Reality And Spirituality

[Soule]

The human experiance is based upon perspective. ones reality depends on perspective to define it. perspective itself can be seen as a filter through which we all experiance what we do. when it comes to human existance and human experiance there is no absolute reality that humans can experiance because of that "filter". everyone can experiance and percieve everything differently.

 

what does this mean religiously? well if ones perception is what defines ones reality, then wouldent one be able to percieve a "higher being" differently than other people?

 

so lets say that there is a god, and many different people experiance this god. would you think, realistically, that everyone would have the exact same experiance as the next person? even christians believe that when some people face god, all they will feel for him is anger, so their perspective of god differs from anothers.

 

so knowing this, how hard is it to believe that many of us are worshiping the same god under a different name / names and different ways of worship?

 

moved manually from "the arena"

[Asimov]

Perception doesn't define reality. Perception is the observance of reality through the senses. The world doesn't change when you close your eyes.

[Soule]

Perception doesn't define reality. Perception is the observance of reality through the senses. The world doesn't change when you close your eyes.

 

 

yes but what other way are we able to experiance "reality" if not but our perceptions of it?

[Asimov]

Perception doesn't define reality. Perception is the observance of reality through the senses. The world doesn't change when you close your eyes.

 

 

yes but what other way are we able to experiance "reality" if not but our perceptions of it?

 

 

So? That doesn't mean our perceptions define reality.

[Legion]

I think that it is an easy thing to agree to that, yes, we do in fact experience reality through our perceptions of it.

 

It also reminds me of what I once heard a Taoist say.

 

"We all ride our own donkey."

[Soule]

ironically i am a taoist XD

 

Perception doesn't define reality. Perception is the observance of reality through the senses. The world doesn't change when you close your eyes.

 

 

yes but what other way are we able to experiance "reality" if not but our perceptions of it?

 

 

So? That doesn't mean our perceptions define reality.

 

actually yes it does. our "individual realities. the only reality that matters here is the reality that seems real, because any reality that is real can only be percieved by an individual and will be defined differently from person to person depending on that persons perspective. so our "realities" are indeed defined by our perspective.

[Legion]

Good to meet you Soule.

 

What is a Taoist XD?

[Soule]

imma be lazy and give the buddhist answer.

 

five pounds of flax

 

also this

 

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html

[Legion]

five pounds of flax... alright!

 

It has been a while since I read the Tao te Ching. I lost my copy of one. Gave one copy away. Then purchased another one.

 

I suppose that I should have been more specific with my question. What is "XD"?

[Dhampir]

actually yes it does. our "individual realities.

individual reality is the direct result of our perception, but it is not objective reality, which our individual reality is based loosely upon.

[Soule]

actually yes it does. our "individual realities.

individual reality is the direct result of our perception, but it is not objective reality, which our individual reality is based loosely upon.

thats pretty much what i said...

 

read my first post again.

 

i thought i made it pretty clear i was talking about individual realities, and that experiancing objective reality is impossible due to the filter of perspective.

 

also, XD is a smiley face like

[Asimov]

actually yes it does. our "individual realities. the only reality that matters here is the reality that seems real, because any reality that is real can only be percieved by an individual and will be defined differently from person to person depending on that persons perspective.

 

You're putting the cart before the horse.

 

If there is a reality to perceive, then it is independant of our perceptions. Otherwise we would have no reality to perceive. We would just make it up as we went along.

 

so our "realities" are indeed defined by our perspective.

 

No, our perspective is defined by reality. If it is the other way around, why does a table not disappear when we cease to look at it? Why does reality not conform to my arbitrary desires?

 

Why should I consider any of you real or even human if I'm the only person? Since the reality that I define is one where women walk around naked and are all hot Swedish bisexuals....why is this not true?

 

Reality doesn't conform to perception.

 

 

 

 

i thought i made it pretty clear i was talking about individual realities, and that experiancing objective reality is impossible due to the filter of perspective.

 

We ARE experiencing the objective reality through our perceptions.

[Dhampir]

We're aware that there is an objective reality, and it doesn't not matter.

Subjective reality does not prove anything, especially a soul. What we as groups percieve is based on consensus, and verification by our senses. They help us define the objectivity.

 

so lets say that there is a god, and many different people experiance this god. would you think, realistically, that everyone would have the exact same experiance as the next person?

We would generally agree that we're seeing the same thing if it exists independently of our perception. Besides, would the fact that plenty of people don't 'experience god' in any fashion whatsoever prove there's not one?

[Soule]

did i say conform to or defined by?

 

sure you could percieve that table as hot sweedish bisexuals and that is how you will percieve the table. as well as the possible adverse side effects that follow. though being turned on by a table is kinda wierd. however that is perception, not desire.

 

also, prove the table dosnt disapear when you stop looking at it.

 

one percieves dreams on the physical realm while you experiance them. that does not mean that they exist in the physical realm. one can experaince something that is not there.

 

also you are mixing desire with perception as well as assuming quite a bit. all that i know and that you know is that you experiance something. and that experiance that you have is percieved by you. and those perspectives that you have define your experiance of those experiances.

 

We ARE experiencing the objective reality through our perceptions.

 

are those experiances our individual realities, or the objective reality?

[Soule]

We're aware that there is an objective reality, and it doesn't not matter.

Subjective reality does not prove anything, especially a soul. What we as groups percieve is based on consensus, and verification by our senses. They help us define the objectivity.

 

so lets say that there is a god, and many different people experiance this god. would you think, realistically, that everyone would have the exact same experiance as the next person?

We would generally agree that we're seeing the same thing if it exists independently of our perception. Besides, would the fact that plenty of people don't 'experience god' in any fashion whatsoever prove there's not one?

it is impossible to experiance objective reality because all we would have to experiance it are perspectives through which it is experianced. so in this sense, objective reality dosnt matter in this situation. perspective is flawed, thus it would not be enough to prove that an objective reality exists let alone define it fully.

 

there are plenty of people who havent been to disneyland in any way whatsoever. does that prove that theres no disneyland?

 

and yes most people agree that they are seeing, or sensing a higher power or god.

[Asimov]

did i say conform to or defined by?

 

"ones reality depends on perspective to define it."

 

Yes, you did.

 

sure you could percieve that table as hot sweedish bisexuals and that is how you will percieve the table. as well as the possible adverse side effects that follow. though being turned on by a table is kinda wierd. however that is perception, not desire.

 

No, but I define a table as a table and "hot swedish bisexuals" as "hot swedish bisexuals". If I perceive that a table is a hot swedish bisexual, then I am wrong. My perception is incoherent with reality.

 

also, prove the table dosnt disapear when you stop looking at it.

 

1. Others perceive the table.

2. I can perceive the table without the use of my eyes.

 

one percieves dreams on the physical realm while you experiance them. that does not mean that they exist in the physical realm. one can experaince something that is not there.

 

What does this mean?

 

also you are mixing desire with perception as well as assuming quite a bit. all that i know and that you know is that you experiance something. and that experiance that you have is percieved by you. and those perspectives that you have define your experiance of those experiances.

 

No, my experiences and perceptions define my perspective. Your essentially saying that the information I receive is based off my conclusions. I cannot reach conclusions unless I receive information so your argument is incoherent.

 

are those experiances our individual realities, or the objective reality?

 

There is no such thing as individual realities. Like I said, if realities were individual I would be mired in hot swedish bisexuals.

[Soule]

did i say conform to or defined by?

"ones reality depends on perspective to define it."

 

Yes, you did.

 

yes. i said it was defined by. not conformed to.

 

sure you could percieve that table as hot sweedish bisexuals and that is how you will percieve the table. as well as the possible adverse side effects that follow. though being turned on by a table is kinda wierd. however that is perception, not desire.

 

No, but I define a table as a table and "hot swedish bisexuals" as "hot swedish bisexuals". If I perceive that a table is a hot swedish bisexual, then I am wrong. My perception is incoherent with reality.

if you percieve the table as a hot swedish bisexual then you will percieve the table as a hot sweedish bisexual wrong or not. as such you will get turned on by a table.

 

also, prove the table dosnt disapear when you stop looking at it.

1. Others perceive the table.

2. I can perceive the table without the use of my eyes.

 

perception of reality is not proof of reality because perception is flawed.

 

one percieves dreams on the physical realm while you experiance them. that does not mean that they exist in the physical realm. one can experaince something that is not there.

 

What does this mean?

that means that perception of reality is not proof of reality because perception is flawed.

 

also you are mixing desire with perception as well as assuming quite a bit. all that i know and that you know is that you experiance something. and that experiance that you have is percieved by you. and those perspectives that you have define your experiance of those experiances.

 

No, my experiences and perceptions define my perspective. Your essentially saying that the information I receive is based off my conclusions. I cannot reach conclusions unless I receive information so your argument is incoherent.

 

you have an experiance, how you view that experiance is your perception, your perception of that experiance is your indivicual reality.

 

are those experiances our individual realities, or the objective reality?

 

There is no such thing as individual realities. Like I said, if realities were individual I would be mired in hot swedish bisexuals.

no you wouldent. you are again mixing desire with perception, and expecting as such that if you desire something then reality will conform to your desire. but again, desire and perception are compltely different things.

 

apologies if i screwed up the quote thingeys in this post.

 

well that sucks...

[Legion]

Soule, I once heard a man, whose prespective I admired, say that prediction was an integral part of understanding.

 

What do you think about that?

[Soule]

Soule, I once heard a man, whose prespective I admired, say that prediction was an integral part of understanding.

 

What do you think about that?

 

i'm assuming he ment that assumption was a large part of reality. and i would have to agree with him.

if not then i dont understand what he ment.

[Asimov]

perception of reality is not proof of reality because perception is flawed.

 

Prove it.

 

you have an experiance, how you view that experiance is your perception, your perception of that experiance is your indivicual reality.

 

No, I have an experience. My percepts are the sensory input from my five senses. You creating a false dichotomy between experiences and our percepts. How else do we have experiences except through our senses?

 

My perceptions (experiences - excuse the redundancy) define my perspective. Your essentially saying that the information I receive is based off my conclusions. I cannot reach conclusions unless I receive information so your argument is incoherent.

[Antlerman]

actually yes it does. our "individual realities. the only reality that matters here is the reality that seems real, because any reality that is real can only be percieved by an individual and will be defined differently from person to person depending on that persons perspective. so our "realities" are indeed defined by our perspective.

Yes, individual realities are in fact a valid type of reality. Here's a good entry in Wiki about reality that sort of busts apart a narrow view that reality is to be understood as objective only. That just simply isn't the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

 

As far as God is concerned, objectively as an external being I would say it doesn't meet the qualifications as a being that exists independently. But as a collective belief he is most certainly a reality in people's beliefs. In that sense he is a living part of peoples language and world view and therefore does exist. However, I feel that if all humans were to suddenly no longer exist, then "God" would be gone along with us, just as many other abstractions.

 

I see the sense or perception of God as being an attempt to express in language a very human response to our own awareness. But yes, to the point you raised, individual reality is real to the individual, and shared beliefs are reality to a group of people. I don't agree that we can take that as evidence of something external to ourselves however.

[Legion]

I think that he meant that part of our understanding phenomena meant that we were also able to predict phenomena.

 

I guess I'm wondering what part, if any, do you think that the ability to predict phenomena plays in our measure of understanding the world in which we live.

[Soule]

perception of reality is not proof of reality because perception is flawed.

 

Prove it.

 

you have an experiance, how you view that experiance is your perception, your perception of that experiance is your indivicual reality.

 

No, I have an experience. My percepts are the sensory input from my five senses. You creating a false dichotomy between experiences and our percepts. How else do we have experiences except through our senses?

 

My perceptions (experiences - excuse the redundancy) define my perspective. Your essentially saying that the information I receive is based off my conclusions. I cannot reach conclusions unless I receive information so your argument is incoherent.

 

i already proved it. the experiance of dreams is proof enough.

 

so your saying that the conclusion of a situation is your perspective, not your overall reality. what you experiance is part of your reality. because you can and do percieve the same experiances differntly than other people proves that you percieve things differntly than other people. thus your perception of the objective reality, or your individual reality, is differnent than others.

 

 

 

actually yes it does. our "individual realities. the only reality that matters here is the reality that seems real, because any reality that is real can only be percieved by an individual and will be defined differently from person to person depending on that persons perspective. so our "realities" are indeed defined by our perspective.

Yes, individual realities are in fact a valid type of reality. Here's a good entry in Wiki about reality that sort of busts apart a narrow view that reality is to be understood as objective only. That just simply isn't the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

 

As far as God is concerned, objectively as an external being I would say it doesn't meet the qualifications as a being that exists independently. But as a collective belief he is most certainly a reality in people's beliefs. In that sense he is a living part of peoples language and world view and therefore does exist. However, I feel that if all humans were to suddenly no longer exist, then "God" would be gone along with us, just as many other abstractions.

 

I see the sense or perception of God as being an attempt to express in language a very human response to our own awareness. But yes, to the point you raised, individual reality is real to the individual, and shared beliefs are reality to a group of people. I don't agree that we can take that as evidence of something external to ourselves however.

 

thank you for the wiki

 

now i wasnt using it as proof of god. just a possible theory that allows both many gods and one god.

 

I think that he meant that part of our understanding phenomena meant that we were also able to predict phenomena.

 

I guess I'm wondering what part, if any, do you think that the ability to predict phenomena plays in our measure of understanding the world in which we live.

 

if one fully understands something then one would be able to predict it fully. however i do not fully understand his perspective so i really cant say much on the subject v.v sorry.

 

i personally feel that if one does not fully understand somethign then one cannot fully predict it. so in order for acurate prediction to occure oe would need to understand first.

 

though why do i feel i have heard that quote before XD

[Asimov]

i already proved it. the experiance of dreams is proof enough.

 

How is that proof?

 

[1]so your saying that the conclusion of a situation is your perspective, not your overall reality. [2]what you experiance is part of your reality. [3]because you can and do percieve the same experiances differntly than other people proves that you percieve things differntly than other people. [4]thus your perception of the objective reality, or your individual reality, is differnent than others.

 

WRONG!

 

1. My perspective is BASED off of reality.

2. What I experience is reality.

3. Percepts = Experiences. I do not perceive reality any different than other people who have 5 senses like I do. I interpret the evidence using the faculties of non-contradictory identification (REASON) and come to my conclusions using rationality. Thus my perspective is based off of reality. The conclusions that people come to (perspectives) are either true or false. Using logic we can deduce and decide which perspective is right and which is wrong.

 

Contradictory and illogical perspectives are wrong.

[Soule]

so yes i would actually have to agree. if we are not able to predict something then we obviously do not understand it fully.

 

i already proved it. the experiance of dreams is proof enough.

 

How is that proof?

 

[1]so your saying that the conclusion of a situation is your perspective, not your overall reality. [2]what you experiance is part of your reality. [3]because you can and do percieve the same experiances differntly than other people proves that you percieve things differntly than other people. [4]thus your perception of the objective reality, or your individual reality, is differnent than others.

 

WRONG!

 

1. My perspective is BASED off of reality.

2. What I experience is reality.

3. Percepts = Experiences. I do not perceive reality any different than other people who have 5 senses like I do. I interpret the evidence using the faculties of non-contradictory identification (REASON) and come to my conclusions using rationality. Thus my perspective is based off of reality. The conclusions that people come to (perspectives) are either true or false. Using logic we can deduce and decide which perspective is right and which is wrong.

 

Contradictory and illogical perspectives are wrong.

 

no offence to you or your intelligence, but what an ignorant and arrogent thing to say...

 

your perspective would be based on "objective reality". that perspective would be what makes up your "individual reality". what you experiance is your "indivicual reality", or "objective reality" being filtered by your perceptions. and because of this there are no "true truths" or "right or wrong" but that is another discussion.

 

please, read the wiki and make sure you understand it before you continue.