Someone here

It's all existence. Imagination is a category of existence. Actual yellow exists and imaginary yellow exists. The first exists as an object. The second exists as an image in your mind. The imaginary is derived from the actual. Meaning you can't imagine a shape or a color or a sound etc that you haven't perceived in actuality before. That's how I see it.

You are repeating the same question lol. I told ya it depends on what do you mean by "exist". What is "exist"? . If you from the very beginning assume that existence =perception =Consciousness.. Then it's obvious the answer is NO. There's nothing existing outside of perception if that's what you define as existence. As a matter of fact.. This field of perception is the only thing you know of reality.. You never encounterd anything "outside" of it. So if we just assume for a moment that there is something outside of it and independent from it.. It's still would be impossible for you to imagine that state of being or make sense of it because it's something you never encounterd in your life. Think of colors for example.. You can only imagine a color that you can already see in your perception field. Something existing outside of your awareness is like a color you have never seen before. You don't know whether it exist or not and also you can't imagine it or make sense of it because you've never encountered such a thing before.

Cool then.

LOL. I could change it if you wish.. But only if you show me something fancier.

That's what we want ?

Stop talking to me as an authority. Stop assuming that I'm your student. Maybe you need to open your mind that I'm not your student. If you don't buy what I'm saying then fine. But consider that I also don't buy what you are saying because you didn't actually say anything.

I know. That's why I say this is the only absolute. This was never discovered through logic. This is ever present and self evidently true. Anything else "tree exists outside my perception" requires logic to talk about which a second order. I think you should be agreeing with this so I don't understand what's your point regarding this issue specifically.

It's like saying you can know what you don't know without knowing it. It doesn't make logical or grammatical sense. It's utterly impossible.. Meaningless and contradictory. So yes I agree there is no need to argue about it.

Depends on how do you define "exist". If you define it as "being perceived by me" then NO. If you define it as "a state of being that Is prior to and Independent from perception" then the answer is YES. The whole trick is you can't know whether reality is subjective or objective. You can't know whether objects exist outside of your awareness or not. And like it or not..... You can't EVER know. And therefore the only absolute truth in the entire fucking existence is... This.

Thanks for the insight.

Yes!

My main point is this.. Reality is not a thought construct. Thought constructs are inevitable parts of reality. Don't think that if you lose your language and all your conceptual thoughts that reality as a whole will collapse.. That's simply not true. You will still have other perceptions. Expect they won't be labeled as such anymore. But nonetheless they will be there. Because reality is prior to thoughts. Thoughts appear after the fact to describe it. To make sense of it. It can't ofcourse make sense of it as a whole because it's itself part of the whole. However it can make sense of parts from the whole. Reality is not a thought construct. Thought constructs are reality. Again this isn't rocket science but I don't know why some people just don't get it.

I'm well aware of the limitations of thoughts and concepts. I don't have a problem with that. But imagine how would you function in life if you respond to anything that's being said to you by " these are just meaningless thoughts they don't exist in reality". That's the extreme on the opposite end of the spectrum. If there's people who mistake their thoughts for reality on one side.. On the other side there are people who are very attached to distinguish their thoughts from reality to the point they can't see reality anymore and they just see thoughts.

Cool thought story. Let it go. There is no such things in direct experience. All that exists Is this. And this is not a "dream reality". A "Dream reality" is a limited and relative notion appearing within this. Seriously though.. How many times do we have to repeat this point? All concepts are concepts but this is not a concept. This is this. However some concepts are relatively correct and accurate in describing this. We have a thought story called " gravity exists and you can't just jump and fly". In actuality there is no such thing as "gravity". There is what there is. But that conceptual statement is not a bunch of BS just because of the fact that it is a conceptual statement!! There is no saying you can jump and fly. Try it and see. It's not rocket science. Let's talk about something less obvious lol. And btw saying reality is a Dream doesn't mean anything unless you explain to me what exactly do you mean. Reality is real. It's not an illusion. Because here it is. Even if it's a dream there must be a dreamer. If it's an illusion there must be someone that's being deluded. All these are relative notions and they don't mean anything as absolutes. They require their opposite. And again I think all that is off-topic. I would rather like to discuss the original topic of this thread.

Get used to it. This forum contains nothing but thoughts

No one does. " Clue" Can't capture what's Larger than it. The part is always smaller than the whole.

LOL I'm lost at this point. Who's a figment of who's mind? . If you mean it's sort of like a shared dream where everyone is dreaming each other up then that would be an objective world. Recently you are drifting to more and more extreme solipsism. Wait I mean I'm imagining you doing it.. Or you imagining me imagining you doing it. I dunno at this point lol.

In this waking state it does. In a dream reality I might drink alcohol and become even more alert and aware.. Who knows?

I think your moral relativism can't fly in any society that respects itself . We don't have to be 100% certain that he murderd him intentionally. In fact.. Given the videos and the evidence we have it's not possible to do that. But anyone can easily see the cop could've easily avoided all that because Floyd was not resisting anyways. There is audios you can hear floyd saying " I can't breath. please just let me breath". And yet the motherfucker kept his knee on his neck until he died. You think you can suffocate someone s without paying attention of when he dies?? That's a cool story but even if it's true that's even worse because if you can kill people unintentionally like that with such stupidity you are not qualified to be a cop in the first place.

Does correlation equal causality?.

@Serotoninluv sorry but I will just let it go. Me and you are always repeating the same dialogue in every thread of mine. The same points from both me and you are being repeated . I promise you I'm well aware of everything you are saying but the thing is with that kinda attitude we can't have any discussion because it excludes any level under(what you think is under) the level that you think you are at. So I will just let it go. And I'm sorry if you perceived what I said as an accused you of lying. All I meant I can't be sure of that. I can tell you anything about myself but how are you supposed to know if I'm being honest?. Crediting oneself has no value here.

Gotcha!

Spot on!

I will stop you here. I'm not going at "war" with no one. That's your own projections and distorted views. Look closely.

To me you are just taking stuff personally. I never said I'm a scientist. I'm a normal folk. I'm actually a philosophy student. I don't think I claimed science has authority over truth. I stated many times science has limits. Stop spreading misinformation about me and what I know and what I don't know and just get to my points. Being a science professor doesn't give you authority ironically you speak about authority and then you appeal to authority by saying you are a science professor. Who knows if you are a science professor or not? But regardless that doesn't give you authority. A thing is a true because it's true not because someone says it's true.