It's not real?

PLshroom, I agree, there is no objectivity in the true sense of it.

And, though I agree with this about the constructs, it's hard to say they aren't real. I mean, isn't a thought real? Maybe not material, but does something have to be material to be real? Thoughts, beliefs, "constructs," people live and die by them, they have an effect just as real as any material thing.

 

Well--I (subjective)think it's mandatory to try and be as objective as possible when attempting to reach resolutions on matters outside the self,especially.Perhaps the only real objectivity is the neutrality of nature.Agree the constructs are real and totally influential.The initial point was that humans do not see that we(all) operate under constructs that we ourselves(those that came before us,acting and reacting to various stimuli)set up for us.One could ask "who made up the rules?.Why do we do what we do?Therefore,the little exercise I proposed responding to occams "aliens".Example: personally I can be totally objective as to what a colony of ground squirrels do or don't do.Surely we can do no less for ourselves???

 

And thus we come to what occam calls the 'agreement'

Which is simply this..If a subjective perception can be agreed on to
exist by more than one person. And can be shown to any person when they wish
to percieve it. And does not vary in its nature or repeatabillity.
Then it is objectively real.

To ask if anything exists without subjective experience of it is saying that reality sprang into existance at the point of being of the first subjective sensorium.
Yet how could such a complex thing as a sensorium simply come into being without a reality to be made/evolve in?

And are constructs 'real'
If you speak of existant things in themselves like a rock. no.
If you speak of 'effects of existant things in themselves' like our functioning minds.
then yes. The effect being a neuro/electrical pattern of memories and concepts, ego, emotion exct exct
residing in human minds.
We act appon these effects/constructs.

Morality is an excellent example.
There are 6.25 billion constructs called morality
Every one of us having a slightly different 'idea' of what it should be/result in.
Little wonder it has been such a hot topic for 10 thousand years and that religion
tries to make things called 'gods law', a set moral code than cannot be altered.

In so many ways the 'construct' strikes occam as ''Premis''
Our acts [objective actions] are based in 'premis A'. And 'premis B'
They result in all or actions.

Premis A [set of all constructs under A] is anything objective reality demands. We do
not try to lift a semi trailer because.. The agreement has shown it cannot be done.
We do not sit on a rusty nail cause ..well, nuff said.
Premis B [set of all constructs under B] is all other constructs.
We mostly, do not kill cause most humans dont wish to. but some do.
and can
Japan exists cause humans agree it exits. Not because there is a
giant JAPAN stamped across this group of islands.

In making his earlier list,, occam simply rattled off a list of things that
do not fit in the set [premis A]

Occam

 

Now if we want to be logically strict

Then nothing but 'i reason therefore my reason exists' [1st hand experience]
Is true.
Everything else is second hand subjective experience. And thus uncertain

Logic yes...but maybe why logic is not the infallible tool we think.

 

"Any reality is an opinion" - as Dr. Leary would say.


Occam the law about contact with e.t.'s was repealled in the 1980's.

 

peaceloveandshrooms: "Does anything actually exist without someone/ some "thing" perceiving its existence?"

This is question is not very accurate. I don't know the answer to it, I am not sure I understand it well.
What I would like to know is what it would bring if you had the answer, like, what does is proves, brings?

 

Can objects exist without us to perceive them? Can we exist without things to perceive?? The Buddha would say that perceiver and perceived are completely non-dual, two sides of the same coin if you will. At least that´s what he told me when we were drinking Thunderbird together at that greyhound station in Reno....

 

I guess Ijust want to know whether this reality would be real without us existing in it. What is reality really like? It makes a huge difference for me because: if reality is none of what we think it is, then everything we base our lives on is wrong? I want to know the truth!

 

PL&shrooms

Well lets say your vision was centered in the radio spectrum
[say 1mm to 1 km],, not the light spectrum [0.4-0.7micrometers]
And you looked at our solar system.. Earth.. has replaced the sun
as the brightest thing visable.
It comes down to the perception system used...

How can the mind percieve 'directly' and view reality as it is
objectively? No idea. Maybe thats what paranormal power is all about.

[the only part of reality that occam thinks we view directly are our own thoughts]

Occam

 

How can one get used to living life every single day knowing that nothing that is perceived exists that way in reality? How can one accept the only true knowledge: that we know absolutely nothing?

 

Definitions taken from American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language.

Objective:uninfluenced by emotion, surmise, or personal prejudice. This is what I meant in regards to our "alien observations."

Objective: Based on observable phenomina; presented factually. Again what I meant.

Objectivism: Anyone of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind, and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events. Whatchu meant.

Subjectivity: Existing only in the experiencer's mind and incapable of external verification.

Therefore, objectivity begets subjectivity in the most literal sense.ooooooooooooooooooooooo my fuckin' head hurts!Where's that bus station again drbeaker?

 

You just Be

Arrive with US, It's one, friends.

 

I am thoroughly convinced.. none of it is real... and none of it matters...

 

Man, my bad trip on salvia led me to believe that life isn't real. It was very trippy. I've only smoked that stuff twice and I don't think I want to do it again any time soon. 10x, as I remember.

 

I've had my share of drugs too, but I think I saw the fakeness before they really affected me in this way. I don't know, I guess they def. didn't make it look more real. I think it was easier when I took everything to be the way that it seemed to be.

 

Back for a reason

 

Thanks to Scratcho for pointing this thread out to me.

I have to answer an exam question on this passage on Tuesday. So, this post is mostly for my own benefit.

I don't have time to find the page reference right now. I took the quote from my own notes. But take my word for it that it's from somewhere in the Enquiry. Hume is usually taken to argue for the positive denial of the existence of external objects. But the positive denial of anything would be unbecoming of a thorough-going skeptic, as Hume was. The passage above is indicative of Hume's refusal to collapse into dogmatism.

It seems that the statement "There are no perceptions unperceived," is analytic. If Hume admits that such is the case, then he is at risk of comitting himself to idealism. But Hume's philosophical program can largely be seen as a skeptical revolt against the dogmatic idealism of Berkeley. How does Hume dodge this pitfall?

Consider the first premise: "Every perception is distinguishable from another." For any perception of an external object, A, there exists another possible perception of that very same objects, A', such that A' is the perception of a subject from another position in space, time, or both. For example, A could be one's initial perception of a chair and A' could be the perception of that same chair after one moves one meter to the left.

The second premise, "[Every perception] may be consider'd as separately existent," requires a little bit of explanation. "Existent" is not being used in the normative, in Hume's view the "vulgar," sense. Rather, Hume's use of the word "existent" is consistent with his own epistemology. All ideas have their origin in perception. Therefore, in an ontological sesne, ideas can be said to "exist." Our perceptions of objects, then, may be considered "existent."

The connective "and" suggests that these two premises are to be taken together as an argument for the conclusion, that "there is no absurdity in separating any particular perception from the mind; that is, in breaking off all its relations, with that connected mass of perceptions, which constitute a thinking being." But some explanation of the conclusion is also requisite. "Separating any particular perception from the mind" is a reference to Hume's theory of reflection, on which the subject "reflects" on the ideas present in her mind. The "connected mass of perceptions, which constitute a thinking being" is a reference to Hume's "bundle theory" of the self, on which the self is no unity but rather merely a bundle of perceptions and faculties. Therefore, if one were to "break off all relations" of the mind to an object (i.e. if one were to not reflect on an idea), then the idea must be an immediate perception in the mind (i.e. something I am looking at right now). If such is the case, then "there is no absurdity in separating any particular perception from the mind," since the immediate object of perception is not contaminated by any other ideas present in the mind. Therefore, there can be perceptions unperceived. Therefore, there can be independent, external objects.

A little sloppy. I clearly need to do some more work before the exam. In particular, I am not happy with my treatment of Premise 1. Suggestions, comments, and criticisms are welcome and appreciated.

 

Nobody trust Nobody

The problem and the solution

Are you a nobody or a somebody?

Because nobody cares!

Get on the BUS

BE US

BEING US means knowing ALL IS ONE AND ONE IS ALL, BEING IT, BEYOND SEPERATION, and LISTENING TO YOUR PART AND DOING IT. Dig?

The illussion will fade, but let's make it a good movie.... wadda ya say?

 

Thankfully studentdom is long waaaay back when - yo - it looks like its a boring course you are having to suffer there common_sense
I studied philosophy but I left and did something else when it all became someonelses ego trip about how clever and logical they are.

Just bitchslap the main professor and tell him theres more to this world than all his philosophies - he'll never recover from the fact you cut his ego in two