Why do you believe this?
What is there, supposedly, not yet known about the ‘physical world’ in and of itself, exactly?
What is this ‘mind’ thing, exactly?
But there is, obviously, the One Thing - also known as the Universe, Itself, which is perceived to be made up of many different and separated things.
This appears to be a claim of quite some proportion. So, why exactly do you believe and claim that the kind of existence that the so-called ‘unperceived world’ is, by nature, absolutely inconceivable or incomprehensible for absolutely forevermore?
Where did you obtain that absolute knowledge and knowing from, exactly?
Why did you use the ‘So’ word here? How does what you wrote after that word follow on logically from what you have said and written prior to that word, exactly?
Is this not true from you understand about absolutely everything else as well?
Perhaps the problem is the insistence that “causality” is either physical or it is mental. Maybe that exclusive categorisation is itself the source of the difficulty.
But what has ‘relations between types of things’ got to do with anything here?
I was asking you if you could, and if yes, then will you explain what the ‘physical thing’, itself, is or even ‘could be’, exactly, which could be considered ‘causality’, itself.
‘What’, exactly, is now supposedly a so-called ‘explanatory hypothesis’?
Will you share this so-called ‘explanatory hypothesis’ here ‘with us’ so that ‘we’ can also look at it? If you have judged it to be ‘an inference’ of ‘best explanation’, then I, for one, am interested in looking at ‘it’.
‘We’ would have to first ‘look at’ what ‘explanatory hypothesis’ that you have and are referring to here, before ‘we’ could present ‘an alternative theory’, which you claim you are open to considering.
Also, obviously, ‘we’ need to know ‘the explanation’ that you talk about here before ‘we’ could even begin to present a ‘better explanation’.
So, for example, when ‘we’ human beings were killing what ‘we’ called “witches” was this ‘reality’? Or, when ‘we’ adults are abusing children ‘nowadays’, is this also ‘reality’?
Now, considering that “witches” are not being killed ‘these days’, and that children will stop being abused in the future, then which one is ‘reality’, exactly? The ’ killing of “witches”,’ or the non-killing of “witches”? And, it the ‘abuse of children’ reality, or the ‘non-abuse of children’ reality, for example?
To me, since the word ‘Universe’ for quite some length had the definition, Everything; All there is; Totality, I still use that definition for the ‘Universe’ word. After all, the ‘Uni’ in ‘Uni-verse’ implies Everything; All there is; Totality as One, anyway.
Whereas the word ‘reality’ has a connotation of something else. Well, for me anyway.
But, I do accept that ‘that’ is how you are using the ‘reality’ word here.
Already noticed, and noted, by me.
Why did you jump to this conclusion and presume or believe that I have ‘jumped to conclusions’ here, exactly?
I had already. I then realised that you could not have. This is because of what the Universe is fundamentally made up of, exactly.
Now, and as always with ‘my views and claims’, if you, or anyone else, would like to the proof for my views and claims, then let ‘us’ begin and have a Truly open and honest, logically reasoned peaceful discussion.
Many people have said and claimed this, but they show otherwise.
Also, why believe something is true before you have even obtained the proof for its truthfulness?
To me, believing something is true while also claiming to be open to ‘it’ being false seems very contradictory. To me, saying and claiming, “I believe there is only physical matter”, for example, while also saying and claiming, “I believe there might not be only physical matter at all”, is a form of oxymoronism.
Anyway, let ‘us’ see.
To you, what is between and around objects and particles of ‘matter’, exactly?
What is ‘that thing’ or ‘those things’ made up of, exactly?
Or, ‘we’ can do this another way.
If the whole entire Universe, what you call ‘reality’, or in words and a term ‘we’ both agree with and accept here, ‘All that exists’, there is only ‘matter’, and ‘matter’ ONLY, then there would be just one singular piece of ‘matter’ ONLY. Which is sometimes referred to and known as ‘singularity’.
Now, if that were the case, then that one single particle of matter would have to be infinite in size. The word “materialism” refers to those human beings who have and hold the belief that ‘All that exists’ is made up of material, or matter, only, and/or that this idea and/or concept is the true and right one, correct?
And, by all means, please correct me if I am Wrong here.
Now, the Universe and/or ‘reality’ does NOT exist in that way, shape, nor form. In between and surrounding ‘matter’ there is a thing called ‘space’. Which, to me, that word refers to the distance between and around matter. If this were physical matter itself, thus ‘the same thing’ as ‘it’ is in between and surrounds, then ‘space’ would also be ‘matter’, and thus would not be separated from ‘matter’. Which again is obviously NOT what happens, occurs, nor exists.
The Universe at the fundamental level is made up of both ‘matter’ and ‘space’, and in fact HAS TO BE. (Which can also be explained, demonstrated, and proved). Anyway, therefore the Universe, or what you call ‘reality’, and ‘All that exists’ is NOT just ‘matter’, nor ‘material’, only. As the word ‘materialism’ implies.
Well, I have not here.
What I brought up is the logical and empirical actuality.
If, and when, the proof is presented that demonstrates and proves that ‘All that exists’ is NOT just ‘material’ only, then that is NOT just a ‘possibility’, but is an actual, as some would call it, ‘reality’, and would that and does that ‘undercut’ ‘your belief’ here?
The reason WHY you believe what you do does not matter one iota here. Once a person believes, or disbelieves, something to be true, then they are closed or narrowed, because they are NOT as open as they could be.
I already understand, fully, WHY you believe what you do here.
That you believe, as you do here, has NO bearing on what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct in Life.
Now that you have provided ‘your clarification’ for the ‘reality’ word here, what I was pre/assuming is negated.
And, ‘your definition’ for the ‘reality’ may well not be controversial at all, but it is different. Exactly like how ‘we’ all can and at times do use ‘different definitions’ for the words ‘we’ say, write, and use.
(Thus, by the way, is WHY there is so much misunderstanding, bickering, quarrelling, conflict, fighting, and warring in ‘current world’. But, this is another story for another day, as might say here, now.)
Would there be any difference if ‘materialism’ was a so-called ‘physical’ or ‘metaphysical’ theory?
They are both ‘stories’ (or guesses) about what ‘might be true’ or not.
And, again, for all of those who class “themselves” as, or call “themselves”, “materialists”;
How could there logically be just ‘material’ ONLY, exactly?
You’ve raised several questions. Rather than responding to all of them at once, I’ll start with what I think is the most fundamental, because it underlies the rest.
Critical philosophy and cognitive science both recognise that the mind is not a passive recipient of sensory input but an active participant in perception, continually integrating sensory data with prior experience, expectations, and learned concepts. Our senses are also limited: vision is sensitive only to a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum, hearing to a limited range of frequencies, and so on. As rational beings, we extend these capacities through language, mathematics, and scientific instruments, allowing us to infer many features of reality that are inaccessible to unaided perception. But these inferences are still constructed from the forms of cognition available to us. They may tell us an enormous amount about how the world behaves and how its structures relate, without entitling us to claim knowledge of reality exactly as it is independently of any possible mode of human cognition.
The more literal and less inference direction you can provide, then the better I think this will be for everyone here.
What is the ‘it’, exactly, which you chose to ‘immediately reject’?
In case you are unaware, I do not do ‘theory’, nor ‘debate’ and ‘evidence’.
Great, this will help here tremendously.
Why?
After all, ‘we’ are in a ‘philosophy forum’, in the end.
By the way, if I recall correctly I was NOT asking for dictionary definitions nor for basic dictionary definitions. Instead, I prefer to ask for, and get, the person’s own definitions from who is saying and using words here.
But ‘I’ do not have any ‘needs’ here.
Look, if ‘you’ do not want to inform ‘us’ readers here what definition that ‘you’ personally have and use for ‘the words’ that you say and write here, then so be it.
‘I’ am certainly not expecting you to, nor needing you to.
The Fact that ‘you’ have and use ‘different’ defintions for words and terms here I thought would have been pretty obvious WHY I am seeking out ‘your clarification’, and thus clarity here. ‘We’ are, again, in a ‘philosophy forum’ after all, and where what words mean, exactly, is something some regard as pretty important in getting ‘messages’ across and understood, fully, and Correctly.
I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as to what the words ‘philosophical basis’ means and/or refers to, to you, exactly. Just in case you were interested.
How will ‘you’ ever know if and when ‘I’ have, what you call, ‘moved past syntax’, exactly?
Why will ‘you’ only wait until then?
Was any of what you said and wrote here ‘on topic’ for this thread?
Maybe.
Or, maybe when the word ‘causality’ is defined, properly and Correctly, here, then people will see and understand what ‘it’ is, exactly. And, thus then know, for sure, what ‘causality’ itself actually or really is.
Is there anyone here who would like to present ‘a definition’ for the ‘causality’ word here?
If yes, then ‘we’ will literally have something to ‘look at’, and ‘discuss’.
I would prefer you started with this one and only question of mine, which you quoted here, first.
But, please feel free to start with whatever you would like to.
Have these two things - ‘critical philosophy’(whatever that is exactly) and ‘cognitive science’ - informed you of what the ‘mind’ is exactly? Do they have an agreed upon and accepted definition for the word ‘mind’? Or, do they explain what the ‘mind’ word refers to, exactly?
Were you previously under some sort of illusion that your senses were unlimited, before you became aware of this?
This could be questioned and challenged.
What do you presume or believe is inaccessible, exactly?
Do you think you support and back up what you are saying and claiming here with irrefutable explanations?
And, they may not. In fact, ‘they’ may trick, fool, and decieve some of you here, correct?
By the way, the question I ask you here, which you quoted, was:
Why do you believe the ‘nature of the physical world’, as it is in itself, is not known to ‘us’?
Do you believe ‘this’ because ‘it’ is not yet known, to ‘you’, therefore ‘it’ is also not known to ‘us’ as well? Do you believe ‘this’ to be true because you have been made aware of some knowledge that proved, to you, that the ‘nature of the physical world’ is not known to ‘us’? Or, is there some other reason why you believe what you do here?
By the way, when ‘you’ say and use the ‘us’ word, who are ‘you’ referring to exactly?
Too many questions and assertions to field here, I’m sorry. You’ll need to regulate your output a little if you’re going to get the best out of this forum.
There are those who say that the way we experience time is illusory. If that’s true, then cause and effect is illusory in the same way. Perhaps illusory could also just be reframed as “not fundamental”. As in, the real structure of the universe doesn’t have a flow of time as we experience it.
BUT if that’s true, both time and cause-and-effect are both natural viewpoints of the world we’re in. “Natural viewpoint” as in “there’s a way to view the data, a very intuitive way, from which both time and cause-and-effect emerge”.
I don’t think it’s sensible to reject cause and effect alone without also rejecting time. I think they come together as a package. Accept or reject them both.
My own studies have led me to the conviction that the distinction is not fundamental, but a case of what William James referred to as “taking the same data twice over.” One thing I find difficult to question is that there is orderliness in the cosmos (the very word ‘cosmos’ is an antonym of the word ‘chaos’). Again my own studies have led me to the conviction that this is because it is relations that are fundamental (witness the “relational turn” in physics, given momentum by developments like Carlo Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics and James Ladyman’s ontic structural realism in the 1990s).
But then the human brain does what it does best – it reifies – so from relations we abstract relata and misconceive them to be ontologically prior. And we abstract “laws of nature” and consider them to have some kind of transcendent existence instead of being merely descriptive. And we abstract the concepts of cause and effect, and consider them to be somehow ontologically distinct.
I would say that cause and effect are useful conceptual constructs that are grounded in the fact of orderliness in a relational cosmos. The real question then becomes “why is there orderliness?” – a question that a great many philosophers and even a few physicists (witness the late John Wheeler) wrestled with all their lives.
I would agree, but dude what if words aren’t words, they are really food and we are eating food right now in some spaceship made of words. Far out bro. You just blew my mind. Thank you though for explaining to me that we are on the philisophy forums. I would have never guessed that.
It seems you already have my definitions then. Saves us time! Why did you ask for them? It was to test me wasn’t it! (I only read these two. Feel free to start a topic in the lounge. You word smith you.)
That’s circular. You’ve only declared the two words to essentially be synonymous, but doesn’t define how you actually use the word.
Does a live T-rex exist? Unicorn? Number 13? Marxism? Gravity?
What is the bound of the universe, after which it would be considered part of another universe? For instance, look north to Polaris and continue that line for 50 billion light years, reaching outside the visible universe. Is there a nearest planet to that point I’ve specified? QM says no. Tegmarks says maybe, and says that it is in a different universe, part of a level-I multiverse. Greene would say it’s a quilted multiverse.
Most people consider ‘the universe’ to be a classical thing, consisting at least of all space relative to here, no matter how distant, and having a defined state. You seem to be more or less in that camp, as am I, but only when speaking casually. Formally, it needs a far more rigorous definition.
Without realizing it, almost all such definitions of ‘reality’ are mind dependent. The typical person presumes something like ‘all that concerns me’ without being explicit about it. So a unicorn is not real mostly because we don’t see one and thus has not received our mental designation of ‘is real’.
I could do all that as a passive recipient. To be active, I need efficacy for active participation. That (or something similar) should be on your list.
Why are ‘you’ sorry?
What are you sorry about, or for, exactly?
If people believe that they cannot just answer and clarify the very simple straightforward clarifying questions I ask, then okay.
And, if ‘my assertions’ are somehow to hard or difficult to follow and understand by the people here, then okay also.
By the way, are you aware that people could just regulate “themselves” to just answering and clarifying one question at a time, or just concentrating on one of ‘my assertions’ only at a time, if, for example, focusing on more than one at a time is too hard or difficult for them?
There are also those who say the word ‘time’, but when questioned over what does the word ‘time’ mean or refer to, to them, exactly, they fail to provide anything that even comes close to resembling the actual Truth of things. Like, for example,
you just used the word ‘time’ here “flanneljesus” so what does the word ‘time’ mean or refer to, to you, exactly?
Reframing the word ‘illusory’ could perhaps, and obviously could, be ‘now’ changed to ‘not fundamental’. But, why not just say ‘not fundamental’ and NOT use the ‘illusory’ word altogether instead?
First, ‘you’ would have to inform ‘us’ of how you define the word ‘time’, exactly, and then explain to ‘us’ how ‘you’ experience that definition of ‘time’ before ‘we’ could assess if what ‘you’ experience actually fits in with the Real structure of the Universe or not.
So, would you like to begin?
There is NO physical thing as ‘time’, ‘cause and effect’, nor the other things that I listed above, as well as many other things.
you say your own studies have led you to the conviction that …
So, what studies have you personally taken exactly?
Some would say that the human brain instead just receives information, stores that information as knowledge, and/or then has the ability to recall that knowledge. And so does not actually reify anything.
The rest of what you say could happen in ‘thought’ itself instead.
Well, some do anyway.
Considering that absolutely every thing, including the Universe, Itself, is relative to the observer, it could be said that that there is a ‘relational cosmos or Universe’, but in regards to ‘orderliness’ that would depend on ‘the observer’ would it not?
Now, if the so-called ‘real question’ has somehow ‘now’ become;
‘Why is there orderliness?’ could be equally questioned by;
‘Why is there chaos?’ Of course depending on HOW one ‘looks at’ and ‘sees’ ‘the world’ or Universe.
But anyway, the answer to both of these ‘real questions’ is;
Because there cannot be any other way.
Due to the fundamental ‘nature’ of the Universe Itself, and what It is made up of exactly, the Universe can only exist in one way, that being in an always constant state of change, and so whatever way the Universe is in NOW, It always exists in ‘this way’.
(There is, by the way, two other states that the Universe could be in. However, if the Universe was in either of those ways, then either of ‘those ways’ would exist in the exact same state forever. Which would mean there could never ever be 'observers. Now, since ‘we’ observers are HERE-NOW, this means that ‘the way’ the Universe is in NOW, has to also be ALWAYS.)
Again, if anyone would like the irrefutable proof and/or facts for anything here, then let ‘us’ have a Truly open and honest, logically reasoned peaceful discussion.
If those people had not been believing or presuming that they already had ‘the answers’ to things that they had not yet obtained the proof for, then they, also, could have come to the actually irrefutable Truth a lot earlier.
Words can be and are, literally, in a sense, ‘food for thought’.
HOW do ‘you’ think ‘you’ think and know all of the ‘things’ that ‘you’ do, exactly?
See, once one learns, understands, and KNOWS the full power of words, and the power and control ‘words’ “themselves” have over ‘us’ when ‘we’ talk internally ‘to ourselves’ and out aloud again ‘to others’, which in a sense is actually again “to ourselves”, and that ‘this power and control’ comes from the very ‘definitions’ and ‘meanings’ ‘we’ individually put behind ‘the words’ and the intention that ‘we’ use ‘our words’, then ‘we’ can and DO take some and even a LOT of that power and control back.
Once ‘you’ people have also learned to ‘read between the lines’ and can also ‘see’ and ‘hear’ the intention and meaning behind ‘the words and messages’, then ALL starts becoming far more crystal clear.
Again, but ‘this’ is all just ‘food for thought’.
It is said that a human being ‘named’ and ‘labelled’ with ‘the words’ “jesus christ” at least once said, 'I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
With ‘bread’ being ‘food’, ‘for thought’, and those who are hungry (and thirsty) for ‘knowledge’, will have their hunger satisfied (and their thirst quenched) by coming to learn, understand, and know who and what the words “jesus christ” were actually really meaning and referring to, exactly. It is certainly NOT one human being only, in case anyone was interested. With, what is known as, ’ the second coming of “jesus” ’ this will ALL be explained more, and fully.
Once ‘this knowledge’ is understood and known, combined with ALL of the other knowledge that will soon be shared and spread, then when people are filled up fully, then 'the hunger (and thirst) for more of the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct knowledge dissipates as ‘this knowledge’ fills them up satisfactorily until they are literally full-filled, in Life.
But, there is always more room for ‘desert’. This is; the fun loving and sweet tasting ‘food for thought’. This NEVER gets filled up NOR fulfilled because there is always MORE to learn, understand, and KNOW in this eternal and infinite Universe.
But anyway, this was also just 'more food for thought, and to ‘think about’.
‘I’ hope ‘you’ are NOT speaking literally here.
Okay, and my pleasure. But ‘you’ really did not have to thank ‘me’.
How, exactly, would and do ‘you’ know this?
After all, ‘I’ cannot know what ‘your definitions’ are, exactly, until after ‘I’ have asked ‘you’ for clarification, and ‘you’ have provided ‘me’ with ‘your definitions’.
But without clarification and clarity misunderstanding/s ensue. And, it is misunderstanding, itself, WHY there is so much bickering, quarrelling, fighting, conflict, and wars in ‘this world’.
Whereas, coming to True understanding, which is obtained through seeking clarification and verification, admittedly and obviously takes longer, but the outcome/s absolutely always override the duration.
In fact, once absolute understanding is obtained, the length of discussions reduces to nearly zero, relatively speaking anyway.
So, if you, really, want to what you call ‘save time’, then I suggest you learn how to come to and reach understanding, itself.
After all, the fact that some of these sorts of things have been discussed and talked about for thousands of years ‘now’, and are still not yet even close to being resolved, shows and proves that this ‘assuming’ ‘we’ know what the other is saying and meaning does NOT work.
Again, ‘I’ obviously could not know, for sure, what ‘you’ are meaning until ‘I’ ask ‘you’ and ‘you’ inform ‘me’, again obviously.
WHY did you ask me a question, but you put an exclamation mark at the end?
Okay. And feel free to start a topic absolutely anywhere on the internet where you like, as well.