.
For Hume, your “causality walk” is not a direct perception of causality. Correlation is not causation. Neither is proximity in time. Your experience on the walk is a catalogue of observed sequences of events, where the feeling of connection is supplied by your mind due to prior experience. The sun does not have a “nature” that must warm your skin. Instead, we have just consistently observed sunlight followed by the feeling of warmth, leading our minds to unconsciously make that powerful—but not rationally justifiable—inference.
You argue that Hume looks for necessity in the wrong place, seeing only constant conjunction in the world rather than an underlying power. But this is precisely his point. He would agree that any search for a metaphysical necessary power connecting cause and effect is misguided because such a power cannot be perceived. The “necessity” is a mental projection, not a property of the world.
The flapping of a bird’s wings followed by a flying is not just a one off coincidence but a constant conjunction that our mind experiences it is this repetition that develops the powerful habit of expectation. Human would agree that the bird singing could just as likely be the cause because we have no a priori, rational grounds for being otherwise. It’s the mind of habitual association which strongly favors the wings over the singing based on consistent past experience.
And lastly, your billiard ball versus soap bubble claim rather than refusing him, illustrates Humes central point. If you replace the billiard ball with the soap bubble, you wouldn’t know that that would happen based on reason alone.. You would have to resort to experience.. after observing the outcome your mind would then form a new custom based on the new constant conjunction the pattern of the Q ball hitting a soap bubble or however, you set up the experiment. Your thought experiment confirms rather than refutes Hume’s view that our knowledge of cause-and-effect is not derived from some rational necessity.
It’s interesting to me that even though I don’t understand all of what you are saying, my metaphysics is implicit in it. It is:
Assuming existence exists: You talk about matter, energy, and vibration.
Assuming Identity: Particles have spin, vibration, and heat.
Assuming consciousness: The individual processes sensory data.
Assuming causality: Vibration leads to perception, binary code leads to experience.
Think of it this way….you are watching/listening to live 3D tv in which you are an active participant…..a player….not an observer…..you are not the tv.
A tv doesn’t experience the sense TOUCH!!!
Perhaps. That’s the point of the ontology I’ve developed:
Theological versatility is a key feature of the framework:
Regardless the perspective, theistic, deistic, pantheistic, etcetera, God is existence. Whether God is part of existence, as with theism, or the whole of existence, as with pantheism, God is existence.
This ties into the Existence Both Part And Whole Section of the essay:
Other philosophical frameworks, such as Spinoza’s, are relatively rigid and offer restrictive views of deity.