Perception and Reality

[Cahoot]

Views about whether or not the fellow in this video is experiencing reality are appreciated.

Maybe discussion will appear … later for me if it does, maybe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHCYHldJi_g

[Pam Seeback]

Since every thought and every image is produced by reality, every thought and every image is real. Dropping the idea of real vs. illusory is the first step to coming face to face with the absolute nature of one's life. Another way of saying this is that consciousness can be deluded about its nature but the nature of consciousness is not illusory.

Of course, because consciousness requires a "healthy" portion of no or low sensory stimulation in order to function with clarity and reasonableness in the world, excessive use of virtual devices would likely impede this requirement.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Edited

[Cahoot]

Since every thought and every image is produced by reality, every thought and every image is real.

Thank you very much for responding. I’m thinking about this first sentence. I read the rest of what you wrote, but I’m coming back to this and thinking about it. Once I can understand this first sentence, I’m going to transmit it back to you in my own words, so that you can verify my reception. The form will likely be different, you are checking for essence, and I think you have that capacity. At your convenience, of course. Take your time, as am I. Possibly a pertinent example to illustrate principle will occur in experience between now and post time.

I used to play the horses. Lots of fun.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Edited

[Cahoot]

Since every thought and every image is produced by reality, every thought and every image is real.

For the purpose of constructive thought, I make that first sentence the unchanging end. The last becomes the first.

The contemplation of that unchanging end is for the purpose of screening out thoughts that occur to me that are not rationally consistent with that sentence, to allowing those inconsistencies to remain as thought, and to give voice to thoughts that are consistent with that sentence.

From the sentence, I understand that once I become aware of a thought or an image, then I can know that the thought or image is real, and that it is produced by reality.

Because of this understanding,
because I know that I am only aware of thoughts and images of which I am aware,
because I have had the capacity to discover new thoughts and images in the past I can thus infer that there are currently thoughts and images of which I am not aware,
then I logically infer that these unknown thoughts and images, of which I am not aware, never-the-less are real, and are produced by reality.

*

Time to check the transmission.

Does your reception indicate any inconsistencies with that first sentence?

A leisurely yes or no answer is fine with me, and will actually uncomplicate the beginning, if you’re agreeable. I see this as … once agreement is discovered, then attention can turn towards implications, which are currently unknown, since knowing them depends on implications not yet discovered.

But even before that, there would be the rest of the posting to consider in light of the arbitrary unchanging end that provides the relative focus for the dialogue.

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot, for the sake of simplification with regards to my statement and your comment on my statement: every thinking soul or mind is the totality or reality or infinity or wholeness of every concealed thought (the subconscious) and every revealed thought (the conscious).

[Cahoot]

Cahoot, for the sake of simplification with regards to my statement and your comment on my statement: every thinking soul or mind is the totality or reality or infinity or wholeness of every concealed thought (the subconscious) and every revealed thought (the conscious).

Not every unknown thought that is part of totality is concealed in the subconscious, since knowledge has been known to double, and double again. Agree?

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot, for the sake of simplification with regards to my statement and your comment on my statement: every thinking soul or mind is the totality or reality or infinity or wholeness of every concealed thought (the subconscious) and every revealed thought (the conscious).

Not every unknown thought that is part of totality is concealed in the subconscious, since knowledge has been known to double, and double again. Agree?

It is not possible to quantify thought. When this is happening, the concept of self that incorrectly reasons the nature of finite things is active.

[Cahoot]

Cahoot, for the sake of simplification with regards to my statement and your comment on my statement: every thinking soul or mind is the totality or reality or infinity or wholeness of every concealed thought (the subconscious) and every revealed thought (the conscious).

Not every unknown thought that is part of totality is concealed in the subconscious, since knowledge has been known to double, and double again. Agree?

It is not possible to quantify thought. When this is happening, the concept of self that incorrectly reasons the nature of finite things is active.

Contradiction:
Knowledge doubles and then doubles again.
When knowledge doubles, there is more knowledge than before.
More knowledge means more to think about, which means more thoughts.
“It is not possible to quantify thought.” contradicts "doubling."

What conditions resolve the contradiction?

Reasoning: Two conditions resolve the contradiction.

1. Doubling knowledge means more knowledge, which means more to think about, which means more thoughts.
From this we can infer that infinite knowledge means infinite thoughts, which makes thoughts unquantifiable.

2. Access to infinite knowledge must also be part of the rationality that resolves the contradiction. Increased access would appear to be a doubling, or a tripling. Depends on the affected capacity of the vessel scooping up from the infinite ocean of knowledge.

Agree?

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot, for the sake of simplification with regards to my statement and your comment on my statement: every thinking soul or mind is the totality or reality or infinity or wholeness of every concealed thought (the subconscious) and every revealed thought (the conscious).

Not every unknown thought that is part of totality is concealed in the subconscious, since knowledge has been known to double, and double again. Agree?

It is not possible to quantify thought. When this is happening, the concept of self that incorrectly reasons the nature of finite things is active.

Contradiction:
Knowledge doubles and then doubles again.
When knowledge doubles, there is more knowledge than before.
More knowledge means more to think about, which means more thoughts.
“It is not possible to quantify thought.” contradicts "doubling."

What conditions resolve the contradiction?

Reasoning: Two conditions resolve the contradiction.

1. Doubling knowledge means more knowledge, which means more to think about, which means more thoughts.
From this we can infer that infinite knowledge means infinite thoughts, which makes thoughts unquantifiable.

2. Access to infinite knowledge must also be part of the rationality that resolves the contradiction. Increased access would appear to be a doubling, or a tripling. Depends on the affected capacity of the vessel scooping up from the infinite ocean of knowledge.

Agree?

Before I answer your post, do you understand the difference between empirical reasoning and intuitive reasoning?

[Cahoot]

I understand that I’ve provided reasoning to support what I’ve written, and that so far the only reasoning you’ve contributed is your first sentence, and within that first sentence the connection between the premise and the conclusion is dubious. Feel free to flesh it out, and we’ll see if there’s any reasoning beyond assertion, and if that reasoning amounts to more than semantical hair-splitting over the words “reality” and “existence”.

[Pam Seeback]

I gave you my reasoning regarding the attempt by you to count or measure thought/knowledge of the infinite:

It is not possible to quantify thought. When this is happening, the concept of self that incorrectly reasons the nature of finite things is active.

If you require more:

Any attempt by you to see a doubling or a tripling of the knowledge of the infinite is to incorrectly apply the finite to the infinite. It is no wonder contradiction is being experienced. The only thing that opens one to the formless infinite is to intuitively reason (in contrast to empirical reasoning) concepts that allows one to do so such as "emptiness." Intuitive reasoning is a knowing rather than the activity you describe of a "vessel scooping up from the infinite ocean of knowledge."If one is scooping from the infinite, they do not intuitively grasp the infinite nature of their very own being.

In relation to your topic subject, when one reasons via the conscious sense intellect that desires to qualify and quantify, they are perceiving things, whereas when one intuitively reasons formless concepts such as "emptiness" there is no perceiving of things.

[Cahoot]

I gave you my reasoning regarding the attempt by you to count or measure thought/knowledge of the infinite:

It is not possible to quantify thought. When this is happening, the concept of self that incorrectly reasons the nature of finite things is active.

If you require more:

Any attempt by you to see a doubling or a tripling of the knowledge of the infinite is to incorrectly apply the finite to the infinite. It is no wonder contradiction is being experienced. The only thing that opens one to the formless infinite is to intuitively reason (in contrast to empirical reasoning) concepts that allows one to do so such as "emptiness." Intuitive reasoning is a knowing rather than the activity you describe of a "vessel scooping up from the infinite ocean of knowledge."If one is scooping from the infinite, they do not intuitively grasp the infinite nature of their very own being.

In relation to your topic subject, when one reasons via the conscious sense intellect that desires to qualify and quantify, they are perceiving things, whereas when one intuitively reasons formless concepts such as "emptiness" there is no perceiving of things.

Thank you for addressing the topic rather than changing the topic to all about you, which has been known to happen in these environs, but not by you.

If it does require more, the requirement of more would be to fulfill the need that would make the less in line with reason. Same goes for the concept of contradiction. A contradiction is defined only by thought and the strictures of reason. If a contradiction created by faulty premises exists, then the contradiction only exists as thought. A contradiction is a thought experience, not a physical experience, and for that very reason, can we say it is real?

Can a person actually experience a contradiction? Of course not. A person can only experience reality … however, what the mind tells you about that experience can be influenced by ignorance that creates delusion, which is an untrue apprehension of reality, even though the delusion is being apprehended within the context of reality. The mind is intimately linked to the body. The contradiction experienced by mind can have physical effects subsequent to the contradiction, for instance, one might end up with a frownie face etched in muscle. :(

So, is reason the definitive means by which reality is apprehended? Other than reason, how is the fella in the video to distinguish the reality of his experience from say, a delusion? Does the reasoning go, because a delusion exists within reality, then it is real? Then by this reasoning, we can say that a man who sees pink elephants dancing about the room is seeing reality because his seeing occurs within the context of reality. But of course he is not seeing reality. He is seeing an illusion that exists only in mind. Which is what a contradiction is.

I’d wager that a caveman did not think a thought about his car’s right rear axle seal that had just recently outlived the warranty and was leaking some distillation of black crude, because he didn’t have a car, and all the thoughts associated with car are in addition to the thoughts that were available for a caveman to think. Thus, we can quantify that there are now more thoughts than there were then, unless thoughts that the caveman thought are no longer thought and can be subtracted from the quantification, in which case the total number of thoughts might balance out. But I doubt it, because there’s a lot more going on now than nuts and berries and mastadons ... lot’s more to think about, more thoughts … quantification going on.

Moving: “It is not possible to quantify thought.”
This is a premise.

Is it a faulty premise? No evidence in support for this premise has been offered. The sentences that follow the premise are merely reasoning based on the premise that is possibly faulty. The sentence stands as an unsupported assertion and is not supported by what follows. It is not defined as an unsupported assertion based on an experience of unsupported assertion, but rather, it is defined when measured against reason. For reason indicates that knowledge has increased, thus thoughts have increased, and it’s likely the very same reasoning used by a caveman, though the details of the reasoning may differ.

Moving: “… a doubling or a tripling of the knowledge of the infinite …”
There may indeed be an infinite number of thoughts about the infinite. ;) If so, they would likely be in the nature of chess. I’ve read that there are more unique games of chess than there are atoms in the known universe. Is that because two kings can chase each other around forever? I don’t know that much about chess to say, though I suppose I could find out. (On second thought, it could mean that the known universe of chess players is more limited than previously thought.)

[Russell Parr]

Thoughts, delusions, and the physical realm are all part of the same reality. All experiences of reality are valid in the sense that they are indeed experiences. You cannot experience a non-reality, reality is all there is.

Reason is the property of thought that is accurate and consistent with reality. Delusion is the property of inconsistent thought. Even if one were experiencing dancing pink elephants, if one reasons that he is merely perceiving an appearance of things that have no inherent existence, that are temporal and always changing, and that are not the whole of reality, then one is experiencing reality with sound reason. Whether or not one is experiencing a hallucination or VR technology has no bearing on this.

Thoughts and physical reality have no separation in the end. Thoughts occur within the same reality the same way that molecules interact with each other in a world that has seemingly little consequence on everyday human experience. The only change is in scale. For thoughts and molecular interactions to have an obvious impact to what we call physical experience, just follow the chain reaction that takes place. If nothing else, neural pathways are being groomed which help form habits.

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot: If it does require more, the requirement of more would be to fulfill the need that would make the less in line with reason.

Since there is no other agent of understanding but reason, what could possibly fulfill the requirement of more? If one doesn't know why they are doing what they're doing (reasoning), then what they're doing is blind following (ignorance) and what has that to do with truth?

Same goes for the concept of contradiction. A contradiction is defined only by thought and the strictures of reason. If a contradiction created by faulty premises exists, then the contradiction only exists as thought. A contradiction is a thought experience, not a physical experience, and for that very reason, can we say it is real?

I am with Russell on this one. Experience is experience. When I stub my toe: experience of toe stubbing. When I think of my toe being stubbed: experience of thinking of my toe being stubbed. When I experience the thought "contradiction", I am experiencing the thought "contradiction."

Can a person actually experience a contradiction? Of course not. A person can only experience reality … however, what the mind tells you about that experience can be influenced by ignorance that creates delusion, which is an untrue apprehension of reality, even though the delusion is being apprehended within the context of reality. The mind is intimately linked to the body. The contradiction experienced by mind can have physical effects subsequent to the contradiction, for instance, one might end up with a frownie face etched in muscle. :(

See answer directly above.

So, is reason the definitive means by which reality is apprehended?

No, one can apprehend reality however one is conditioned or however one wishes. However, only reasoning causes apprehension of the nature of reality.

Other than reason, how is the fella in the video to distinguish the reality of his experience from say, a delusion? Does the reasoning go, because a delusion exists within reality, then it is real? Then by this reasoning, we can say that a man who sees pink elephants dancing about the room is seeing reality because his seeing occurs within the context of reality. But of course he is not seeing reality. He is seeing an illusion that exists only in mind. Which is what a contradiction is.

No, a contradiction would exist only if the person actually believed that his digital visions of dancing pink elephants were the only kind of elephants and someone brought into the room a grey elephant of physical mass that couldn't dance. At this point, the fella in the video would need to reason his experience of two different kinds of elephants until he resolved, for himself, the contradiction of the two kinds of elephants. In contrast, the fella that knows of both kinds of elephants, the physical ones and the imaginary ones is not deluded or experiencing contradiction when he is experiencing the video game of dancing pink elephants.

I’d wager that a caveman did not think a thought about his car’s right rear axle seal that had just recently outlived the warranty and was leaking some distillation of black crude, because he didn’t have a car, and all the thoughts associated with car are in addition to the thoughts that were available for a caveman to think. Thus, we can quantify that there are now more thoughts than there were then, unless thoughts that the caveman thought are no longer thought and can be subtracted from the quantification, in which case the total number of thoughts might balance out. But I doubt it, because there’s a lot more going on now than nuts and berries and mastadons ... lot’s more to think about, more thoughts … quantification going on.

It is sound reasoning to conclude that a caveman had many fewer thoughts than modern man, however how this reasoning help one to apprehend the nature of reality?

Moving: “It is not possible to quantify thought."

This is a premise.

Is it a faulty premise? No evidence in support for this premise has been offered. The sentences that follow the premise are merely reasoning based on the premise that is possibly faulty. The sentence stands as an unsupported assertion and is not supported by what follows. It is not defined as an unsupported assertion based on an experience of unsupported assertion, but rather, it is defined when measured against reason. For reason indicates that knowledge has increased, thus thoughts have increased, and it’s likely the very same reasoning used by a caveman, though the details of the reasoning may differ.

I agree that one can count thoughts on a page and that one can reason that cavemen had fewer thoughts than modern man. My reasoning is and still is that by definition, the infinite is uncountable.

Moving: “… a doubling or a tripling of the knowledge of the infinite …”

There may indeed be an infinite number of thoughts about the infinite. ;) If so, they would likely be in the nature of chess. I’ve read that there are more unique games of chess than there are atoms in the known universe. Is that because two kings can chase each other around forever? I don’t know that much about chess to say, though I suppose I could find out. (On second thought, it could mean that the known universe of chess players is more limited than previously thought.)

If thinking about the infinite in finite ways is what you want to do, go for it.

[Cahoot]

Geeze Louise. This line-item commentary takes some time.

: If it does require more, the requirement of more would be to fulfill the need that would make the less in line with reason.

response

Since there is no other agent of understanding but reason, what could possibly fulfill the requirement of more? If one doesn't know why they are doing what they're doing (reasoning), then what they're doing is blind following (ignorance) and what has that to do with truth?

response

Well, I was repeating your phrase, which was,“If you require more …” As you can see, I altered your phrase slightly, changing “you” to “it,” an alteration which I think is more relevant to principles, thus of benefit over and above chit-chat.

: Same goes for the concept of contradiction. A contradiction is defined only by thought and the strictures of reason. If a contradiction created by faulty premises exists, then the contradiction only exists as thought. A contradiction is a thought experience, not a physical experience, and for that very reason, can we say it is real?

response

I am with Russell on this one. Experience is experience. When I stub my toe: experience of toe stubbing. When I think of my toe being stubbed: experience of thinking of my toe being stubbed. When I experience the thought "contradiction", I am experiencing the thought "contradiction."

response

Sure, there's thinking about stubbing your toe, and there's stubbing your toe. There's thinking about contradiction, and there's writing words that create the contradiction of fact. To say that thoughts are unquantifiable is to create a contradiction with the fact that more knowledge means more thoughts means thoughts are quantifiable.

: Can a person actually experience a contradiction? Of course not. A person can only experience reality … however, what the mind tells you about that experience can be influenced by ignorance that creates delusion, which is an untrue apprehension of reality, even though the delusion is being apprehended within the context of reality. The mind is intimately linked to the body. The contradiction experienced by mind can have physical effects subsequent to the contradiction, for instance, one might end up with a frownie face etched in muscle. :(

See answer directly above.

Response.
I’m a seein it. Looks the same.

: So, is reason the definitive means by which reality is apprehended?

response

No, one can apprehend reality however one is conditioned or however one wishes. However, only reasoning causes apprehension of the nature of reality.

response

A person can only experience reality, even if they are conditioned or wishing. Certainly people can apprehend what they are experiencing, which is reality. The ability to apprehend reality is how people drive cars without crashing, and how they fix a leaky differential.

: Other than reason, how is the fella in the video to distinguish the reality of his experience from say, a delusion? Does the reasoning go, because a delusion exists within reality, then it is real? Then by this reasoning, we can say that a man who sees pink elephants dancing about the room is seeing reality because his seeing occurs within the context of reality. But of course he is not seeing reality. He is seeing an illusion that exists only in mind. Which is what a contradiction is.

response

No, a contradiction would exist only if the person actually believed that his digital visions of dancing pink elephants were the only kind of elephants and someone brought into the room a grey elephant of physical mass that couldn't dance. At this point, the fella in the video would need to reason his experience of two different kinds of elephants until he resolved, for himself, the contradiction of the two kinds of elephants. In contrast, the fella that knows of both kinds of elephants, the physical ones and the imaginary ones is not deluded or experiencing contradiction when he is experiencing the video game of dancing pink elephants.

response

So you’re saying that reason is the only way to distinguish reality from delusion.

: I’d wager that a caveman did not think a thought about his car’s right rear axle seal that had just recently outlived the warranty and was leaking some distillation of black crude, because he didn’t have a car, and all the thoughts associated with car are in addition to the thoughts that were available for a caveman to think. Thus, we can quantify that there are now more thoughts than there were then, unless thoughts that the caveman thought are no longer thought and can be subtracted from the quantification, in which case the total number of thoughts might balance out. But I doubt it, because there’s a lot more going on now than nuts and berries and mastadons ... lot’s more to think about, more thoughts … quantification going on.

response

It is sound reasoning to conclude that a caveman had many fewer thoughts than modern man, however how this reasoning help one to apprehend the nature of reality?

response

Indeed. The "thick-as-a-brick" insight.

Moving: “It is not possible to quantify thought."

This is a premise.

Is it a faulty premise? No evidence in support for this premise has been offered. The sentences that follow the premise are merely reasoning based on the premise that is possibly faulty. The sentence stands as an unsupported assertion and is not supported by what follows. It is not defined as an unsupported assertion based on an experience of unsupported assertion, but rather, it is defined when measured against reason. For reason indicates that knowledge has increased, thus thoughts have increased, and it’s likely the very same reasoning used by a caveman, though the details of the reasoning may differ.

response

I agree that one can count thoughts on a page and that one can reason that cavemen had fewer thoughts than modern man. My reasoning is and still is that by definition, the infinite is uncountable.

response

The Infinite is actually just a thought. And there are thoughts associated with the infinite.

Moving: “… a doubling or a tripling of the knowledge of the infinite …”

There may indeed be an infinite number of thoughts about the infinite. ;) If so, they would likely be in the nature of chess. I’ve read that there are more unique games of chess than there are atoms in the known universe. Is that because two kings can chase each other around forever? I don’t know that much about chess to say, though I suppose I could find out. (On second thought, it could mean that the known universe of chess players is more limited than previously thought.)

response

If thinking about the infinite in finite ways is what you want to do, go for it.

response

What other ways are there to think about the infinite, other than in finite ways? Answer, none. The moment you think about anything, no matter how lofty the thought, you are in the realm of finite duality.

It was rather curious that you would write such as thing as “a doubling or a tripling of the knowledge of the infinite.” I suppose you had your reasons.

[Cahoot]

Thoughts, delusions, and the physical realm are all part of the same reality. All experiences of reality are valid in the sense that they are indeed experiences. You cannot experience a non-reality, reality is all there is.

Reason is the property of thought that is accurate and consistent with reality. Delusion is the property of inconsistent thought. Even if one were experiencing dancing pink elephants, if one reasons that he is merely perceiving an appearance of things that have no inherent existence, that are temporal and always changing, and that are not the whole of reality, then one is experiencing reality with sound reason. Whether or not one is experiencing a hallucination or VR technology has no bearing on this.

Thoughts and physical reality have no separation in the end. Thoughts occur within the same reality the same way that molecules interact with each other in a world that has seemingly little consequence on everyday human experience. The only change is in scale. For thoughts and molecular interactions to have an obvious impact to what we call physical experience, just follow the chain reaction that takes place. If nothing else, neural pathways are being groomed which help form habits.

R: Thoughts, delusions, and the physical realm are all part of the same reality. All experiences of reality are valid in the sense that they are indeed experiences. You cannot experience a non-reality, reality is all there is.
C: Reality is all there is and you can experience the reality of delusion, which is an inconsistency with facts, which is an invalid cognition.

R: Reason is the property of thought that is accurate and consistent with reality. Delusion is the property of inconsistent thought. Even if one were experiencing dancing pink elephants, if one reasons that he is merely perceiving an appearance of things that have no inherent existence, that are temporal and always changing, and that are not the whole of reality, then one is experiencing reality with sound reason. Whether or not one is experiencing a hallucination or VR technology has no bearing on this.
C: … if one sees dancing pink elephants under those criteria then one is experiencing delusion with sound reason, and delusion exists within the context of reality.

R: Thoughts and physical reality have no separation in the end. Thoughts occur within the same reality the same way that molecules interact with each other in a world that has seemingly little consequence on everyday human experience. The only change is in scale. For thoughts and molecular interactions to have an obvious impact to what we call physical experience, just follow the chain reaction that takes place. If nothing else, neural pathways are being groomed which help form habits.
C: I think there is a separation between thoughts and “physical reality” in the sense that thoughts need not be consistent with facts, whereas physical reality can only be consistent with facts. In the end thoughts and physical reality have no separation because their commonality is energy.

[Cahoot]

It is not possible to quantify thought.

I agree that one can count thoughts on a page and that one can reason that cavemen had fewer thoughts than modern man. My reasoning is and still is that by definition, the infinite is uncountable.

I don’t see how reasoning that the infinite is uncountable pertains to whether or not thoughts can be quantified. However, the caveman example does pertain to the quantity of thoughts in terms of more, and in terms of less, which is a quantification.

[Russell Parr]

… if one sees dancing pink elephants under those criteria then one is experiencing delusion with sound reason, and delusion exists within the context of reality.

Delusion and reason are incompatible, for obvious reasons. Reason dispels delusion.

I think there is a separation between thoughts and “physical reality” in the sense that thoughts need not be consistent with facts, whereas physical reality can only be consistent with facts. In the end thoughts and physical reality have no separation because their commonality is energy.

Firstly, facts do not inherently exist. Facts are brought about by thought. Further, as far as empirical matters go, such as in observations about physical reality, facts always carry a degree of uncertainty. We can only be 99.99..% sure that the elephant is just a hallucination and not a hologram or even an alien appearing to fool around with us. Absolute facts can only be had in purely logical, abstract thought.

You're placing physical reality on a sort of 'existence pedestal,' whereas ultimately it, like everything else, runs the through the filter of observation in order to exist. As far as ultimate reality is concerned, everyday physical reality is just as real as the dancing pink elephant, where experience and identification occur equally, under A=A.

[Cahoot]

… if one sees dancing pink elephants under those criteria then one is experiencing delusion with sound reason, and delusion exists within the context of reality.

Delusion and reason are incompatible, for obvious reasons. Reason dispels delusion.

I think there is a separation between thoughts and “physical reality” in the sense that thoughts need not be consistent with facts, whereas physical reality can only be consistent with facts. In the end thoughts and physical reality have no separation because their commonality is energy.

Firstly, facts do not inherently exist. Facts are brought about by thought. Further, as far as empirical matters go, such as in observations about physical reality, facts always carry a degree of uncertainty. We can only be 99.99..% sure that the elephant is just a hallucination and not a hologram or even an alien appearing to fool around with us. Absolute facts can only be had in purely logical, abstract thought.

You're placing physical reality on a sort of 'existence pedestal,' whereas ultimately it, like everything else, runs the through the filter of observation in order to exist. As far as ultimate reality is concerned, everyday physical reality is just as real as the dancing pink elephant, where experience and identification occur equally, under A=A.

Cahoot wrote:… if one sees dancing pink elephants under those criteria then one is experiencing delusion with sound reason, and delusion exists within the context of reality.

Russell responded: Delusion and reason are incompatible, for obvious reasons. Reason dispels delusion.

Cahoot responds: Reason dispels attachment to delusion. Attachment. You can reasonably know that those pink elephants are an illusion and still see them. You reasonably can know that your desire is an illusion and yet still desire.

Cahoot wrote: I think there is a separation between thoughts and “physical reality” in the sense that thoughts need not be consistent with facts, whereas physical reality can only be consistent with facts. In the end thoughts and physical reality have no separation because their commonality is energy.

Russell responded: Firstly, facts do not inherently exist. Facts are brought about by thought. Further, as far as empirical matters go, such as in observations about physical reality, facts always carry a degree of uncertainty. We can only be 99.99..% sure that the elephant is just a hallucination and not a hologram or even an alien appearing to fool around with us. Absolute facts can only be had in purely logical, abstract thought.


You're placing physical reality on a sort of 'existence pedestal,' whereas ultimately it, like everything else, runs the through filter of observation in order to exist. As far as ultimate reality is concerned, everyday physical reality is just as real as the dancing pink elephant, where experience and identification occur equally, under A=A.


Cahoot responds: Facts are recognized by thought, not created by thought. It’s a fact that you walk on the earth, your thought does not create that fact, though it does recognize the fact that you walk on the earth, and that there is an earth.

Physical reality runs through the filter of observation in order to exist as you observe it. Another creature other than a human, with other than human sensory apparatus, will run physical reality through another filter of observation, so that reality exists as that creature observes it.

We can infer that stars exist because of observation and inference, but they don’t inherently exist as the characteristics that a human being has the capacity to observe, because the presence of a human is required in order to observe those characteristics that a human being can observe.

Bingo on the uncertainty. Everything that you know is an inference, except knowing that you are. Inferences are subject to probablity.

Don’t get lost in the weeds … dancing pink elephants are not real. If a denizen of the drunk tank feels the delusion of bugs crawling under his skin and in a moment of drunken thought clarity recognizes that the bugs are a delusion that he is never-the-less experiencing, he is much less likely to attach to that delusion by trying to exorcise the little demons out from under his flesh with his fingernails.

[Russell Parr]

I'm not a big fan of breaking responses down line by line either, but I thought it might be helpful in this case. Feel free to respond to only what you decide.

Reason dispels attachment to delusion. Attachment. You can reasonably know that those pink elephants are an illusion and still see them.

Attachment is delusional. Seeing illusory pink elephants isn't itself delusional, it's what is inferred about the observation where the delusion might lay.

You reasonably can know that your desire is an illusion and yet still desire.

This would be reasoning that one has a delusional habit (desire). Habits are hard to break. Developing the habit of reasoning can overcome habits of delusion, given that one's reasoning includes accurate knowledge of the nature of reality.

Facts are recognized by thought, not created by thought.

Facts are first established by an observer, and consistency with evidence is what makes it a fact. They are conjured up by observers, and recognized by other observers. No observer - no fact; just pure undefined, undelineated, unmeasured, undistinguished Reality.

It’s a fact that you walk on the earth, your thought does not create that fact, though it does recognize the fact that you walk on the earth, and that there is an earth.

These are indeed facts, but are of the empirical sort, not absolute.

Physical reality runs through the filter of observation in order to exist as you observe it. Another creature other than a human, with other than human sensory apparatus, will run physical reality through another filter of observation, so that reality exists as that creature observes it.

It remains that physical reality is only one category of reality, and categories cannot exist without demarcation, i.e. consciousness. This is a very important point that I think you are missing out on.

Bingo on the uncertainty. Everything that you know is an inference, except knowing that you are. Inferences are subject to probablity.

Yet even in this very quote, you recognize that at least one inference is not subject to probability. Do you think there are other inferences of this nature?

Don’t get lost in the weeds … dancing pink elephants are not real. If a denizen of the drunk tank feels the delusion of bugs crawling under his skin and in a moment of drunken thought clarity recognizes that the bugs are a delusion that he is never-the-less experiencing, he is much less likely to attach to that delusion by trying to exorcise the little demons out from under his flesh with his fingernails.

I hate to sound redundant, but these experiences are real in the sense that they are experienced. When you introduce more categories into the matter, e.g. 'in relation to physical reality', then you change the definition of what makes something real. This is a step of redefining that occurs subsequently; the first step is identification (A=A), which is absolute. Since we are probing into the Absolute, further inferences must be of the abstract, definition-based kind only, since empirical evidence is always only probable.

(edit: I changed the last sentence to say "of the abstract, definition-based kind only" instead of "of logical nature only" since empirical inferences are also logical)

[ardy]

The Cahoot argument is interesting as it points to what is reality?

The old story of someone seeing a snake directly in front of them and only after the shock subsides perceiving it to be a length of rope shows that reality is not what we think. Lets take the analogy one step further and you are walking along a cliff edge and 'see' a snake in the path and in jumping back lose your balance and fall to your death.

Where is reality in all of this perception and logical assumption? Only in the plunge to your death?

[ardy]

These are indeed facts, but are of the empirical sort, not absolute.

Russell can you tell me what is the difference between empirical fact and absolute facts?

[Russell Parr]

These are indeed facts, but are of the empirical sort, not absolute.

Russell can you tell me what is the difference between empirical fact and absolute facts?

I try to this very thing in most of my posts, actually.

Empirical facts are the culmination of what appears to be true based on repetitive experiences. They are deemed 'facts' by way of their consistency. They are not absolute because, as in your snake/rope analogy, appearances can be deceiving. One might glance at the rope 3 or 4 times and still perceive a snake, or in the case of science, observe a sequence of events thousands of times in order to conclude what is most likely to be true in a particular instance. How long was the earth flat?

Absolute facts are based on pure logic, and can never be falsified. Using the above example, it is absolutely true that what appears to be a snake has entered into one's awareness. Further absolute inferences include that the appearance was caused, that something other than the observer must exist, that change/motion is occurring, etc..

Scientific empiricism probes into the details of the appearance which are always open to change. What appeared to be a rope could turn out to be a stick, and upon further observation, a plastic toy stick, or further still, a hologram, or further, just a figment of a dream, and so on. Science takes snapshots of ever-changing appearances and deems particular details as 'true' for the sake of practicality for the moment or period.

The art of spiritual wisdom is to decipher and dwell on what is known to be of 100% certainty about Reality, and disregard the rest as superfluous. God is to be found in purely logical truths, for God is the Absolute. Spirituality and purely logical wisdom go hand in hand.

This isn't to say that empiricism is rendered completely useless to the wise, as that would clearly be detrimental. It remains useful in moment to moment situations for practical purposes, but is never mistaken for what is ultimately true.

Also, the enlightened don't necessarily have a grip on every absolute truth under the sun. They are predominantly characterized by their lack of delusions about reality.