Is Anything Real?

[midniterider]

 

http://phobias.about.com/od/glossary/g/magicalthinking.htm

"Magical thinking is a clinical term used to describe a wide variety of nonscientific and sometimes irrational beliefs.  These beliefs are generally centered on correlations between events.

 

For example, a belief in the power of spells or rituals could be considered magical thinking"

 

You see BO it's actually believing in magic and things that are like magic. 

 

 

This interesting book that I need to finish, "The Laws of Magical Thinking" takes this definition a step further. Sentimentality could be considered magical thinking if one places a higher value on Grandma's wedding ring than an exact duplicate, for example. Just because she owned it and wore it makes it precious to a granddaughter even though it may be worthless to most anyone else. It's the 'law' of contagion. :-) It's a piece of Grandma. Similar to keeping a loved one's ashes. Are they really the person? No, just a reminder. Sort of. Ideas like these are illogical. But interesting.

 

The book cites scientific studies about how everyone is at least a tiny bit magical in their thinking in their everyday life. We just don't think of it as such. Ever cuss out your car for breaking down? :-) Why don't commercial fishermen go fishing on Friday? Why did the NY Yankees dig up the Red Sox jersey buried in the cement under their stadium? It was just a piece of cloth with a symbol on it. Would you as an American burn the American flag? It's just piece of cloth, right? Would you feel comfortable throwing darts at a photo of a baby? The author reports on numerous experiments conducted to find out people's responses and feelings toward these things.

[mwc]

Well then...GEE...I thought you knew everything.  If you insist...here you go:  

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reductionist  

 

In my lay mans terms, it is simply the view that you can reduce everything down into what you can see, feel, smell, hear, and touch. 

 

     There are a number of definitions there and you don't specify.  From what you're saying you're talking in strictly biological terms then?  This would be related to the first definition I would think.

 

          mwc

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Well then...GEE...I thought you knew everything. If you insist...here you go:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reductionist

 

In my lay mans terms, it is simply the view that you can reduce everything down into what you can see, feel, smell, hear, and touch.

There are a number of definitions there and you don't specify. From what you're saying you're talking in strictly biological terms then? This would be related to the first definition I would think.

 

mwc

From what I have seen on here, I have seen people try to reduce about EVERYTHING in that manner. It sounds nice and appears to fit in a box, but upon further examination, that box really doesn't hold it.

 

 

You have seen "people" try?

 

Who are these "people" and when did they try?  

 

Since you have picked a definition of reductionist that is downright silly I don't see any reason to defend "reductionists".  I'm much more interested in knowing who thinks all of reality can be reduced to what they can see, feel, smell, hear, and touch.

[mwc]

 

From what I have seen on here, I have seen people try to reduce about EVERYTHING in that manner. It sounds nice and appears to fit in a box, but upon further examination, that box really doesn't hold it.

 

     I'm not sure what you mean by this.  I don't know to what "manner" you're referring.  How does this, "It sounds nice and appears to fit in a box, but upon further examination, that box really doesn't hold it," relate to what you said earlier ("it is simply the view that you can reduce everything down into what you can see, feel, smell, hear, and touch")?

 

          mwc

[florduh]

It's simple. If you don't agree with me then you are a (insert what you think is a derogatory label) and are in denial.

 

There. Fixed. Let's move on.

[midniterider]

It's simple. If you don't agree with me then you are a (insert what you think is a derogatory label) and are in denial.

 

There. Fixed. Let's move on.

 

Oh there'll be none of that "movin' on" stuff, Mr.

Someone on the internet is WRONG and that has to be fixed. :-) lol.

[Denyoz]

Why did the NY Yankees dig up the Red Sox jersey buried in the cement under their stadium? It was just a piece of cloth with a symbol on it. Would you as an American burn the American flag? It's just piece of cloth, right? Would you feel comfortable throwing darts at a photo of a baby? The author reports on numerous experiments conducted to find out people's responses and feelings toward these things.

 

Could the same be said about a $100 bill?  It's just paper.  It only has value because enough people believe that it does.  In "reality" it's worth nothing. 

[midniterider]

 

Why did the NY Yankees dig up the Red Sox jersey buried in the cement under their stadium? It was just a piece of cloth with a symbol on it. Would you as an American burn the American flag? It's just piece of cloth, right? Would you feel comfortable throwing darts at a photo of a baby? The author reports on numerous experiments conducted to find out people's responses and feelings toward these things.

 

Could the same be said about a $100 bill?  It's just paper.  It only has value because enough people believe that it does.  In "reality" it's worth nothing. 

 

 

Hey, good question! And it is a good comparison to analyze.

 

Do I feel I will somehow cause some vague supernatural harm to the United States if I burn a flag? Probably. It is my cultural programming to protect the flag. It represents some intangible quality of unity with my fellow citizens. Other people agree so much so that they created a pledge of allegiance to this flag that I recited every day in school.

 

Now, if I burn a $100 bill, well, I'm only screwing myself. :-) We don't say a pledge of allegiance to $100 bills. Not until we grow up and get jobs anyway. lol. And burning money doesn't really generate some idea in my head that I'm placing a curse on a nation or being an unworthy citizen.  Will you suffer any loss if you burn a flag? Will you suffer any loss if you burn money? You might answer yes to both but the type of loss between these two things is different.

 

Now if it's my flag that I spent $100 on then burned it, well....

[Denyoz]

Forget about burning either the flag or the $100 bill.  What is relevant to this discussion is: "Is the value we give to those two things real?"  Objectively, no.  Give your $100 bill to an aboriginal in a lost tribe in the Amazon jungle, and he will probably use it to wipe his ass.  It has no intrinsic value to an outsider.  Same for the flag.

 

So my next question would be: "Is the value we assign to these things similar to magical thinking?"  If it is, then our whole society's economy is built on magical thinking.  How could we then dare say that "magical thinking" has no "real" power?  It certainly does have power when you believe it.

[midniterider]

So my next question would be: "Is the value we assign to these things similar to magical thinking?"  If it is, then our whole society's economy is built on magical thinking.  How could we then dare say that "magical thinking" has no "real" power?  It certainly does have power when you believe it.

 

Yes, money is similar to magical thinking. It is a piece of paper that gives you power. And like you said the power it has depends on who is involved and their value of it. Ever been told by a merchant that they don't accept $100 bills? No bills over a twenty?

 

I agree magical thinking has power when you believe it. It can turn a human being into a suicide bomber. It can make one waste his Sundays at church. It can make people knock on wood for no apparent reason. It can allow people to have a sense of hope (Jesus has a great plan for my life). It can also provide hopelessness (I'm a sinner).

[Voice]

Define "real".

 

I'm with Rank in believing the material universe is real; it's a shared reality that all living things are bound within the shape of and limited to.  I think of it now as described to me by a physicist/scientist, everything is made of quantum fields.  It's the fields that prevent us from passing through solid objects.  This takes it to the holographic universe, the fields.  Denying the reality of a black hole won't prevent it from consuming stars or astronauts.

 

It's a good video.  It's short of discussing important phenomenon though.  He talked about the egocentric predicament, which holds to the individual as the final interpretation of reality.  Apply his talk on neurons and neuron networks to collective research, the interpretations of multiple people working together.  Now there's a social egocentric predicament which may have advantages over an individual's egocentrism in certain areas.  Networking of perception and mapping "reality" collectively.  

 

On whether another person/animal/being or anything else is real outside of the self (the phaneron), I'm baffled that people can think of themselves as real but then point at someone else/some other living thing and say it's not.  Grow an empathy center, that's what it's for, to identify and understand others' realities.  Hardened christians have a bit of a problem with this, their empathy centers have been seared/severed by the doctrine.

[midniterider]

If I felt I was the only being that really existed and the persistent universe and it's contents were part of my own projection then I 'could' have even more love or empathy because everything would be myself and often we are sure to love our own self.

 

Solipsism, pantheism, panentheism and advaita are interesting subjects.

[Deva]

The only really interesting part of this question is "am I real" with emphasis on the "I" . 

 

 

[midniterider]

The only really interesting part of this question is "am I real" with emphasis on the "I" . 

 

"I" may be an illusion. "Who am I" , asks Ramana Maharshi.

[RankStranger]

 

The only really interesting part of this question is "am I real" with emphasis on the "I" . 

 

"I" may be an illusion. "Who am I" , asks Ramana Maharshi.

 

 

An illusion?  How so?

[ContraBardus]

 

 

The only really interesting part of this question is "am I real" with emphasis on the "I" . 

 

"I" may be an illusion. "Who am I" , asks Ramana Maharshi.

 

 

An illusion?  How so?

 

 

How not so?

[Deva]

Some people claim to have lost all sense of a personal self. They have written about it. One example is the book "Collision with the Infinite" by Suzanne Segal - I haven't read the book yet.

 

I can't say I ever met anyone who seemed to have completely lost their ego or sense of self, but it must be an amazing state to be in.

[Denyoz]

I can't say I ever met anyone who seemed to have completely lost their ego or sense of self, but it must be an amazing state to be in.

 

I'm starting to think and feel that we don't live in a universe, but in a multiverse.  Each person is a universe.  All of us together makes the multiverse.

 

I find it interesting that there are 22 Major Arcana cards in the Tarot deck which define each person's life journey.  You start as The Fool (first card) and you finish as the Universe (last card).

 

If this is what you mean by completely losing your ego, than I agree.  The idea is to find your real self, which is:  You are everything BUT you.

[midniterider]

 

 

The only really interesting part of this question is "am I real" with emphasis on the "I" . 

 

"I" may be an illusion. "Who am I" , asks Ramana Maharshi.

 

 

An illusion?  How so?

 

 

I'm a poor explainer (and thus a poor debater) so I refer you to Nisargadatta Maharaj or Ramana Maharshi. One experiment that advaitists like to do is to take a look at yourself and see if there really is one (self). Can you really be what you observe? Doesn't the fact of observation show that you are something else? If I look at my body who is the "I" that is looking at my body? Apparently something other than my body. So who is this "I" ? Am I thoughts or am I aware of thoughts moving along in my head? I am that which is aware of thoughts so I am not the thoughts. So if I'm not a body and not thoughts, what's left? What is this "I" that is aware of stuff? Is there an "I" at all?

 

Or is the "I" just a false belief? The sages don't ask you to believe what they say, just to investigate and find out for yourself. Maharshi's practice is to ask yourself "Who am I?" frequently and just meditate on that. This practice I think is similar to Zen meditation. Of course I'm lazy and never do it so if there really is some Self Realization or Enlightenment out there it will have to occur spontaneously. :-)

[midniterider]

 

I can't say I ever met anyone who seemed to have completely lost their ego or sense of self, but it must be an amazing state to be in.

 

I'm starting to think and feel that we don't live in a universe, but in a multiverse.  Each person is a universe.  All of us together makes the multiverse.

 

I find it interesting that there are 22 Major Arcana cards in the Tarot deck which define each person's life journey.  You start as The Fool (first card) and you finish as the Universe (last card).

 

If this is what you mean by completely losing your ego, than I agree.  The idea is to find your real self, which is:  You are everything BUT you.

 

 

I like the multiverse idea. Regarding the Tarot, I'm probably still The Fool. :-)

[RipVanWinkle]

I know one thing: The world is not MY illusion because, if it were mine, I'd place a lot higher in the

hierarchy of things than I do now.

[Voice]

I am something like a quantum singularity, a collaboration of millions of smaller voices, things living their own lives and doing their own things, and I'm connected in some dysfunctional way to a network of other like beings (other singularities made of smaller singularities) taking some part in a larger organism which I can not fully comprehend.  It's a multiverse and a continuum.

If I can define the singularity perhaps I can define myself, or someone else.  If I can define collective consciousness I might be able to understand the voices within.  

[ContraBardus]

How anyone will see someone else's personal philosophical views on the evidence of their own existence and perception of it:

 

 

Some of us are just polite enough to not say it out loud.

[gall]

How anyone will see someone else's personal philosophical views on the evidence of their own existence and perception of it:

 

 

Some of us are just polite enough to not say it out loud.

 

Pic is not loading for me.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Some people claim to have lost all sense of a personal self. They have written about it. One example is the book "Collision with the Infinite" by Suzanne Segal - I haven't read the book yet.

 

I can't say I ever met anyone who seemed to have completely lost their ego or sense of self, but it must be an amazing state to be in.

I'm one of those people who was born without a sense of self in the way most describe it. Which makes my patterns of thinking different than that of most others. I've had to train my mind to think about myself the way I'd talk about myself with language, as it didn't come naturally. To be honest, its nothing special to be in such a state. Though have troubles in life, and lack that sense of self, then that's a surefire way to get diagnosed with a personality disorder. I still have trouble describing myself sometimes. I usually have to go on what others say and what I do.