Are we incapable of seeing things as they really are?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

No. Not just words are seperating, the objects do that through action. Like cell division. The entropy is constantly increasing. From one big bang it went to approximately infinity. Maybe connected, but surely seperated.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: InTheLight

Well the entire group shares the bias there is a spirit guide...
Could also be in interaction with ones own subconscience, half of them are relaxed enough to get in touch, the other half is trying to find sthg exterior and fails?
Spirit guide is just a symbol, who knows for what?

Then our personal biases and beliefs shape our perceptions - our realities. In the case of the people that could not achieve the manifesting of their spirit guides, then their original bias (hope) at the existence of a spirit guide may now be shifted to an opposite belief that no such thing can be achieved, therefore it does not exist - leading to a new perception, a new reality.

Also, there are numerous studies available as to how emotions and visual working memory affect perception.

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: Bluesma
I propose the third choice- that minds can develop abilities to perceive more or less than one another, depending upon their experiences and development of focus.

You are one of many favourite posters here for me because you have elegant style of writing and like to explain stuff from your prospective which is not always the most popular
And what I quoted, is universal truth for me personally.

We each more or less have the same body but totally different mind set due to our experiences. Which means I can pick any person and find things which we have in common and things which are different. But that does not mean that different things are false just that I lack the experience of something which other person has and with experience he made different conclusions.

But people in general disregard experiences of others because they can be totally out of their comfort zone of understanding or beliefs and due to that blockade they are still searching the answers but with wrong approach - approach which is comfortable and inside their reality box.

originally posted by: UniFinity

But people in general disregard experiences of others because they can be totally out of their comfort zone of understanding or beliefs and due to that blockade they are still searching the answers but with wrong approach - approach which is comfortable and inside their reality box.

THank you that is kind of you to say, and I appreciate it.

There is another aspect to consider though-
Consistancy in perception.

I think it has been brought up in the discussion, that the validity or effectiveness, of ones perception might be determined upon it's consistancy. This has merit. It might also be behind our shared tendancy to feel a repulsion towards concepts or ideas which disturb or challenge our current ones.

Though consistancy can be a constructive quality, which allows for easier interaction with the exterior world,
I think I have developed an attraction to that which disturbs, shakes up, and ultimately, allows for growth in my perception of reality. It is not without challenges, but then , nothing is completely... or at least that is my current perception, which could be subject to change in future.....

a reply to: Bluesma

An artist and someone who is not an artist look at the same object. The non-artist may see only one color, the artist sees six different colors in it. The artist has become more sensitive to subtilities within that color.

Still, not what the OP is really about. Your example is an example of how we each see things differently - but only by degrees. I know this is just me saying what you've already said

You're right. Anyone - and, I mean anyone - can learn to see color differently. It's a skill like anything. I'm a painter - and a graphic designer that had spent quite a bit of time at one point in my life color correcting photos in Photoshop

When you start working with color in percentages, with time and experience you begin to be able to see the difference between 3% yellow added to a green let's say, as opposed to 5%. It's easy. But most people never do this, so the green will look exactly the same to them. But - if they worked at it they could see those differences

What the OP is saying is that a reality exists - but we can't ever really know that reality. We can only know our relationship to it. It's obvious that we mostly see it the same - with some variations. Our senses evolved to take in information from the world around us and put it into recognizable forms that we can use - it's information

Like a language :-)

Now - I would love that discussion. Symbolism...art... We'd still only be having a discussion about our perceptions - which is interesting enough, because we can't even understand what it is we mostly already agree that we understand

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Let's just say the 'big bang' was the first action - it is still moving - what splits the action into two? Thought, concepts, ideas, words - that is all - naming is the origin of all particular things.

I like this - naming things. Naming time makes time useful for us

Naming things is like throwing paint on the invisible man

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Serdgiam

In the field? Really? Tell us more!

Yes, really! We are working on quite a few things, with the main focus being high energy exchanges and waterhammer.

Well, we have instruments now to model parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that are invisible to us directly, and integrate them into the GUI. We can use transducers and computer programs to do the same for non-EM manifestations.

But while these broaden the capabilities of the interface, they do not assist us to look at reality directly. That is impossible.

I would certainly agree that it is currently impossible. I'm not sure where we will stand in 500,000 years though. Our ability to use these devices may have an impact on our evolution. Will it lead to our species evolving to include a more encompassing interface, or to minimizing our interface because we have these tools? Perhaps it is all in how we use them.

Sadly, you are right. At the age of 57, the frequency-sensitivity and dynamic range of both my visual and auditory transducers have been severely degraded. I notice a similar, though lesser, degradation in the analytical-chemistry apparatus. The impact sensors still work pretty well; in some areas they have actually become more sensitive.

That's just called getting old.

I'm doing the same damn thing..

The opposite can be seen to occur in our infancy, when we are building the connections for that interface. There may be factors that play into this beyond raw sensory input. When so many of us believed the world was flat, the interface didn't say otherwise. Now, we believe the Earth to be a sphere, but perhaps the next step is a shape we struggle to incorporate into our current interface. To be clear, I'm not actually making that claim, but I wouldn't know either way, because.. you know, interface.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Bluesma
Now - I would love that discussion. Symbolism...art... We'd still only be having a discussion about our perceptions - which is interesting enough, because we can't even understand what it is we mostly already agree that we understand

There is a great thread discussing just that, here!

By the way, totally stealing the eloquent and beautiful invisible man quip.

a reply to: Serdgiam

By the way, totally stealing the eloquent and beautiful invisible man quip.

I like to believe it's mine - but you know how plagiarism goes :-)

Which - that is a thread idea I've been toying with for a long time...

a reply to: Astyanax

I fully agree with your premise, and I can give a very simple example for anyone who wishes to grasp this concept. The main example I will use involves ourselves.

We don't even see ourselves as we truly are. Here's how to prove this point:

Can you sing? Take a video of yourself singing. And then watch the video. Do you play golf? You think you know exactly what your swing looks like, you can feel it. That's right, it's almost exactly like Tiger Woods, ya I know. Ok. Take a video of yourself swinging a golf club, then watch the video. Or simply take a video of yourself reading something for a few minutes. Watch the videos, what are your impressions?

In the videos, you will see, your clothes don't even look the way you think they look on you. You will be fatter, or skinnier than you think you look. You will hardly recognize your own voice. "I sound like THAT!?" Your golf swing is absolutely nowhere close to Tiger's swing. It's horrible. You canNOT sing. Don't quit your day job. These are just examples, to prove this reality.

We are all delusional. That's right, we never truly view the world the way it actually exists. We never know the whole story. We are even horrible at judging our own selves. With that in mind, it's probably not wise to then try and judge someone else, because we're horrible at it.

a reply to: Serdgiam

P.S. - thanks for that link...how on earth have I not seen this before?

Thank you! (I think - 169 pages...)

:-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I did the same thing with that thread..

My interface saw "vampyr," chuckled a bit, then moved on. Massive mistake!

I think a lot of it ties in with asty's thread here too. Its also one that actually has good content throughout.. so, 169 pages of essentially must-read material. Heckuva double edged sword!

How much impact does language have on how we use our interface? I think it might be as deep as the 'code' of the interface itself. Or not.. Either way, I do feel language has a much larger impact on perception and cognition than we currently understand. Especially when it comes to interaction between our individual interfaces.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis
The 'naming is the origin of particular things' comes from here;

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu...
Nothing is 'mine'.
There is no 'me' separate to 'what is'.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I'm very fond of this - the Tao Te Ching

I'm not sure how our host feels about the course this topic was inevitably going to take - but at least in this there's a description that doesn't pretend to explain anything but our inability to know what we can never know

:-)

It's like a lullaby for restless minds

a reply to: Bluesma

Though peoples perception of physical reality have an influence upon their ideas on politics, society, spirituality, that does not indicate that every analysation and expression about their perception of reality is coming from their ideas on politics, society, spirituality.

In my experience, people nearly always use what they think they know about science to explain and justify their ideas about politics, society and spirituality. And yes, they do adjust their conceptions to support their prejudices.

There are plenty of examples on this thread. I don't mind at all — I invited speculation — but obviously I'm going to point out the errors in their reasoning. Otherwise there's no conversation.

Examples can be pulled from those areas to make illustrational aids — just like you did with the metaphor of a computer. Should I object — "you are getting your ideas about computers mixed up with the philosophical theories on perceptual reality. Computer engineering is NOT the subject here."?

That is not what is happening. People — you included — are trying to adapt the theory to make it 'prove' what they want to believe.

Look: this is from your first post.

I don't even remember the first time I was introduced to the theory that humans may not be capable of percieving the world in a truly objective way - there is always a subjective twist, no matter how subtle.

You misunderstood right from the outset. This is not a subjective vs. objective story. It's not 'different people see the same thing different ways.' It's about how everybody (except for Aunty Acid) sees the same thing the same way, but what they're seeing isn't actually the Ding an sich, the thing in itself; just a model of it.

Your entire participation in the thread seems (correct me if I am wrong) to have been based on this technical error. It is what I have been seeking to correct. Develop your own ideas based on the theory by all means, but get the theory right first, no?

a reply to: UniFinity

oh my dear friend. You think material reality exists as in is real and all other is false and imaginary?

It doesn't matter, because it is not relevant to the topic under discusson. The topic under discussion is how closely the sensory projection of material reality we do perceive matches that (material) reality.

Not really your field, I'm afraid. Perhaps you should sit this one out.

a reply to: Bluesma

I propose the third choice — that minds can develop abilities to perceive more or less than one another, depending upon their experiences and development of focus.

That's not a third choice, it is understood and taken for granted in the argument. As you yourself imply,

Does that mean the varying wave lengths are not there?

...the underlying reality remains the same. The differences are in the sensory and cognitive apparatus, not in what is presented to it.

I see no reason to make an effort to adhere to your demands for my style, method or length of expression. I am not especially concerned with you understanding, much less agreeing, with my point of view at the moment.

Why bother to reply at all, then?

If you don't understand, perhaps there is good reason for that- I cannot judge.

I have no difficulties with understanding your words. What I don't understand why you're being so confrontational.

a reply to: Astyanax

What is and is not my field, will I decide for myself, thank you!

It is your limited thinking that makes you separate spiritual and material. These things are not separated. Is seed of a fruit separated from the tree and the fruit it grows? it is not!
Material comes from spiritual and if you cannot come to peace with that than it is you who is missing something and not the others. Until you stop relaying on science as the holy grail of truth and instead use your own beautiful mind and body and go within, this is useless to even consider. I have been there and also done that mistake haha

For thousands of years it is known in yoga that all spiritual powers are counterpart to our sensory and mental powers. They explain that our material bodies are using the same powers as spiritual devotees do. But the only difference is that ordinary person has perverted them with unclean thoughts, emotions, body, actions and due to this there is different effect. So in other words our moving, thinking, seeing and so on are spiritual powers or in other words, "magic" is everywhere and we are using it all the time, we are just not aware of the full potential of our being due to material limitations and not recognizing the reality that we are spiritual beings having a body experience - your GUI.

I have proved that to myself and this is clear to me. But I had to devote to myself and after few years of regular meditation and right eating, action and thoughts or in other words more spiritual way of living I have realized the truth of this.

What I have learned is that most answers can be known by intuition we just don't know how to ask or get to them or when we do get to them, we doubt them! But after repeated occurrences as Bluesma pointed out before, this doubt vanish!
But people are so doubtful of their mind that some cannot do that. If you cannot believe IN yourself, that is a warning indicator how far wrong thinking has deluded you. But your hearth knows the truth, the real guru is already in you, working all the time, that is why we try to love and share happiness with others wherever we go, it is our true nature

It is as simple as that. Now I will sit it out and will not bother you here again

have a nice material sunday, haha

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

What the OP is saying is that a reality exists - but we can't ever really know that reality. We can only know our relationship to it. It's obvious that we mostly see it the same - with some variations. Our senses evolved to take in information from the world around us and put it into recognizable forms that we can use - it's information

Like a language :-)

Now - I would love that discussion. Symbolism...art... We'd still only be having a discussion about our perceptions - which is interesting enough, because we can't even understand what it is we mostly already agree that we understand

FRom my point of view that sounds like repeating exactly what I tried to say. The wide variety of different experiences that exist in human perception as whole indicates the possibility that this objective reality might be bigger and more complex than any individual, or any group of individuals, can ascertain.

It seems rather automatic and common to assume our determination of our relation to things is dependant upon our perception of reality.
(this is evident in current culture, "dare to dream" in order to percieve more possibilities and options for relation).

What I suggest is that it could ALSO work the other way around - our determination of relationship could have an influence upon our perception of reality as well. It could cause it to expand.

In the example of percieving a wider array of color, that can be developed, as you point out. In order to develop that, your relationship to color in general would have to be determined differently than someone who has not set out on an intent to be closer to and know color in an intimate and determined way. You decide to study it, to work with it, and you get closer, begin to percieve more.

To look at examples which challenge our mind a bit more here, when we hear people who claim to be "psychic" say that the added perceptions they have can be developed... in general, people will reject this claim. "They are hallucinating, and they are simply telling me I too, can convince myself to hallucinate."
If an artist tells us that we too, can learn to see colors that we cannot presently, as they do, why do react differently to that claim?


I do not claim to understand what this objective reality consists of (like I said, I've always pretty much assumed we cannot see it completely as it is, we are trapped within subjectivity), ultimately, (as I said in my first post) how we can then make any claims upon the perception of others with confidence?

I think some of this comes from my experiences with my parents work with the mentally ill, with a state psychiatric facility, and the questions they had to deal with with delusional patients - in face of delusional patients the questions were not "is it real?" , but rather, "do others around percieve the same?"

Then- "does their perception cause them suffering, unhappiness, or suffering of others around them?
Do they wish to have shared perceptions and experiences with others?"

But "are they percieving objective reality as it is?", is a very subtly different question in wording,
but vastly different in meaning , then "Do they percieve the same forms of reality as the majority around them?"

originally posted by: Astyanax
The rabbit-hole may have no bottom.

Or the bottom is the top?

Interesting thread.