Living Reality

[Lanny]

Cells that divide and replicate are alive . Molecules are not alive. What separates humans from other animals and from plants and germs is the fact that we are also sentient, or self-aware

Heh, there's another thread in this forum that makes it clear "self awareness" is kind of ambiguous. By one meaning it's a property that many, not not all, lower animals have. By another it's a synonym for meta-awareness which seemingly only humans have and it's unclear if it's the same thing as sentience or not.

[Darkhunter]

No one is alive nor dead.

[Obbe]

No one is alive nor dead.

What do you mean darkhunter?

[Darkhunter]

No one is alive nor dead.

What do you mean darkhunter?

Think to basic physics. You don't touch anything, do you? Think Schrodinger's Cat.

[Obbe]

Well now I don't know what to think.   If you were going for something like, alive and dead are somewhat arbitrarily defined states, I could see what you're saying. I have no idea what you mean by basic physics, or how I don't touch anything.

[Infinityshock]

there is no reality

only the perception of reality

[Max Headroom]

I was just thinking about this earlier today. Reality is existing, and existing is being. But even though human beings are living, it doesn't neccesarily mean that everything that's being is a living being.

[Lanny]

there is no reality

only the perception of reality

Nice claim, care to back it up?

[Max Headroom]

there is no reality

only the perception of reality

Nice claim, care to back it up?

It's subjective perception. It's not really a thing you can back up with facts because it's all subjective.

[unbreakable matter]

there is no reality

only the perception of reality

Nice claim, care to back it up?

It's subjective perception. It's not really a thing you can back up with facts because it's all subjective.

in that case, obbe should just stop posting

[Infinityshock]

there is no reality

only the perception of reality

Nice claim, care to back it up?

its obvious and holds up to scrutiny on its own merit

[Lanny]

It's subjective perception. It's not really a thing you can back up with facts because it's all subjective.

But it's a claim about the world, how can you tell someone else what the world is and be like "yeah but I can't back that up since it's subjective"? It's like me telling you the sky doesn't exist and then being like "it's subjective maaaan". That's just dumb.

its obvious and holds up to scrutiny on its own merit

It's clearly not obvious to me and if it holds up to scrutiny then you should have no problem supporting it with evidence or a well reasoned argument.

[Obbe]

But it's a claim about the world, how can you tell someone else what the world is and be like "yeah but I can't back that up since it's subjective"? It's like me telling you the sky doesn't exist and then being like "it's subjective maaaan". That's just dumb.

Or is he just stating his opinion without saying "in my opinion..." ?

It's clearly not obvious to me and if it holds up to scrutiny then you should have no problem supporting it with evidence or a well reasoned argument.

Why should anyone have to prove anything to you?  If they are right, that everything is subjective, how could they possibly prove it to you?  Would an inability to prove that everything is subjective be considered evidence that everything is subjective?  Probably not.  So what's left?    Proving objective reality?  Is that possible?

[Lanny]

Or is he just stating his opinion without saying "in my opinion..." ?

If that's so then it's a baseless opinion, but whatever. The context suggests that's not the case however.

Why should anyone have to prove anything to you?

Presumably if you're on a forum you're looking to, or at least willing to, engage in discussion.

If they are right, that everything is subjective, how could they possibly prove it to you? Would an inability to prove that everything is subjective be considered evidence that everything is subjective?  Probably not.  So what's left?    Proving objective reality?  Is that possible?

If a theory can literally not be defended at all, by its design, then why should anyone hold it?

[Obbe]

Presumably if you're on a forum you're looking to, or at least willing to, engage in discussion.

IME that isn't always the case, especially in communities like this one.  And even when someone is willing to actually take part in a discussion, most of the discussions had don't revolve around proving anything at all.  What's your point?

If a theory can literally not be defended at all, by its design, then why should anyone hold it?

Proving a theory and defending a theory are two different things Lanny.  So what if someone can't prove that reality is subjective?  Are you going to stop believing that people have their own subjective perspective?  Who cares?  People are going to think whatever they think despite what you think because, at least to some extent, reality is subjective.  Why does that even matter to you?  Should we now similarly expect you to prove that reality is objective?  If someone disagrees with you, wouldn't that qualify as evidence of subjectivity?

Isn't it obvious that reality is both subjective and objective to some extent?