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 cult of knowledge

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   
What is reality?

The question itself represents the nature of the answer. Simple in appearance, complex in details. The simple answer, or the first one that comes to mind is : "What's surrounding me constitute reality". But, what is surrounding us?

What is surrounding us isn't necessarily as we perceive it. We perceive the surrounding by our senses, this means that the instant an information from the matter is caught by our senses, it is biaised by our existence. Our perception is limited by the body, thus makes it impossible to prove that what is perceived is really what it is.

Maybe our senses just get an incomplete information from the matter, or maybe we unconsciously falsify the information we get. Maybe we simply create the surrounding, the senses not being the link between the mental and the matter, but the source of the matter. The doubt of the perception makes the complexity of the question.

The human nature makes the simplicity of the question. Because in our laziness, we will ask ourselves : "Why should I bother questioning? I just have to verify my perception with those of my neighboors." This is the will to not bother with the absolute doubt that surrounds us.

What is reality?
The certainty of doubt.




posted on May, 2 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnorantGod


Maybe our senses just get an incomplete information from the matter, or maybe we unconsciously falsify the information we get.



It's both. Let's take light as an example. We see colors but there are no colors : our eyes catch light as wavelength and our brains translate different wavelengths as different colors. Colors only exist in our brains. We could say that our brains falsify reality. But we also get incomplete information because our eyes are unable to catch wavelengths that correspond to what we call ultraviolet and infrared.

The same could be said about sound waves. There is nothing "noisy" about sound waves, it's just vibrations that travel through the atmosphere. It only becomes sound when it hits our internal ears and is then translated by our brains.

We could imagine that our brains would translate sound waves into colors and light waves into noise in our brains.

What sound would make a tree that is falling on the ground if there are no ears and brains to hear it ?



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnorantGod




What is surrounding us isn't necessarily as we perceive it. We perceive the surrounding by our senses, this means that the instant an information from the matter is caught by our senses, it is biaised by our existence. Our perception is limited by the body, thus makes it impossible to prove that what is perceived is really what it is.


It's quite the opposite. Perception is enhanced by the body and the senses—there would be no perception without them. The senses and the body do not make statements on reality more biased, but less biased, because we are able to measure, examine and confirm. It makes it more possible, not less, to prove what really is.



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In my personal belief, I tend to think like you, that perception perceive the nature of the matter the more it is complex, but there's still a doubt, do our senses have the purpose of perceiving the nature of the surrounding? If it is a link between the two and not the source of it (depends on one's belief).

My text just point the doubt, it doesn't claim any truth other than doubting about any.



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: IgnorantGod




What is surrounding us isn't necessarily as we perceive it. We perceive the surrounding by our senses, this means that the instant an information from the matter is caught by our senses, it is biaised by our existence. Our perception is limited by the body, thus makes it impossible to prove that what is perceived is really what it is.


It's quite the opposite. Perception is enhanced by the body and the senses—there would be no perception without them. The senses and the body do not make statements on reality more biased, but less biased, because we are able to measure, examine and confirm. It makes it more possible, not less, to prove what really is.


You're basically saying that it's better than nothing. I think everyone agrees on that.



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnorantGod
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In my personal belief, I tend to think like you, that perception perceive the nature of the matter the more it is complex, but there's still a doubt, do our senses have the purpose of perceiving the nature of the surrounding? If it is a link between the two and not the source of it (depends on one's belief).

My text just point the doubt, it doesn't claim any truth other than doubting about any.


Do you not doubt the certainty of your doubt?



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: gosseyn

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: IgnorantGod




What is surrounding us isn't necessarily as we perceive it. We perceive the surrounding by our senses, this means that the instant an information from the matter is caught by our senses, it is biaised by our existence. Our perception is limited by the body, thus makes it impossible to prove that what is perceived is really what it is.


It's quite the opposite. Perception is enhanced by the body and the senses—there would be no perception without them. The senses and the body do not make statements on reality more biased, but less biased, because we are able to measure, examine and confirm. It makes it more possible, not less, to prove what really is.


You're basically saying that it's better than nothing. I think everyone agrees on that.


You’re basically saying it’s worse than something else. I disagree.



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Reality is what you wake up to.



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: gosseyn

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: IgnorantGod




What is surrounding us isn't necessarily as we perceive it. We perceive the surrounding by our senses, this means that the instant an information from the matter is caught by our senses, it is biaised by our existence. Our perception is limited by the body, thus makes it impossible to prove that what is perceived is really what it is.


It's quite the opposite. Perception is enhanced by the body and the senses—there would be no perception without them. The senses and the body do not make statements on reality more biased, but less biased, because we are able to measure, examine and confirm. It makes it more possible, not less, to prove what really is.


You're basically saying that it's better than nothing. I think everyone agrees on that.


You’re basically saying it’s worse than something else. I disagree.

Why would we have invented so many instruments that enhance our senses like microscopes, telescopes, infrared cameras, etc.. then ?



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn




Why would we have invented so many instruments that enhance our senses like microscopes, telescopes, infrared cameras, etc.. then ?


Why wouldn't we?



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well, it seems you don't understand your own arguments.

Why would we have invented so many instruments that enhance our senses like microscopes, telescopes, infrared cameras, etc.., if our senses didn't need any enhancements ? If our human eyes could catch infrared light they would be better.



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I am certain of the doubt, because I can doubt the certitude of it.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnorantGod

Do we not diminish reality, with our feeble words, definitions, and measurements?

Are not descriptions: limitations?

Does not the more we attempt to describe something, not draw it further away from it's essence, until nothing is left of reality, but in it's stead; we have a marketable or patentable concept?

Do we need to indulge the endless egotistical blathering of so-called intellectuals, to be told what our perceptions mean?

Does anybody really know anything?
We just have all of these beliefs, where we have unwisely suspended doubt.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

I believe that our words, descriptions are the consequence of a need that we didn't necessarily had at the beginning. But today, it is essential to continue, to live. The purpose of life, we need a logic, a reason to live.

I did a year ago three doses of '___' and I've experimented what I have call the raw reality. A state where I was seeing so much movements, I couldn't put a word on anything. I did remembered the word, but I couldn't put it to the objects surrounding me. Each instant, the objects were different from the precedent instant.

This state of mind was too much for me, I couldn't take it. My mind needed a logic, but there were non anywhere, just things that are what they are suppose to be. No comparisons, no labellings, no words, just the ever changing reality. But my mind couldn't accept that, it needed what we use today as logic and comprehension.

I went where I shouldn't had go. A place that we are not prepared for, in our current state of mind. But I did got back with something, the absolute doubt.

edit on 5 3 2018 by IgnorantGod because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnorantGod

Is reality 'what surrounds' you?
Is there 'reality' and 'you' - two things, you plus reality? Or is reality one without a second?

Isn't reality all there is?

Whatever there is is reality.

The trouble with words is that they tell stories about what is not reality - yet the words that arise presently speaking of something other, are reality.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: gosseyn
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well, it seems you don't understand your own arguments.

Why would we have invented so many instruments that enhance our senses like microscopes, telescopes, infrared cameras, etc.., if our senses didn't need any enhancements ? If our human eyes could catch infrared light they would be better.


Have you looked through infrared goggles? Now think about wearing them your entire life.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnorantGod
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I am certain of the doubt, because I can doubt the certitude of it.


And I can doubt the certitude of your doubt. We can know.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I would say that knowing is the illusion, we can believe though. Since I can doubt the links between my mind and the matter, I can doubt everything, even the doubt of the links. That brings me to believe that the only certitude is the absolute of the doubt, this absolute brings me to doubt the certitude of it, making it absolute, and then, I can be more certain of it.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Everything is an illusion, what we see with our own eyes is just an interpretation of the brain of the light that is reflected to us.
Actually the light that we see is the light that the object is not. All object absorb light, so the light that is not absorb reflects back. So basically an object is all the colors except the one we see.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: gosseyn
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well, it seems you don't understand your own arguments.

Why would we have invented so many instruments that enhance our senses like microscopes, telescopes, infrared cameras, etc.., if our senses didn't need any enhancements ? If our human eyes could catch infrared light they would be better.


Have you looked through infrared goggles? Now think about wearing them your entire life.


Well you can imagine that right now you are wearing goggles that enable your eyes to see blue, or yellow. But you don't need those because your eyes are naturally able to catch the wavelengths that correspond to those colors. If our eyes were naturally able to catch infrared wavelengths for example, we would maybe see it as another color, unknown to us right now. It's like trying to explain colors to someone who was born without eyes. How would you explain what yellow is, or what blue is to someone who was born blind ?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join