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: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
It's true that reality only exists with a conscious observer, and so we are the conscious observer. The world is impermanent, meaning it has some permanence to it. If the world didn't exist we could walk through walls or fly through the air. In the long run the world is an illusion because forms are ever changing but they still exist, like the seasons, it is hot when it's summer and cold when it's winter, even though these things will not last forever. And yes, it is that way because we as humans can feel, and so as long as we can feel, the world has some reality to it. The world is a lower reality though because Nature is eternal.




posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Find me a dictionary in which the first definition of sound is the percept and not the actual physical phenomenon. Not that I need a dictionary to support what I am saying.

'Sound is a product of the ears and mind'? That's not a definition. What produces it?

Come on. I'm trying to help you clarify your thinking.


edit on 6/10/14 by Astyanax because: of a double negative.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TheJourney

Find me a dictionary in which the first definition of sound is the percept and not the actual physical phenomenon. Not that I need a dictionary to support what I am saying.

'Sound is a product of the ears and mind'? That's not a definition. What produces it?

Come on. I'm trying to help you clarify your thinking.



Let me ask you this. Does green exist in reality? Or is green your brains interpretation of a certain frequency of light in the electromagnetic spectrum?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

You are basically saying your own title doesn't even exist. You thread doesn't exist - mentally or physically, because what you perceive does not exist. So it brings us all back to the same place of the ego - judgement.

Knowledge will help enable you to have a more real perception.

Did you know that is was possible to have 1,000 thoughts in less than 3 seconds? Well it is, in the moment of one breath a person can have 1,000 thoughts. It is just not normal, but it is possible. It would be spoken through their soul, and their heart.

Words spoken from the soul can have an eternal depth.

Words spoken from the heart can have an eternal width.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
In regard to the notion that our minds create the world around us - say a person thought that his mind created the world around him, now lets say that person died. If it were the case that his mind created his world, then the world would also die along with his death. But behold, he is dead and the world is still here. I am alive and still experiencing it, while he is dead and gone. So, it does not depend on his mind or 'his' consciousness.

On the other hand, there is no way to prove that anything exists beyond (your) consciousness, or that anyone other than 'yourself' has experience/consciousness; however I am telling you - I experience consciousness. Do you believe me? You are not here and yet I experience my own world. But what does this say? For all you know I am a creation of (your) consciousness.

And even if there is more than one observer, and they each have - experience/consciousness, there is no way to prove that there is anything beyond experience/consciousness. Like people playing World of Warcraft, they each experience their own world and interact, but there is really no world, in a sense.

I've thought of these things before. I don't know what use any of these thoughts have.

---

In regards to an objective world - The mind is what sees color and hears sound, but does this mean that there is nothing 'out' there that exists? Is not sound, pressure waves in a medium of air, or color, electromagnetic waves of particular frequencies. They only exist in your mind you say? So if I kill you right there as you are perceiving them then they should go away; but likely, I will continue hearing the sound or seeing the color.

Again is there any usefulness to this line of thought?

---

Now regardless of whether there exists a world out there or not, (I think) a more interesting question is what gives the world any meaning? Why do we have emotion with regard to what we experience? Why is there happiness and sorrow? I think those are more meaningful questions..


edit.. just read your replies after writing post.

What is perceived in the mind/consciousness is not arbitrary. (Whether a thing 'exists' out there or not.) If a square shape did exist 'out there' or not 'out there' but in some other way; it would be perceived as square and not circle. If there is more that one observer, than likely, all will perceive 'square'. Again, not sure of any usefulness in this line of thought.


edit on 6-10-2014 by nOraKat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney
Again: there is no sound, colors, textures, or anything we perceive as reality in reality itself. Ok, there are waves. But unless out ears and brains are there to INTERPRET waves as sound, there is no sound...only waves...which are wholly different than your perceptions...you can say 'the same waves exist whether we perceive them or not,' but every quality your brain gives these waves, are not inherent properties of the waves...it is a unique product of waves interacting with sensory organs and minds...


Our perception of what exists is most certainly limited, but there is a direct connection between what happens and what is observed. The perspective itself also exists in the form of brain waves, giving an actual presence much like the tree. So, even though they might not be omniscient, they are a part of the overall equation which lends the perspective validity.

I don't think we really disagree at the core of it, but our extrapolations differ. You seem to be saying that perspective is limited to the human form, and that any attempts at exploring reality are hindered by this 'separation.' But, I see that the perspectives themselves are present and testable, so they are as much a part of 'this' as anything else. I also think that there is a relatively consistent connection between events and our perception of them, even though it is limited and biased. This is evidenced by cases where that consistency is lost, such as loss of hearing. It causes a disruption and change to every day life. That would not happen if it was a completely unreliable indicator of external events, because we would never put trust in it in the first place. Its useful for cosmic navigation, but clunky.


I also think it is possible to grow our perspective to include more and more facets of the events that happen around us.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   
We've been here for years, but it feels like forever. Even before being taught history, we are coded with historical memories that assist in the form of instincts and the like. Most of the time, we can tell real animals from animatronics. When we see a thought blurb online which represents a conscious idea, it's safe to say that there's a real mind behind that statement. Even if the statement is uttered by a holographic avatar beamed from the Pleiades, there is a mind behind the message.

If we can agree on a Big Bang, then we can agree on all life springing from the same mold. I'm leaning toward the concept that life and the universe as we know it are a collection of fragmented perspectives originating from one entity. And perhaps there are infinite universes, all of which originated from the same bang. Rinse and repeat for infinity.

Great topic, OP



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Not that it answers "The Big Question", but the simple " explanation " for me has always been that "reality" "exists" in the interaction between the observed and observer (which is what you've stated in the OP.)

Pardon my use of quotation marks in the first paragraph, but it's just necessary on this topic, in order to avoid that sentence being instead written as a 7-page diatribe which still can't quite explain it properly


What makes the topic all the more difficult to fully explain, grasp, etc., is that part of the "observer" is an intangible itself. That ethereal existence of the tree, manifesting in the interaction between "tree" and "self" includes not just senses & brain as part of the interaction, but MIND - a collection of intangible experience, genetic coding, chemical processes, filtering, etc., which all play a role in how an input (observed "thing") is interpreted.

Just deleted a bunch more text because I found myself trying to make the point more clear, but I think the first paragraph says it simplest and best - trying to define it any further is an exercise in futility and reiteration lol.

One of my favorite books on the topic I read long ago. Short one by Robert Anton Wilson entitled Quantum Psychology. There are others you'll find alongside it that go well with it, but that floppy little paperback does a better job with the topic than many of the heavy reams of " I'm going to give you my best explanation in 10 billion words or less " books.

Cool topic, I'm going to read thru the thread and follow and hope someone can enlighten further on what exactly "is" on either end of that intersection between observed and observer which we know as reality.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: cloaked4u
Good, then we don't have to pay taxes or listen to anyone anymore.


Don't take this the wrong way, because obviously, that was tongue in cheek, but it helps illustrate a point in how all of this seems to operate:

You are absolutely correct... As long as you don't mind "creating" the reality of observing taxing body enforcers coming to get you through your observation of them banging down the door you perceive to be between the perceived inside of your home and the perceived world outside.

I think that goes to an interesting point in that, at the very least, our consciousness "exists" within a system of some kind. Somehow, we are partial manifestations of a whole, and at least in our current state, we don't each have complete control over all of existence.

Ugh, still impossible to perceive myself putting what I perceive to be my figurative finger on it LOL.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Green is not a noun. It's an adjective, unless you're referring to an open space planted with grass, e.g. a 'village green'.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney




Let me ask you this. Does green exist in reality? Or is green your brains interpretation of a certain frequency of light in the electromagnetic spectrum?



Turning adjectives into nouns is the folly of human philosophy. It can occur simply by adding the suffix "ness" to the end of any adjective, ie. happiness, consciousness, greenness, roundness. The mistake of abstracting the appearance of something into a set of extant qualities has led entire philosophies to attempt to attain those qualities, or in other words, heading off to nowhere in search of nothing. The philosophy of mind is particularly culpable.

Your assessment that something within the body interprets outer phenomenon is not that different than the Cartesian theatre, for it assumes that the individual is not the body that relates to the world, but a homunculus that takes its seat somewhere in the brain interpreting phenomena. Such an idea is a paradox however, as you would then have to explain what interprets the phenomena for the little man in your head. An infinite regress follows, and this shows the idea that there is something within the brain interpreting, perhaps a "mind", is groundless. This also assumes that the body is a sort of middle-man between brain and reality. This is untenable.

But if you accept that you are the whole body, and not the little being in your head, then you may also come to accept that you are not interpreting the electrical signals of the body, but interpreting actual reality, being that it is your eyes, your ears, your skin—that which is in direct contact with the outer world—and all the electrical signals, every process involved in interacting with the world, is you, since they are within your boundaries. You are not a brain interpreting signals, for you are the signals also, and everything within the boundaries of your body, which is in direct and unmitigated contact with the rest of the world.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TheJourney

Green is not a noun. It's an adjective, unless you're referring to an open space planted with grass, e.g. a 'village green'.


Where were nouns specified? I'm talking about perceptual qualities...such as green...

So, again, does green exist in reality, or is it the brains interpretation of a frequency of light in the EM spectrum?



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Hello Serdgiam,


originally posted by: Serdgiam
So, the tree starts to fall in the woods with no one to hear it, and without any microphone. All of the energetic exchanges occur exactly like we think they would. None of these are witnessed with ears, eyes, or anything like that. There would be no direct human perception of the event, but the event itself would displace the same amount of energy through the same functions. We understand these functions as sound, gravity, tensile strength, etc. Sensory organs were developed over time to perceive these events that have been happening all along.

All of this makes perfect sense.

I don't believe the argument here is that there isn't a reality beyond our senses. Of course there is. I think the point being made is that the reality of our senses is not "the" reality.

There's no doubt a falling tree will propagate a physical pressure wave of energy through the air, regardless of whether or not an observer is present. However, it should be understood, I think, that it's the observer, and only the observer, that can convert that wave into an experience of what we call sound. No observer, no sound; only a wave of (noiseless) energy passing through a medium.

The issue I think, lies with what you referred to as "our understanding" of what sound is. Sound, in my view, is the resulting experience after our sensory equipment has processed the pressure wave. The sound that is "heard" is manufactured by a brain, based on its configuration. Thanks to consciousness and our humanly derived concepts we can then experience the sound as a crackling tree.

For some reason though, sound is defined by its physical property, i.e. a mechanical wave of energy. It should be defined as the experience. If there weren't any ears or microphones in existence to process that wave of energy, then can it still be called sound? I would say it can't. The wave is still propagated, naturally, but not as sound.


I can only see two options for the lack of energetic exchange without a human observer. The first is that the environment ceases to exist when not being observed. However, then there would not be a tree to fall in the first place. The second is that all objects turn perfectly rigid when not being observed by a human, thereby inhibiting the propagation of any waves like sound.


Both seem plausible since there's no way to know for sure without an observer being present.

Is existence dependant on consciousness? I tend to think so.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney


Where were nouns specified?

A noun is a name for a thing: an existing entity of some kind. 'Sound' is a noun, because it is a thing. 'Green' is not a noun, it is an adjective. An adjective is not a thing, it is a quality possessed by something.

I think you may not be as familiar as you need to be with existing philosophical thought on the subject. You're reinventing the wheel, and you're reinventing it as an octagon instead of a circle.


So, again, does green exist in reality.

Green is a quality possessed by an object that reflects light predominantly between the ranges of about 450THz and 700THz (authorities differ, as you might expect, about the actual range). Light is a thing, just like sound is a thing.

*


Reply to PhotonEffect


I think the point being made is that the reality of our senses is not "the" reality.

Indeed. A somewhat trivial point, with which no pet owner could possibly disagree.


edit on 8/10/14 by Astyanax because: woof! woof!



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TheJourney


Where were nouns specified?

A noun is a name for a thing: an existing entity of some kind. 'Sound' is a noun, because it is a thing. 'Green' is not a noun, it is an adjective. An adjective is not a thing, it is a quality possessed by something.

I think you may not be as familiar as you need to be with existing philosophical thought on the subject. You're reinventing the wheel, and you're reinventing it as an octagon instead of a circle.


So, again, does green exist in reality.

Green is a quality possessed by an object that reflects light predominantly between the ranges of about 450THz and 700THz (authorities differ, as you might expect, about the actual range). Light is a thing, just like sound is a thing.


I am talking about perception and perceptual qualities...you don't get to define the topic of my thread...lol...
edit on 8-10-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

I don't need to define anything. Terms have their own definitions in language and philosophy. To summarize: green is not a thing. Sound is a thing. The comparison you are trying to draw between them is invalid.

The reality or unreality of the world as it is perceived is a debate thousands of years old, and it has progressed very far from the basic principles you are trying to reiterate. Idealist claims were exploded by materialist philosophers like Hobbes and Hume centuries before you were born. Of course, their own claims were then deconstructed by later idealists and dualists, and the debate goes on.

And by the way, there's no such thing as 'my' thread. You started the thread, but it belongs to ATS, not to you, and you have no special rights in connexion with it.


edit on 8/10/14 by Astyanax because: of some bad old boys.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TheJourney

I don't need to define anything. Terms have their own definitions in language and philosophy. To summarize: green is not a thing. Sound is a thing. The comparison you are trying to draw between them is invalid.

The reality or unreality of the world as it is perceived is a debate thousands of years old, and it has progressed very far from the basic principles you are trying to reiterate. Idealist claims were exploded by materialist philosophers like Hobbes and Hume centuries before you were born. Of course, their own claims were then deconstructed by later idealists and dualists, and the debate goes on.

And by the way, there's no such thing as 'my' thread. You started the thread, but it belongs to ATS, not to you, and you have no special rights in connexion with it.



I am talking about perception and perceptual qualities. I'm not sure who you are talking about nouns/things with, but it's not me. Apparently you've gotten me mixed up with someone who is talking about nouns/things. So, you can continue conversing with whoever it was that was talking about nouns/things. I'm talking about perception and perceptual qualities, if anyone is interested.
edit on 8-10-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Are you saying you do not even understand how what I'm saying relates to the conversation? That's sad. It means you don't understand the subject about which you're expressing an opinion at all.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax
The colour 'green' is an experience - just like sound is.
Life is made of experience and it cannot be proved otherwise.

The world is never perceived - unless it is just the word 'world' - the word 'world' can be perceived but it is nothing more than a concept. The 'world' cannot be experienced.


edit on 8-10-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TheJourney

Are you saying you do not even understand how what I'm saying relates to the conversation? That's sad. It means you don't understand the subject about which you're expressing an opinion at all.


You're saying that what I'm saying isn't on topic, because it's not a noun. Therefore I must conclude we are having different conversations. Having created the OP, I know what I'm trying to discuss...you keep saying I'm off topic cuz I'm giving an example that's not a noun, when I never said the topic was about nouns...you made that up...
edit on 8-10-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join