Nothing Exists

[Willamena]

Yes we can say, objectively, that we see a beautiful shaped rock, that is objective because that is the existence of our subjective opinion.

But if we say "this rock is beautiful" that is not true.

We cannot describe something objectively without our opinions or feelings in it.

That It's subjective doesn't mean it's not true, it just means its truth lies elsewhere than "in reality". Its truth is in how someone feels.

Truth lies:
- objective: in reality, in the statement about things
- subjective: in how someone thinks or feels about things
- absolute: in the universal statement
- relative: in the particular group or individual, or in the nature of something in relation to something else

 

[Willamena]

Yes, and almost everything we perceive is subjective, we struggle describing an object objectively.

...

Yes, reality in the way all species perceive it is not real because so much subjective things are inside it. So much varies among what type of mind you have.

Well, I was talking about reality beyond our perspective then. But I agree, reality as we perceive it isn't objective or absolute, but it is subjective because if it was neither of those reality wouldn't exist in perception, thus no perception at all.

Things exist. If you take away "a thing," that's the same as taking away its existence; if you take away its existence, that's the same as taking away "a thing." You are left with nothing (no thing). Without its existence, "it is" nothing.

Things (the existent things, because those are the only kind) are objective when we describe them, which is each time we talk about them. There are no subjective things in this regard; if we are describing them, then they are objective, and they are objective when we are describing them. Everything is objective, because everything can be described.

Subjective is another take on reality. It is us injecting ourselves on and into things. We can do that because we're minds, and in mind we've created in reality.

"Reality" is our take on reality. Without our take on things, we cannot say that anything is true, or that anything is false. Without a take on reality we don't even have anything to talk about --we have nothing.

There is no inherent falseness about our take on reality. Truth doesn't lie in the nothing --it cannot --it lies in our perspectives on and expressions of the world: objective, subjective, absolute, and relative.

 

[Willamena]

There is still the problem of how does Beth discover that truth....if we feel it is important for her to know for certain. Beth does not have a means to observe directly; only a mind that constructs an interpretation of the real world from analyzing sensory information of the world.

The truth that is mind-independent that philosophy talks about is propositional: we just say it's true. We do that to have something to contrast with mind-dependent belief and knowledge in order to describe them. We know what "true" means, so it works well. We know what "true" means within the context of our mind-constructed, analyzed sensory-interpreted world.

The question of whether there is a really-real world beyond our perception, that we can never know, because all knowledge is mind-dependent, is self-evident.

I'm not an idealist. I'm not disputing that there is an external reality and a real world. But, we still do not have a means to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, because of the limitations of how our brains function. We create a map of the object through interpreting sensory data received. We do not directly experience the object. we may have a 99.99999999% assurance that our interpretation is accurate, but it can never be absolute. So, in a sense every experience is ultimately a subjective experience.

The falsehood, as Dhamic religions are quick to point out, is the idea that there is some sort of real, or even physical, divide between subjective and objective. A "subjective experience" is an objective experience if we take it and describe the world. As interpreted as it may be.

What struck me though, when I was thinking back to some articles I read that were specifically about what men respond to -- is that we aren't doing any sort of objective analysis of the reasons when we're looking at women. These cues all work on us on an unconscious level. If I'm down at the beach in the summer time, and it's a good day for girl-watching, I'm not objectively analyzing why some make me horny while others...not so much, it just happens. And my reaction is to a stimuli that I would not have answers for, if it wasn't for the research done in recent decades by psychologists and other scientists.

When we employ objectivity, that's different --that's a particular attempt to minimize subjectivity and get at as accurate a desciption as we can.

 

[work in progress]

The truth that is mind-independent that philosophy talks about is propositional: we just say it's true. We do that to have something to contrast with mind-dependent belief and knowledge in order to describe them. We know what "true" means, so it works well. We know what "true" means within the context of our mind-constructed, analyzed sensory-interpreted world.

The question of whether there is a really-real world beyond our perception, that we can never know, because all knowledge is mind-dependent, is self-evident.

And that leaves me wondering what the value of a mind-independent truth is. In the early half of the 20th century, there was a shift away from philosophy, and scientists started ignoring what philosophers had to say....this may be part of the reason why. It's only been in recent decades where physicists and neuroscientists have started looking again for philosophers who are grounded in these fields, to help them interpret the information they are gathering and develop better theories and new approaches to furthering science.

Unfortunately, from what I've heard, the philosophy departments in major universities have been among the hardest hit by budget cuts that slash spending on the humanities depts. Some younger philosophers and graduates who have turned to blogging, say that they consider most of their primary focus in education to be a sideline or a hobby that they try to pursue as they go out and earn a living through other means.

The falsehood, as Dhamic religions are quick to point out, is the idea that there is some sort of real, or even physical, divide between subjective and objective. A "subjective experience" is an objective experience if we take it and describe the world. As interpreted as it may be.

And that is pretty much what the evidence from brain sciences is telling us about how the hardware actually works.

When we employ objectivity, that's different --that's a particular attempt to minimize subjectivity and get at as accurate a desciption as we can.

I agree that it's a matter of increasing accuracy, but it can't ever be perfect or 100%. On the subject of beauty...especially when it's about what a man finds attractive in a woman, and vice versa, I doubt that the ancient Greek philosophers would have considered that most of our intuitions about beauty and attraction occur below a conscious level of awareness, but still motivate our desires.

Even in the abstract -- there are subconscious preferences for symmetry and even colours that are pleasing and unpleasing based on how they relate to nature. I recall an article several years back by an anthropologist, who noticed that in newly rising third world nations 30 and 40 years ago, the new middle class wanted grass lawns in front of their houses, just like Americans and Europeans prefer. His thinking was that there was some built in esthetic preference for green grass that has been a carry over from our early days on the African savannah.

 

[John Thiel]

Well, if matter is taken not to exist, it brings to mind that there appear to be two definitions of existence, "being alive", which matter falls short of , and "being there", in which matter might excel over man. Which definition are we using when we discuss existence? Can mind and matter peacefully coexist?

 

[John Thiel]

as i see it, we are slaves to the limited understanding of ourselves

That would make "limited understanding" a master.

 

[espo35]

I wonder sometimes if we are no more than entertainment for God... in the way that television is entertainment for us......

 

[The Sum of Awe]

And, as I said, what is an opinion apart from its existence? Its existence isn't something separate from it, that can exist while it doesn't. "It is" its existence.

An opinion apart from its existence is "The sky is blue", the existence of it is "I believe the sky is blue."

Bingo! When you use opinion the purpose isn't to describe, and neither is it pretending to be objective. Use of the subjective has its own purpose, which is to express self.

I agree, but we cannot describe things objectively too well is my point. We are always expressing ourselves, for almost everything except mathematics is subjective.

It's the only thing we can use to describe, but the purpose of all speech isn't to describe. Self-expression is good, too.

Then we can never see reality for itself without self expression, and that's what I mean by 'nothing exists'. We never are able to describe something fully without self-expression.

That fact means that we cannot perceive anything as it truly is, our senses cannot be trusted, thus nothing exists in our perspective as it would be in reality without subjectivity.

If "beauty" and "ugly" are relative to a particular observer, then it can only be meant to express the way someone feels about something, rather than description. It can only be meant to be subjective.

Yep.

That It's subjective doesn't mean it's not true, it just means its truth lies elsewhere than "in reality". Its truth is in how someone feels.

Truth lies:
- objective: in reality, in the statement about things
- subjective: in how someone thinks or feels about things
- absolute: in the universal statement
- relative: in the particular group or individual, or in the nature of something in relation to something else

Reality is the truth, an opinion is not a truth, something based on how your mind works is not the truth.

Things exist. If you take away "a thing," that's the same as taking away its existence; if you take away its existence, that's the same as taking away "a thing." You are left with nothing (no thing). Without its existence, "it is" nothing.

The subjectives are not necessary for describing reality, and I'm not saying we should or even can take the subjectives away, their existence will always be. All I'm saying is that if you take all subjectives away that is the truth, but because it is impossible to take subjective things away thus we know nothing, and never will be able to understand reality for itself.

The point I'm making in this thread is that we are practically living in a dreamworld, a fantasy, because it is mostly subjective-based.

Things (the existent things, because those are the only kind) are objective when we describe them, which is each time we talk about them. There are no subjective things in this regard; if we are describing them, then they are objective, and they are objective when we are describing them. Everything is objective, because everything can be described.

If we are describing them with personal observations that is not the same for all (with subjectivity) they are not objective.

Nothing can be described without subjectivity, thus nothing can be objective to our knowledge.

Subjective is another take on reality. It is us injecting ourselves on and into things. We can do that because we're minds, and in mind we've created in reality.

Subjective is another take on reality, but it is full of falsehood because they are not absolutes, they are not true objectively.

"Reality" is our take on reality. Without our take on things, we cannot say that anything is true, or that anything is false. Without a take on reality we don't even have anything to talk about --we have nothing.

That's my point, and I'm not saying that we should take away our subjective takes on reality, I'm just saying that because we do so and we can only do so, it is not 'reality' as it truly is.

There is no inherent falseness about our take on reality. Truth doesn't lie in the nothing --it cannot --it lies in our perspectives on and expressions of the world: objective, subjective, absolute, and relative.

If that's true, whose opinions are true? Not all can be TRUE in REALity. After you decide whose is true, you must give evidence that theirs' is true and not someone else's.

 

[Willamena]

An opinion apart from its existence is "The sky is blue", the existence of it is "I believe the sky is blue."

Is the statement, "The sky is blue," lacking belief? Or are we "never able to describe something fully without self-expression"? The two statements are essentially the same, no? So I'm not seeing the difference of "an opinion apart from its existence."

I agree, but we cannot describe things objectively too well is my point. We are always expressing ourselves, for almost everything except mathematics is subjective.

Then we can never see reality for itself without self expression, and that's what I mean by 'nothing exists'. We never are able to describe something fully without self-expression.

That fact means that we cannot perceive anything as it truly is, our senses cannot be trusted, thus nothing exists in our perspective as it would be in reality without subjectivity.

We can never see nothing for itself, but that's okay. It's nothing, so inconsequential.

Reality is the truth, an opinion is not a truth, something based on how your mind works is not the truth.

That's not true: if I say you're beautiful, I mean it. Truly. It's truthfully my opinion. It's true about me, that I think that about you.

The subjectives are not necessary for describing reality, and I'm not saying we should or even can take the subjectives away, their existence will always be. All I'm saying is that if you take all subjectives away that is the truth, but because it is impossible to take subjective things away thus we know nothing, and never will be able to understand reality for itself.

The point I'm making in this thread is that we are practically living in a dreamworld, a fantasy, because it is mostly subjective-based.

The subjectives couldn't describe reality even if they wanted to. But that's okay --it's not their job to do that. They leave that to the objectives and the absolutes.

Their job is to express truth that lies elsewhere.

If we are describing them with personal observations that is not the same for all (with subjectivity) they are not objective.

Nothing can be described without subjectivity, thus nothing can be objective to our knowledge.

Personal observations are not trying to be objective, or describe. It's only you warping them to try to make it so. If I express the opinion that you're beautiful, I haven't described you in reality, I've just expressed what I think about you (enscribed myself). To pretend it's description is what's untrue.

You're right, though, in that last bit, that anything "objective to our knowledge" is nothing. Nothing at all.

Subjective is another take on reality, but it is full of falsehood because they are not absolutes, they are not true objectively.

At this point we're just butting heads, so I won't point out that it's not a falsehood at all unless you pretend it's description.

That's my point, and I'm not saying that we should take away our subjective takes on reality, I'm just saying that because we do so and we can only do so, it is not 'reality' as it truly is.

An I'm saying reality "as it truly is" is nothing. It's certainly not reality as it truly is.

If that's true, whose opinions are true? Not all can be TRUE in REALity. After you decide whose is true, you must give evidence that theirs' is true and not someone else's.

Your opinions are true, if they are allowed to be your opinions and not some description of reality. If they are true, they truly express you. That's all they're required to do.

 

[Willamena]

Sum: I'm curious what you think of this:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2756464-post9.html

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Is the statement, "The sky is blue," lacking belief? Or are we "never able to describe something fully without self-expression"? The two statements are essentially the same, no? So I'm not seeing the difference of "an opinion apart from its existence."

"The sky is blue" itself is a belief, that's why it isn't part of reality. The fact that it is a belief is why we care not able to describe the sky in colour without self-expression.

We can never see nothing for itself, but that's okay. It's nothing, so inconsequential.

It isn't 'nothing' just because we can't perceive it, it most likely exists in reality, but our perception is a dream built around it.

That's not true: if I say you're beautiful, I mean it. Truly. It's truthfully my opinion. It's true about me, that I think that about you.

If you say "You're beautiful" it is not true, it is a belief. You are claiming they are beautiful. Now if you say "I think you're beautiful" you are claiming that you think they are beautiful.

The subjectives couldn't describe reality even if they wanted to. But that's okay --it's not their job to do that. They leave that to the objectives and the absolutes.

And we do not know enough of the objectives and absolutes, and most likely never will, unless we can learn to escape our mind, but we are our mind, that's why it's impossible.

Their job is to express truth that lies elsewhere.

Truth is truth. Truth is how it really is, the way it factually is present not to you but to reality. Therefore there is only one truth, because if there is more than one truth, they must contradict and both would be an opinion, thus both are not facts, and thus more they are not truths.

Personal observations are not trying to be objective, or describe. It's only you warping them to try to make it so. If I express the opinion that you're beautiful, I haven't described you in reality, I've just expressed what I think about you (enscribed myself). To pretend it's description is what's untrue.

You're right, though, in that last bit, that anything "objective to our knowledge" is nothing. Nothing at all.

And I don't disagree. All I'm saying is because we only use personal observations that "are not trying to be objective or describe", we can never officially understand what the difference between a dream is and reality, and we are only perceiving what constitutes reality, it is not really the way it is.

We do not understand that we are using personal observations in a lot of cases, and I want to get people aware that what they are perceiving is personal observations, 99% of what they are perceiving is. So basically if you claim "life is an illusion" you are right to a limit.

At this point we're just butting heads, so I won't point out that it's not a falsehood at all unless you pretend it's description.

I'm not pretending it's a description, it is other people in the world that believe it is a description. It's kinda like the Matrix... maybe close to exactly like the Matrix.

Maybe I should give people a choice if they want to know how life works or if they don't (red pill blue pill phenomena). But real life is pretty much like the Matrix; our mind is making the system, except we physically exist in the system, but the system is covered by our mind.

An I'm saying reality "as it truly is" is nothing. It's certainly not reality as it truly is.

What is 'reality as it truly is' in the way you are describing it?

Your opinions are true, if they are allowed to be your opinions and not some description of reality. If they are true, they truly express you. That's all they're required to do.

And I don't disagree with that.

 

[Willamena]

What is 'reality as it truly is' in the way you are describing it?

- objective: in reality, in the statement about things
- subjective: in how someone thinks or feels about things
- absolute: in the universal statement
- relative: in the particular group or individual, or in the nature of something in relation to something else

i.e. in truth.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

- objective: in reality, in the statement about things
- subjective: in how someone thinks or feels about things
- absolute: in the universal statement
- relative: in the particular group or individual, or in the nature of something in relation to something else

i.e. in truth.

There is only one truth, and that would have to be objective

 

[Willamena]

There is only one truth, and that would have to be objective

The truth is objective --I won't disagree. We see the truth in subjective, absolute and relative by looking at them objectively.

Edit: Each of the descriptions in my post 512 is objective. It's where we find the truth.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The truth is objective --I won't disagree. We see the truth in subjective, absolute and relative by looking at them objectively.

How can we look at something subjective from an objective perspective?

 

[Willamena]

How can we look at something subjective from an objective perspective?

As one nihilist to another (of another sort), if you believe nothing else in this world, believe this: you own "objective." It's yours to hold. It's yours to lift in your hand, and turn it left, or right, or even upside down if you want. It's yours.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

As one nihilist to another (of another sort), if you believe nothing else in this world, believe this: you own "objective." It's yours to hold. It's yours to lift in your hand, and turn it left, or right, or even upside down if you want. It's yours.

That is subjectivity. We can make what we want with subjectivity, objective isn't ours' it is reality's, it's the way things are, we can't play with the way things are in reality, we are humans, far from being gods.

 

[Willamena]

That is subjectivity.

It's you.

We can make what we want with subjectivity, objective isn't ours' it is reality's, it's the way things are, we can't play with the way things are in reality, we are humans, far from being gods.

That's the objective perspective. Your objective perspective.

(What do you think a Setian magician does?)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's you.


That's the objective perspective. Your objective perspective.

(What do you think a Setian magician does?)

We're talking about reality not magic



How would it be possible to play with the reality behind something that is? Sure you can mess around with your opinions on what it is, but for one what is real is real, there's no changing that. Therefore you cannot change objective.

Let alone, even if you could, we have no objective perspective at all, being that it is all filled with subjective perspective.

 

[John Thiel]

"Life is but a dream" has a chant connected with it from earlier years in London: "Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream." That stream could have been the one in Avon, because Shakespeare has lines in his plays about life being a dream, or a fantasy.