Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Reality: The Grand Illusion

page: 6
33
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

What you say is a fun metaphysical "thought exercise". However, the way I personally perceive reality has nothing to do with the real reality. Maybe it does in some egotistical "What I personally perceive as real is real for me" way of thinking, but my consciousness and my perception of reality doesn't change the way the universe would appear to detached outside observer of the universe.

The universe itself doesn't really care that I exist (albeit it may care on some infinitesimally small scale), and when I cease to exist, the actual real universe will not be different in any measurable way.

Again, If there was a detached observer studying the universe, this observer would never notice a change in the reality of the universe just because I would cease to exist, so obviously my consciousness has no measurable effect on the workings of reality.

[edit on 5/9/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]




posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


The problem with that is that there is no detached observer of the universe. The universe is part of that observer, the observer is actually watching itself when it's watching the universe. What we don't understand is that we are that observer and we are not detached from the universe, we are all part of the same being/entity. That's the way I see it.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


The problem with that is that there is no detached observer of the universe. The universe is part of that observer, the observer is actually watching itself when it's watching the universe. What we don't understand is that we are that observer and we are not detached from the universe, we are all part of the same being/entity. That's the way I see it.


I agree and would like to add: If one thinks of the universe as a geometric shape, we as an observer would be one of those points on that shape.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


That's definitely the way I see it as well Bandit
Actually...by believing that, we believe all people see it that way hehe


I have read many things in support of, but have you read The God Theory? Good read, I am sure you would really like it. He suggest the Brain is a "filter" for Universal consciousness. That the Brain actually 'takes away' from the perception of Reality, so that the experience is more...um...manageable. So Enlightened people are really just filtering a lot less (maybe none depending?). Hence the ego loss being paramount, and the esoteric mediative practices of "no-mind" and such.

[edit on 013131p://9u27 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
However, the way I personally perceive reality has nothing to do with the real reality. Maybe it does in some egotistical "What I personally perceive as real is real for me" way of thinking


No ego has to be involved. Literally, your world is not my world, because you see yours differently, you have different expectations, different ways of interacting with it, and you get different things out of it. I change my way of looking at it (ALL views are equally meaningless ultimately anyway), I change my expectations, I dive into the subtleties that most people are unaware of, and make use of them, and I get vastly different "results" with my experience of life.


my consciousness and my perception of reality doesn't change the way the universe would appear to detached outside observer of the universe.


Your way of looking at things changes the way you interact with others and the world. The more aware you are, the more you can change. Technology is an obvious (but certainly not the only) example: it results from a drastic change of seeing the world, and understanding and interacting with it.


The universe itself doesn't really care that I exist


You are part of the universe.

I like what Kruel said:


Originally posted by Kruel
If one thinks of the universe as a geometric shape, we as an observer would be one of those points on that shape.




Again, If there was a detached observer studying the universe


There is no such thing! It is an abstract, made-up concept of yours, and is meaningless.


so obviously my consciousness has no measurable effect on the workings of reality.


You are telling this to someone who you have engaged in conversation over the Internet. Is this not "reality"? Am I not affected? I am confused by your assertion that you can never cause any change in the world.

The kind of change you must really want to cause scares me. On the scale of rule the world, maybe? Do you want to shoot laser beams out of your eyes on a whim? Maybe lift mountains with your eyelashes. Then could you find happiness?


Do you want to improve the world?
I don't think it can be done.

The world is sacred.
It can't be improved.
If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.
[...]
The Master sees things as they are,
without trying to control them.
She lets them go their own way,
and resides at the center of the circle.


academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu...

[edit on 9-5-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   


But you're afraid of living.


Who says? With all the # I've been through I'm pretty surprised I'm still kickin' it... Besides, now that you found me I'm soooooo alive!



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Our universe is the same for all of us. Mechanically it is always fiunctioning in the exact same way. Gravity is the same force for all of us, though some of us may weigh less or more than others, the factor of that force is mostly consistent throughout. Sodium is the same elemental compound for all of us.

Whether the grass is green or red to you, if we chemically, organically and elementally disect it I gauruntee you that we'll both have the same conclusions.

On another note, colors also work in a universal way, and if your eyes filtered the grass as red, unless you had a retinal or pupil deficiency, then everything that I see as green, you'd see as red.

Furthermore, let's do a thought expirement.

Say for example you were "color blind", but your eyes still picked up all the colors of the spectrum, it just placed them on the "wrong colors" relative to what we consider universal. ~~ I.E. - If you saw all my greens as reds, all my reds as blues, and all my blues as greens, then we'd not know that we saw things differently because we'd perceive our hues with all with the same correlations.

Our realities are really all the same. I've noticed that there are defenders out there, those that don't want this to be true. Take my ex for example. She'd constantly let me know that "people want their individuality, they don't want to be the same." She opened me up to seeing that this is true, but although it's true, it still won't stop the truth from coming out. Fear or not, the facts will not go away. People's egotistical wants and needs won't change the facts of universal experience and the correlating science therefrom.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Our universe is the same for all of us.


Only from the viewpoint of "objectivity," which is itself a man-made concept that comes from the tool we call "science."

No one actually has the same physical neural patterns even for the same stimulus.



Fear or not, the facts will not go away.


Scientific "facts" are just convenient models that fit the evidence we currently have. They have always changed over time as we refine our views. I contend we can refine to infinity.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


I am curious. Can you apply everything you just said to everyones dream worlds, which everyone has, with it's own unique laws of physics, every night, for one third of their lives. Or is that just erroneous in your eyes?



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No one actually has the same physical neural patterns even for the same stimulus.


Now this is not true in any sense, you're just making this up for an argument, because it has not been scientifically verified, but I'll play along anyway. -- I'll mold the following sentences around the notion that I have disregarded that what you just said is not proven science. -- Although we all have neural patterns and neural stimulations, they differ from person to person, and that difference is how it's the same for all of us. We're all "unique" as you're saying here, which makes us all the same thing, that which is different. I can agree to that, though it is not a scientific proof and it is but a logical conveyence.

On another note, I hope you did not miss the point that I was making previously. Every element in the universe is the same for all of us, regardless of how our neurological patterns react to it. Scientifically if we study a rock together, that rock will be the same for both of us.

If we are both exposed to fire or extreme heat for a prolonged elation of time, our raw skin will react in the exact same way - it will burn. Why is this? Because elements interact with elements on atomic levels, electromagnetic levels, chemical levels, etc. The universe interacts with itself consistently. Water will never do anything that it can not do while it is water. Water will not catch on fire without the assistance of another substance, that is an eternal fact of science and the universe. It will evaporate, transelementally metamorph and intermolecularly dispart.

What we feel inside of our heads because of this burning is an emotional reaction, unless you are going to claim that you feel no pain from being burnt alive, then here is at least one scenerio where some people's stimuli and neurological patterns will behave congruently.

Now if you do indeed make the claim that you can feel none or close to no pain while being burnt alive it is not because the fire is not actually burning you, it is because the receptor for pain in your brain has been turned off manually by yourself. There are monks that can do this, obviously in this case the two scenerios differ, but there are multiple people that can experience the same feelings and process

In any case, in both scenerios, the people being burnt alive will die. That's a planetary and anatomical fact.

Two people can sit next to each other and burn and die screaming.
Two people can sit next to each other and one burns and screams and the other meditates to death.
Two people can sit next to each other and both meditate to death while burnt alive.

I can be allergic to salt and you're not, regardless of our reactions to the substance, it's the same substance for both of us and always will be, in fact it's the same substance universally for every entity capable of scientifically understanding it in a such a way, and even for those that don't understand it! The only reason I am allergic to it is because of the way that it interacts with my genetics, it will react to that set of genetics the same throughout the universe. All reactions to an equation in a given set of properties are eternally parallel.

For example: E=MC2... the increase and decrease of mass in this equation will change the amount of energy.

Our equation in this aspect being the eternal universe. All things will react to their laws accordingly. In my hypothesis: I will be allergic to salt, and you're not, because of chemical reaction. The same would go for you if your anatomical parts were aggregated in a way that caused your body to chemically react to salt.

Say that I am so allergic to salt that it kills me if I eat it. Just like the monks, regardless of what I cause myself to feel, I will still die because of the chemical reactions.


Scientific "facts" are just convenient models that fit the evidence we currently have.


No, the facts are facts, the models are models. You have it backwards. Scientific models are just convenient little guess works that fit the factual evidence that we have currently accumulated.


They have always changed over time as we refine our views. I contend we can refine to infinity.


I oppose your contending statement. The facts of universal science have never changed, they have always been the same and always will be, it is the Human error in receiving and analyzing those facts that has changed and that will continue to change until the perfectly static physicality of it is understood. Infinity is static. The universe IS infinite just as its energy proposes, and in knowing such the universe reveals to us that it is already refined to infinity, and that infinity is static. Nothing changes about it.

The change that we perceive is the movement of its matter, but this movement follows static laws. These laws and principals of the universe are unchanging and the change/motion/time that occurs is because of them and abides to them and furthermore actually is them in action with their acclimated selves.

We are only remembering and discovering the ways of the universe that always have been objectively factual, we aren't creating them, they are there for us to learn and always have been... set in stone.

Reality isn't the illusion, reality is all around you. The illusion is what the Human species on the planet Earth has so far portrayed existence as.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I am curious. Can you apply everything you just said to everyones dream worlds, which everyone has, with it's own unique laws of physics, every night, for one third of their lives.


Sure. Though their brain waves may be functioning of differing frequencies and varying amounts of acid trips naturally produced by the brain's pineal gland (I believe, excuse me, my brain anatomy is a bit rusty at the moment), their brains are all doing the same things, dreaming. The laws and rules that those physics follow are the same for all.


Or is that just erroneous in your eyes?


It's not erroneous whatsoever. It's a good point and a great question.

Sorry for my unproffesionality in the brain department, I'm in a bit of a rush to go play some Star Wars Galaxies, it's only a 14 day free trial.


If this isn't the answer that you wanted then please do reply. I can expound.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari
This is why I love ATS. People are actually capable of higher thought here.

And not afraid of its implications. This is a step in the right direction. I don't think we have it exactly right.. I don't think we will totally get it... perhaps until the shift comes.. then maybe just maybe it will be more clear... and yet... maybe still not totally.. but ideas like this bring us closer to enlightenment.



Since I foresee myself contributing substantially less verbiage than so far (it's time to DO, not talk anymore :-), I might as well take this opportunity, this message of yours, to express what I think about ATS and about one of my main personal reasons for visiting and writing as often as I did:

I think there is good reason to believe that just by spreading "unorthodox" (if very old!) thoughts about the dubious nature of Time and Reality, and about the capabilities of the human Creative Imagination to morph them - by exposing to them everyone who comes here, whether s/he wants it or not - such a perception of a plastic and fluid Reality, including (rather obviously) space/time, is actually morphing into a much more widely perceived state.

In other (all too simplified) words: by talking about it, the people here - and some are astonishingly perceptive and intelligent! - may be making it widely perceivable and available and morphable to everyone.

As for me, I tried to contribute by starting as many space/time-related threads as possible...







[edit on 11-5-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   



but my consciousness and my perception of reality doesn't change the way the universe would appear to detached outside observer of the universe.

SNIP

Again, If there was a detached observer studying the universe, this observer would never notice a change in the reality of the universe just because I would cease to exist, so obviously my consciousness has no measurable effect on the workings of reality.



And again ... if there WAS a detached observer.


But the existence of that abstract observer is not as self-evident as it may appear.
It is just a theory.

Until fairly recently, I not only believed in the existence of such an observer myself, but was actually pretty good at drawing conclusions on behalf of that "detached observer".

And that Heisenberg, Schroedinger & Co. hit me like a ton of bricks...

But I am alright, much more productive now.
Happier, too.







[edit on 11-5-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Again, If there was a detached observer studying the universe, this observer would never notice a change in the reality of the universe just because I would cease to exist, so obviously my consciousness has no measurable effect on the workings of reality.


I understand your concept, know that it is also dual. The same theory that you are applying to the "detached observe" is also applied to the "attached observer".

For example. If one accepts that one is the universe then nothing is really being changed, it is simply taking its course, you and your actions and reactions a part of it.

Example 2: If one accepts that one is detached or "outside" of the universe, one will come to the same conclusions.

Two different thought excercies, one equal outcome.

Here's one. I react to the universe, the universe reacts to me, the universe is acting and reacting; the universe happens. I am molded in the image of the universe around (within) me, I mold the image of the universe around (within) me, the image of the universe molds itself.

Believing in free will is the apex of arrogance and ignorance.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Here's one. I react to the universe, the universe reacts to me, the universe is acting and reacting; the universe happens. I am molded in the image of the universe around (within) me, I mold the image of the universe around (within) me, the image of the universe molds itself.


Excellent description. I think of it like 2 points in space creating another point, and the design (or memory) from the first propagates down.

When one thinks of the "first" or "god", it's not actually one, but two points. They're dual in nature, connected by positive and negative. If you stretch them out they'll look like DNA. This shape is seen throughout nature. The yinyang is the best symbol to describe 2 dimensional space.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by bsbray11
No one actually has the same physical neural patterns even for the same stimulus.


Now this is not true in any sense


Maybe you are thinking of different areas of the brain that have general functions? Like the cerebral cortex? Because I've read books before that have spent a good deal of time talking about what I just posted (ie, Douglas Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach).

(Btw, did you know Godel proved that our mathematics is ultimately incomplete/inconsistent in the 1930's, when he constructed a theorem that declared itself to not be a theorem, without breaking any rules? And no one has ever found a way to avoid it, because he also proved that it is an inherent feature to any recursive system, and recursion is a requirement for "higher-level" mathematics. What he really did was equivalent to creating an open loop in a circuit, which also creates interesting effects, and a major theme of the entire book is self-repeating loops as a medium for the manifestation of consciousness. Maybe something to Google. G.E.B. has all sorts of interesting revelations in it.)


On another note, I hope you did not miss the point that I was making previously. Every element in the universe is the same for all of us, regardless of how our neurological patterns react to it.


If we're talking from "objectivity," then yes, I'm aware. I'm an electronics engineering student; I am somewhat familiar with the conceptual basis of the sciences. I would think I should also be aware that it is generally unpleasant to catch on fire.

The point I keep trying to stress is that "objectivity" is an abstract human concept that ultimately cannot support itself separately from human beings. It does not justify us. We justify it. In the end, it all comes down to assertions, and that's not just a trivial fact. Science even has definite boundaries in that anything non-physical is automatically outside of its grasp, and this has even led some misguided and/or arrogant individuals to therefore assert that the physical universe must be all that exists. I'm not saying science is useless. I'm saying it is not a replacement for other philosophies, and it is not very enlightening by itself; it is not a rewarding way to solely experience your world, nor is it ultimately any more justified than any other.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe you are thinking of different areas of the brain that have general functions? Like the cerebral cortex? Because I've read books before that have spent a good deal of time talking about what I just posted (ie, Douglas Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach).


I'll say this. In theory science is what we have and can objectively study. We have not studied everyone's brain and we simply can't and won't. That's all. As for the rest, yes I mostly agree. Unless two brains were exactly alike and lived the exact same lives, they would not over an expanse of time carry out the same patterns and stimuli at the same time.


(Btw, did you know Godel proved that our mathematics is ultimately incomplete/inconsistent in the 1930's, when he constructed a theorem that declared itself to not be a theorem, without breaking any rules? And no one has ever found a way to avoid it, because he also proved that it is an inherent feature to any recursive system, and recursion is a requirement for "higher-level" mathematics. What he really did was equivalent to creating an open loop in a circuit, which also creates interesting effects, and a major theme of the entire book is self-repeating loops as a medium for the manifestation of consciousness. Maybe something to Google. G.E.B. has all sorts of interesting revelations in it.)


Hm, self repeating loops for the manifestation of consciousness. Sounds a lot like the universe and everything moving in circles on a physical level
On a side not: I am familiar with some of Godel, but not all. Thank you for the reference.


If we're talking from "objectivity," then yes, I'm aware. I'm an electronics engineering student; I am somewhat familiar with the conceptual basis of the sciences. I would think I should also be aware that it is generally unpleasant to catch on fire.


Haha. Okay, okay, pleasant. Thank you also for sharing your background/credentials.


The point I keep trying to stress is that "objectivity" is an abstract human concept that ultimately cannot support itself separately from human beings.


Well, in theory it could, but in reality it can't. I understand what you are saying. We ARE the universe and always will be. There is no separation, but in saying that you're basically explaining objectivity again, at least the way that I was alluding to it. The universe is generally the same for all of us in one way or another, either through logic, physicalities or etc..


It does not justify us. We justify it.


I'd like to say that it does not require justification, but to play along; it justifies us as we justify it. What you are doing above is objectifying. You can not separate us from the equation and leave it a one sided boomerang. What we justify, justifies us. With no universe to justify we have no just. Without us to justify it, it is consciously irrelevent. It is a two sided coin, always.

Since we are the universe, the universe justifies itself. It does not need an objectifying observer for justification. What it is, it will always be and always has been.


In the end, it all comes down to assertions, and that's not just a trivial fact.


What comes down to assertions? It comes down to facts, physical facts, not delusional subjectivism.


Science even has definite boundaries in that anything non-physical is automatically outside of its grasp, and this has even led some misguided and/or arrogant individuals to therefore assert that the physical universe must be all that exists.


That is absolutely true, and the non-physical universe is all there is that "doesn't exist". Either way you put it, it does not exist. The non-physical universe is all there is that exists. Well since it is non-physical then it is intangible. We can never interact with it.

Absence is an immeasurable (presence). This immeasurable presence is the eternal expanse of space and time. In this aspect it is very tangible. Energy is immeasurable.

But truly, there is "no limited form of absence." Energy is eternal, neither destroyed or created. And any way that we cut this we are always lead straight back to physical reality and where we are, there is no escape.


I'm not saying science is useless. I'm saying it is not a replacement for other philosophies, and it is not very enlightening by itself; it is not a rewarding way to solely experience your world, nor is it ultimately any more justified than any other.


You're saying that you do not completely understand science and its principalities. Like a user earlier in this thread. You don't understand energy. It is not something that can be created nor is it something that can be destroyed.

As for the closing statements you made; they are merely your opinions. My scientific experience is more rewarding than I could have ever imagined and it objectively justifies and explains why it is. Without science we'd ALL still be worshipping invisible dieties, and no we wouldn't be able to talk about it on the internet. Get connected, wake up.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Shrukin89
 


I think the absolute reality exists, each one of us sees part of it...

...There is right and wrong, good or bad, even in absolute therms, again, each one of use sees those concepts differently.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I dont know if any one has mentioned it but this all sounds like it is on the same track as the Holographic Universe Paradigm. That postulates thatin reality we are simply Holons that think they think that one is a separated and individualized autonoumous unit.
But in truth we are all one in Oneness of the whole. Every thing in the form that we sense in physicality is a projection of our mind which is then transduced by the brain in FLT speed.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Epsillion70
 


It is similar to the Holographic principle in my opinion, which also states that the reality we live in is an illusion.





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join