CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Taylor Alvarez6 › Posts

Posts by Taylor Alvarez6

16 posts shown.

Is there anything beyond human perception? in Philosophy ·
Lawrence Robinson5 said:One of the answers to this (which leans heavily into quantum mechanics and increasingly into certain branches of psychology) goes like this:

Perception doesn't perceive what is given; it creates that "given." Our senses are the architects of reality.
Think about that famous experiment involving electrons being fired through two slits onto a screen, which yields two different results: when we aren't monitoring what’s happening during the experiment, the traces on the screen show interference patterns—basically energy in its most fundamental form. But the moment we observe the process itself, they show the traces of material particles. Is that just a coincidence? No way in hell...
The lesson here is: paying attention means making things concrete. And once you realize that, the question "what should we be seeing?" turns into a total farce... because it's like asking, "well, what am I supposed to be thinking?" It comes down to free will: in perceiving, in thinking, and in acting... we are beings that manifest ourselves in the most fundamental sense of the word.

In this way, every observer—anyone who directs their attention—is an active participant in constructing "reality." Reality is exactly what we see it to be, but that doesn't mean it looks the same to another observer. Nor does it mean one version is any less real than another. There are overlaps and alignments, sure, but also massive differences...
On top of that: there's a huge difference between seeing—creating—and then interpreting what has been created. It’s this closed loop where the creation is constantly being re-examined and reshaped...
Asking "am I really seeing what I think I'm seeing?" is just a fast track to uncertainty and feeling powerless. Only a positive response, an affirmation, allows us to take what we've seen and keep building and moving forward... if we deny that, we're basically stripping away the foundation we need to build our own lives.

🙂
That’s how it works. We create... by paying attention or through perception, we determine or shape the indefinite and the formless, thereby constructing our own world... our own reality... both as individuals and as a collective.
There is value in creating 😉... which involves experimentation (both good and evil)...
But perhaps the best thing is to understand this self-creation itself...

It’s much like a painter. It’s good for them to paint... and perhaps, in a moment of total immersion, to lose themselves in the work so it becomes a perfect reflection of them... but ultimately, they must remain aware that they are the painter and the painting is their work... a representation of what lies within them, brought forth by their hand. The painting is essentially the internal made external so that it can be seen.
Reality, then, is the internal, while the external is merely its image... when in truth, they are one indivisible whole. The image is a projection... a beam of light (consciousness) cast onto a canvas (consciousness)... nothing more.🙂
So, what is it that we do, always and without exception?
We constantly make the invisible visible... the formless formed... the silent audible... all so that we might see ourselves... or
what we already are...

Affirmation is useful as long as it serves its purpose. But if it is used merely to cement a reality (or an image) at any cost, it becomes like some hundred-year-old socialite who has undergone so many plastic surgeries that she's literally falling apart—losing noses, ears, hands, and feet like something out of a horror movie...
I saw it once, but I can't remember what it was called.🙂
Words of Wisdom in Philosophy ·
Daniel Chavez14 said:Here’s a little bit of my own narcissism for you:
A wise person is one who understands, rather than one who simply knows things.😉

Who am I to judge? 🙂 😘 🎉
Neither option is quite right (unless we’re talking about "knowing" with your entire soul, rather than just through intellect or logic). Real wisdom comes from accepting and actually living the truth. So, we’re talking about
knowing with your entire being.
Wisdom requires consent, consent requires will, will requires heart, and the heart involves everything else.
Without involving the heart—without love—there is simply no wisdom.
The proof is 😉
you can technically know and understand how life works, yet still
fail to accept reality, fighting against the very things you claim to comprehend. The only exception is when that ignorance serves you—when you weaponize your knowledge for your own gain at the expense of others. And let’s be clear: neither of those paths leads to wisdom.😘
To achieve true wisdom today, one needs a fundamental, existential
shift in their very being. This isn't something mere knowledge or even understanding can provide. We’ve seen this clearly enough with our own eyes; it’s as obvious as looking down from a commercial jet.😍
What does this explanation even mean? in Philosophy ·
Peter Jackson4 said:Everything we perceive is just a collection of phenomena. Learning happens when we identify the relationships between these phenomena. There is no "third unknown." That third element is the cognition itself. That is the only thing we can actually know. The relationship between things—that is what an explanation is.

You seem to be hunting for an explanation that accounts for everything. But how can we explain "everything" when we don't even know what "everything" is beyond the very phenomena we observe? Such explanations don't exist. Any explanation is inherently partial. Take the human being, for instance. A human is merely a complex, organized cluster of matter shaped by evolution.

Fine, but then what qualifies as actual knowledge of reality?

😕

So, an explanation is always incomplete; it merely "satisfies" certain practical needs... in the meantime...
The issue arises when people take these partial explanations and
accept them as absolute truths on a philosophy forum... much like you are doing right now...
A human is a complex and organized mass of matter resulting from evolution.

Yet, for both himself and the entirety of science, philosophy, and religion, man remains a complete mystery...
He doesn't truly know himself, does he? Just as he doesn't know reality. Because to know reality is to know oneself...
As we already established... we perceive and interpret reality... which means our reality is nothing more than perception and interpretation. To know reality is to KNOW THE PERCEPTION AND THE INTERPRETATION. Therefore, to know reality is to know oneself—to understand how, why, and in what way you perceive and interpret things.
It follows that knowing is synonymous with being. To truly know what a human is, you have to *be* human. You simply cannot know what you are not.👋
mistyfox812:
Nowadays, we don't look at the foundation of nature through what is VISIBLE, but rather through what is THINKABLE. Modern physics actually aligns much more closely with the Platonic spirit than anything Democritean.

👋 👋 👋

W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics...

And you? You deserve a special award for this absolute masterpiece of yours. 😘
Precedence... in Philosophy ·
Nobody and nothing said:The issue is how a specific perspective—labeled as "scientific"—is declared to be "objective." In this context, "objective" is treated as absolute truth, while anything else is dismissed as merely "subjective." And what is "subjective"? It’s treated as if it were just an illusion.

Traditional philosophy asks, "What is something?"
So, the real question is
1. Which approach to a single thing will actually give us the answer to "what is it?"
2. And which approach will simply cloud the answer?

1. Direct (derived from the "thing" itself)
2. Indirect (detached from the "thing"—the objective view)

Let's be clear: "objective" observation is impossible. Why? Because the very act of detachment is itself an illusion. We only *perceive* that such detachment is possible.
Subjective perception is the only thing truly accessible, but the catch—and it's a massive one—is that people choose to believe in the reality of that first illusion: the illusion of separation.
If there is no true separation, then the subject is as much a part of the object as the object is a part of the subject. They become fundamentally indistinguishable.
Space, time, matter, life, mind, consciousness, love, truth, existence, non-existence... it's all a chaotic mess.
IT'S ALL ONE PIECE.
Reality, in its essence, isn't divided or differentiated. The division—the naming, the categorizing—is something we create within reality through our own reasoning.
Therefore, we can conditionally say two realities exist:
Reality as it truly is.
And the reality that exists for us, shaped by our perception—which is essentially an illusion since it possesses no independent existence.

Both these realities exist, but they aren't running on parallel tracks. They aren't separate entities. One exists within the other, through the other, and because of the other. They are ONE acting as TWO. However, they aren't equally "real." If the true reality were to solve the problem of creating, sustaining, and maintaining multiple worlds while remaining untouched and omnipresent, it would have to account for this relativity.
This means the illusion isn't some triviality; it is a massive, potent force of creation that allows things to "exist" even when they don't possess their own inherent existence.

An illusion, then, is anything that lacks its own independent existence.
So, "objective" observation is just the illusion of an observer observing an illusion. 😉
Good grief... I've managed to wrap my own illusory self in an illusory layer of pseudo-intellectualism with this illusory rambling. 🙂

Now, I'm just waiting to hear from the "objective observers" regarding their "objective evidence" of an "objective reality"... 😁

Even cherries in bloom seem to manifest most beautifully within this particular illusion. 👍

But ultimately, I just wanted to say that there is no such thing as being "early." 😉
And the secret essence of those cherries in bloom hasn't been discovered yet, because it isn't something you can reach with your hands; it's something you reach with your soul.
To have or to be? in Philosophy ·
Oedipus is out here playing with smoke and mirrors:

What kind of names are you throwing around in a philosophy thread? You’d think someone would actually give you some credit... this is just pure nonsense. You've got your wires completely crossed here.

😵 😱 🙂 😕
Oedipus... honestly, it's like talking to a toddler. After wading through your "philosophical" ramblings about being and existence, I am officially convinced: you don't have a single philosophical clue. Given your total lack of intellectual credibility, your balance is sitting at absolute zero.

🙄
Bohr & God (or Truth vs. Clarity)... in Philosophy ·
Rebecca Cox2 said:Legend has it that someone once asked Bohr—after he "formulated" Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as a complementary system (the idea that you can't simultaneously know both a particle's position and its momentum; the more you pin down one, the less you know about the other)—what exactly would be considered a complement to truth (wahrheit)?

Bohr’s response? Clarity. (klarheit)

If we drift into philosophical waters, this touches on some of the most heated debates out there. What does this tell us about:

a) the existence of God? How much of that concept is clarity versus truth?

b) our theories regarding "Truth"? If Bohr was onto something profound with that remark, how clear and comprehensible can any "truth" actually be?

c) our fundamental understanding of the world and the laws of nature?

Alright, physicists, philosophers, psychologists, biologists, mathematicians—everyone! This is a "multidisciplinary" topic, which is why I'm dropping it here in philosophy (the mother of all sciences)...

Now this is a great topic.👍

And Bohr hit the nail right on the head...
clarity is the complement to truth.
a) This makes it obvious that God isn't just a concept, nor can He be contained by one. Instead, God (God-Truth) becomes CLEAR only when we step outside the confines of human concepts.
b) It also follows that any theory or model of reality—whether scientific, religious, or otherwise—is NOT Truth itself. Truth is CLEAR, yet it remains incomprehensible. It is clearly visible, but impossible to fully conceptualize.
c) Our perception of the world is merely an image; we essentially imagine the world as it is. The clear truth is that the world is imagined, and furthermore, this imagined (existing) world is NOT the ultimate reality.
It's also clear that existence and reality aren't the same thing. Just because something exists for us doesn't mean it represents the absolute truth.👋
Deriving materialism from physics... in Philosophy ·
Alright, if matter isn't predetermined, then what is?

Nothing is set in stone...😉

Fine, if matter isn't predetermined, then the real question is: what—or who—is doing the determining, and by what means? 😁
Deriving materialism from physics... in Philosophy ·
Kate Lee12 said:Even quarks and tau particles have smaller components! 😁

Everything falls under the umbrella of perception—how we define size as a dimension dictated by material or physical constraints. Isn't that right?

If everything is ultimately determined by thought or an idea, then what is that very thing actually made of?

🤔

It doesn't consist of anything at all...🙄
👋
To have or to be? in Philosophy ·
illegale said:To actually exist, you need food, air, water, shelter, warm clothes, security, and so on. Without those things, you can't even exist.

Illegale... as usual, your philosophical reasoning is completely off base. And even worse? There's a real chance nobody is listening to you... or actually believing a word you say.

Look, let's get this straight...
FIRST, you have to exist before anything else can follow.
WITHOUT BEING, THERE IS NO HAVING.

Second, and just as vital...
Man has no inherent "being," so logically, he can't possess anything else either.
In reality, possession is an extension of existence, making it impossible to have something if being is the only thing truly possible....
Therefore, the concept of "having" is a total sham....
And if someone insists on the idea of ownership, there's a clever little phrase from a very brilliant mind that sums it up perfectly...
"Man has no being... man merely 'has' a destiny...."
Hail to the truth... clearly showing who really owns our existence.....

Anyway, take care. 🙂
We are all one! in Philosophy ·
nobody says anything at all:
Sure, sure...
But I was thinking about the actual starting point—that whole 'fall from grace' concept. If consciousness starts out as a single, unified thing without any external force, what on earth could possibly trigger movement?

And if we aren't talking about some kind of divine will, then I honestly don't know what else there is to grasp.😉
I also suspect there isn't really a beginning or an end here; consciousness was always just one singular entity. Every thought, every action, every creation, visible or otherwise... it’s all one and the same.
The issue is that our brains simply can't wrap themselves around the idea that everything is identical to everything else. Some people get so worked up about it they start foaming at the mouth, insisting on separation and difference, convinced that those things exist because of their own independence. They couldn't be more wrong. All diversity and multiplicity exist specifically because they stem from the One. Truly independent, standalone "things" or "events" are quite simply IMPOSSIBLE.
Let me say it again... everything exists because of everything else, and that "everything" is just ONE.
bye-bye-bye-Taylor Alvarez6🙂
We are all one! in Philosophy ·
mistyfox812 said:That’s all well and good.
But we’re still left with this "problem of individuation." How do we end up with this crushing sense of being separate? What is the point of the illusion—assuming you're right and it actually is one? Why were we tossed into this void of isolation to begin with? If the sole purpose is to eventually realize it was all a lie... it feels a bit too pointless, doesn't it?

It doesn't feel that way to me...
And maybe I'll have an answer for why by tomorrow. 🙂
Is spirit everything? in Spirituality ·
stormywolf2 said:You're back at it again, completely ignoring coverage! Not even the most dense pantheists think they’ve fully grasped the whole picture when dealing with concepts of Spirit and matter. But apparently, that doesn't bother you one bit, so you just keep polluting this digital space with your New Age nonsense.
It seems concepts like Immanence and Transcendence aren't exactly your specialty; frankly, it looks like you don't understand them within their proper context at all.

Spirit isn't nearly as material as you're trying to make it out to be, nor is matter as spiritual as you imagine.
"Deus sive natura" isn't an empirically provable thesis, so it shouldn't be misused in this context.

God transcends the human spirit, even if we maintain a "Thou and Thou" relationship with Him. Our anthropomorphisms aren't the standard, just as pantheism isn't.

You can't pin God down through pantheism, nor can you simplify and reduce Him to a common, conversational "You."
In New Zealand, we see an example of so-called "reciprocal immanence" in Ivanov's Gospel between the Father and the son. However, even through the Incarnation, this shouldn't be treated as a subject of simplified equality. Immanence and Transcendence are exclusively correlative magnitudes of God's battle, which we are incapable of either comprehending or describing. In short, it is a mystery.

Knowledge is therefore incomplete, because every person is aware of the fact that divine divinity lies beyond our senses and reason; God's battle is far beyond any "Thou" concept we could conceive.
M.

My God... what was the author actually trying to say here, and what is this even about?🙂

stormywolf2, it's classic you—a total failure to grasp anything you're writing about... or rather, anything you're merely copying.🙂
Welcome to the Coast! in Philosophy ·
Mickey said:So, the philosophers

With PBE gone, this forum has become absolutely massive 😁 so I can’t possibly keep up with everything
we definitely needed another moderator,

Welcome aboard, swiftcobra15...👋👋

Though, will his name even show up in bold when he logs in? 😁,
forget the small talk—now we get to sit back and philosophize about everything under the sun. 😎

🙏 🙏 🙏

The absolute best choice possible... and honestly... woohoo!!!
Sending a huge kiss 😘 to swiftcobra15 for the warm welcome.
Weather Forecast / Current Conditions in Philosophy ·
Richard Howard2 said:Sure, that might be the only accurate thing in your last post.

I hate to disappoint you, but you aren't exactly an expert on spatial laws; you're mostly just winging it, aren't you?

Look, I appreciate the enthusiasm—after all, this is philosophy—but I’ve already mentioned on science for science that science is increasingly encroaching on philosophy's territory. As these subjects are studied scientifically, we reach conclusions that are more precise, more convincing, and (crucially!) more verified than any philosophical insight could ever hope to be.

So, here's the reality: your point within the cube's cross-section isn't some three-dimensional entity with its own "invisible" dimensions; it's simply a point defined by coordinates. The cross-section itself is just a surface, even if it exists within the three-dimensional volume of the cube. Try not to confuse raw coordinates with the actual dimensions occupied by concepts in space.

You're right that in practical terms, every spatial point is also a temporal one, but that isn't necessarily true when we are dealing with a purely mathematical mental model.

Richard, where exactly did I claim a point was a three-dimensional body?

...which means not everything in my post is false, contrary to what you claimed at the start.

But fine... since you're so incredibly confident... tell me EXACTLY and PRECISELY: has science delivered its FINAL verdict on space and time? Is there absolutely NO remaining doubt about what space/time actually is, leaving zero open questions left for anyone to ask?
If the answer isn't yes—and it isn't 🙂—then you can try to justify your little theory about science "encroaching on philosophy" however you like. But between you and me? It’s never going to happen. 🙄
Weather Forecast / Current Conditions in Philosophy ·
Richard Howard2 said:Rachel Bishop,

why on earth are you assuming I said something I didn't actually say?

First off, I DID NOT claim that time is a dimension of space or a property of space itself. Time is its own distinct dimension that operates in correlation with space. That’s precisely why we call it spacetime rather than some singular term—because they aren't the same thing.

Let me prove to you that time is a dimension correlating with the three spatial dimensions: if you have a point in a coordinate system defined by its position on the x, y, and z axes, it still exists within a specific temporal coordinate *t* —> T(x,y,z,t). When that time coordinate shifts to *t'*, the object is still at that location, but it's no longer the same point at that exact position. It becomes a different point, T'(x,y,z,t'). The logic holds both ways.

To fully describe the world we live in, we have to include the factor of time. It might seem trivial in my example, but it becomes obvious when dealing with massive scales. For instance, if we were traveling through space at speeds approaching the speed of light, time would slow down. Or, if you prefer to look at it from a different angle, you could say time flows at the same rate, but space contracts. It just depends on your perspective: are you the traveler or the observer?

Well... it's a real shame you didn't say what I thought you meant... because if you had... you'd be wrong.
The theory of relativity proved the unity of space and time, which is exactly why it's called the... four-dimensional spacetime continuum. In relativity, time is the fourth dimension of space... and the example you just gave proves exactly what I was saying... (every point in space is also a point in time, and vice versa... and every point represents a single intersection within the four-dimensional spacetime).

Now, let's assume we travel at infinite speed... what happens then?
What happens is that we are simultaneously present at every single point in space, and time has essentially... STOPPED.
Which means that time is a dimension of space...

Obviously, everything we use to describe the world we inhabit is relative and lacks an absolute value... so our "time" and our "space"... how we perceive anything depends entirely on the observer and their, uh... position. Which is exactly what I've been saying this whole time.🙄