If we assume that you and I are similar creatures (in terms of cognitive structure and the way we know nature), and considering the word honey, which is the word we refer to the product of bees and it contains common meanings such as sweet taste and honey color and ... and considering that the cognitive structure of the bee is different from our cognitive structure based on the common reality that we refer to as the word "science", with a good probability, the above proposition can be expressed from these possibilities.

I assume that blind people live in the same reality as me. And bees likewise.

There is no problem, I said at the beginning of the conversation that the realities can and may be different and they can and may be common, a realities called the color of a tree can have a common meaning among many people, and the word green refers to that. However, some people perceive a different reality from the color of a tree and are called color blind from the point of view of the majority, or some do not perceive any reality from it, like the blind.
My opinion about you and the bee was based on the common reality between humans called "science", but you can not accept this common reality and realize your own reality.

There is no problem — Ali Hosein

Oh, good.

Is only "There is no problem" good? :lol:
thank you :flower:

Unfortunately, such a bureaucratic conceit would stifle the most creative philosophers. For example, I tried to read Whitehead's Process and Reality --- in which he conceived of a new school of Process Philosophy --- but found its novel technical terminology hard to follow. That's one reason I provide an extensive glossary & footnotes in my thesis and blog*1. — Gnomon

Creating new words is not an issue so much as misusing or redefining words commonly used, thereby promoting confusion and uncertainty. Words such as "real" for example. Or, like Heidegger, manufacturing "the Nothing" which, it appears, is something of a sort, but can only be known if one is "suspended in dread."

Austin in Sense and Sensibilia addressed the case of the pencil in a jar or glass of water. The example was used by some philosophers to support the existence of sense-data and the fact that our senses fail us and cannot be relied upon and, therefore, we can't see what's "real." That's because our senses indicate that the pencil appears "crooked" to us when placed in water--but, behold, it actually doesn't change shape. Austin points our that, first, the pencil doesn't appear "crooked" to us; that we aren't looking at a pencil which suddenly and inexplicably looks crooked, but in fact at a pencil in a glass or water. looking exactly as we expect it to look. We would think and be justified in thinking our senses were deceiving us only if the pencil appeared straight while in a glass of water, in fact. Other traditional examples of our senses deceiving us and preventing us from knowing what is truly the case or what is "real" are the one involving color-blindness and the fact objects appear differently when seen from different locations and perspectives.

These examples are persuasive, though, only if we define what is "real" in an extraordinary and unusual
way. We have to define it as something which cannot be known by humans or experienced by humans. In fact, it must be something which cannot be experienced by any living creature, because living creatures are limited by their characteristics (flies see what flies see; people see what people see; but no creature sees what really is). Presumably, for a believer, God can perceive what's real, but nobody else. And that's a position which has all kinds of implications.

To the contrary, I was distinguishing between Nature and Culture, not Nature and Reality. Nature got along for eons without Culture or Language, until artificial "human nature" -- in the last few ticks of Time -- began dominating natural Nature. Do you think humans are nothing-but Nature? In what sense is Culture or Language Real? Certainly not in the sense of this thread's topic, implying that Real is the opposite of Ideal, which is the exclusive purview of human thought, language & philosophy. :smile: — Gnomon

I would equate Nature with the Universe. We are parts of Nature. Our interactions with the rest of the world (including other humans and animals and objects) are parts of Nature--they take place in the Universe. What we create become parts of the Universe when they're created (just as anthills are parts of Nature/the Universe). It happens our interactions with the rest of the Universe encompass language and culture; they're not separate from the Universe; they take place in it.

You said that potential energy is not real. — Banno

As I pointed-out before, you completely misunderstood, and/or deliberately mis-stated, the point I was making*1. First, it was not a scientific assertion, but a philosophical observation about A> the distinction between physical Reality and metaphysical Ideality, B> also between a now state and a not-yet-real future statistical possibility*2. An unactualized Potential state is a mathematical idea without any sensable properties. Can you see, touch, or taste the Potential of an AAA battery. If not, in what sense is a Potential thing a Real thing? Is the unreality of Potential so hard to grasp?

Secondly, you are adding the word "energy" to my statement about "Potential", probably to make it sound obviously erroneous or foolish. What I said was "Potential is not Actual". But after you inserted the word "energy", I still said "yes", because the statistical possibility of energy is not a useful form of energy in the here & now. What can you accomplish with Potential energy without first converting its possibility into Actuality? By analogy, do you think a Potential colony on Mars --- as imagined by Elon Musk --- is a Real colony? Of course not. You're not stupid ; perhaps, just motivated to defend a mindless materialistic worldview.

Apparently this discussion of What's Real and What's Not has touched a nerve. And along with , you seem to think that Gnomon is a dangerous proponent of un-reality, or some other spooky supernatural stuff. Gnomon does make a distinction between physical Science (about material Things) and meta-physical Philosophy (about non-physical Ideas). But, for what it's worth, I will once again state that I do not believe there's anything super-natural in the Real world. However, I am aware that Mental/Mathematical objects (such as Potential states) are not Real things. Not supernatural though, but merely Ideal : existing only in the form of immaterial Ideas. And yes, mental ideas always have a material substrate : like computer solutions, they are immaterial functions of a material process*3 in a real world. Personally, I don't believe in dis-embodied ghosts. But if you think Ideas -- or functions, or statistics -- are material objects, show me one under a microscope. :smile:

PS___ You can ignore the footnotes if they make the argument too complex for you to follow. :joke:

*1. Quote from previous post :
So potential energy is not real? — Banno
Yes. Although my post contrasted Potential with Actual, and Real with Ideal, not Potential Energy with Reality, as you mis-construed it.

*2. The notion of potential existence may be supposed to apply to two categories of objects. The first one comprises objects which in fact will become real. They may be referred to as potential objects (sensu stricto). The second category consists of quasipotential objects which never will come into existence.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-0097-9_7

*3. Ideas as Functions of a Process :
Although the word function assumed a different meaning with the rise of set theory and formal logic, the original relation is still used a lot among physicist, engineers or even mathematicians. . . . So it seems that something being a function of something else (or something depending on something else) is a very natural notion for many people.
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/307947/formalizations-of-the-idea-that-something-is-a-function-of-something-else
Note --- A Function is a mathematical relationship, not a material object. It's "real" only in the sense that it is a useful imaginary tool for humans, not due to any material embodiment. Math objects do not exist in material reality, but only as immaterial ratios in the ideality of rational minds.

[re @Gnomon & Herr Heidi] Creating new words is not an issue so much as misusing or redefining words commonly used, thereby promoting confusion and uncertainty. — Ciceronianus

:100:

I would equate Nature with the Universe. We are parts of Nature. Our interactions with the rest of the world (including other humans and animals and objects) are parts of Nature--they take place in the Universe. What we create become parts of the Universe when they're created (just as anthills are parts of Nature/the Universe). It happens our interactions with the rest of the Universe encompass language and culture; they're not separate from the Universe; they take place in it.

:fire: :up:

We immanentists agree on that much at least – i.e. Epicureans & Stoics, Kynics & Spinozists, Nietzscheans & Peircean-Deweyans!

We immanentists agree on that much at least – i.e. Epicureans & Stoics, Kynics & Spinozists, Nietzscheans & Peircean-Deweyans!
an hour ago — 180 Proof

Yes. And so we should. How justify a search for "the real" outside of Nature, beyond the Universe?

Glad to see you changing your claims in response to the critique hereabouts.

Why would you consider an electrical engineering definition "to be valuable to a philosophical discussion"? I don't accuse you of talking BS, but just of irrelevance to the topic of this thread. — Gnomon

It's pretty simple really. You've said stuff, that if taken seriously, could get someone killed. I value fellow TPF members not dying stupidly.

So I do accuse you of BS.

Do you understand the relevance of what I am saying now?

How [to] justify a search for "the real" outside of Nature, beyond the Universe? — Ciceronianus

Has any thinker ever demonstrated that the whole of reality-nature-universe has a boundary in space and/or time (to provide grounds for assuming there is an "outside, beyond")?

Given that any such search is only possible for us in media res (not from the "outside" or "beyond"), assuming some transcendent "outside, beyond", like searching "up" on a 2D plane, is both nonsense and imaginary (à la jabberwocky ... which, unfortunately, @Gnomon takes literally).

Given that any such search is only possible for us in media res (not from the "outside" or "beyond"), assuming some transcendent "outside, beyond", like searching "up" on a 2D plane, is both nonsense and imaginary — 180 Proof

Maybe this is included in what you state, but it also presumes that what is beyond the Universe or transcends it is similar enough to what is in it that we're capable of knowing it or making inferences regarding it, in some limited sense. Sometimes it's claimed that perfect versions of what we experience within the Universe are beyond it, or God (who is endowed with characteristics we recognize as existing, if only dimly or in a diminished form, in the Universe). But why should that be the case?

Sometimes it's claimed that perfect versions of what we experience within the Universe are beyond it, or God ... — Ciceronianus

It seems to me folks are still making fetishes of their fallaciously reified hasty generalizations (à la Feuerbach et al). 'Homo religiosi', no? Man the Idolator (idealizer, ideal/idol-reifier ). "Bewitched by language" (or Meinong's Jungle) – no doubt an atavistic cognitive illusion/bias prevalent with "beyonders" of all varieties that's stubbornly immune to philosophical reflection, etc. :zip:

Creating new words is not an issue so much as misusing or redefining words commonly used, thereby promoting confusion and uncertainty. — Ciceronianus

I'm sorry if my personal philosophical vocabulary has caused you to be "confused" or "uncertain". Yet the problem may be, not the literal meaning of the words, but the polarized belief system (or worldview) associated with certain taboo words*1. It's certainly not my intention to "promote" confusion.

Part of the "issue" though, may be your own rigid Certainty about questions that are inherently Uncertain. I imagine our contentious dialog as similar to that of a conservative "Baptist" and a liberal "Methodist"*2 : they both read from the same Bible, but reach different interpretations. Your problem with my carefully chosen words seems to be more political or religious than philosophical.

You accuse me of being deliberately deceptive. But it's more likely a case of self-deception, and I can't help you with that personal problem. Please don't expect me to change my worldview, or my vocabulary, just because it makes you uncomfortable. I guess we'll just have to go to different "churches", where our words won't be mis-interpreted. :smile:

PS___ But we can still meet in the street or the forum, without getting into fruitless arguments about the "true" meanings of words.


*1. For example, I use the uncommon word "ideality" to indicate the other side of the same coin as "reality". Is the meaning of that term so hard to guess? If it's still opaque to you, I have linked to a large publicly-available Glossary of terms, specifically relevant to my personal worldview*3. So I'm not hiding my intentions behind unfamiliar words. See the more conventional dictionary definition below.

*2. It's a metaphor, so please don't take it literally, or get huffy (look it up). I'll let you decide which symbolic denomination is yours. A science metaphor would be : the common-sense Classical mechanical (actual) Reality versus the philosophical-sense Quantum statistical (potential) Reality. But that complex analogy might be "confusing" for simple minds. And the inherent quantum Uncertainty Principle will leave the best minds in a state of "uncertainty".

*3. Ideality :
*** In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
*** Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is "collapsed" into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
*** Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. . . . . https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*#. Ideality :
a> the state or quality of being ideal.
b> the quality of expressing or being characterized by ideals.
c> an ideal or idealized thing.
___Oxford dictionary
d> the state or quality of that which is not materially real, but a human concept or experience. ___Gnomon

*#. The "one word one meaning fallacy" suggests that: People often mistakenly believe that a word can have only one correct meaning. Which of the following best explains why Hayakawa believes that a word never has exactly the same meaning twice: because the context surrounding the word is never twice the same.

*#. Dave Mason's song : We Just Disagree
So let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and we just disagree

↪Gnomon
Glad to see you changing your claims in response to the critique hereabouts. — Banno

No. I simply changed your mis-interpretation of my views --- not my "claims".

It's pretty simple really. You've said stuff, that if taken seriously, could get someone killed. I value fellow TPF members not dying stupidly.

So I do accuse you of BS.

Do you understand the relevance of what I am saying now? — wonderer1

No.

I'm sorry if my personal philosophical vocabulary has caused you to be "confused" or "uncertain". Yet the problem may be, not the literal meaning of the words, but the polarized belief system (or worldview) associated with certain taboo words*1. It's certainly not my intention to "promote" confusion. — Gnomon

I haven't been referring to you, but to what I believe is the goal of Analytic and OL philosophers like Austin and others--Gilbert Ryle, for example--and the motivation behind their work. And I certainly don't think you're trying to deceive.

Let me try to explain my views regarding metaphysics. I'm not necessarily adverse to it, and have a respect for what has been called the "naturalistic metaphysics" of Dewey and other Pragmatists. But I think that there are limits to what philosophy and philosophers can achieve. There are certain matters which cannot be explained but must be shown, or felt, or evoked, or experienced.

Artists are good at evoking and showing, and in making us feel, through painting, or poetry, or music. Philosophers, in my opinion, are very, very bad at doing so. They become bewildered by our language to paraphrase Wittgenstein, and problems result.

For example, I'm a lapsed Christian of the Catholic variety. The reasons I left Holy Mother Church are many, but in part I did so because felt its doctrines to be inadequate reflections of the divine and contrary to our nature. That's difficult to explain in words, but I found it expressed wonderfully in art, specifically in the poem Sunday Morning written by Wallace Stevens.

I think this may have been the view of Carnap as expressed in the quote from him I noted earlier in this thread. He said that metaphysicians are like musicians without musical ability. They seek to achieve what art can achieve, if anything can, but fail because they're terrible artists.

We immanentists agree on that much at least – i.e. Epicureans & Stoics, Kynics & Spinozists, Nietzscheans & Peircean-Deweyans! — 180 Proof

I had never heard that term before. Sounds similar to Panpsychism or Pantheism or Pandeism. As I had suspected, despite our differences, it seems that we may have something in common : reliance on Reason instead of Revelation for understanding the world, and our place in it. I sometimes use the term PanEnDeism to characterize my non-religious philosophical worldview --- from the perspective of uncensored Reasoning, that can imagine a view of the world from outside of space-time. That reflective perspective allows us to infer that the Causal Power behind the Big Bang existed prior to the bang, and is now immanent in the world we know, as the many & various forms of essential Information or EnFormAction.

As noted, I am willing to allow un-aided, but not transcendent, human Reason to speculate beyond the sensory boundaries of physical space-time reality. Quite a few respectable scientists have made detailed conjectures about the unknowable Source of the power that materialized in the hypothetical Big Bang. But most seem to take Cosmic Energy & Evolutionary Laws for granted. Though some may even interpret that Source as a God of some kind, which is now manifested in the reality of our human experience. Others, less imaginative, transcend the physical evidence, to conclude that the Before (e.g. Multiverse) was merely more of the same forever & ever, amen. Serial immanence? :smile:

Immanentism :
A philosophical position maintaining that human experience is the only ultimate source of verification. Absolute immanentism insists upon the self-sufficiency of man as the measure of all reality and defends its doctrine on the grounds that any supposed transcendence of reason would be, by definition, "beyond reason" and therefore beyond the scope of discourse or rational penetration.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/immanentism


The meaning of IMMANENTISM is any of several theories according to which God or an abstract mind or spirit pervades the world.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immanentism
Note --- My personal abstract power of causation is called EnFormAction. It works like physical Energy, serially transforming from invisible Causation into tangible Matter, and back again, in accordance with the rules of Evolution, to create Darwin's "forms most beautiful" from formless Potential.

I had never heard that term [immanentist] before. — Gnomon

To jar your memory, an excerpt from a reply to you, Gnomon, on an old thread "What is Metaphysics? Yet again" ...

Anyway, you're familiar with negative theology, aren't you? Well, my negative ontology (aka "immanentism") is more or less the same but applied to reality (in general) rather than just to g/G (in particular). — 180 Proof

Simply put, an immanentist rejects 'transcendent ideas / values / entities' as rationally unwarranted (i.e. wholly subjective). Thus my short list of notable philosophers ...

Epicureans & Stoics, Kynics & Spinozists, Nietzscheans & Peircean-Deweyans — 180 Proof

& all other anti-supernaturalists, or anti-antirealists. :mask:

Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/842279

Given that any such search is only possible for us in media res (not from the "outside" or "beyond"), assuming some transcendent "outside, beyond", like searching "up" on a 2D plane, is both nonsense and imaginary — 180 Proof
Maybe this is included in what you state, but it also presumes that what is beyond the Universe or transcends it is similar enough to what is in it that we're capable of knowing it or making inferences regarding it, in some limited sense. Sometimes it's claimed that perfect versions of what we experience within the Universe are beyond it, or God (who is endowed with characteristics we recognize as existing, if only dimly or in a diminished form, in the Universe). But why should that be the case? — Ciceronianus

As usual, interprets "outside, beyond, and transcendent" in a physical sense, while I use those terms for their metaphysical meaning. His Immanentist worldview seems to deny the possibility of Meta-Physics. The American Heritage Dictionary defines Metaphysics as "the branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality". One example of a First Principle is "an axiom*1 that cannot be deduced from any other within that system". In other words, it's an imaginary view (an inference, not an observation) of the system from the outside (not immanent, but extrinsic). Ultimate Reality is a view from the outside, not in a literal sense, as 180 alleges, but from an imaginary perspective, as philosophers do routinely. Presumably, Immanentism would not include the human talent for looking at the world from a vantage that exists only in a mind.

In philosophical Cosmology, the system of interest is the universe as a whole -- as seen from the outside -- including such immaterial elements as Minds, Ideas, Theories, Symbols, etc -- that are excluded from the Immanentist world. Such non-physical things are meta-physical, in the sense that they transcend the physical boundaries of material objects, and of proximate reality --- which Immanentism believes to be the only reality. Which is OK for scientists probing material phenomena, However, philosophers are focused on immaterial noumena : res cogitans of internal Ideality, not res extensa of external Reality. 180 may interpret "transcendence" in the religious sense of a super-natural realm, but philosophers use the term in the sense you noted : "we're capable of knowing it or making inferences regarding it". Inferences are not observations with the physical eyes, but logical computations by means of the mind's eye, which is in meta res : as you put it, "what is beyond the {physical} Universe or transcends it". {my brackets}

180 uses the analogy of a 2D plane to illustrate his Flatland worldview, which ignores the 3D & 4D aspects of reality. For example, cosmologists don't limit themselves to a view of the world from the inside, but they go beyond the limits of proximate space-time to imagine an ultimate pre-time Multiverse, or hypothetical Many Worlds, that lie beyond (transcending) the world of physical experience, and of empirical evidence. Such ultimate worlds are not Real, but Ideal. Ironically, those imaginary models are not "perfect versions", but merely mundane replicas of our proximate imperfect reality. :smile:


*1. Axiom : in logic, an indemonstrable first principle, rule, or maxim, that has found general acceptance or is thought worthy of common acceptance whether by virtue of a claim to intrinsic merit or on the basis of an appeal to self-evidence.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/axiom
Note --- Self-evident concepts are imaginary mental phenomena, not "demonstrable" or empirical physical observations. They are useful for abstract reasoning, but have no material substance.

As usual, ↪180 Proof interprets "outside, beyond, and transcendent" in a physical sense — Gnomon

:roll: Strawman – unless you can cite where I have actually done so.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines Metaphysics ...

:rofl:

Ultimate Reality is a view from the outside, not in a literal sense, as 180 alleges, but from an imaginary perspective, as philosophers do routinely.

In other words, the alleged (incoherent) "god's-eye view from nowhere" – woo-of-the-gaps. :sparkle:

In philosophical Cosmology, the system of interest is the universe as a whole -- as seen from the outside -- including such immaterial elements as Minds, Ideas, Theories, Symbols, etc -- that are excluded from the Immanentist world. Such non-physical things are meta-physical, in the sense that they transcend the physical boundaries of material objects, and of proximate reality --- which Immanentism believes to be the only reality. — Gnomon

Sorry, but nobody sees the Universe from outside it. Someone may imagine something "beyond it", or speculate regarding something "beyond it" but that, of course, doesn't indicate there is any such thing. Thinking is something we do. It takes place in the Universe because we're there. It doesn't take place outside the Universe, because we're not outside of it. We think by virtue of our interaction with the rest of the Universe; thinking is something we do as active living organisms which are part of an environment.

Your reference to "non-physical things" which "transcend the physical boundaries of material objects" suggests you treat mind, theories, symbols or ideas as equivalent to "things," immaterial but nonetheless existing, like objects, and therefore existing somewhere; but somewhere else (outside the Universe). That's one of the peculiarities of philosophical positions that Analytic and OL philosophy has tried to address (e.g. Gilbert Ryle regarding "mind", addressing Cartesian dualism ).

As usual, ↪180 Proof interprets "outside, beyond, and transcendent" in a physical sense — Gnomon
:roll: Strawman – unless you can cite where I have actually done so. — 180 Proof

I hereby cite all of your replies to my posts, which typically assert "strawman" versions of my own arguments, to make them seem like pseudo-science, instead of metaphysical philosophical views. For the record, as a non-scientist, I never make authoritative physical scientific claims, only amateur meta-physical philosophical opinions. I do however, link to the expertise of practicing scientists to support my philosophical points. So, your imputations of pseudoscience are made of imaginary straw. Your "physical interpretations" are invalid for meta-physical concepts.

The proof of my own "interpretation" of your interpretation will be in your inability to deny the assertion of an anti-metaphysical bias. For example, do you deny that for you "transcendent" means "unreal, immaterial, or non-physical", hence pseudoscientific ; even when used in a philosophical context, a la Kant? Was Kant's Transcendental Idealism*1 a scientific claim about material reality, or an observation about how human minds interpret the world?

Do you deny your belief that posts on a philosophy forum require empirical physical evidence of validity? Do you have empirical evidence to support that belief? Like Materialism, your Immanentism is itself a non-empirical metaphysical belief system that lies outside the realm of physical reality. Note that I use "outside" with a meta-physical meaning, not a literal physical sense.

Do you deny that, for you, "outside or beyond" always refers to a super-natural religious realm, as opposed to, for example, a psychological concept -- with no objective material substance -- unless you equate neurons with ideas in your personal imaginary worldview? Do you deny the validity of Psychology as a "soft" science?*2 Does your worldview of Immanentism make allowances for subjective mental noumena with that lie "beyond" the reach of empirical testing? If not, please show me one of your physical ideas. :smile:


*1. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism :
In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant argues that space and time are merely formal features of how we perceive objects, not things in themselves that exist independently of us, or properties or relations among them. Objects in space and time are said to be “appearances”, and he argues that we know nothing of substance about the things in themselves of which they are appearances. Kant calls this doctrine (or set of doctrines) “transcendental idealism”,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/


*2. Is Psychology a Science? :
An open letter, signed by 124 researchers — some specializing in consciousness and others not—made the provocative claim that one of the most widely discussed theories in the field, Integrated Information Theory (IIT), should be considered“pseudoscience. . . . The open letter justified the charge primarily on the grounds that IIT has “commitments” to panpsychism — the idea that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous — and that the theory “as a whole” may not be empirically testable. . . . Regarding testability, Quantum mechanics, for example, is highly productive, even though nobody can figure out how to experimentally test its various interpretations." ___ Anil Seth, professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex.
https://nautil.us/the-worth-of-wild-ideas-399097/
Note --- Technically, as a scientific hypothesis, IIT postulates something like Pan-mathematics, instead of traditional Panpsychism. Although some proponents admit to a Panpsychic philosophical interpretation.

*3. Immanentism :
Logically, the immanent makes sense in terms of the non-immanent, or of that which transcends or falls outside the immanent; it follows that the very meaning of immanence implies its own limit, i.e., transcendence.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/immanentism

As usual, ↪180 Proof interprets "outside, beyond, and transcendent" in a physical sense. — Gnomon

Your "physical interpretations" ... — Gnomon

Such as — ? A link to a post or specific quote will do the trick to make your (non)point. :smirk:

Sorry, but nobody sees the Universe from outside it. . . . . Your reference to "non-physical things" which "transcend the physical boundaries of material objects" suggests you treat mind, theories, symbols or ideas as equivalent to "things," immaterial but nonetheless existing, like objects, and therefore existing somewhere; but somewhere else (outside the Universe). — Ciceronianus

Yes --- except for the "outside the universe" implication. By "see" I meant "to imagine", not to sense photons in a physical sense. Human minds, and the cultural Meme-sphere*1, are literally inside the universe as a concept, but not in the sub-category of Material stuff. Culture -- including philosophy -- is not a material object, is it? That should go without saying on a philosophy forum. Except for those who imagine that this is a Science forum discussing material objects, instead of mental subjects. Where is the Internet located : in the universe of rocks, or of minds?

The English language is a pragmatic vocabulary, hence matter-based. For philosophical terminology though, we typically turn to Latin & Greek, not because they are any less matter-based, but because their literal meanings have been adapted for scientific & philosophical & metaphorical purposes. So, when I refer to a "thing"*2 on a philosophy forum, it's intended to be interpreted in a meta-physical or metaphorical sense. Yet, some prejudicially equate "metaphysical" with Religious. For Aristotle, Meta-physics was merely a different conceptual category from Physics ; the realm of philosophical interpretations & inferences about the physical world.

The "somewhere else" you interpreted is obviously not a physical location in the great beyond. But merely a conventional cultural notion, not located in the material world but in the common social "realm" of memes*3, not things. The term "sphere" is a metaphor, not to be taken literally, capish?. Some people on this forum seem to take all words in a post for their literal meaning, instead of allowing for the philosophical use of metaphorical language. I am not one of those unimaginative prosaic one-word-one-meaning thinkers. :smile:

*1. Memesphere :
meme + sphere the entire human community through which simple or simplified ideas pass quickly, irrespective of the quality or reliability of the idea.
https://www.urbandictionary.com › define › term=meme

*2. Thing :
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

*3. Memes : an element of a culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another by imitation or other nongenetic means.

Io capisco, I think, but I also think that using metaphors, while apposite in poetry, isn't useful in philosophy--nor is it necessary. In poetry metaphors may be witty or evocative but in philosophy they merely invite misunderstanding and, worse, reification. Minds, ideas, concepts may not be considered
things literally, but are treated as if they were things. Why resort to metaphor in philosophy?

Culture -- including philosophy -- is not a material object, is it? — Gnomon

No, nor is it a thing. Material objects may be constituents of a culture, though, like works of art or structures, and books. Culture may include dances and religions as well.

Io capisco, I think, but I also think that using metaphors, while apposite in poetry, isn't useful in philosophy--nor is it necessary. In poetry metaphors may be witty or evocative but in philosophy they merely invite misunderstanding and, worse, reification. Minds, ideas, concepts may not be considered
things literally, but are treated as if they were things. Why resort to metaphor in philosophy? — Ciceronianus

Those with a Physicalist or Materialist worldview tend to think that Philosophy should aspire to the mathematical clarity of Physics. But even Physics, since the advent of Quantum Theory (intrinsically uncertain & statistical), is forced to use metaphors & analogies to describe physical objects --- e.g. Virtual Particles & Mathematical Fields --- that are not knowable via the physical senses. A virtual particle is not a real particle, but only the statistical potential for a future piece of matter. A Quantum Field is not a physical field of grass, but merely the concept of an infinite array of non-local virtual particles. Don't you find the analogies easier to conceive than the ghostly reality?

If your subject is a physical object, a physical description (appearances, properties) would be sufficient. Yet, if the subject is an abstract concept, such as Consciousness or Reality, then a metaphorical analogy may be the only way to define what you are talking about. The ancient ideal of philosophy would be a series of verifiable postulations (premises) with true or false implications (conclusion). However, do you know of any modern philosophical questions that are simple true/false issues? :smile:

On Using Metaphors in Philosophy :
Blumenberg holds an extreme position in his advocacy of metaphors. In his opinion, metaphors are fundamental elements of philosophy.
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Meth/MethPere.htm

Metaphor in analytic philosophy :
In the Anglo-American tradition of analytic philosophy (in particular, in the philosophy of language), metaphor has attracted interest because it does not conform to accepted truth-conditional semantics, the conditions which determine whether or not a statement is true. . . . . in a different, naturalist, approach, some English-speaking philosophers close to cognitive science, such as Lakoff, have made metaphor the central aspect of human rationality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor_in_philosophy

Metaphors in Philosophy and Science :
Many philosophers and scientists reach for metaphors, to help their readers get a handle on abstract concepts.
https://www.evidentia.net/evidentia/metaphors-in-philosophy-and-science/

Some people think God is real, and some people think God is unreal, and they are all correct?

@unenlightened

Regarding God, in my opinion, God is beyond reality and objective realities are manifestations of God, God is the truth, and objective realities are manifestations of truth.

In this context, Spinoza's view is significant.
He believed that everything that exists is in God and nothing can exist or be imagined without God. He also believed that God is the internal cause of all things.
Of course, this does not mean that I completely agree with Spinoza's point of view.

God is beyond reality — Ali Hosein

Yep.