Re: so, the real reality does not exist? (wtf?)

Truth is not objective, nor is it subjective. The truth is that reality has no ground, no essence, and is therefore empty. All the ten thousand things arise in relation to all other things and no thing in particular has any substantial existence in and of itself. Reality, unlike a this video, has infinite resolution. That means it cannot be reduce to some smaller components or pixels, it goes on and on, receding into itself forever.

"Just as a picture is drawn by an artist, surroundings are created by the activities of the mind." Buddha

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• infinity
• mind
• consciousness
• truth
• objectivity
• subjectivity
• philosophy
• science
• cognition
• buddhism
• enactivism

[GrowingTreeAz]

After watching this video, my brain shrank to the size of a golfball.

[0ThouArtThat0]

@GrowingTreeAz be sure not to choke on it. 

[themanyone]

So you're saying, essentially, that knowledge, even perception, is just a continuous creation and that if we can master this dance, we can get the reader/viewer of our writing/art/videos to participate/know things into existence with us? Powerful.

[0ThouArtThat0]

right, or a co-creation. It all rests on nothing but our collective intentions. Now I'm not trying to negate the solidity of the physical world, just trying to suggest that the physical world ended up the way it has through evolution because of a co-creative process that could have gone many other directions but just so happened to lead to us here and now. Where we take it from here is up to us.

[EverettsVLOG]

the only argument i see that you make here in favor of your position is:

1.) if there is an objective world, we can never know it because all we would have is representations

2.) therefore, believing in the objective world is untenable??

what??!! i dont get you man, i dont think one can have terribly strong evidence that there is an unknowable objective world, but i dont understand what your idea is and how it is much different. do you believe the brain represents the world around you?

[0ThouArtThat0]

I'll PM you about this, Everett. It is difficult to discuss enactivism because it draws conclusions so contrary to common sense. I assure you it is based on an empirical understanding of the nature of biology and cognition, it just rejects reductionism in favor of holism and complexity.

[TheLovesoul1]

science says we are born with physically everything we need to adapt and being multifunctional its called selection theory come to my channel to see were this is talked about the vid is nwo and consciousness i call it omniadaptibility or functionallty.

[TheLovesoul1]

science says we are born with physically everything we need to adapt and being multifunctional its called selection theory come to my channel to see were this is talked about the vid is nwo and consciousness.

[divinegod123456]

Also, think about what lead you to these thoughts. You might get frustrated when you realize that you are in fact, playing in a world of shadows and trying to explain color while you only know black and white.

There are many ways of thinking about this world...many permutations and combinations of words that can create a whole new word..

I want to think without words, but I came to this conclusion using these words.

I don't know if there is mindset I haven't explored.

[TheLovesoul1]

@0ThouArtThat0 you and 77gunslinger have the same point kind of very interesting very great you guys are so bright thank you very much for helping me whats your thought on light?

[vivino100]

"While “naturalists” believe all entities are similar by their physical traits and different by their mental or spiritual ones, it is just the opposite with “animism” since every entity is similar by its spiritual features and differ radically by the sort of body it is endowed with." Latour. So, perhaps there are incommensurably different ways of seeing the world. Viviero De Castro mentions two: the 'naturalist' and the 'perspectivisit'. I think they are right, this is a naturre/cultute issue.

[vivino100]

I was reading a paper by B Latour that reminded me about this debate: he says "While “naturalists” believe all entities are similar by their physical traits and different by their mental or spiritual ones, it is just the opposite with “animism” since every entity is similar by its spiritual features and differ radically by the sort of body it is endowed with. " So it is possible to assume that due to various ecologically bound factors, there are 'naturalists' as opposed to 'perspectivists'.

[modularfish]

Whether you see something or not, and think it is important or not, is really a matter of perception. Think about what that means for a little while, without jumping to conclusions. Just because you cannot see it, or just because it no longer exist in its exact for, does not remove the impact it has in shaping the world around us. Think about this and you will begin to understand that the process of information is the foundation of everything in the world we live in.