Options vs Choices.

[PureX]

I disagree. What is real is true whether we know it or not. I do agree that choices are limited to our knowledge, but that does not change reality. True and not true are not abstractions, they describe reality. Something cannot be red and not red at the same time, or the earth cannot have one moon and not one moon at the same time. One of the statements is true whether we know which is true or not.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but it seems like you are saying that if we don't know about an option then that option is untrue for us. Is this what you are saying?

There is no such state of being true or untrue apart from human cognition. And yet by this example we can see that human cognition is incomplete, and therefor often untrue. So what do these two facts, put together, tell us? It tells me that reality as we cognate it Is untrue, while truth is dependent upon our cognition. So we are trapped in a 'catch-22' that leaves us with the result of an untrue, truth.

 

[Quintessence]

Don't mistake any of those things as actually traveling to those places though.

What "mistake?"

 

[Koldo]

What "mistake?"

The mistake of treating those distinct experiences as if they were equal to doing the actual thing.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There is no such state of being true or untrue apart from human cognition.

Ok, I disagree with this but thanks for clarifying.

And yet by this example we can see that human cognition is incomplete, and therefor often untrue.

Yes, the belief may not be true but the reality is whatever it is. Our belief cannot change what is true or not true.

So what do these two facts, put together, tell us? It tells me that reality as we cognate it Is untrue, while truth is dependent upon our cognition. So we are trapped in a 'catch-22' that leaves us with the result of an untrue, truth.

How is reality untrue? Reality is the truth that we are trying to understand. Out belief of what reality is does not change what reality is.

 

[Quintessence]

The mistake of treating those distinct experiences as if they were equal to doing the actual thing.

How is reading a book or playing a video game to experience other-time and other-space not doing an "actual thing?" Who pretends to read a book?

 

[PureX]

Ok, I disagree with this but thanks for clarifying.

Yes, the belief may not be true but the reality is whatever it is. Our belief cannot change what is true or not true.

There is no true or untrue apart from our fallible cognitive reality. There is only what is, and we have no access to a significant portion of it. Which is why true and untrue exists for us, but does not exist apart from us.

How is reality untrue?

It's an incomplete cognitive facsimile.

Reality is the truth that we are trying to understand.

That reality is an idea of what is. It is not what is. (hense, the true/false discrepancies) It's a part of what is, but what is, is far greater than our idea of it.

Our belief of what reality is does not change what reality is.

There is no way for us to know that. What we do know is that our belief of what is controls how we experience and understand it. Which to us pretty much means the same thing.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There is no true or untrue apart from our fallible cognitive reality. There is only what is, and we have no access to a significant portion of it. Which is why true and untrue exists for us, but does not exist apart from us.

It seems you are saying reality depends on what we think is true. I disagree with this.

It's an incomplete cognitive facsimile.

Just becaus ewe cannot comprehend all of reality does not make any of reality untrue. This is where we are not going to agree.

That reality is an idea of what is. It is not what is. (hense, the true/false discrepancies) It's a part of what is, but what is, is far greater than our idea of it.

I agree with this.

There is no way for us to know that. What we do know is that our belief of what is controls how we experience and understand it. Which to us pretty much means the same thing.

I think I agree with this. I just don't agree that reality is not true unless people think about it.

 

[Koldo]

How is reading a book or playing a video game to experience other-time and other-space not doing an "actual thing?" Who pretends to read a book?

Reading a book doesn't equal to experiencing the actual place. You don't get to actually experience Germany in 1944 by reading a book about it.

 

[PureX]

It seems you are saying reality depends on what we think is true. I disagree with this.

The problem here is what I am calling reality is reality as we experience and know it, while you seem to be presuming it to be 'whatever is'. But we don't know 'whatever is'. We can only know the little bit of 'whatever is' that we have cognitive access to. And that isn't much. But that's reality to us.

Just because we cannot comprehend all of reality does not make any of reality untrue.

It makes the only reality that we know and experience untrue. Which then further warps and inhibits our experience and knowledge of it.

I think I agree with this. I just don't agree that reality is not true unless people think about it.

Truth is an irrelevant consideration beyond or apart from human cognition.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Reading a book doesn't equal to experiencing the actual place. You don't get to actually experience Germany in 1944 by reading a book about it.

That would very much depend on both the book, and the imaginative capacity of the reader.

 

[Quintessence]

Reading a book doesn't equal to experiencing the actual place. You don't get to actually experience Germany in 1944 by reading a book about it.

What does it mean to "actually experience" something?

Bonus question - how do we know if we are "actually experiencing" anything?

 

[Quintessence]

That would very much depend on both the book, and the imaginative capacity of the reader.

I still remember when I learned that aphantasia was a thing - some humans can't visualize. At all. It's a baffling cognitive condition that is akin to a sort of blindness or deafness. The OP talks about unrecognized choices, but there are also things some humans just aren't capable of. Hard limits. But they are possibilities for others, so do we or don't we take them into account? Hmm.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I still remember when I learned that aphantasia was a thing - some humans can't visualize. At all. It's a baffling cognitive condition that is akin to a sort of blindness or deafness. The OP talks about unrecognized choices, but there are also things some humans just aren't capable of. Hard limits. But they are possibilities for others, so do we or don't we take them into account? Hmm.

On a related note, I’ve always been fascinated by the question of what an unclothed thought might look like - I think meditation can take us in that direction, to experience thoughts before they are framed in our minds by words or images. Which then begs the question, Whose thoughts are they, and from where do they emerge?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The problem here is what I am calling reality is reality as we experience and know it, while you seem to be presuming it to be 'whatever is'. But we don't know 'whatever is'. We can only know the little bit of 'whatever is' that we have cognitive access to. And that isn't much. But that's reality to us.

I agree, but whatever does exists, exists with or without our knowledge of it.

 

[Koldo]

That would very much depend on both the book, and the imaginative capacity of the reader.

No, it doesn't. At best the book gives a glimpse of what it was like, but it is never going to be equivalent to actually being there. Period.

 

[Koldo]

What does it mean to "actually experience" something?

To experience the actual thing, rather than an imagined version of it.

Bonus question - how do we know if we are "actually experiencing" anything?

How deep are you digging this hole?
All the way down to epistemic justification?

 

[Quintessence]

On a related note, I’ve always been fascinated by the question of what an unclothed thought might look like - I think meditation can take us in that direction, to experience thoughts before they are framed in our minds by words or images. Which then begs the question, Whose thoughts are they, and from where do they emerge?

Questions that mystics and some philosophers ask and those who limit to physicalism do not as they wouldn't be seen as valid questions. There are many interesting possible answers. Personally, I often leave these things more as open questions and focus on the experience and what I can learn from it. In many ways it doesn't matter what I believe about something - where something comes from - compared to how I relate to it. Regardless of where an "unclothed thought" comes from and what it looks like, it creates life experiences that can be worth having (and sometimes NOT worth having... haha).

 

[PureX]

I agree, but whatever does exists, exists with or without our knowledge of it.

We can't know that. I understand that you vehemently believe it, but nevertheless, we can't know it to be so. And what does it even matter when we can only know the limited and relatively true/false reality that we generate for ourselves? Why is this so important to you? Why should it be important to any of us?

Why would the unknown road that was available, but not available to Bill, and therefor was not taken by Bill, matter at all? It makes no difference to Bill, whatever, that 'it was there, nevertheless'. He was incognizant of it. And if we are all like Bill, as we all lack massive amounts of information about 'whatever is', what would it matter to any of us? It doesn't even exist except as a vague theory in our cognitive reality.

Do you see what I'm asking, here? What is this current popular obsession with an absolute inviolable "objective reality" that we have only limited and subjective access to, and that therefor remains forever beyond our comprehension? When the only reality that can possibly matter to us is the one that we have cobbled together for ourselves from limited experiences and our imagination, and the one that we are and will always be living in as a result?

 

[Quintessence]

To experience the actual thing, rather than an imagined version of it.

How deep are you digging this hole?
All the way down to epistemic justification?

What if the "actual thing" only exists as an imagined version of it or as an idea or a thought (within the context of the limitations of human experience and knowledge)?

What if I'm digging several holes? I mean, presuming you can only plant one tree in each hole, I'd be more interested in digging as many holes as possible. I like trees.

 

[Koldo]

What if the "actual thing" only exists as an imagined version of it or as an idea or a thought (within the context of the limitations of human experience and knowledge)?

Like Atlantis and the Fountain of Youth?
Empty names (proper names without a referent).

What if I'm digging several holes? I mean, presuming you can only plant one tree in each hole, I'd be more interested in digging as many holes as possible. I like trees.

You are free to dig as many holes as you wish. I only want to understand what each hole is all about.