It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The World You Perceive Does Not Exist

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

I am not sure that it is so easily reduced to semantics. Of course, we can observe something and never know the totality of it, but there is an external stimulus that gets translated into perceived sounds. Beyond that, our perceptions themselves are an active part of the whole event, even if they do not shape the event beyond the mind.

One can argue that none of it is 'real,' but its a bit of a moot point either way. We can see the underlying conditions for behavior and know that they apply to everything, including perception itself. We are pointing to the moon, so to speak. We use labels and communication to relate different perceptions of the same data set, but the words themselves obviously do not contain the totality of information in play. Even if the innate experience of perspective gives the appearance of 'something,' its really more of a delayed, amalgamated signal of real-time events. I'm not sure its inaccuracy or limited nature renders it non-existent though.




posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   
This goes back to the birth of modern philosophy and the next 300-400 years of debate. Descartes argued there is a corporal and incorporeal world. Then you have an interaction problem. How does the incorporeal interact if at its substance it cannot be corporeal. Schopenhauer conceived of the world as incorporeal and payed out for us to perceive(an early event horizon reality idea of reality).

Idealism or realism, neither are provable. Pragmatism tells me there is a floor when I toll out of bed every morning. So I have become a pragmatist. I would love to be an idealist. It makes more sense. But reality sets in. And often it sucks. The fun part I'd say is the future. Because the undeniable consequence of idealism is our freedom of future realities. Focus. The biggest secret is you can do and be anything you put your mind to.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

If reality is the work of our sense organs and brain, then our sense organs and brain are also the work of our sense organs and brain. This is a reductio ad absurdum, for nothing can be its own cause.

There’s no such thing as perception as such, for what we speak about when we speak of perception is really the human body (that which has the ability to perceive), and its relationship with the rest of the universe (that which we perceive). We, as bodies, do not perceive perception, like we do not swim swimming.

Perception requires the whole body and the environment, not just the brain, for the brain cannot perceive without the rest of the body, nor can the body perceive without an environment to perceive. Things smell or appear a certain way because they are a certain way and we are a certain way, and perception is this relationship—not our brains or awareness as such—but the relationship as such. Bats have a different relationship insofar as they have different bodies, and they use echolocation because they are built for it. This, to them, is “perception”.

Sound is vibration moving through air. Heat is the transfer of energy and the movement of molecules. These occur if no one is there to perceive them. Bur how we perceive sound and heat is how the body relates to them.


And when you remove all perceptions from your analysis of an object, what remains?


With a little effort, this question becomes meaningless, for it basically questions what something looks like without something to see it, or how something smells without something to smell it. A description or analysis of reality requires observation. Something cannot be described in adjectives without being observed. Observation and perception requires an observer in a relationship with what is observed. The only way to “remove perception” from analysis is to destroy that relationship, and in the process, destroy the analysis.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Beyond Creation


The dream world is an obvious example of how we are able to have an experience without using any physical senses.

If the dream experience did not contain the scene of a 'tree falling in ear shot'....would the tree make a sound?

)
A falling tree, despite being out of ear-shot, still produces a sound wave - energy. Whether or not a sound is sensed (realised), does not affect the actuality of the falling tree and its sound wave.

How can you know for sure that what is called the 'waking state' is not just a dream?

All that can ever be known is that which is actually appearing - it appears to be known through sensing - and even the sensing is known.
What is knowing the ever changing scene will never be found as it is never not here - so has never been lost. It has been overlooked in favour of apparent things which seem to make up a world.
The world is an illusion in so much as it is 'made up' of concepts, words and ideas. Jesus overcame the world by realizing that 'the world' is nothing more than ideas formed in the mind.
What is real? Is it what is seen, smelled, heard and sensed?
Can any scene appear without being seen?

The scenery is constantly appearing different - yet that which is knowing the ever changing scenery is always the same.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
I think your title is innacurate. The world and the universe are real in any sense you try to take it. Its observable. We can interact with it in extremely predictable ways. We can take it apart to very small pieces and put it back together in better and more meaningful ways.


There is an idea of parts...yet what is always here... is the whole! What is real............is observable. When 'it (the whole)' has been taken apart, what is it that is being observed? Is it a part or is it the whole? What is observable when looking at 'part' of the whole?? 'Part of the whole' is a concept.
Only the 'me' gives meaning. Only the 'me' imagines there is more than there is.
There is just this - there is nothing separate yet thinking, wording, thinging....make believe there is more and better.



Our brains may give us an advantage for solving puzzles, but it is not, and will likely never be adequate enough to understand every aspect of the universe.
The thinking mind is nothing more than a word generator. It strings words together and makes stories about what is not happening. Just imagine how life would be if the speaking mind would stop speaking. Imagine seeing and hearing without the mind saying 'it should not be like this...it should be better, etc.'. The stories the words speak are about other times and other places because the mind cannot tell stories about what is actually happening.
I once read that the word 'universe' means 'the one unfolding'. If there is just the one unfolding then there are no things. There is just what is actually happening and there is no one and nothing separate.
The mind likes to solve problems so much in fact that it is the generator of all problems.
If there was no humans on planet earth would there be a problem?
edit on 4-10-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism

With a little effort, this question becomes meaningless, for it basically questions what something looks like without something to see it, or how something smells without something to smell it. A description or analysis of reality requires observation. Something cannot be described in adjectives without being observed. Observation and perception requires an observer in a relationship with what is observed. The only way to “remove perception” from analysis is to destroy that relationship, and in the process, destroy the analysis.


Some 'thing' cannot be described without words. What is real can be observed. What is observing and what is observed is real.
However, when words describe 'things' and the description is taken for real one tends to live in 'a world of things' but it is just thoughts, words appearing here and they make up a 'world which is not'. The 'world' is a concept, an idea made of ideas about the world.

The colour, the sound, all appearing sensation, including thought and words appear to manifest - it is just a light show.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Where 'thought' is "real" and the 'physical' is the "illusion"...



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Actions are real, as they can change what you perceive, a causative factor is real because it affects the environment.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Dianec

While i agree the human perception is very limited, what is perceived still exists independently of what you think and feel. Sure you can alter the taste of something good by playing with your perception of it, you can hypnose yourself for instance, to make the apple taste like honey or gazoil but it will be strictly subjective and the apple will still taste like an apple. An apple has a taste and a smell for a reason and while it will not be perceived the same from a species to another, they exist, the molecular and biological configuration make these tastes and smells possible, it is not a product of the mind although it will evidently vary from one species to another. Without these how do you hunt? How do you get the motivation to eat?

There are countess stimuli in reality but most arent translated by the brain or even "received" either because specific sense organs are missing or because it is not seen as important to perceive them or even better, because the conscious lack the wisdom and resolve to "feel" them (why do some feel auras?). The brain filters the information we receive. It is a process regulated by the unconscious aka the Wob. Why isnt it possible to perceive everything? It is simply because it would be too "chaotic" for the mind to bear all these stimuli at the same time. You would go insane and unable to function, aka unable to survive and life is about survival. Life regulates itself in order to survive. The world is balanced for a reason. Each species got its strenghts and weaknesses. You do think it is purely random? Nah it feels random but it is because humans are unable to fathom such a level of intelligence, wisdom and creativity that can easily manage everything, every interactions on micro and macro levels on every layer on every plane on every dimension on every world, the whole, in a balanced fashion as to allow it to functions perfectly. Only humans dont fit in this grand picture. All other species got their place and use. Think about it, its true.

Take autism for example. They discovered that autistics might perceive the world in a chaotic way. Sensory world of autism If the 5 senses arent regulated and unable to work synergistically it becomes clearer as to why they act the way they do. Imagine their brain cannot process all 5* senses normally or at the same time. That would mean they would have to focus on one sense at a time to perceive the associated stimulus. And if they cant because they dont know? They go crazy. Even better, they might be unable to regulate their perception of time which means they might perceive time slower or faster or both. Limited perception is a necessity for life to be possible. autism

Funnily enough, it is possible to get a glimpse of an autistic state of mind. A bad trip on powerful hallucinogenics can short-circuit your brain and make it so that your senses will all merge or act randomly, or more.



Why we fall into one another's energy is interesting


I can answer this one. The eyes are said to be the window to the soul. It aint just a sentence, it is true. The eyes ARE the brain. They are directly linked to it. And the brain is the seat of the consciousness, a support for it to be able to be. Is that simple. The eyes are linked to the conscious which is linked to the soul. Thus the eyes are linked to the soul and they do emit things. You dont just receive photons, you emit energy too. When you really focus on something, your consciousness wakes up. The eyesight is the most used sense because it is the most useful (at least initially) and because it is the closest to the consciousness and since to look is to focus (to some extent but definitely when you look at your mate for example) the eyes will then emit energy. The type of energy will depend of your intentions. www.greenmedinfo.com...



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: _damon

Oh and there is an easy way to dismiss the stupid arrogant theory that pretends our conscious creates the world. If that was the case then the world should logically end when you die. But does the world end when one relative die? No it continues as if nothing. Common sense is good.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
A good thread!

I'm reading Michael Talbot's 1991 book The Holographic Universe, and the discussion here mixes nicely with the subject matter of the book.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   
On these threads (which I really like) I usually add or paraphrase a quote which I'm pretty sure is from Robert Anton Wilson: "The best way to expand your own universe is to accept everyone else's".



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Woodcarver
I think your title is innacurate. The world and the universe are real in any sense you try to take it. Its observable.


Again, I am not saying the world is not real. Though my title was somewhat dramatic, I was careful with the wording. The title is 'the world you perceive does not exist.' Everything in the world lacks the perceptual characteristics they seem to have to you. All perceptual characteristics only exist to minds. They do not exist in the objects themselves.


Your perception of things has been "altered" by reading the endless stories by advanced researchers on the topics of "reality".

What makes you think they are not doing this to ensure you stay in the snarl of non-discovery, and why do you insist ENTIRELY that your brain is getting everything all wrong.

Perceptual characteristics only exist to minds, you say, why would our minds perceive things at all...you are now in the territory of being told what to believe by Avatar Consciousness, the "Gatekeepers" and "Enslavers" of ALL.

Take for example your Avatar, and Name, you believe that life is a Journey, you could be dead wrong, and likely are going to be proven to you that nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Ying and Yang, Up Down, Right and Left , Positive and Negative are all traps designed to ENSURE, that you do not actually think outside of the box, but actually believe that "things are not what they seem" and yet your heroes claim to know what is Illusion and Delusion.

If you actually tried to find out what is going on here, and everywhere else, you would soon realize that once you had removed yourselves from the convergence of lies to control you and what you PERCEIVE, you could see a far different truth as to the goals of those who DESIGNED our MINDS.

But almost NONE of you will, because you are totally lost, and will never see things outside of the reality of the JOURNEY you have been wholeheartedly convinced that you are on.

Reality, will be altered ENTIRELY, and you will be able to witness this with or WITHOUT your MIND, that much I DO know.... because I too once believed as you, until I took things to a far heavier level, than the Gatekeepers allow, and challenged them to stand-down from the controlling.

Perceive anything you like, and how you like it, one thing is for sure, YOU KNOW that what you believe in, is not right!!



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

....i do not understand how anyone can ask this question "do i exist"....well you have to exist to ask that question..obviously



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney


Posted by Serdgiam
Even if the innate experience of perspective gives the appearance of 'something,' its really more of a delayed, amalgamated signal of real-time events. I'm not sure its inaccuracy or limited nature renders it non-existent though.

Neither does it render it illegitimate as a description of reality. It's our reality. It is how this particular type of sentience experiences reality. For us, what could be realer than that?

TheJourney:
I agree with the first paragraph of your opening post. Yes, the only apprehensions we have of the world are sense-impressions. However, when you say


All visual properties only appear to eyes and a mind. And so on with all perceptions. So, we can definitely say that all objects are not the perceptions we have of them.

you are mistaken, because all we can definitely say from this is that all objects are only the perceptions we have of them. Everything else is theory.

To go from 'reality is perception' to 'perception is reality' requires a leap of faith. I know you have been at pains to emphasize that you did not claim reality is a fiction. However, that is what is implied in a statement like the following:


A falling tree does not make a sound if noone hears it. Sound only occurs in the presence of ears and a mind.

Actually, sound is how we perceive pressure waves in a fluid medium. The waves are there whether someone hears them or not. Here's a little Schrödinger's Cat-type gedankenexperiment for you to try. I set up a microphone inside a soundproof room, inside which I have placed a wound-up mechanical music-box which I have connected up to some contraption that will allow me to start it from outside the room. The signal from the microphone goes direct to a tape recorder.

The music-box plays, and winds down. After it has stopped playing, I enter the room, retrieve the tape, and put it in a filing-cabinet. There it lives for three months. One day I take the tape out and play it. I hear the sound of the music-box.

Was there no sound in the sealed room where the music-box played?

What was the sound I heard when I listened to the tape?

Where was the sound while the tape was in the filing-cabinet?

*


Your last paragraph seeks to resolve the contradiction by investigating the nature of reality. Well, we have physicists for that, and they've been trying to get down to the fundamental reality of what matter and energy are ever since Democritus, or someone like that. Talk about rabbit holes: this one has proved bottomless. The best answers we have for 'what is matter?' are 'vibrating "strings"' and 'loops in spacetime'. Don't ask what 'strings' are, or why spacetime becomes hadrons, baryons and mesons when you tie it into loops. At some point you realize that the question is an unanswerable one, though the other things we learn while trying to answer it make the inquiry well worth the while.

After having thought about it for rather longer than the question is worth, I have come to the conclusion that first-order perception, suitably informed by systematic investigation, is the most valid — the realest — reality there is. I know some people find this disappointing, even unacceptable. I say to them, you don't know how beautiful, complex and endlessly fascinating commonplace reality is; you just need to take an interest in it, that's all.


edit on 5/10/14 by Astyanax because: one test question was wrongly put.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Just finished reading this book on the subject. Robert Lanza is a top notch research and practicing medical doctor. In the book, he presents an in depth view of the famous double slit experiment. (how observed matter behaves as a particle, while unobserved matter behaves as a wave.) For his creds check the Amazon link. No I did not pit an affiliate id on the link
Thought some of you might like the view from someone in the scientific community, who has to be careful about criticism; and has the gonads to challenge the status que.

Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe Paperback – May 18, 2010
by

Robert Lanza (Author)

Amazon Link



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
Actually, sound is how we perceive pressure waves in a fluid medium. The waves are there whether someone hears them or not.

True, the sound wave, as in the mechanistic property of sound, is there. But a noise is not.


Here's a little Schrödinger's Cat-type gedankenexperiment for you to try. I set up a microphone inside a soundproof room, inside which I have placed a wound-up mechanical music-box which I have connected up to some contraption that will allow me to start it from outside the room. The signal from the microphone goes direct to a tape recorder.

The music-box plays, and winds down. After it has stopped playing, I enter the room, retrieve the tape, and put it in a filing-cabinet. There it lives for three months. One day I take the tape out and play it. I hear the sound of the music-box.

Was there no sound in the sealed room where the music-box played?

What was the sound I heard when I listened to the tape?

Where was the sound while the tape was in the filing-cabinet?


How does your clever experiment fare without a microphone in the room?

The notion still stands- a sound is not made (experienced) when the sensory equipment is not present to receive and process mechanistic waves into an experience of sound.
edit on 5-10-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Astyanax
Actually, sound is how we perceive pressure waves in a fluid medium. The waves are there whether someone hears them or not.

True, the sound wave, as in the mechanistic property of sound, is there. But a noise is not.


Here's a little Schrödinger's Cat-type gedankenexperiment for you to try. I set up a microphone inside a soundproof room, inside which I have placed a wound-up mechanical music-box which I have connected up to some contraption that will allow me to start it from outside the room. The signal from the microphone goes direct to a tape recorder.

The music-box plays, and winds down. After it has stopped playing, I enter the room, retrieve the tape, and put it in a filing-cabinet. There it lives for three months. One day I take the tape out and play it. I hear the sound of the music-box.

Was there no sound in the sealed room where the music-box played?

What was the sound I heard when I listened to the tape?

Where was the sound while the tape was in the filing-cabinet?


How does your clever experiment fare without a microphone in the room?

The notion still stands- a sound is not made (experienced) when the sensory equipment is not present to receive and process mechanistic waves into an experience of sound.


Thank you for saying very simply and directly what I was trying to say.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

You have chosen to define sound as 'the percept of pressure waves in a medium'. Fine.

However, the waves exist whether the percept is present or not. External reality is independent of the observer.

I suppose some idiot is now going to come up with his misinterpretation of the Uncertainty Priniciple, or some ill-digested babble about 'quantum physics'.


edit on 5/10/14 by Astyanax because: nonsense needs to be nipped in the bud.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

In the case with no microphone, the 'observer' would be the room and the surrounding environment. The only thing that would change by someone hearing it would essentially be the addition of brain waves to the equation.







 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join