Objective reality is literally impossible, it's actually so simple to prove

[RMQualtrough]

Try to imagine what you think is really objectively out there separated from mind and perception. Anything other than nothing is a perception (even thought is perception: thought+thinker).

To have any thing really there you'd need to take away perceiver from perception which is impossible because they depend upon each other. What is perceived without perceiver? It is nothing, there's no perceiving unless both are present.

No matter what you try to say is really there... say waves of photons. What are photons? Light particles? Which to humams is made of seeing... Light cannot exist independently of perception. So what IS there? Anything but nothing is a perception, which can't exist independently of perceiver.

Literally try your very best right now to say what is objectively out there that doesn't rely on perception.

[RendHeaven]

I see where you're going with this, but be wary of hinging a "proof" on the notion of "perception" as that implies an opposite "imperception" which is a transient construction.

And if you're arguing for a kind of perception with no opposite, then you should admit upfront that you're messing with definitions.

And I hate to be that guy but what you've written would not convince any materialist (a.k.a. 99.9% of humanity) otherwise - layman or academic.

If you insist on riding the vehicle of proof-making as a means to change minds, you must cleverly anticipate and pre-address counterarguments, as Leo does  

I can already hear it, from the layman: "So what if everything relies on perception? There are still objects of perception that we all share! You can't tell me that the whole world disappears when I close my eyes! Look, I can still hear you talking to me even though my eyes are closed! And even if you proceed to cut off my ears, that doesn't mean you disappear entirely. In fact, especially in that scenario where you chop my ears off, now that's hard proof of your objective reality! No amount of wishful thinking will regrow my wounded ear and nobody else could of done it but you! That means you and I have objective reality independently of perceiving faculties!"

The academic would be more shrewd: "You say that all existing things depend on perception, but then proceed to conclude that objective reality is impossible. But where in the two statements is there a necessary connection? What if objective reality is the case (in that there are objects "out there" beyond what appears) but our knowledge is constrained to that of the appearances, dependent on perception? In this alternative, your first statement is admitted, but it is shown that your conclusion has no necessary connection to the first, as there are alternative possibilities not accounted for. I have shown you here the possibility that reality is objective despite all things relying on perception."

And so on and so forth...

Proof is a dangerous game.

If you're like me and you find that it's not your cup of tea, there are other vehicles for conveying the Absolute such as poetry, art, or music - which require no 5D-chessgames

Edited July 14, 2021 by RendHeaven

[RMQualtrough]

@RendHeaven They would be ruder than that as those types are not nice people. But it is actually proveable, because you only have to ask them to describe what those objective things ARE. As soon as they suggest any possible thing, it is a perception.

If all things that perceive red disappear, where is red? Red cannot be what is really out there because it relies on perception. If all creatures were blind there would be no manifested visual world.

Anything that is something relies on perception. So maybe an alien can't see, it can only hear, and navigates the "physical world" by sound. It would be wrong for it to presume that light is NOT a perception just because from ITS finite mind it cannot detect it. But I can. And to my finite mind it is a perception. See we use the perceptions of other things to find things that our finite mind does not itself perceive, and conclude falsely, that the thing is not a perception. See like, we might try to do such a thing with radiowaves or infrared or electricity, and say they are not perceptions because we do not perceive them. But we only know them through sensors which do, and which convert it into something a human mind can see feel touch hear... Like if I were used by the aliens to detect light. Maybe I make a sound whenever I see light, I'm converting perception into one that they can interact with.

You know, assume I am wrong as best as you can, and TRY to describe what is objectively out there beyond perception. Try your absolute best to say what is objectively out there that is independent. Information represents things like numbers do, you need to describe what the "things" objectively are.

Edited July 14, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[RMQualtrough]

41 minutes ago, nuwu said:

@RendHeaven This. You can't prove evidence of absence.

Legitimately please try to describe what thing is objectively out there beyond perceptions. Please give it a go, suggest something out there that exists independent of perception.

[RendHeaven]

55 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

If all creatures were blind there would be no manifested visual world.

No, there is a clear leap in conclusion here. There is nothing here being "proved."

55 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

But we only know them through sensors which do, and which convert it into something a human mind can see feel touch hear... Like if I were used by the aliens to detect light.

Ok so are the sensors real then? You're being vague with what you mean by real vs unreal.

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

I can already hear it, from the layman: "So what if everything relies on perception? There are still objects of perception that we all share! You can't tell me that the whole world disappears when I close my eyes! Look, I can still hear you talking to me even though my eyes are closed! And even if you proceed to cut off my ears, that doesn't mean you disappear entirely. In fact, especially in that scenario where you chop my ears off, now that's hard proof of your objective reality! No amount of wishful thinking will regrow my wounded ear and nobody else could of done it but you! That means you and I have objective reality independently of perceiving faculties!"

The academic would be more shrewd: "You say that all existing things depend on perception, but then proceed to conclude that objective reality is impossible. But where in the two statements is there a necessary connection? What if objective reality is the case (in that there are objects "out there" beyond what appears) but our knowledge is constrained to that of the appearances, dependent on perception? In this alternative, your first statement is admitted, but it is shown that your conclusion has no necessary connection to the first, as there are alternative possibilities not accounted for. I have shown you here the possibility that reality is objective despite all things relying on perception."

^Take these seriously. Especially the hypothetical academic.

"I have shown you here the possibility that reality is objective despite all things relying on perception," he says

Edited July 14, 2021 by RendHeaven

[RMQualtrough]

Just now, nuwu said:

@RMQualtrough Being unable to name one, as example, doesn't prove its nonexistence.

For example, how does consciousness arise from nowhere when all perceptions are lacking? It does exist but somehow it doesn't? Foolish spiritual teachers, such as L** G***, brush it off as "axiomatic paradoxes", but it doesn't explain anything or even prove itself untrue.

Other weird cases, if you can become aware of non-dual duality, then you are not perceiving anything yet "something" seems to be there anyway? Maybe consciousness can objectively not be defined?

But try anyway. Because you will find that any possible "thing", even given infinite attempts at guessing, is something that exists via observation and is therefore a perception.

Consciousness isn't a thing that exists, it's nothing. Perceptions exist and perceptions come with perceiver because perceiving requires both components. Empty a finite mind of ALL observed content and there is just a gap like general anaesthetic. Because consciousness is empty. You see that?

[RendHeaven]

7 minutes ago, nuwu said:

Foolish spiritual teachers

Leo is unbelievably wise. Keep an open mind.

[RMQualtrough]

9 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

No, there is a clear leap in conclusion here. There is nothing here being "proved."

Ok so are the sensors real then? You're being vague with what you mean by real vs unreal.

^Take these seriously. Especially the hypothetical academic.

"I have shown you here the possibility that reality is objective despite all things relying on perception," he says

But he hasn't. If there is an objective "thing" that is real outside of observation then he ought to be able to say what it is. Don't just assume it if you can't come up with even a single thing it could possibly be. This: "there are objects "out there" beyond what appears" is impossible. Objects are things. What ARE the things.

Sensing is done by nothing AKA consciousness. What is sensed is the something that consciousness manifests as, as in a dream. This is a dream basically, that's why there's nothing external because it's mind observing manifestations of mind. There is only mind so you can't get away from it to some external thing beyond that.

Edited July 14, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[RendHeaven]

20 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

But he hasn't. If there is an objective "thing" that is real outside of observation then he ought to be able to say what it is.

Good.

Just to play devil's advocate further - "But isn't it similarly an assumption to assert that there must be NO objective 'thing' that is real outside of observation?"

20 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Don't just assume it if you can't come up with even a single thing it could possibly be.

Plato's theory of forms is the easiest example of "objective being beyond apparent senses."

People have, for millennia, been coming up with (much more than) "a single thing it could possibly be."

What say you to that?

20 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Sensing is done by nothing AKA consciousness. What is sensed is the something that consciousness manifests as, as in a dream. This is a dream basically, that's why there's nothing external because it's mind observing manifestations of mind. There is only mind so you can't get away from it to some external thing beyond that.

I get it.

But again, people who don't get it just won't.

There are a million ways to pick apart every word you use and back you into an intellectual corner, simply because of the nature of proof.

To prove anything, you must begin on a solid ground of first principles which themselves are unproven. These first principles are generally common notions held by culture - which you aim to deconstruct. And so your playing field of so-called "proof" is fundamentally different from the playing fields of everyone around you, and your words reach deaf ears.

I mean seriously, "Sensing is done by nothing AKA consciousness. What is sensed is the something that consciousness manifests as, as in a dream."

^This is totally meaningless lmao.

It's the greatest catch22 of spirituality... to unconscious people, stupidity looks like wisdom and wisdom looks like stupidity.

So if you've got the wisdom, how do you convey it as wisdom?

Edited July 14, 2021 by RendHeaven

[RendHeaven]

3 minutes ago, nuwu said:

But Leo said I am Leo, and I'm pretty stupid. So Leo is stupid?

25 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

I can't tell if you're trolling or serious 

[RMQualtrough]

@RendHeaven It isn't assumption, all "things" are perception. Anything you could ever possibly propose as being a thing, is ultimately a perception and therefore reliant upon perceiver. Or an observation reliant upon observer, whichever your preferred terminology.

It is only understood by people when using the most obvious examples like color. Where is red as a thing if nothing perceives it? But it extends to any possible thing you could ever propose as being truly out there.

There is not a single thing you could ever say it is that isn't in some way perceptually based. It is all vibrating strings? Describe the strings as things. See it immediately fall into something based in observation and relativity.

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[Mason Riggle]

It literally doesn't matter (it makes no difference, there is no difference, there is no perceptible difference, etc.) whether or not 'objects' exist anywhere beyond 'the perceptions of them', so long as it seems like they do.  I seem to by typing this comment on a keyboard.  Is there really a keyboard, or just the 'seeming like there's a keyboard'? It literally doesn't matter which it is, if you can't tell the difference, which you can't.  

  



 

[RMQualtrough]

14 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

It literally doesn't matter (it makes no difference, there is no difference, there is no perceptible difference, etc.) whether or not 'objects' exist anywhere beyond 'the perceptions of them', so long as it seems like they do.  I seem to by typing this comment on a keyboard.  Is there really a keyboard, or just the 'seeming like there's a keyboard'? It literally doesn't matter which it is, if you can't tell the difference, which you can't.  

Mattering involves purpose. I'm not saying you gain anything useful from this knowledge apart from understanding of what reality is.

[Mason Riggle]

@RMQualtrough did you miss what I put in parentheses?  I defined what I mean by 'matter', and it has nothing to do with 'purpose', and everything to do with perceiving differences.  

I's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.. they are the same thing.   Objectively existing, and 'seemingly objectively existing' are the same thing.