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.

 

Are we incapable of seeing things as they really are?

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I think it more or less how or what one does with the illusion and reality at the same time, like the wave particle puzzle, like believing Gods Good an Heroic or a an Evil Sadist getting his kicks of the suffering people in Hell. But not by the context that new age pushes out like it were the red pill or blue pill, or glass half full la da da. Our moods or emotions, or even perceptions do definitely have an effect on our brain input, like the feeling of time being never constant to our senses with its passing.

Thats one thing I kind of have against New Age or Mystic philosophy is what they perceive as love, where one could probably trigger some brain chemical or something, making them think they feel happy, and probably will...For a little bit. And then mentally crash.

However, when you read up on meditation studies and what not, one of the basics is to calm the mind, observe to be aware of what makes you tick, and trying to detach one self to become more self aware in sense when you forget, and trying to get the right sense or texture of things instead of trying to make it up.

I do get what your trying to point out though with your thread, about people seeing ghosts, aliens, or just apparitions in general, but where does the thin line go between reality or illusion. Sure the senses causing the illusion play tricks on ones brain alone, but does it become a reality, when two or more brains are involved?


edit on 29-10-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-10-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

What if we are all creators? You say some people think they create everything. In a way we do, we are given a string of options that all have consequences which effect other people opening up more options for them and Also more consequences. If you make your choices and examine all options you can "force the hand" of another person in turn creating your own stream of choices. In other words.. The game of life. It gets tricky sometimes though because others can impose the same idea on you.

Not saying my idea is flawless but it can work too a degree. There will always be chaos and unavoidable situations in the universe but you can also shape the chaos or "left field" choices thrown into your life.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


a collective mental deficiency, and those that see ghosts and aliens...simply don't have it.

You are proposing that the world of our perceptions is an illusion. That is not what the article proposes, neither is it my own view.

A GUI is not an illusion. It is a symbolic but truthful representation of what is going on inside the operating system of a computer. We can rely on it to interface with the computer in a consistent and useful way, to manipulate the workings of the machine and correctly interpret the results.

So it is, according to this theory, with our perceptions.

Most of the replies to this thread show that their authors have misunderstood the OP article by reinterpreting it in terms more familiar to themselves, and getting it all wrong as a result.

This isn't about consciousness creating reality, or being able to choose among realities, or about our minds being mired in illusion. That's all irrelevant.

What this is about is the proposition that 'ultimate reality' cannot be perceived by human senses. Instead, our brains and senses have evolved to produce a symbolic interpretation of reality, which allows us to perceive it in a meaningful way, to interact with it and manipulate it, just the way a GUI lets us do the same with the inner workings of a computer.

This theory is based on the assumption that there really is an ultimate reality, but it is only available to us through the interface. What's on the other side of the interface? Dancing quarks, the landscape of probabilities, the mysteries of spacetime. Not God, ghosts, fairies, unicorns or a land where wishes come true. Just raw matter and energy in a perpetual interaction.

Anyway, that's how I read it.


edit on 30/10/15 by Astyanax because: of a meaningful distinction.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Specimen


I do get what your trying to point out though with your thread, about people seeing ghosts, aliens, or just apparitions in general, but where does the thin line go between reality or illusion.

No, no, my friend! That is not what I am trying to point out at all.

Please see my previous post, addressed to MarioOnTheFly.


Sure the senses causing the illusion play tricks on ones brain alone, but does it become a reality, when two or more brains are involved?

The article assumes that reality exists and is effectively the same for everyone, though people in temporarily or permanently altered sensory or mental states may sometimes perceive it differently.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I appreciate the thought. Cant say i disagree in general. Im just a tiny wee bit unsure that seeing ghosts or aliens is due to interface failure.

As i said...might be quite the opposite. Since we can not percieve true reality as you stated...who's to say which interface is broken ? Simply by counting the majority ?



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Specimen


I do get what your trying to point out though with your thread, about people seeing ghosts, aliens, or just apparitions in general, but where does the thin line go between reality or illusion.

No, no, my friend! That is not what I am trying to point out at all.

Please see my previous post, addressed to MarioOnTheFly.


Sure the senses causing the illusion play tricks on ones brain alone, but does it become a reality, when two or more brains are involved?

The article assumes that reality exists and is effectively the same for everyone, though people in temporarily or permanently altered sensory or mental states may sometimes perceive it differently.


You know...i've struggled with that thought...objective reality...is there such a thing ? On a quantum level..the issue is debatable.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I think it would be fun to try to explore how large this gap might be, between the interface and 'reality.' Or if we can affect the scope and focus of the interface, much like what we see in a software upgrade.

Beyond that, if intelligence was present that could manipulate what we perceive as reality, it could really impact how we approach many topics. Especially the search for extraterrestrial life, and even down to CERN.

It can really tie in with topics like Vallee's control systems as well. Regardless of the validity of his ideas, it presents a fascinating hypothetical.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Bluesma

Also, and most pertinently to my mind, in Hobbes's Leviathan.


I haven't read that! My daughter gave me a copy years ago, and I never took the time to read it.
Now my curiosity is stirred. Thanks for the reference!



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

What this is about is the proposition that 'ultimate reality' cannot be perceived by human senses. Instead, our brains and senses have evolved to produce a symbolic interpretation of reality, which allows us to perceive it in a meaningful way, to interact with it and manipulate it, just the way a GUI lets us do the same with the inner workings of a computer.

This theory is based on the assumption that there really is an ultimate reality, but it is only available to us through the interface.


This is where people who have uncommon experiences can find terrain to explore! (-Or even "common" ones.)
Instead of wondering "was that real? It might be more constructive to ask, what does this mean to me?"

Consider Jung's synchronicity - meaningful coincidences. We might be observing a flurry of quarks or something, but our mind represents that in forms that have meaning for us to grasp what kinds of movements or exchanges are happening in that.
These can be representations that are meaningful for us alone, or they can be shared representations (archetypes).
But one personals personal meanings can spread through the collective, through spoken or written language (books, stories, songs, etc.)

There are moments when synchronicity abounds for me, and I know that happens to others- everytime you turn on the radio, outspurts a comment which seems to pertain exactly to what is going on in your life at this time.

The other day I was obsessing over my plans for my career in the future - I am at a crossroads, ready to take a new path.
Later in the day, I got in my car, and saw my GPS was malfunctioning- it was stuck! I couldn't change the screen, couldn't turn it off - none of the buttons were working. It was stuck on the question "Choice of destination?"

I have never had that happen before!

THe next day, I had an appointment with a counselor who would help me figure out where I want to go and what I want to do. When I got in the car in morning, the problem with the GPS was apparently gone. The buttons worked, I was able to turn it off.

In the appointment, the guy volunteered some ideas that I actually had already been secretly leaning towards, but hadn't spoken to anyone about. His confirmation that he could see me doing these things, right off the bat, as well as pointing out which pathways of action to start on towards them, gave me confidence and helped me feel settled on the question.

Now, what I am proposing in events of that sort, is that perhaps in that flurry of quarks, or strings, or whatever "reality" really is, there are movements happening at all times. That whatever makes up this experience of "me" and the "exterior" is having a specific movement - I was already moving in a specific direction, I just wasn't aware of it yet.
My mind (subconscious?) started to form meaningful signals that I could use to "read" what is going on.

If one sees aliens, or ghosts, or leprechauns, a question to explore (which I have found very fruitful) is to ask yourself - what does these concepts mean for me? What do they symbolize, what kinds of characteristics do I associate with them? What real movements could be happening, that my mind is reading through these characters?



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Exactly it's a world communicating with us through symbols. The interface malefunction is maybe in reality a "reading-comprehension-skill" problem. When someone confuses the symbol with the meaning, or used an exterior key to interpret instead of the own set of experiences and intuition.
There are of course some commonly shared facts. Like 4=4...
But for ghosts, aliens etc. it looks a lot like the subconscience is messing with the experiencer. Which doesn't mean it isn't very real for that person, but maybe a symbol for feeling hopeless, or sthg?



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Great thread, many good views about the nature of reality.



This theory is based on the assumption that there really is an ultimate reality, but it is only available to us through the interface. What's on the other side of the interface? Dancing quarks, the landscape of probabilities, the mysteries of spacetime. Not God, ghosts, fairies, unicorns or a land where wishes come true. Just raw matter and energy in a perpetual interaction.


Very good quote. All old mystic, saints and yogis are in agreement with this. There is an other side. It can be reached with strong effort of will and faith, because they are saying that our body/mind is only getting in the way of perceiving true reality. They are all saying that with meditation or other practices everyone can get to that state and that is the ultimate goal of spirituality. They are proposing and idea that man and any other being has a deeper component within which Christian labelled it soul, Hindus atman, buddhis therm is simple the mind.
Once you go away from labels and read between the lines you suddenly realize that they are all talking about the same thing!

Ultimate reality is beyond any words and concepts. They are here just for easier understanding so we can imagine somehow what they perceive about the real nature and try to follow in their footsteps.

We are like in a see of energy or conciousness or emptiness without any limits because we are small part of this infinity and once you are self realized this is clear to you.

The only thing which we must do is conquer our mind with various method like self inquiry, breathing, yoga. Silence of the mind is the key to this door or so they say. Because we cannot grasp what we are by thought or intellect, just as we cannot see our own eye which is looking. So it is a thing which must be experienced and that represents the therm enlightenment.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Yes, in the example of alien interaction, you have those that have positive experiences, and those that have negative experiences. This could be telling of their personal reactions and associations to certain concepts rather than the inherent nature of the "aliens".

I don't quite consider "uncommon" experiences as "malfunctions". If you have your own symbols for concepts, that are not commonly shared, that doesn't make them "malfunctioning" - if the whole reason for any forms or symbols is for that individual mind to grasp. It only can seem a malfunction within the context that one desires others to also "see" or "read" the same language (have the same experience).

When we consider that forms such as a chair, or a cat, are just as much "symbols" or representations of ideas (just as much as ghosts or aliens) what is the difference? Only that others share this language and percieve chairs and cats, so they become forms others can interact with simultaneously.

The "malfunction" idea runs upon the assumption that collectively shared experiences are desireable, and personal experience is undesireable.

From where does this higher intent come from?



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: Peeple

Yes, in the example of alien interaction, you have those that have positive experiences, and those that have negative experiences. This could be telling of their personal reactions and associations to certain concepts rather than the inherent nature of the "aliens".

I don't quite consider "uncommon" experiences as "malfunctions". If you have your own symbols for concepts, that are not commonly shared, that doesn't make them "malfunctioning" - if the whole reason for any forms or symbols is for that individual mind to grasp. It only can seem a malfunction within the context that one desires others to also "see" or "read" the same language (have the same experience).

When we consider that forms such as a chair, or a cat, are just as much "symbols" or representations of ideas (just as much as ghosts or aliens) what is the difference? Only that others share this language and percieve chairs and cats, so they become forms others can interact with simultaneously.

The "malfunction" idea runs upon the assumption that collectively shared experiences are desireable, and personal experience is undesireable.

From where does this higher intent come from?


great thought Blue...I guess it is "natural" law. The way of the many...outweigh the ways of the few or one



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

No, i'd say a malefunction is only when it starts to limit your capability to function in reality. Experience per se is just an interaction.
The interaction between a shared global conscience and my tiny individual mind. I would leave soulless things like chairs out of the equation, it seems the living/acting "things" cause much more confusion.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam


I think it would be fun to try to explore how large this gap might be, between the interface and 'reality.'

I reckon it's ultimately impossible. This, however, is exactly what the science of physics does: try to discover what the world is made of, and how it is made up. We have reached a point where our deepest explorations invoke purely theoretical entities, such as vibrating 'strings', 'braids' or 'membranes' in spacetime. These entities are essentially beyond the reach of experimental verification, so we don't know how good our guesses are. And the further in we go, the harder it gets to comprehend or define these entities. At the end of our explorations we may be no wiser. The rabbit-hole may have no bottom.

*


a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


Im just a tiny wee bit unsure that seeing ghosts or aliens is due to interface failure.

The article doesn't say that; it was just a bit of speculation on my part to attract posters. But it is quite logical; hallucinations are, by definition, perceptual malfunctions. If you believe ghosts and aliens are hallucinations rather than fabrications, then by this argument they are malfunctions — artifacts, if you like — of the interface.

I know there are people who believe ghosts and aliens are real, but I have no interest in discussing that possibility. Not on this thread, at any rate.


who's to say which interface is broken ? Simply by counting the majority ?

It is unnecessary to count. We need merely consult them.


objective reality...is there such a thing ? On a quantum level..the issue is debatable.

For the purposes of this thread, yes, there is such a thing.

*


a reply to: Bluesma


The "malfunction" idea runs upon the assumption that collectively shared experiences are desireable, and personal experience is undesireable.

That is incorrect. It is based on the (entirely reasonable) assumption that when the interface produces an artifact that does not correspond to an existing, local configuration of reality, it is not functioning correctly.

If one person sees a cobra where nine people see a teacup, it's a pretty good guess that the cobra-seer is suffering from some kind of perceptual malfunction. It isn't about democracy; it's about statistics.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Then let's take the case of a group of people meditating to contact their spirit guides and half do and half do not, what determination do we make?

Let's also take into account what is original memory of an experience as opposed to original memory corrupted by bias or other factors. As with the study of witness testimony, false memory can easily replace original memory.

agora.stanford.edu...&tversky.htm


edit on 30-10-2015 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

a reply to: Bluesma


The "malfunction" idea runs upon the assumption that collectively shared experiences are desireable, and personal experience is undesireable.

That is incorrect. It is based on the (entirely reasonable) assumption that when the interface produces an artifact that does not correspond to an existing, local configuration of reality, it is not functioning correctly.

If one person sees a cobra where nine people see a teacup, it's a pretty good guess that the cobra-seer is suffering from some kind of perceptual malfunction. It isn't about democracy; it's about statistics.


I am not sure I agree... or perhaps I am misunderstanding. But in this hypothesis, there is neither a teacup, nor a cobra, each of those forms is a perceptual interpretation, not reality. Only in one case, there are many individuals sharing this perceptual "language", and in the other, there is only one.

In cases of mass hallucination, for example_ you can have hundreds of people who percieve something that is not acceptable in current terms of reality... and so it is deemed a hallucination by those who did not see it.

The obvious following question is - what about the other senses? If one can touch, smell, hear, the objects percieved, that is indication of the real existence of the object. Yet there are people who have touched, smelled and heard things "nonexistent" to those who didn't. Do the senses follow the perception, or interpretation, of the reality we cannot see objectively?

For me it all comes down to - nothing we experience is objectively true, so there really isn't much use in judging the reality of others experiences. Only interact sensually and intellectually with that that we ourselves experience (along with others who also experience same).

I suspect this is the motivation behind the attraction to experiences that others share (as contrasted to individual personal experiences)... the social drive of belongingness. It is part of our survival instincts.
To face a threat alone is more risky than to face it as part of a collective force, n'est ce pas?



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Serdgiam
I reckon it's ultimately impossible. This, however, is exactly what the science of physics does: try to discover what the world is made of, and how it is made up.


Indeed. However, as someone who works in said field, i am driven by the saying "Everything is impossible until someone does it." Of course, thats not strictly true, but it does apply in so many ways. I can't rule out the possibility that said gap is not static over the evolution of our species. It also seems that it is not necessarily consistent among individuals, which may be the foundation for further exploration.


We have reached a point where our deepest explorations invoke purely theoretical entities, such as vibrating 'strings', 'braids' or 'membranes' in spacetime. These entities are essentially beyond the reach of experimental verification, so we don't know how good our guesses are. And the further in we go, the harder it gets to comprehend or define these entities. At the end of our explorations we may be no wiser. The rabbit-hole may have no bottom.


It really may not, which is kind of cool in its own right. And even if it does, how we use what we know is its own entity.

It is possible that, at this point, we are exploring the fringes of our perspective rather than the fringes of reality itself.

In that, as we progress as a species, we may evolve in order to perceive a greater fraction of what is happening around us. In some ways, it could be said this has been happening all along, but we haven't necessarily kept records that can be reliably compared.

Regardless, it may be pertinent to proceed with this in mind. The interface can be changed through an individuals life, but still remains within the confines of the human experience as we know it. But, those boundaries may expand, or even contract, alongside our progression as a species.

At that point though, we shift to discussing generational changes and beyond. A facet that is difficult to discuss when our cultural story focuses on day to day life as the exclusive timeframe for both our individual and collective experience.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Oh, I thought the article was pointing in the direction of hallucinations, and why some people see what they want and see what they don't want to see. Besides I could only read half of it, since for some reason a video of a girl was taking up half of your presentation on my cpu for some reason.

I'm not much of a computer tech guy, but I do have some experience with a Gooey before, at one of my previous employment, when it came to internet installation although it might not be relevant to what you are trying to point out. I've logged into the General User Interface for Bell modems, where you can change the wifi password, select which devices to allow them to get internet sync, ether at scheduled times of the day or block certain devices at all times, and it even allows you to see which device uses the most bandwidth.

I wonder if this analogy would relate more, where the internet modem is fed by what Bell called, "SLAMS" which housed the servers and is transmitted by the Dial Tone through the copper, and when the modem is plugged in, the tech would put in the credentials allowing internet sync. Now how internet sync worked, in laymen terms, is that the slam would connect to, and chat with the modem, and that they would talk back forth constantly, where the slam uploads the information, while the modems downloads the information, and would go back and forth all the time.

Would the relationship between our brain and reality be comparable to a modem and a slam, where the slam acts like the subconscious where it can say yes or no to the modem or brain, where as the modem receives the upload, inputs it, and takes all the technical information, breaks it down, and makes the visualization of the web? And would devices that connect to the modem, be like ligaments, where the modem can say yes or no to them.
edit on 30-10-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


Then let's take the case of a group of people meditating to contact their spirit guides and half do and half do not, what determination do we make?

None. Not enough data.

Your link doesn't work, but this is about perception, not memory.


edit on 31/10/15 by Astyanax because: of why upset 'em?




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join