Reality And Spirituality

[Open_Minded]

Every human has much higher potential than they act out in "reality". Every human has much higher potential than they perceive that they have. And when one is told all their lives that they are weak, that they are incapable of intellectual pursuit, etc... then one has a tendancy to perceive this as "truth" and act this out as "reality".

But, isn't this

Every human has much higher potential than they act out in "reality". Every human has much higher potential than they perceive that they have.

the reality, as far as it seems, and this

And when one is told all their lives that they are weak, that they are incapable of intellectual pursuit, etc... then one has a tendancy to perceive this as "truth" and act this out as "reality"

The perception?

 

Dhampir...

 

I can see what you are saying and I agree with it. As I said earlier, "yes and no".....

 

There is an underlying reality that humanity is constantly trying to perceive ... but... we will never gain full access. We are limited by our ability to perceive. And so.... we create our reality - both on individual levels and on cultural levels.

 

If you were to ask a person living in a hut in Somalia what their reality is, you would get quite a different answer than if you were to ask a person living in a million dollar house here in the USA.

 

Let's go back to

when one is told all thier lives that they are weak, that they are incapable of intellectual pursuit, etc... then one has a tendancy to percieve this as "truth" and act this out as "'reality".

...

 

A few months back this came up in another thread about child abuse... you may have participated in the thread.... Spare the Rod, Spare the Child?

 

Within that thread Seabiscuit opened up and explained what it was like to be raised by parents who beat her and her siblings in the name of god. Following are some of her comments...

 

Casey,

 

I was reading your story last night. I was very sad afterwards for you and for myself. You said something that struck my core.

The idea of having moods that matched those in charge. I remember coming home from school wondering what mood my mother would be in. I did match hers. If she was in a bad mood, then I made myself as compliant as I could and scarce if possible. If in a good mood, I could relax a little but was careful not to do something that would alter the situaiton or her mood.

 

In my letter to Roy, I talk about living in a cheerful, obedient shell. They didn't want me to have my own attitudes/moods. They had one picked out for me. After the beatings, I was to be cheerie and happy. Anything less was a crime deserving of another beating. I don't know about you, but I would have sold my prized position not to have back to back beatings--those were the worst. Tissue was raw and getting hit again was extra painful.

 

What I hated was the when my siblings and I would compare crying. Crying was a shameful thing. Those who cried little or not at all were to be held in awe. I cried until I was about 11. Then I could take the pain for a while, but they wanted a broken cry so I could only hold out so long. Mother beat me after I was around 12 and she didn't hit so hard.

 

I use to tell my self that I would be a good girl from the moment after a beating so that I could be a real person. There were so many rules to remember and moods to follow, I never reached that goal.

 

The stupid things we told ourselves about what it meant to be a child. I guess even survival is a messy business.

 

Casey, why do some love those that beat them? I remember intensly loving my parents even though they beat me. I know of parents who say their children are more loving when they implement the Lessin and Dobson stuff

.

 

Here is a part of Casey's answer to Seabiscuit....

 

I'm no expert but I'd say that is because, despite everything, they were and are your parents. In strict biological terms, an unborn child is a parasitic organism, no more and no less. It depends on its host (its mother) for its survival. When it comes into the world for a while it is still a parasitic organism; it can't do anything for itself. It is dependent on its parents for food, clothing, and shelter.

 

However the infant's mind is a tabula rasa, a blank slate, and it is the parents' responsibility to see to it that as far as they can be, the right things are written on the slate. Unfortunately, children don't come with an owner's manual.

 

Thus does a bond develop.

Unfortunately fundamentalist christians don't quite see it like that. The slate isn't blank, it has the Adamic Curse written upon it, to wit, Original Sin. Given that, they see it as their god-given duty to beat the devil out of their kids. All this you know, of course. They don't have an owner's manual but b'gawd they've got the Wholly Babble, that most Holy of Books

...

 

Later on in the thread I asked Seabiscuit how her siblings were doing as adults... her response follows.

 

I have three other siblings. Two bothers and a little sister. Brother number one (18 months younger) married, moved to the south and has three kids. I know he spanks them but I'm unsure of how much it would be considered a beating. My bother scares me and is very religious--a fundy. The kids seem ok. My bother told me that in the 70s there was some big swing on strict parenting. Apparently, they aren't into strict. I have little contact with them. I'm closer to the kids.

 

Brother number 2 has a son and is in a messy divorce. He and his kid are a mess! I worry about both committing suicide. We talk openly but not frequently. He doesn't want to hear me out because he needs my parent's support--what they can give him. He lives a far away and his almost ex-wife is literally nuts--a fundy too.

 

Little sister is recently married to a scary guy with two step children. Those kids are really messed up and I refuse to be around the family. Way too much! My sister and I have been very close. She doesn't want me to feel sorry for the kids. She wants me to support her and her new husband--I can't.

 

I'm the only one who has been devoted to self healing and speaks out about the abuse. Everyone else talks to me in "whispers." And then the family pretends its close. I make calculated and careful visits

.

 

The very real, concrete reality here ... is that out of four children ... only one was able to rise above the "reality" imposed upon her as a child.

 

Would you say that these statistics are representative of other abusive situations? I'm not sure as I've never studied these things. But, it wouldn't surprise me at all, if the statistics were stacked even higher against overcoming one's childhood impressions of "reality".

 

Now - you and I both know that a person's real worth is NOT what their childhood perceptions tell them it is. We know that a person's real worth is unlimited potential ... but ... try telling this to someone who is convinced otherwise.

 

Chances are quite high that their individual "reality" will prevent them from accepting the good news that they have unlimited human potential.

 

And I used the verbage "good news" intentionally

[Amanda]

Does that mean that the reality changed in face of the new information, or is it that man's understanding of the evidence and gradually changing worldview caused a change in outlook?

 

Slaves were once regarded as only fit and intelligent enough for the manual labor chores for which they were bred. Slaves clearly had the capacity for more, however, a couple more centuries of selective breeding would have made that the case. See my point?

 

Dhampir, I suppose it means our perception of reality may not be all that accurate, where ever we are.

 

As far as the slave analogy, perhaps "reality" breaks through... no matter what we try to do. Possibly a more peaceful existence is now emerging to the forefront of reality's realization.

[its_just_me]

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

 

Prove it.

 

Actually, it's you who must prove there is an objective reality. Go ahead.....I'd love to see 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?

 

Exactly...and your senses give you the information needed to form your perspective of that experience. You can't have an experience without perceiving it....cause then it wouldn't be an experience....and my perception of an identical experience to yours could be completely different -- or, it could be the same. Prove it either way....you can't. Hence, the idea of 'individual realities'.

 

I recognize the color red. I would wager we would agree when I point to what I believe to be red, you would agree, the color is red. But prove to me that my percption (what I understand to be red) of red and your perception (what you understand to be red) of red are the same. Again, you can't. Individual realities.

 

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.

 

Nope, not incoherent....simply paradoxical.

[its_just_me]

3. Percepts = Experiences.

 

Wrong.

 

I do not perceive reality any different than other people who have 5 senses like I do.

 

Prove it.

 

Contradictory and illogical perspectives are wrong.

 

Logic can lead you astray. Don't believe me?

 

Stouffer's Study.....Stouffer found that:

 

1. Soldiers with higher IQs were more fearful of combat and showed more psychosomatic symptoms than soldiers with lower IQs.

 

2. Soldiers from rural communities adapted faster to basic training than soldiers from urban communities.

 

3. Soldiers were more highly motivated to return home while the war was still happening as compared to when the war was over.

 

Now, using logic/common sense, can you explain his findings? Short/sweet answers are fine. Even just explaining 1 of the points above using logic would be fine.

[its_just_me]

For instance, it may be that I see the color blue the way you see the color red, but we still agree that the color we are both seeing is blue, no matter how we percieve it. The reality is still whatever it is, which might not be what either of us see.

 

See, this shows you that you really should read entire threads before commenting...haha

[Amanda]

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?

 

Exactly...and your senses give you the information needed to form your perspective of that experience. You can't have an experience without perceiving it....cause then it wouldn't be an experience....and my perception of an identical experience to yours could be completely different -- or, it could be the same. Prove it either way....you can't. Hence, the idea of 'individual realities'.

 

It's Just Me, welcome to these forums! I haven't seen you around till now, however, I've liked all your posts.

 

I'm curious to know your opinion of the accuracy of our senses, even if we all see it. Such as our senses seem to see the world as flat, the color we see something is the color it is not (an object absorbs colors, and the one it does not absorb it reflects back), and there are many optical and kinesthetic illusions. I've been told that often our eyes fill in the blanks for us, or see it how it is suppose to be instead of what it is.. especially in reading.

 

Also, it is said that each person remembers generally 7 things. If there is a car accident and one talks to the 5 people who saw it happen, they will probably relate the accident 5 different ways. Each person channels their preception of events via their criteria of importance. Therefore, that would seem to highly effect their perception of reality. Of course there is a general consensus creating a collective reality, however, there seems to be quite a bit of individual realities too. It almost seems to me that reality overall could still be seen as just a relative experience.

[Soule]

ya know i'm really glad that i'm not the only one who understands this concept here XD

[its_just_me]

I'm curious to know your opinion of the accuracy of our senses, even if we all see it. Such as our senses seem to see the world as flat, the color we see something is the color it is not (an object absorbs colors, and the one it does not absorb it reflects back)...

 

Actually, I won't go into specifics, but, color actually exists only in our minds....it's not part of matter.

 

and there are many optical and kinesthetic illusions. I've been told that often our eyes fill in the blanks for us, or see it how it is suppose to be instead of what it is.. especially in reading.

 

Ah yes, kinesthetic illusions really do tell the story that what we perceive is not always the way it is.

 

If there is a car accident and one talks to the 5 people who saw it happen, they will probably relate the accident 5 different ways. Each person channels their preception of events via their criteria of importance. Therefore, that would seem to highly effect their perception of reality.

 

ahh...the old 5 blind men and the elephant...each experiencing a different part of the animal...each with different perceptions of it.

 

Of course there is a general consensus creating a collective reality,

 

I find the concept of a 'collective reality' almost impossible.....at least until the time I can get into your head and visa versa.

 

however, there seems to be quite a bit of individual realities too.

 

For me, individual realities are the only 'true' realities.

 

It almost seems to me that reality overall could still be seen as just a relative experience.

 

*nods...exactly.

[Asimov]

-your perceptions of reality define the experiance. if you experianced reality before you percieve it then no perceptions would form. example: my perception of 911 is that it was murder. a terrorists perception of 911 is that it was fully justified and a great thing to happen. both are different realities. both are correct depending on PERCEPTION to define them. not to mention they are both contradictory, yet seem to still coexist.

 

Have you listened to a fucking word I've said? At all??

 

You are describing the result of experience, the result of percepts. You seem to lack comprehension since I've said like 18 times that perceptions like sight, taste, sound, smell, touch give us our experiences. The conceptualizing of those percepts result in concepts such as 911 being murder.

 

-we all have the same senses, however we percieve things through those senses diffently. for example, people have different foods that they consider their favorite. if everyone sensed food the same then we would all have one food that we considered our favorite.

 

No, you're confusing reality with belief and emotions.

[its_just_me]

-your perceptions of reality define the experiance. if you experianced reality before you percieve it then no perceptions would form. example: my perception of 911 is that it was murder. a terrorists perception of 911 is that it was fully justified and a great thing to happen. both are different realities. both are correct depending on PERCEPTION to define them. not to mention they are both contradictory, yet seem to still coexist.

 

Have you listened to a fucking word I've said? At all??

 

You are describing the result of experience, the result of percepts. You seem to lack comprehension since I've said like 18 times that perceptions like sight, taste, sound, smell, touch give us our experiences. The conceptualizing of those percepts result in concepts such as 911 being murder.

 

Actually, it's you who aren't listening. You are confusing perception and sensation...and ultimately experience. It would probably be helpful for you to take a psych 101 class and you will quickly learn how it all works together.

 

I've said like 18 times that perceptions like sight, taste, sound, smell, touch give us our experiences.

 

Sight, taste, sound, smell and touch are SENSATIONS, not perceptions.

 

The conceptualizing of those percepts result in concepts such as 911 being murder.

 

Perception IS the process of conceptualizing....it is mental organization and interpretation of sensory information. It is the process of registering sensory stimuli as meaningful experience...it is NOT the experience itself.

 

-we all have the same senses, however we percieve things through those senses diffently. for example, people have different foods that they consider their favorite. if everyone sensed food the same then we would all have one food that we considered our favorite.

 

No, you're confusing reality with belief and emotions.

 

No, you are simply not understanding the concept.

[Dhampir]

See, this shows you that you really should read entire threads before commenting...haha

Haha, maybe you should'a figured I had something to add to this...haha

 

untrue things can indeed be considered reality.

take for instance color. what we see as blue is not blue. it is an illusion created by the brain, however the reality is considered to be that blue is blue because blue is all that we can understand, even though that is not true reality. so part of our individual reality is that blue is blue.

 

we have a certain amount of receptors in our eyes that distinguish different wavelengths of light. there is a lobster that has more than double the amount of receptors than we do and sees quite a few more colors than we do. so that is to say that the reality of "color" is not objective reality, but an individual reality.

According to this logic, Everything we see and do is illusion, which renders the term illusion redundant.

 

My own example of color being in the eye of the beholder, which I abridged in anticipation of ...someone... calling me on it, holds that there's still something there to be percieved, no matter how it is percieved. Color is not untrue, nor is it an illusion. There are actual physical energies that our brains have been made to percieve and interperet through the medium of our eyes; the color itself is how it is interpereted for us. How else would you expect to perceive those wavelengths?

 

Dhampir...

 

I can see what you are saying and I agree with it. As I said earlier, "yes and no".....

 

There is an underlying reality that humanity is constantly trying to perceive ... but... we will never gain full access. We are limited by our ability to perceive. And so.... we create our reality - both on individual levels and on cultural levels.

 

If you were to ask a person living in a hut in Somalia what their reality is, you would get quite a different answer than if you were to ask a person living in a million dollar house here in the USA.

So you understand that there is an underlying reality, but it is not so convoluted as you think, not completely perceptible, but not so complicated either.

 

If you were to ask a Somali what their 'reality' is, they might not understand the question. Here, we, and by we I mean you, are mincing the definitions of reality, so let's clarify:

reality

 

n 1: all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you; "his world was shattered"; "we live in different worlds"; "for them demons were as much a part of reality as trees were" [syn: world] 2: the state of being actual or real; "the reality of his situation slowly dawned on him" [syn: realness, realism] [ant: unreality] 3: the state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be; "businessmen have to face harsh realities" 4: the quality possessed by something that is real [ant: unreality]

You are using definitions 1, and to some degree 2 interchangeably with definitions 3 and 4, which are the ones I have been using thus far. See, the Somalis reality is not different from the millionaire's by the latter two at all. Think of it as if you were looking at the world from space. Would you see a different reality for each portion of the world you looked at? No, what you'd see is one unified reality, composed of groups with different outlooks toward that reality.

 

What is that reality?1. These people all... ....exist. And they're all people. 2. They're all conscious and self-aware. 3.They're all human, with relation to each other, although some of them like to think that others aren't. 4.They are mostly very similar to each other, with the few minor differences between them blown massively out of proportion by their subjective understandings, and personal desires, as well as some instinctual things. 6. Perception is general, meaning that all the senses of every person, with a few abnormal exceptions, function in the same way, no matter what the resultant information is. For example, as I've stated before, it may be that we each percieve each color differently from each other, but no one can 'see' the taste of fresh watermelon, except conceptually, but that doesn't even count.

 

There are a few others, but I think my point is made. This is the reality I have been expounding upon. A person could be seriously injured, and someone could be trying to help them, but more than that, is fully capable of rendering competent and useful assistance. Now an onlooker, unaware of these things, might think that person is hurting the injured. Is that reality? No! Objectively, the assistant is helping that person.

 

 

As to the rest of your post, Open, I intentionally did not participate in that thread, and for the same reason I didn't read the parts referring to it.

Dhampir, I suppose it means our perception of reality may not be all that accurate, where ever we are.

 

As far as the slave analogy, perhaps "reality" breaks through... no matter what we try to do. Possibly a more peaceful existence is now emerging to the forefront of reality's realization.

Actually, I was about to dissent here, but, to a degree, you are right. We as ex-christians understand that Christians doubt because reality tends to interject itself into the illusion of a biblegod bound world. Their worldview not only does not fall completely inline with objective nature, but it actively contrasts it. It would be preposterous to think that no slaveowner had one moment of questioning whether or not their property existed as nothing more than property. I don't quite understand those last two words though.

[Amanda]

Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

Main Entry: be·lief

Pronunciation: b&-'lEf

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan -- more at BELIEVE

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

[its_just_me]

According to this logic, Everything we see and do is illusion,

 

No, it means everything we see and do COULD be illusion.

 

which renders the term illusion redundant.

 

Why is that?

 

My own example of color being in the eye of the beholder, which I abridged in anticipation of ...someone... calling me on it, holds that there's still something there to be percieved, no matter how it is percieved. Color is not untrue, nor is it an illusion. There are actual physical energies that our brains have been made to percieve and interperet through the medium of our eyes; the color itself is how it is interpereted for us. How else would you expect to perceive those wavelengths?

 

You can perceive color in a dream....by your logic, the conclusion can only be that the 'thing' causing the color in your dream is 'something' (an objective reality) there that is perceived. (this goes for anything perceived in a dream) True?

[Amanda]

Dhampir, I suppose it means our perception of reality may not be all that accurate, where ever we are.

 

As far as the slave analogy, perhaps "reality" breaks through... no matter what we try to do. Possibly a more peaceful existence is now emerging to the forefront of reality's realization.

Actually, I was about to dissent here, but, to a degree, you are right. We as ex-christians understand that Christians doubt because reality tends to interject itself into the illusion of a biblegod bound world. Their worldview not only does not fall completely inline with objective nature, but it actively contrasts it. It would be preposterous to think that no slaveowner had one moment of questioning whether or not their property existed as nothing more than property. I don't quite understand those last two words though.

 

Dhampir, perhaps I should have said the realization of reality. I was referring to the value of coexisting with ALL peacefully. Maybe coexisting peacefully is much more beneficial, however, it seems that the strongest survive mentality has created conquerers. Maybe the "reality" of a greater benefit to coexist peacefully is just now being realized, come to our awareness to a significant degree now.

 

Dhampir, maybe not all Christians are alike. Actually, I don't even use that label any more because it seems to be very misleading. The popular interpretation of that label is NOT consistent with my philosophy. Many here claim I am not a true Christian. I see these teachings as allegories and metaphors, as many other spiritual teachings are used. Even Ghandi said he really liked Jesus, but he didn't like our Christians. I'm sure your definition of biblegod and mine are quite different. It says under my avatar what my God is to me, and that was there from day 1. Is that consistent with your view of biblegod? I wish I could just be taken at face value without all the baggage of generalizations. Maybe the 'reality' is that we should all get along as we coexist?

[Dhampir]

Why is that?

By definition, if everything were illusion, then everything is an incorrect concept of reality. How could we have an illusion if there's no reality?

 

You can perceive color in a dream....by your logic, the conclusion can only be that the 'thing' causing the color in your dream is 'something' (an objective reality) there that is perceived. (this goes for anything perceived in a dream) True?

I think you're intentionally mistunderstanding me. There is something there to be percieved and interpereted by your brain and be projected as your dream, yes. Is it the same as the outer inflence? No. You figure out what it is.

[Asimov]

Actually, it's you who aren't listening. You are confusing perception and sensation...and ultimately experience. It would probably be helpful for you to take a psych 101 class and you will quickly learn how it all works together.

 

Actually, it's you who hasn't read the fucking thread. I've defined my terms 800 times. If you disagree with my definitions, then we cannot go any further in discussion.

 

I don't care what a psych 101 class says.

 

Soul,

 

It appears as if we are at an impasse due to language conflicts.

 

Since we do not agree on the definitions, we cannot have a discussion.

 

 

Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

Main Entry: be·lief

Pronunciation: b&-'lEf

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan -- more at BELIEVE

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

 

Amanda....conviction of the reality of some phenomena doesn't mean that it's real.

[Open_Minded]

Dhampir...

 

I can see what you are saying and I agree with it. As I said earlier, "yes and no".....

 

There is an underlying reality that humanity is constantly trying to perceive ... but... we will never gain full access. We are limited by our ability to perceive. And so.... we create our reality - both on individual levels and on cultural levels.

 

If you were to ask a person living in a hut in Somalia what their reality is, you would get quite a different answer than if you were to ask a person living in a million dollar house here in the USA.

So you understand that there is an underlying reality, but it is not so convoluted as you think, not completely perceptible, but not so complicated either.

 

Yes... I absolutely recognize that there is an underlying reality. And NO... I DO NOT THINK IT IS ANY WAY CONVOLUTED OR COMPLICATED.

 

If you were to ask a Somali what their 'reality' is, they might not understand the question. Here, we, and by we I mean you, are mincing the definitions of reality, so let's clarify:reality

NO ... I am not "mincing the definitions of reality".

 

Note that I've said more than once "yes and no" and note that I brought up the point of an "underlying reality".

 

I'm quite familiar with the different ways one can use the word reality, thank you very much. If I weren't familiar with these different ways I would not have mentioned that I agree with so much of what you are saying and that there is an "underlying reality".

 

n 1: all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you; "his world was shattered"; "we live in different worlds"; "for them demons were as much a part of reality as trees were" [syn: world] 2: the state of being actual or real; "the reality of his situation slowly dawned on him" [syn: realness, realism] [ant: unreality] 3: the state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be; "businessmen have to face harsh realities" 4: the quality possessed by something that is real [ant: unreality]

You are using definitions 1, and to some degree 2 interchangeably with definitions 3 and 4, which are the ones I have been using thus far. See, the Somalis reality is not different from the millionaire's by the latter two at all. Think of it as if you were looking at the world from space. Would you see a different reality for each portion of the world you looked at? No, what you'd see is one unified reality, composed of groups with different outlooks toward that reality.

 

Dhampir, let me clarify.

• To me - this is a discussion - not a debate. I feel no need to prove you - or anyone else - wrong.
  
• My points have not been an attempt to disprove your points.
  
• Once again - I'm not using these definitions "interchangeably" with each other. - Once again - I was the one to point out that there is an underlying reality.
  

What I have been trying to point out is how powerful this false sense of reality can be, how much it can define life. Not just for the individual but for the culture as well.

 

Within every meditative tradition I've ever studied there is a concept of "true self" and "false self". To me this disucssion (emphasis on the word discussion) is about the "true self" and the "false self". More specifically the false sense of reality. And I do appoligize if I didn't clarify my position earlier.

 

Having said that ... let's look at your following points....

 

What is that reality?1. These people all... ....exist. And they're all people. 2. They're all conscious and self-aware. 3.They're all human, with relation to each other, although some of them like to think that others aren't. 4.They are mostly very similar to each other, with the few minor differences between them blown massively out of proportion by their subjective understandings, and personal desires, as well as some instinctual things. 6. Perception is general, meaning that all the senses of every person, with a few abnormal exceptions, function in the same way, no matter what the resultant information is. For example, as I've stated before, it may be that we each percieve each color differently from each other, but no one can 'see' the taste of fresh watermelon, except conceptually, but that doesn't even count.

 

I agree with the above - the red areas are where I've been placing my emphasis....

 

In fact, it may be fair to state that the few minor differences between those of us in this discussion about the term "reality" can be "blown massively out of proportion" by our own "subjective understandings" - don't you think.

 

My point has been, and still is, that this false sense of reality can - in concrete and very real ways - impact our daily realities - the daily nitty gritty stuff of life. If we perceive others as enemies then we treat them as enemies and create very real and concrete conflict where none need exist.

 

If we believe that we are capable of less than the unlimited potential we all possess, then we act this out in very concrete ways.

 

As mentioned earlier in the thread when I was responding to Asimov ...

 

(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.

No... the world does not change because we close our eyes. But, the world does change because of human perception.

 

Human perception can very much define reality.....

 

If a group of human beings perceive that the tribulation is at hand - they are certainly capable of impacting reality in such a way as to effect the world around them in very concrete ways.

 

If a group of human beings perceives that humanity is capable of building a peace from within - they are certainly capable of impacting reality in such a way as to effect the world around them in very concrete ways.

 

Over hundreds of thousands of years of human existence - human perception has defined reality - whether we like it or not. The religions, the governments, the economies of the world are nothing more than extensions of human perceptions. Even - Wall Street operates on human perception, the movement of the markets (up or down) are very much based upon human perception.

 

And I didn't even mention the impact of this "false reality" on individual health and well being. If one perceives that one is weak and ill than this becomes a very concrete and real part of a person's life. If one perceives that the world is a dark and heavy place to live than this too is played out in very real and concrete ways - in a person's life. If one perceives that they are not one of the "lucky ones", that "life is out to get them", that there must always be suffering and pain, then this becomes part of a person's concrete daily living experience. People unconsciously search out what they perceive....

 

There are a few others, but I think my point is made. This is the reality I have been expounding upon. A person could be seriously injured, and someone could be trying to help them, but more than that, is fully capable of rendering competent and useful assistance. Now an onlooker, unaware of these things, might think that person is hurting the injured. Is that reality? No! Objectively, the assistant is helping that person.

 

I don't disagree with you at all ....

 

In fact the only thing that I would say is... let's not take a very minor difference in the way we are individually perceiving these things and blow it massively out of proportion. I understand where you have been placing your emphasis and I affirm you understand where I have been placing my emphasis.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

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.

 

 

I think he means that an individuals perception defines reality for him. So, in that way, everyone's reality is slightly different, no matter the number of things we can agree upon, there is always something, at least one thing, upon which we cannot agree. Therefore, the only way for everyone's reality to be homogenous is for everyone's experiences and perceptions to be identical. It seem like you are saying that there is a reality that would exist even if there were no observers. This may be true, but in practice becomes essentially meaningless when you begin to take into account more and more experiences with reality.

 

I say all of this to say that I agree with, in spirit, the sentiments of that generic poster whose name escapes me. I also understand your objections. Seems like we're both empiricists, but I don't see this particular concept as threatening to empiricism. It seems almost inuitive if you allow yourself to contemplate living in someone else's skin for even a moment. If that doesn't work, take some mushrooms.

[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.

 

 

I think he means that an individuals perception defines reality for him. So, in that way, everyone's reality is slightly different, no matter the number of things we can agree upon, there is always something, at least one thing, upon which we cannot agree. Therefore, the only way for everyone's reality to be homogenous is for everyone's experiences and perceptions to be identical. It seem like you are saying that there is a reality that would exist even if there were no observers. This may be true, but in practice becomes essentially meaningless when you begin to take into account more and more experiences with reality.

 

I say all of this to say that I agree with, in spirit, the sentiments of that generic poster whose name escapes me. I also understand your objections. Seems like we're both empiricists, but I don't see this particular concept as threatening to empiricism. It seems almost inuitive if you allow yourself to contemplate living in someone else's skin for even a moment. If that doesn't work, take some mushrooms.

 

I'm not an empiricist per se, Shiva.

 

Reality = Everything that Exists.

Perception = The use of our senses to interact with the world (Sensory Perception).

Experience = A specific act where our senses interact with the world (smelling a flower).

Conception = The use of our reasoning abilities to coalesce our percepts into knowledge.

Perspective = The individual beliefs and thoughts of a single invidual human.

 

It's retarded to say that things exist for some people and don't exist for others. Perspectively, I grant that peoples cognitive function allows them to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't really mean anything if those beliefs don't align with reality.

[Amanda]

Hey, I just thought of something. Perhaps our discussion just shows each of our tendency to one side of the coin or the other?

 

There is the concrete side, what is tangible according to our common perceptors, on one side. Perhaps this could be referred to on the outside, the surface, what we can see, touch, hear, smell, and taste, as objectionable evidence.

 

The other side of the coin is perhaps the abstract concepts of what is causing the outside to project the way it does, its character. What lies beyond what we can actually perceive with our five senses that allows the senses to experience it in the way it does.

 

Now, the second seems to me, to be the projection of the first. We can agree to what we identify concretely, however, that is not so obvious as to why we do so... and some consider the 'why it is perceived as it is' to be more associated to reality and some consider the 'what we actually experience' to be more associated to reality.

 

There are many aspects of life we can not validate with our senses alone, that we have come to collectively accept as truth/reality. The problem is that we are constantly refining truth/reality with new findings. We have to cling to something we collectively come to a concensus to call reality, or we could not interact nor survive! The concrete is the beginning and most consistent of this, but do we stop there?

 

I once heard a saying that said reasonable people are rational people. Therefore, progress is usually made by unreasonable people. Could there be some truth to that, in that sometimes reality does present itself into our awareness by abstract thinking? It seems we need individual abstract realities and an overall concrete reality to survive and progress. Why would we deny either as a 'side of the coin' of reality?

[its_just_me]

 

Actually, it's you who hasn't read the fucking thread. I've defined my terms 800 times. If you disagree with my definitions, then we cannot go any further in discussion.

 

 

Agreed. Until you stop using your own definitions of these terms instead of the definitions that are generally held by scholars, we cannot continue.

[Asimov]

 

Actually, it's you who hasn't read the fucking thread. I've defined my terms 800 times. If you disagree with my definitions, then we cannot go any further in discussion.

 

 

Agreed. Until you stop using your own definitions of these terms instead of the definitions that are generally held by scholars, we cannot continue.

 

I'm not using my own definitions.

[Soule]

 

Actually, it's you who hasn't read the fucking thread. I've defined my terms 800 times. If you disagree with my definitions, then we cannot go any further in discussion.

 

 

Agreed. Until you stop using your own definitions of these terms instead of the definitions that are generally held by scholars, we cannot continue.

 

I'm not using my own definitions.

 

then i will define different types of reality and we will continue from there.

 

Objective: there is a reality or realm of objects existing independent of the mind

 

Relative: not absolute

 

ok then. this is the reality that asimov is describing. the one that says that all experiances stem from. what asimov dosnt know is that he agrees with me and that this debate is completely pointless. so ok objective reality is a reality that exists independent of the mind. now because our reality DEPENDS ON THE MIND TO DEFINE IT (aka perception or sensory imput), that is the reality that i am saying exists.

 

also there are more definitions but i'm feeling lazy and i think my point has been made.

 

It's retarded to say that things exist for some people and don't exist for others. Perspectively, I grant that peoples cognitive function allows them to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't really mean anything if those beliefs don't align with reality.

 

its retarded to say that you know what that reality is absolutely.

[its_just_me]

I think you're intentionally mistunderstanding me.

 

I am not intentionally misunderstanding you......it seems you are sincerely misunderstanding me.

 

There is something there to be percieved and interpereted by your brain....

 

Whether dream or not, you will have to prove that there "is something there to be perceived and interpreted by your brain." How do you know this? What if your brain is making it all up? (illusion) How can you prove it? You can't....no one can.

 

 

 

I'm not using my own definitions.

 

Yes, you are. See, smell taste, feel and smell are senses, not perceptions....that is just one example.

 

so ok objective reality is a reality that exists independent of the mind.

 

As I've said all along, if anyone can truly prove this it would push the psychology and philosphy fields aeons ahead.

 

now because our reality DEPENDS ON THE MIND TO DEFINE IT (aka perception or sensory imput), that is the reality that i am saying exists.

 

[snip]

 

its retarded to say that you know what that reality is absolutely.

 

I agree.

[Dhampir]

How do you know this? What if your brain is making it all up?

Well, OF COURSE your brain is making these things up when you dream. The processes that the brain undergoes is what you percieve as your dream. As for everything else, well, to assume that everything could be an illusion generated by the brain leaves open the speculation that the brain (read: mind) itself is but an illusion, generated by... ... the... ...brain? At this point, if an illusion is an incorrect perception, then what the fuck is correct? Either everything is an illusion, at which realization I should be able to think myself right out of existence, or there is something that exists independent of the mind. If anything exists independent of the mind, that means there is an objective reality, to which we can anchor our individual realities.

 

And, as far as I have seen, no illusion hasn't been generated by something else that can be pointed out. So an illusion (which is probably better served by the word hallucination) is generated by the brain, huh? Our brains our fooling us? But aren't our brains utilizing processes and neurons and electro-chemical reactions to produce this illusion?

 

The conclusion: Something Has To Be Real. If an illusion does not exist, it must be predicated upon something that does.