Two metaphysical worldviews about what is "real "

[Someone here]

5 hours ago, josemar said:

Sam Harris yes

I think he isn't either . 

[ivankiss]

6 minutes ago, Someone here said:

We could use the terms first order truth and second order truth .

1st order truth is absolute and it simply means raw sensory experience. 

2nd order truth is concepts and stuff behind the scenes like atoms ..electrons..energy ..math equations etc that need to underpin truth. 

"Raw sensory experience" is not absolute. You are confusing your human senses, which are limited, with consciousness, which is limitless.  

[Someone here]

 

11 minutes ago, ivankiss said:

"Raw sensory experience" is not absolute. You are confusing your human senses, which are limited, with consciousness, which is limitless.  

Your sensory experience is absolute truth. As in its the only thing which is certain .Please notice this. You don't know anything else. and whatever you come to know must be inside your sensory perception. 

For instance.. when you leave a crowded room  and then come back later.. all the other people are not in exactly the same spot as they were. Rather complicated events unfolded according to strict physical laws. So in fact I'm not denying that something cannot exist outside of your sensory experience. But that it MUST pass through that filter to be considered by you .

[ivankiss]

@Someone here You are just straight out wrong here, sorry. You are saying perception is Absolute Truth, when it is common sense that it is not. 

Consciousness (which you absolutely are) is not limited to the 5 human senses. You can dissolve your human senses, just like you can dissolve your ego, and then it is obvious that perception is a limitation and can never be absolutely true. Only relatively. It's simple... it requires a perceiver and a perceived object, which means it's duality. Not Oneness.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

I don't understand your question. 

When you say there are five senses, you're creating a conceptual distinction within what you call direct experience (just like time, space and causality are conceptual distinctions). Why are the five senses real, but not time, space and causality?

[Vibroverse]

Just because your experience is what you have direct access to does not necessarily mean that then it is the only thing that exists. It might be the only thing that you have direct access to, but why should it necessarily mean that then it must be the only thing that exists? 

You might say that it is the only thing that i know certainly exists, but again, why do you assume that your knowledge of something is the main criterion for the realness of something? 

You might have born in a way, for instance, as a blind person, then you would not be experiencing the realness of sight, but that would not mean then there is no such thing as a possibility of sight, if you know what i mean. 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by Vibroverse

[Someone here]

41 minutes ago, ivankiss said:

@Someone here You are just straight out wrong here, sorry. You are saying perception is Absolute Truth, when it is common sense that it is not. 

Consciousness (which you absolutely are) is not limited to the 5 human senses. You can dissolve your human senses, just like you can dissolve your ego, and then it is obvious that perception is a limitation and can never be absolutely true. Only relatively. It's simple... it requires a perceiver and a perceived object, which means it's duality. Not Oneness.

I'm not saying there isn't anything outside of my precise experience at this precise moment... I'm saying the content of my own experience in this precise moment is sure more true (certain) than anything whatsoever.

[Someone here]

37 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

When you say there are five senses, you're creating a conceptual distinction within what you call direct experience (just like time, space and causality are conceptual distinctions). Why are the five senses real, but not time, space and causality?

The five senses are real because you are experiencing them directly without intermediary.  You see stuff effortlessly and directly. Same with all other senses. 

However..let's tak "causality"...what the hell is that even look like ? Can you point to it ? Does it have any shape or location? Smell or color ? Isn't it obvious that it's abstract concept?

[Someone here]

38 minutes ago, Vibroverse said:

Just because your experience is what you have direct access to does not necessarily mean that then it is the only thing that exists. It might be the only thing that you have direct access to, but why should it necessarily mean that then it must be the only thing that exists? 

You might say that it is the only thing that i know certainly exists, but again, why do you assume that your knowledge of something is the main criterion for the realness of something? 

You might have born in a way, for instance, as a blind person, then you would not be experiencing the realness of sight, but that would not mean then there is no such thing as a possibility of sight, if you know what i mean. 

 

Well ...super strictly speaking.... My mom for example is not around me at the moment... And if I'm not going to rely on memories... Then no...the statement "I have a mother" is not the Truth at this precise moment of experience. Unlike the screen that is in front of my face.  Now this might sound "weird" or whatever. But only because people are not used to radical degrees of epistemic honesty. 

[Carl-Richard]

32 minutes ago, Someone here said:

The five senses are real because you are experiencing them directly without intermediary.  You see stuff effortlessly and directly. Same with all other senses. 

However..let's tak "causality"...what the hell is that even look like ? Can you point to it ? Does it have any shape or location? Smell or color ? Isn't it obvious that it's abstract concept?

Causality is indeed an abstract concept. I'm saying "the five senses" is also an abstract concept. Causality looks like how the world seems consistent to you and not like an incoherent mess. That too, according to you, is direct. Doesn't the world seem pretty consistent to you right now? Rocks fall downwards, not upwards. Boiling water feels warm, not cold, etc.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Someone here]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Causality is indeed an abstract concept. I'm saying "the five senses" is also an abstract concept. Causality looks like how the world seems consistent to you and not like an incoherent mess. That too, according to you, is direct. Doesn't the world seem pretty consistent to you right now?

I see where you're coming from .

What concepts really are is about their ontological status. The answer will depend upon the philosophy you adopt. A materialist would regard concepts as ultimately reducible to the functioning of the material brain..while an idealist would regard concepts (and matter) as ultimately reducible to mind or consciousness.

For example..According to Plato.. The concept of a tree is an abstract idea that makes it possible for us to experience trees..as such. Without the concept of a tree  we may have experiences of images but they are not recognized as being an experience of a tree without the concept of a tree.

So same with the five senses. If you don't label them then there is just the unspeakable ineffable reality .

[Carl-Richard]

39 minutes ago, Someone here said:

So same with the five senses. If you don't label them then there is just the unspeakable ineffable reality .

Yup. And I can see where you're coming from as well. The five senses seem instinctive and uncontrollable (e.g. pain feels like it happens to you), and are therefore in one sense more "direct" than say solving a math problem or thinking about philosophy. But the five senses are also extremely limited (e.g. you can only see so many things at one time), and prone to manipulation, deception and illusion (from both "external" sources, like somebody performing a trick, and internal sources, like the act of labeling). So in another sense, they're also not direct. The most direct thing there is, is just isness itself. That is what I think should be referred to as direct experience.

What spiritual teachers want you to do with direct experience is something like this: 

Teacher: So focus on your direct experience. What are aware of?
Student: Sensations of sitting, thoughts about tomorrow, aching in my foot, slight hunger, etc.
Teacher: Ok, but those are perceptions with labels attached to them. Try to become aware of the fact that you are aware. What do you feel?
Student: A stillness, emptiness, nothing, *keeps listing labels*
Teacher: Ok, but we're not interested in these labels. Keep returning to that thing.
*repeat ad nauseum*

The teacher tries to guide you away from compulsive labeling of reality and towards the experience of reality as it is in itself; the direct experience of it. They want you to experience the world directly without superimposing various mental frames onto it.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Carl-Richard