Reciprocality

There is a problem here though, I have not even got to my beliefs yet. We are simply on uneven footing. In you however, there seems to be too much belief, though that may just be a product of language more than you yourself.

Nothing is an impossibility, which is why nothing is required to create something. Something must always be. "What I'm saying is this.. For there to be perception, there must first be the perceptible." This is what the intuition of the thing in itself is expressed like. And we do not know if the perceptible is consciousness. The alternative is that you just speak of substance of mind, and not a thing in itself. Which would then make the distinction between for example doable and doing meaningless, as doing would simply be a particular instantiation of the doable. "Here's what I am certain of though, which is no induction: Yes, there is nothing outside of energy, for in order for a thing to be a thing, this requires an enablement of some sort simply because no thing can arise from nothing. Everything requires energy, yes?" Sure, everything can be expressed as energy (how would time have meaning without it), energy would also have no meaning without our sensibility of time. There is no mystery here. "Now, why am I saying that there is nothing outside of consciousness, not even the structure of reality? It is because consciousness is what enables the illusion that is finitude, consciousness is that great magician that works with pulling something out of nothing. Structure comes from instruction, picture comes from imagination, texture comes from context, and so forth. Absolutely no thing stands on its own, there is no priori other than knowledge itself." This assumes that the thing in itself does not exist in any way, we do not know this though we do not know the opposite either. To say that we can be possible without something in itself outside us goes contrary to all evidence, which non the less constitute nothing but belief and never proof. I have stated that it is absolutely mystical to consider something independent of consciousness, this does not mean it does not exist. We have only consciousness to go with when we both define and speak about existence, which inherently renders the thing in itself mystical. Yet all our intuitions and reason says it is there even though we can not know what it is like. "Absolutely no thing stands on its own, there is no priori other than knowledge itself." You have some peculiar self reference problems in your language, you could just as much state that "knowledge is knowledge, taadaa!"

@A Fellow Lighter " I just look at the world and learn from its patterns, this is the source of knowledge tuition that epistemology concerns itself about. Is it not?" If that is your epistemology then yes then you are correct, this is however extremely vague, as in the association I spoke of earlier. Knowledge is either a priori or a posteriori, it is either the faculty for understanding itself or the experience which is rendered under it. On top of this, it is pure consciousness itself, as that within which all else (known) occurs. At which point epistemology and metaphysics loses their distinction.

@A Fellow Lighter Well it is because we grow lazy towards our every day life, we simply take things we believe in for granted and create dogmatic schemes due to it. Everything you see right now is truth, everything you experience is absolutely true there and then. I am not skeptical about this and have never been. Empiricism stands on its own feets, though it is a shallow philosophy. Wherever there is an experience there is also a common denominator between it and other experiences, the absolute common denominator is consciousness BUT it explains very little to merely affirm such a thing (and it will not help you much in itself to conduct good science), and since everyone can in some sense agree that there would be nothing without their consciousness one needs to actually use the other sets of common denominators to have a well thought out philosophy concerning metaphysics and epistemology, such that perhaps consciousness can get an ACCURATE depiction or exposition within that system at last. That you contended with imagination being consciousness shows me how important that is. That scientists still to this day think they are speaking about the thing in itself shows me how important that is. That scientists in general therefore are unclear about the difference between speculation and truth makes these babysteps we conduct in our own bedroom concerning the validity of a belief of our own bed when we do not look at it, crucial. That the identities in our schema such as the bed can seem equally a priori as the space we intuits this identity in, this is the primary concern of the Post itself. How this comes about, how we are capable of rendering new experience into identities, and that it happens automatically is the primary reason for the potential of all dogmatism. I am very skeptical about ideas, most of these ideas concerns what you call the world, it is precisely because I am not skeptical about the world that I can use it as a foundation and a metric to compare ideas against. (If anything is not as true as the experience I have of the world right now, then it is a belief) All the things I say are just ideas and entirely meaningless on their own, they must be called to life in a sensible intelligence to be something more. Language will always just be ideas, we are supposed to take ownership and responsibility for actually seeing what the ideas represent.

A priori, synthesis, analysis, phenomena, cohesion, a posteriori, induction, necessity, knowledge, sensibility. It would help much if you also understood the mere foundations of Skepticism, Dualism, Idealism, Rationalism and Physicalism. (But I conduct the experiment in such a way as to hopefully not make that a necessity) If the ideas could be conveyed without the usage of these terms then I would be happy to do so, though my sentences would surely then include a definition of the terms instead, which I from a lot of experience determine as hurtful and not helpful to possible agreement. That becomes incredible long-winded, and given that I am dyslexic it really drains my energy to explicate everything to its most acute detail. I am despite all this a big picture kind of guy, but many guilty of that proclivity loses naturally along side it the ability to do more than merely associate terms with each other in relation to this 'picture'. At least I were, and now I see pure association pretty much in anyone to various degrees.

Yes this is a good science, a strong belief concerning our environment, though it is not knowledge that space consists of electromagnetic energy. That is as stated, a belief. The more familiar you are with its content, and the better scientist you are the more justified you are in believing in it. It is primarily an inductive method by which the scientists conclude with space being of this particular quality. My discourse here stands on its own feets independent of any science I have ever heard of. Edit: To claim knowledge of space as consisting of a particular energy is a dogmatic rationalism, though I would be more inclined to accept a claim regarding a knowledge of space as energetic. For the sensibility of space were hardly possible if energy were not happening everywhere in some sense.

@A Fellow Lighter "My friend", energy is also a term that speaks from an intuition that applies to everything. As such nothing is outside energy, though what distinguishes the sensibility of space with energy is how we synthetically determine that everything is energy while we determines it analytically that all objects appears in space. Everything that we imagine is also our consciousness, I made this strikingly clear for you. Everything is not therefore imagined, consciousness so far as it is also for example the sensibility of space is not. That is self evident, for otherwise you did not even have the luxury of thinking that it were imagined. We have in general a pretty accurate idea of external and internal, though this boundary is more of a map for the benefit of survival than philosophically sophisticated, to see where these boundaries collapses would be beneficial for comprehending what I say and also the questions that are my actual interest here. Lets consider the bed behind me, this constitute a part of my environment, had I not been sensible to space then I would neither have a means to create an identity of it nor experience the sensation of seeing it in the first place. I call it an environment that which constitutes identities that are either experienced in appearance or without an appearance. I only know about this environment right now those two general things (if I understand what you ask), though I do not know that the identity of my bed has an "equal" bed in the phenomenal environment itself if I turn my head, but have from induction a good reason to believe it will be there when I turn around. I can necessarily know about "anything" the way you phrase it. The ground were established when we agreed on the sensibility all environments must be made of. If there is any question regarding the possibility of knowledge, than that is already a good reason to be confused.

"The reason it does not matter whether we experienced it trough the senses first or whether we made it applicable to the senses after having created it is because either duration is made possible trough a unified limit. If we first think of our particular dragon and then paint it on a canvas there is nothing more here imagined than there would be if we just witnessed another persons painting of their dragon while surely here would constitute two different expressions of creativity." There is no word for it that I know of, but this unified limit is imagination as it pertains to a possible experience, either duration is analogous to the other not in the way we went about creating them, but in that as a possible or actual experience they are both made by a faculty for imagination, or simply imagined. Consciousness is imposed or limited by the things that are imagined in it. Yet in itself it is unlimited. Every possible limit is also a potential towards the future. The future is never that which were anticipated before it became, because all identities by which we anticipate experience relates synthetically and not analytically with progression of time. This again can be explained by how no two things are either completely the same or completely different. Which again is the purest way of considering holism.

"The picture of the thing (X) is imagined" No, imagination is made possible due to it. Sensible space, without it imagination had no power. Though if you mean by the picture as in my reference to this sensibility then yes. Consciousness is not just what we imagine with but also the imagined. Consciousness is thereby both our experience of objects that we imagine and their predicate as sensible space. Sensible space is not imagined, if it were then you would again argue for induction all the way down.

@A Fellow Lighter There is a very precise structure in which things occur in consciousness (i have spoken extensively about it already), the metacognition of which is not necessary for things to occur in consciousness. On top of this structure there are theories to be had and contingencies on our particular personality. (schema) While it is true that everything of us is consciousness and that concerning the substance of anything outside consciousness we are just speculating, it is necessary for our sanity and all possible science to have a speculative relation to this empty intuition of the thing in itself which on the surface looks like the objects we refer to in the sensibility of time, space and causality. If one were to take on the academic culture we are in reaction towards, primarily naive and dogmatic rationalism and skepticism we would be entirely out of our element if "non-duality", "everything is imagination" and "your are god" were our weapon, but rather how we each and any of us both create reality in terms of our limitations (a priori sensibility) and what due to it can be regarded as knowledge or just beliefs. And of course how even our beliefs are knowledge of some kind, as the predicate for the sharpest critique of why they have a hard time distinguishing between them in the first place. I understand you have your own way of seeing things, of expressing things, we all do. It is unclear how it relates to my aim and my questions. If you desired to answer them and not your first interpretation or second interpretation of them there would be no other way than to continue asking questions concerning them. Consciousness requires no definition, there is no hocus pocus to it, to even consider that it requires so is already an inherent problem. Though its reference can be exposed and placed in a given context of thinking, consciousness in this regard would be everything except the things we can only speculate about, the speculation of which would be its negation. It is not consciousness that is mystical but the eternal and absurd idea that some"thing" can be independent of it. For those that naively believe they can think about an independent existence outside their consciousness and know about how it operates it is consciousness that becomes mystical in relation to it (the hard problem etc)

I don't even understand what the problem is, there is information and then we class it in various groups due to distinct characteristics. So eh yes, there are alpha males and beta males and a million other classes if you discover the characteristics. This is self evident. The question is not "if it is real" but what it means that it is real. The better scientist you are the more meaningful it becomes that alpha males and beta males exists. Can you find the gene? Can you align this map with another? If you can then its potential as a meaningful science grows exponentially.

@somegirl IF we allow ourself to distinguish between instrumental and intrinsic value then I would be sure to agree with you that people in general are worth as much as each other regardless of which country they live in, as constituting intrinsic value. Yet a declaration of war on a people of a certain system stands in instrumental relation to our own countries. Every country has an instrumental effect on all others, but there we must then distinguish between degrees, and Ukraine is in the middle of Europe. This makes things complicated.

It is both an imposition/retardation and a potentiation/acceleration of the mind. It makes you both sane and insane at the same precise time. (unit/measurement relation, object/identity relation) It makes meaning a possibility without creative effort. edit: It is an easy way out, solution to your problem.

@hello1234 Good.

@hello1234 First of, it would not do you any harm not to be Ukrainian from the beginning.

@itachi uchiha I must admit though ,that a few of the people you are dealing with here are not equipped to take on this issue.

@itachi uchiha There is no shortage of fault to be distributed over Nato leading up to this conflict, it is inherently an impossible task to both expand indefinitely while maintaining world peace. They are not adequately mature for their job, as Putin is not adequately mature to deal with it. It is because we have higher expectations of NATO that we are justified in judging it harshly according to a given standard. Nothing of this (including the precursory threat by Putin) takes anything away from his responsibility, unless you think of him as a zombie.

@itachi uchiha While it is correct that this forum is not much short of an echo chamber, Putin is bombing and murdering masses of children by intent. Pick your poison I guess.

Consciousness would be absolutely everything that happens except for the thing (object, universe) in itself, yet also this is in consciousness so far as we think of it or refer to it. (though we really cant think of it or refer to it at all, just like you can not really believe in god only a certain idea you have of a certain thing) So it is not a thought like other thoughts, if anything is mystical it would be this "thought", or the experience of even considering such a thing that could be independent of us. Our rationalism understands how we are contingent on the thing in itself by means of the a priori causation we attribute the a posteriori spatial part of us which is intuited as the conscious "result" of this independent thing in itself. Which is also why some of us think we are matter itself. Most rationalists are dogmatists, those of us who leave the thing in itself alone, and do not claim knowledge over it but accept that regarding 'it' we can only speculate however, we are in this regard not dogmatic at all. It should make anyone mind-blown to even consider if this thing in itself can be something different than conscious, I know not whether it is or not. Panpsychists would say that it is, they are simply unfamiliar with their own limitations.

@A Fellow Lighter Well great! I appreciate you bearing with me thus far! Yes I would agree that consciousness had hardly any meaning if sensibility weren't 'in it'. I would only speak of my impressions of the forum in general, not the whole thing. So now, consider an object that you could not consider had you not had this sensibility of space. Any object, this object has a certain identity which makes it both possible to be experienced in space with your eyes open and which makes you capable of thinking about it without actually seeing it in space. Is this identity a priori the same way space is? OR in another way: is this identity created from the experience you first had of it, or is this identity also there before you experienced it the first time? I would of course say the former, but is it then a priori? And is it not amazingly mind boggling that such an a priori undertaking is at all possible then? If it is a priori just like space, then the experience of chair after first having seen it would depend on its identity even though the identity were made by the experience the first time. I call it imagination when something is dependent on where we go, but not that which is necessarily the same wherever we go. (this will perhaps get clearer down below) The thing is that every component of the identity of the chair is also something sensible a priori, in this way even though the chair is a peculiar and very distinct object it is made entirely our of our inherent (chirs langan would call it "syntax") that we distribute over it. At the same time we have an idea of the chair in itself and independent of us, but what we must consider now is that this idea even though it is loud and clear must remain empty. Kant called it "the thing in itself". We are able to imagine experiences by the way our mind effortlessly combines a priori sensibilities (most of which are mathematical) such to make distinct objects, we are not such things which must necessarily be subject to these objects but we are necessarily such things that are subject to these sensibilities that comprise these possible objects. Does these object exists in themselves? I would actually say yes, just like Kant I would say that there is nothing we can say about them. (expect perhaps that they are different to each other) I expect you to be skeptical, and I will do my best at defending it all, that you understood what I meant with sensibility is that upon which the rest depend, which is a great start.

@A Fellow Lighter I only meant that I have no problem with what you call it, even though I have my ideas of what it would better be called. In this sense you are free not to call space an intuition, we can regard it as sensibility, we can also regard it as something a priori. If we did not have this a priori sensible intuition of space then we could not operate in what we call "physical" space, neither could we think of any object in space, neither could objects be possible in our consciousness. The very nature of what we speak is of such a kind that it actually is not important for us to "equate" lingual background, for as far as you have any idea of space, and indeed can write back on a keyboard or even think of a keyboard we speak of the same thing, the problem is that you will not admit to it being more than imagined. Even though your writing proves the opposite, this is all fine for this mistake is the primary problem of the metaphysics of actualized forum in general. Pretty much nothing would be possible in consciousness except perhaps for consciousness itself without this intuition of space.

@A Fellow Lighter It is rather scary to see so many well capable people being fooled out of the bare minimum which makes communication and all kinds of thoughts possible. Luckily it is primarily language itself that fools us. That I can refer to space at all, that such a thing as me intuiting it is possible is more than concept, yet at the same time me referring to it is conceptual. Yet for me to refer to it such that you make sense of it and can therefore apply its meaning to a space in which objects may be placed requires you to innately know of space. If this were not innate then the only alternative argument were to say that the intuition of space (I care not what you call it) came from induction by experience of the objects you could place in it, but this would be impossible because then they would float freely having no cohesion, every second in which you do not experience non-duality is therefore a proof of space not being induced. I can come back to the rest of your contentions if we at the very least can establish agreement here. Edit: I should add that I do not speak about a physical space as something independent of me.

If there is anything here of interest, then feel free to PM me about it. I am happy to hear from anyone.

I know not what to make of it that most commentators here work towards a belief concerning a singular under-exposed dimension of the state of this forum, instead of elucidating their impressions of it such to synthesize this information into cohesion or meaning. It is no different than putting the horse behind the cart, I guess you can reach your destination that way but oh my how much unwarranted effort.

That we are so peculiar and particular, yet understand existence as such a necessary and symmetrical thing better both in conjunction make it clear how there is more than us. Even though such a thing can never tap into us, and us never into it.