What's reality?
- Thread starter Tercon
- Start date
jonathan_hili
Well-known member
I think you're confusing ontology with epistemology.
Don't you mean: "How do you know what reality is?" - ?
Does the rock know anything about reality?
How do you know that's true, when in reality everything you know you only know in your head?
Is there any being without knowledge and is there any knowledge without being?
Or how do you know reality-?
jonathan_hili
Well-known member
Why not? Why does being necessitate that some person know of being's existence?
Haha that's a very complex question to ask on an internet forum!
Beings know of their own existence, that's what makes them conscious beings.
That's not complex at all, knowledge of the truth and reality just requires a believing mind.
How do you know “the rock itself is reality”, when in reality the rock is only knowable in and by your believing mind and not in or by “the rock”?
Where does the model of reality exist, in your head or in the rock?
Nouveau
Well-known member
Because it is the only plausible explanation for the continuity of our experiences. Why is the rock still there after I close then reopen my eyes? Did it cease to exist because my perception of it ceased? No. The better explanation is that the real rock is distinct from my interrupted perceptions, continues to exist when my eyes are closed, and causes the same perceptions again once my eyes are reopened.
No, it is just a rock.
You are confusing reality with knowing about reality. The rock is reality, but does not know about reality.
Ultimately I do not; I might be dreaming all this. Hence, I said "may or may not be true and accurate".
So what is your point? It is the same for you and everyone else.
How is the rock reality when the rock has no way to know "about reality". Wouldn't the way and place that the truth and reality is made known and experienced be a more logical candidate for reality?
You're not “dreaming”, rather you have just been deceived.
No it isn't the same for everyone, and you don't have the right to speak for anyone else other than yourself, because you think you are alone in your head, so you are easily deceived, because the only one who is capable of knowing you is YOU enlightened with the truth and reality of God, the real YOU. Believers know what and whom the truth and reality is in us.
Lol. How is it “the only plausible explanation for the continuity of our experiences”, when in reality the rock doesn't even KNOW what “plausible explanation for the continuity of our experiences” is. When in reality it is only believing minds that are capable of “plausible explanation” and “the continuity of our experiences”. You give way to much credit to physical objects when they have absolutely know means to do anything in reality.
Because your mind is able to believe it is still there in reality. Can rocks do that?
No, it's still there because a believing mind is capable of experiencing objects without our physical senses. Understand? Come on man, you are smarter than this.
The rock exists; it is real. It does not matter what the rock knows about it.
That is just the way reality is. it is all the stuff that is real.
No.
That is a possibility. It is also possible for you, of course.
You just said I am being deceived about reality. Apparently you think YOU have the right to speak for ME. Interesting how often hypocrisy surfaces with Christians.
Nouveau
Well-known member
Are you claiming that the rock is still there when you close your eyes because it continues to be perceived in the mind of God?
The simpler explanation is that it continues to exist in mind-independent reality rather than in the mind of any supernatural deity.
jonathan_hili
Well-known member
True. But you began by talking about a rock and then beings in general.
And again, this is confusing knowing about being and the ontology of being.
That doesn't tell me how one knows, though. If it's correct, it just tells me about the equipment you need to know (a believing mind).
Rocks aren't beings, and beings and rocks are known and experienced differently. Beings are minds and rocks aren't.
If the only way to know about being is in and with a believing mind, then a being must be the product of a believing mind, in order to be a known being.
And that's a good start. So, we know that atheism isn't something that can lead one to the truth, because an unbelief of any kind including atheism is useless in making the truth and reality known, since belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to us.
jonathan_hili
Well-known member
I'd say a rock is a being; if by being you mean "something that exists" or a material or immaterial substance.
No, that doesn't follow. You're talking about how a being is known, not its ontology. Even if we did not know of any being existing, let's say, it doesn't follow that no being exists.
I don't think that follows either. Belief in what is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to us?
A being in the context I using it is someone that is aware of their own existence and possesses the capacity of consciousness.
Strawman, you are arguing from the standpoint and context of what you think beings are and not from the context of what I believe beings are. If beings possess conscious minds and are persons and beings exist, then being is its ontology. But we do know of beings existing and we can't not know of their existence, because we are beings. So beings are aware of their own existence.
Yes it is true of belief, as you cannot know the truth or experience reality without a belief in reality. Period
Being
conscious existence: LIFE
the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE I knew it was true in the core of my being especially: PERSONALITY. A living thing sentient beings a mythical being especially: PERSON a very sexual being
jonathan_hili
Well-known member
Okay. I'm glad we can define terms.
It still doesn't follow though. For instance, very young babies have conscious minds (as do those in the womb) but have little awareness of their own existence.
If you're saying, for a conscious being to know of the existence of another being implies they are conscious of their own existence (it's a self-evident truth), that seems to make sense, but I still think you're confusing epistemology with ontology. I mean, let's say I closed my eyes and was not aware of any conscious beings around me (I couldn't see them) - would they cease to exist? Or, would you say, because they are aware of their own existence, they exist at least for themselves? If that's the case, how do you escape solipsism?
Babies have brains, but do babies have believing minds? What does a new born baby believe?
When you close your eyes, are you still aware of your own existence and that you too are a conscious being? Or did you forget that you are a conscious being as well?
So you think that believing, thinking and experiencing the truth and reality in the first person is flawed? And if you think that believing and experiencing the truth and reality for yourself in the first person is flawed, then in what way do you think is best to believe and experience the truth and reality?
Last edited: