What is the best definition of "unreal" you can come up with?

[Cygnus]

I built this as a subjective construct, so it is the child of Ni, not Te. It is one interpretation of events among a slew of others, but interesting nonetheless. I have used this subjective construct to explain occurrences after death under specific assumptions that might be through a process called "Reintegration" that is essentially the changing of the point of view from one particular mind, body, and consciousness to the other. (It's reincarnation without the spiritual bullshit).

Gotcha. In the same way I use the "know everything hypothetically" that I got from internalizing Te ("whatever is, just is") and using it like Ti to make all information equal.

Think about this: the human brain has physical components to analog everything we understand about the soul--memories, emotion, personal identity, etc. But when your brain "dies," it rots, and the particles redistribute and eventually re-enter the food chain in another individual's brain, what happens? What makes you, you? Using Te there's no concrete answer to what makes a person themself. Internalizing Te I see information as a continuum instead of black-and-white--if you are "you" when you're alive, "death" is just a subjective gauge of when you stop being "you"...and the particles of our brains are recycled over centuries thru food chain so technically we are all "connected" and "the same consciousness" if that makes sense (it probably doesn't...)

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Gotcha. In the same way I use the "know everything hypothetically" that I got from internalizing Te ("whatever is, just is") and using it like Ti to make all information equal.

Think about this: the human brain has physical components to analog everything we understand about the soul--memories, emotion, personal identity, etc. But when your brain "dies," it rots, and the particles redistribute and eventually re-enter the food chain in another individual's brain, what happens? What makes you, you? Using Te there's no concrete answer to what makes a person themself. Internalizing Te I see information as a continuum instead of black-and-white--if you are "you" when you're alive, "death" is just a subjective gauge of when you stop being "you"...and the particles of our brains are recycled over centuries thru food chain so technically we are all "connected" and "the same consciousness" if that makes sense (it probably doesn't...)

This particular school of thought (if you will) reasons that when our brain rots away and all of our conscious information purges, then the point of view transitions into non-existence (which doesn't exist) where it is then instantly thrown back into existence because of the infinite potential in non-existence to exist (The Non-existence Paradox).

I understand your reasoning completely, the problem is that there isn't a physical entity for the connection between everything, but it is, in fact, a metaphorical connection through the Non-Existence Paradox (at least in this particular situation).

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

In this way spirit is real, because we have an experience of truth; even if later some may declare to have lost this experience as they tie themselves into some peculiar linguistic cul de sac.

(Took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about in the message, I thought you wanted me to search through the hell-hole called "The God~ Thread")

The spirit is an abstract concept that is physically incorporeal, so physically it would not be real, but abstractly is an entirely different playing field unfettered by the grounding of present reality.

 

[Ginkgo]

"Unreal", as opposed to non-real or fictional, implies that reality seems to have come undone. It's "unreal" when we seem to have found the unexpected because our new discovery unravels our prior assumptions about what is. That which is "unreal" seems to be an illusion with an agenda of its own, mingling with the commonplace and familiar. But, since non-reality doesn't exist, the impression of a thing that is literally "unreal" is a delusion. If you believe something is "unreal", then you get the sense that either someone is deceiving you or you're deceiving yourself. That's the only reason this word serves a purpose. To use it is an admission of awe and confusion.

 

[Mole]

Please explain your definition if you wish, also for contrast, if anyone is capable of defining "unreal" in terms of science/math that would be pretty interesting to me... Any good Teachers assistants around ?

Please may your definition be able cover [through explaining the answer to] the following inspirational query:
What is unreal love?

Bonus points for using your creativity to the maximum that your understanding will allow.

We perceive by making distinctions such as the distinction between real and unreal.

So the distinction real/unreal enables us to see.

So it is a mistake to ask the meaning of real alone, or to ask the meaning of unreal alone. It is only together as the distinction real/unreal that makes any sense.

Real by itself is nonsense, and unreal by itself is nonsense.

 

[Zangetshumody]

We perceive by making distinctions such as the distinction between real and unreal.

So the distinction real/unreal enables us to see.

So it is a mistake to ask the meaning of real alone, or to ask the meaning of unreal alone. It is only together as the distinction real/unreal that makes any sense.

Real by itself is nonsense, and unreal by itself is nonsense.

I agree with your first line.

I feel the second line is not true: as 'corporeal/unreal' would offer a better distinction that would enable "us to see". And I also feel that distinction need not be expressly included in a person's response or within a constructed definition: as distinction can be implied or tacitly held until such time as it's expression becomes useful (as it may not be pertinent to the discussion at hand).

Consequently I disagree with the third line.

With regard to your fourth line;- I feel that "real" by itself is not nonsense, because real attaches weight to everything so that even the unreal is maintained by a "real order" that incorporates everything (as "real" can just mean pertinent).

The preffix "un" does not just mean deprivation, it also means reversal [The oxford library of Words and phrases III- Word origins].
In this way one can understand that defining unreal, envelops thinking about the ontology of mind, or a persons general epistemological grounding.

So mole, do you only believe in a truth derived by some dialectical approach? Does everything a priori (e.g. first principles) and axioms elude you by way of their inherent "nonsense"? [Just because they might be considered before experience (indeed even before the advent of post modernism)?]

I had hoped everyone might give thought toward where I place the bonus points, because I only place them where they are for good reason!

Is it so hard to step onto the logos with me and discover the a priori as its forged in your earth? A good explanation of the kind of thinking this exercize might produce is on display in the Elon Musk TED talk where at the end he talks about first principles and how helpful they are... I don't know if I'm allowed to post the link here... but if you just google: Elon Musk TED talk on innovation its quite an interesting watch.

 

[Mole]

Belief and Probe

So mole, do you only believe in a truth derived by some dialectical approach? Does everything a priori (e.g. first principles) and axioms elude you by way of their inherent "nonsense"? [Just because they might be considered before experience (indeed even before the advent of post modernism)?]

Good question, and the answer is yes.

But rather than believe, I probe.

And so I probe with, the meaning of my post is its response. This goes counter to the conventional belief that the author (Mole) creates the meaning of my post.

So I am suggesting you experiment with the idea that you create the meaning of my post - go on, go ahead, feel free to experiment.

Or another probe might be, we perceive by making distinctions.

This particular probe has been iterated in a whole explanation of mathematics in, The Laws of Form, by G. Spencer-Brown.

Another most interesting probe is, the medium is the message.

Normally we think of the medium a simply a tool to carry the message, but this particular probe says it is the medium itself that is the message.

And this particular probe has been iterated into into a whole explanation of the history of media, including the one we are using now, in the book, Understanding Media, by Marshall McLuhan.

 

[Cygnus]

This particular school of thought (if you will) reasons that when our brain rots away and all of our conscious information purges, then the point of view transitions into non-existence (which doesn't exist) where it is then instantly thrown back into existence because of the infinite potential in non-existence to exist (The Non-existence Paradox).

Rethinking that actually, point of view would transit into non-existence only from the point of view of other people. If you try to define "identity" or "individual" in the most objective way possible you really can't, because what makes you, you, is in fact a series of properties (among infinite properties) elevated subjectively by other individuals to identify you. Objectively, all information is equal, therefore there is no objective personal identity.

Ergo, personal identity is a fully subjective concept and you are ultimately the only person who can make you, you. That is to say, if a rock thought it were alive, it would be alive, because it thinks it's alive. We say a rock is "dead" because it doesn't have the physical properties of human life necessary for the mutual exchange of information that could pertain to human consciousness. In other words, a dead man could be alive because he said he's alive, even though according to rigid biological standards he is dead and according to humans he no longer is himself.

So you would actually never transit into non-existence, even after death, hence the metaphorical "collective consciousness."

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Rethinking that actually, point of view would transit into non-existence only from the point of view of other people. If you try to define "identity" or "individual" in the most objective way possible you really can't, because what makes you, you, is in fact a series of properties (among infinite properties) elevated subjectively by other individuals to identify you. Objectively, all information is equal, therefore there is no objective personal identity.

Ergo, personal identity is a fully subjective concept and you are ultimately the only person who can make you, you. That is to say, if a rock thought it were alive, it would be alive, because it thinks it's alive. We say a rock is "dead" because it doesn't have the physical properties of human life necessary for the mutual exchange of information that could pertain to human consciousness. In other words, a dead man could be alive because he said he's alive, even though according to rigid biological standards he is dead and according to humans he no longer is himself.

So you would actually never transit into non-existence, even after death, hence the metaphorical "collective consciousness."

The point of view is inherent of all individuals, it is the common experience. When we die, everything about us dies, we are no longer and everything inherent of us is no longer, thus we enter the state of being of non-existence from a subjective and singular viewpoint. When this happens, we reintegrate back into existence from the non-existence paradox, which means the transition would be instantaneous.

The point of view is subjective in the sense that it is one viewpoint but is also objective in the sense that it is inherent in all individuals in all points in time (because the non-existence paradox occurs outside of existence and can thus make the point of view reintegrate into any time period).

 

[Cygnus]

The point of view is inherent of all individuals, it is the common experience. When we die, everything about us dies, we are no longer and everything inherent of us is no longer, thus we enter the state of being of non-existence from a subjective and singular viewpoint. When this happens, we reintegrate back into existence from the non-existence paradox, which means the transition would be instantaneous.

The point of view is subjective in the sense that it is one viewpoint but is also objective in the sense that it is inherent in all individuals in all points in time (because the non-existence paradox occurs outside of existence and can thus make the point of view reintegrate into any time period).

The problem is that the self is too subjective. We say we are "ourselves" because of thoughts, feelings, sensations, emotions, all things that go on inside of brains that are really physical.

This does two things: First, it destroys personal identity because everything we associate with consciousness, everything that we elevate higher, is in fact caused by the physical matter of our brains. Second, it means everything we are is actually preserved. Our physical brains may die, and the information about life experiences may be "wiped" or "illegible" due to decay, but all information is equal and connected; hypothetically if you had good enough understanding and technology you could extrapolate a few general background details about a rotting corpse, predict to a microscopic level of detail how the brain decayed, and in effect reconstruct the person's entire experience as they felt it in their brains.

So the information in their brains that made them "them" is in fact shared with all the rest of the information in their environment.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

The problem is that the self is too subjective. We say we are "ourselves" because of thoughts, feelings, sensations, emotions, all things that go on inside of brains that are really physical.

This does two things: First, it destroys personal identity because everything we associate with consciousness, everything that we elevate higher, is in fact caused by the physical matter of our brains. Second, it means everything we are is actually preserved. Our physical brains may die, and the information about life experiences may be "wiped" or "illegible" due to decay, but all information is equal and connected; hypothetically if you had good enough understanding and technology you could extrapolate a few general background details about a rotting corpse, predict to a microscopic level of detail how the brain decayed, and in effect reconstruct the person's entire experience as they felt it in their brains.

So the information in their brains that made them "them" is in fact shared with all the rest of the information in their environment.

Our conversation is on two different wavelengths here, for I agree with your assertion completely, but I'm not entirely sure that you agree with the "point of view" that I claim. The experience lives on despite the deaths of our identity, our consciousness, our mind, our body, our brain, etc.

 

[Cygnus]

Our conversation is on two different wavelengths here, for I agree with your assertion completely, but I'm not entirely sure that you agree with the "point of view" that I claim. The experience lives on despite the deaths of our identity, our consciousness, our mind, our body, our brain, etc.

I think I get it.

You're right, our arguments are just opposite angles of the same thing. You argue "I can't not exist;" I argue "No one exists, therefore everyone exists." Same thing, except you used Ni and I think I used Ne.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I think I get it.

You're right, our arguments are just opposite angles of the same thing. You argue "I can't not exist;" I argue "No one exists, therefore everyone exists." Same thing, except you used Ni and I think I used Ne.

Essentially, yes.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Good question, and the answer is yes.

But rather than believe, I probe.

And so I probe with, the meaning of my post is its response. This goes counter to the conventional belief that the author (Mole) creates the meaning of my post.

So I am suggesting you experiment with the idea that you create the meaning of my post - go on, go ahead, feel free to experiment.

Or another probe might be, we perceive by making distinctions.

This particular probe has been iterated in a whole explanation of mathematics in, The Laws of Form, by G. Spencer-Brown.

Another most interesting probe is, the medium is the message.

Normally we think of the medium a simply a tool to carry the message, but this particular probe says it is the medium itself that is the message.

And this particular probe has been iterated into into a whole explanation of the history of media, including the one we are using now, in the book, Understanding Media, by Marshall McLuhan.

You answer the question simply, but shirk the greater insinuation: without an appreciation for the a priori, your mind is void and without form.
"Void" as in: without [its own] effect
And "without form" meaning: lacking [its own] foundation

Mind without it's own foundation, will just vainly mimic foundations portrayed by others (this is the darkness driven by vanity that overshadows the light of your own heart of understanding).
a priori is the "light" talked about in Genesis, the first thing to be created by the word, because God is light.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: [...]

Even God only saw it was good, after he had seen what he made.
I already showed you mine, why don't you show me yours

further addition:
To be perfectly; 'show me yours' means show me a direct response that positively answers my original post in this thread.

 

[Mole]

You answer the question simply, but shirk the greater insinuation: without an appreciation for the a priori, your mind is void and without form.

Your argument from a priori is a deductive argument used as propaganda by the Scholastics (1100-1700 AD).

However we have replaced the deductive arguments of Scholasticism with the inductive reasoning of science.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Your argument from a priori is a deductive argument used as propaganda by the Scholastics (1100-1700 AD).

However we have replaced the deductive arguments of Scholasticism with the inductive reasoning of science.

Could you explain how your alternate understanding (unless it is merely an unverifiable claim and in fact in no wise an understanding)?
And "we" who? Because I would contend you are simply referring to "we" the mislead. I have tried to lay down reasoned explanation for each of my claims; although this style is not immune to mocking, it is resilient to reasoned discussion;- would you care to provide some?

PS: Well done on replacing those arguments, and losing the ability to answer a question about what something means without the gripe of simultaneous examining some other distinct state that must be presumed to lie on the exact opposite side of the [dialectical] spectrum.

I wouldn't be so sure that philosophy is capable of being contained by a scientific outlook; otherwise how does science explain its own first principles without offering them exception to its general schema? Science itself operates on premises, why should I prefer those premises and accept its inductive force when I am capable of choosing my own premises and enjoying the inductive fruit of my own selections?

 

[wolfy]

The opposite to real.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

Unreal- beyond the physical reality

 

[Mole]

Could you explain how your alternate understanding (unless it is merely an unverifiable claim and in fact in no wise an understanding)?
And "we" who? Because I would contend you are simply referring to "we" the mislead. I have tried to lay down reasoned explanation for each of my claims; although this style is not immune to mocking, it is resilient to reasoned discussion;- would you care to provide some?

PS: Well done on replacing those arguments, and losing the ability to answer a question about what something means without the gripe of simultaneous examining some other distinct state that must be presumed to lie on the exact opposite side of the [dialectical] spectrum.

I wouldn't be so sure that philosophy is capable of being contained by a scientific outlook; otherwise how does science explain its own first principles without offering them exception to its general schema? Science itself operates on premises, why should I prefer those premises and accept its inductive force when I am capable of choosing my own premises and enjoying the inductive fruit of my own selections?

The problem is that your Church and your teachers have imbued you with medieval propaganda by the Scholastics (propaganda de fidei).

The Scholastics had not experienced the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, and so had no knowledge of evidence and inductive reason.

If they were alive today, they would not be teaching deductive medieval theology.

And here we are today in the 21st century and you are trying to involve me in a deductive, scholastic argument in order to prove me wrong.

In fact you are engaging in naive proselytizing and it's not working.

Frankly, if I were you I would go back to your teachers and ask them why they taught you medieval theology in the 21st century.

I know why they taught you medieval theology. It is because they think it is plausible. But it is only plausible to the naive.

So your teachers are intellectually exploiting you.

 

[Zangetshumody]

The problem is that your Church and your teachers have imbued you with medieval propaganda by the Scholastics (propaganda de fidei).

The Scholastics had not experienced the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, and so had no knowledge of evidence and inductive reason.

If they were alive today, they would not be teaching deductive medieval theology.

And here we are today in the 21st century and you are trying to involve me in a deductive, scholastic argument in order to prove me wrong.

In fact you are engaging in naive proselytizing and it's not working.

Frankly, if I were you I would go back to your teachers and ask them why they taught you medieval theology in the 21st century.

I know why they taught you medieval theology. It is because they think it is plausible. But it is only plausible to the naive.

So your teachers are intellectually exploiting you.

You have thrown around a lot labels and descriptions, but again you fail to explain any of them by way of reason.
And if you are not subject to reasoned explanation, how can you anyone truly know that you even have an understanding that isn't just vanity masquerading as understanding? Will you ignore this concern a third time??? Because you have offered no testimony that shows you should be above this concern! Your implied taunting which frame my ideas as false because they haven't kept up with the times is not a legitimate tactic of anything other than VANITY. Please will you explain your philosophy, or is it too embarrassing to articulate, I have laid mine to bear, why can't you do the same?

In summation: [and please don't respond to my summation if you don't first deal with the above contention, because this summation requires a spiritual mind to understand it- so presumably you will disagree, and if you wish to assert the stance you prefer, you will only be able to accomplish this by answering my rationale for this summation (found above);- alternatively you may answer the summation with my regard if you provide reasoned explanation for your averments, but something tells me since you haven't been able to explain (as opposed to just describing) any of your prior counter-claims, you aren't likely to start engaging with the following charge when you have avoided rebutting any of its constituent elements.]
With science as your epidemiological grounding, you do realize nothing you say or do can ever be believed on. Because inductive reasoning can never escape the possibility of falsification: so I hope you are content to live in a system where truth is fiction, and falsification is non-fiction.

PS: Science might be a useful engine for progress at a certain stages of development, that doesn't make it viable philosophical construct to subjugate ones logic (and reasoning) too. Scientific thought does not rule philosophy. Science rules certain models, it is not the engine that governs reality. Imagining that it is the engine that governs reality is sheer hubris.

I made this meme to express how you make me feel (can someone please inform me if this is breaking a rule)
http://i.imgur.com/0LaHwY4.jpg

[and if your wondering why I don't feel prone to my own meme: it's because I will offer explanation for my words so that others can understand, so that I might be believed on; when you aren't capable of doing the same, how can you ever hope to be preferred by any other means than pulling the wool over peoples eyes while pointing to idols of worldly authority? Who is really intellectually exploiting who when your system of belief is incapable of presenting people with a reasoned grounding that can be explained? (describing a system of belief in a fancy way that seeks to avert explanation that can really be understood is not the same as explanation that can be adopted by a real heart of understanding)]