It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Has anyone ever seen a chair?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:09 PM
Really... With your own two eyes in it's ENTIRETY, at any given MOMENT. If your looking at the back you can't see the front etc... It could be anything: a book, a person, a cd..

I find it interesting as such that we never really see anything completely. We see parts of a form and construct a 'whole' in our mind. And that 'whole' is based mostly on an ocular perception (which may differ person to person) and on a semantic agreement which differs from language to language, region to region. Everyone also processes information differently based on a multitude of factors; psychological, physiological, socialogical etc..

What does this say about the nature of reality?

What does this say about things we 'know' to be the thruth?

Isn't that old schoolyard quip about ' we've never even seen what we REALLY look like' actually very profound. Maybe this is similar in thought to Plato's Cave.

I'm starting to believe (more so, after being on this board a little bit) that everyone exists in their OWN dimension. You can call that dimension 'perception' or whatever you like. We make 'agreements' with others that are like-minded and our dimension becomes validated. We entertain others we disagree with but most of the time it seems to only more strongly validate our own ideas.

Are we in a very strong sense just interacting with ourselves?

Just some humble notes and questions from the hologram... Make of them what you will.

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:15 PM
You want to get more out there? So what is a chair? If it is something that you sit in then if I sit on a table does that make it a chair? If I lay down on that table does that make it a bed?

Does a thing exist in and for itself or in relation to its usage for us?

Just a wacky idea.

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:18 PM
To quote a Married with Children proverb.

"What would a chair look like if our knees bent the other way?..."

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:18 PM
'If it is something that you sit in then if I sit on a table does that make it a chair'

That's funny I was actually wanting to get into this as well. Yes, I believe it makes it a 'chair', and yes the implications are 'out there'.

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:18 PM
It says, it is not a chair.

/end neo

realistically if you were a coherant spirit on another plane of existance, and able to see all sides of an object, would krispy kremes taste any better?

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:32 PM
Okay I do not know what has gotten into you jokers, but his theory is very close to what I was thinking.

The world around "you" is your reality and that "other" people are autonomous programs that you interact with. Which they in turn then have their own "reality".

This could explain why some people have a distorted view of what YOU consider to be reality. To them it might actually be the "reality" they precieve.

For example people you communicate with the dead. Might actually be communicating with some type of remenant "program" that existed and are able to recall facts within that "programs" existence. To you and me though it just looks like some freaky person that some how can guess right or has somehow gained access to private information about someones life.

Just like a scientist might discover a new idea through extrodinary means to you and me but someone to the scientist it is clear as day.

Or someone who we think is "insane" who rambles on about seeing little green people and they jump out of the closet and they talk about a white lion etc. Might actually be "seeing" these things and can interact with them, yet "we" can be in the same room and neither see them, hear them, or feel the effects of their interaction with the "enviroment".

This is a very real idea, that all of us could be operating in a independant "reality" from everyone else.

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:37 PM
"the chair" as we know it is an icon, so that we can identify with it based on how we use it. when it comes down to it, its just wood, shaped cut and molded into something useful. but its still just wood, same as the tree in my backyard. (assuming its a wood chair.)

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:42 PM

I was walkin into a resteraunt the other night and looked around at all the people.. and had this very strong sensation. It seemed so overtly FAKE.

I think some of the implications of quantum physics are going this route. The 'unreality' of reality. The matrix sure made a bundle on the idea.

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:54 PM

As your saying a (wood) chair is inherently just wood... I agree. What I'm interested in is the dynamics of the 'function' of an icon based on a person's interaction with it. As Jonna was alluding: It is very relative.

For example: If I lie on my back and do bench presses with a 'chair'.. that chair then becomes 'weight' based on my interaction with it.

One could argue I was still doing the exercise with a chair, but I would argue that 'chair' is just a semantic concept for an experience.. i.e. sitting on something.

[Edited on 19-3-2004 by Joseph Knecht]

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:57 PM

I think you meant "There is no chair."

(just messin')

If a man says something in the forest, but no women is there to hear him, is he still wrong?

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 02:09 PM
Is this another thread on the "Matrix Theory" or on the philisophical aspects of and on Platonic Dualism?


posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 02:23 PM
Schrdinger's Chair.

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A chair is sitting in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the chair): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the chair still sits there if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead chair (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.


posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 02:23 PM
'Is this another thread on the "Matrix Theory" or on the philisophical aspects of and on Platonic Dualism?'

No. It's more a thread about a possible dimension of perception and the inherent lack of ability to percieve the most common of things in their entirety. As well as the potential vs. actuality of matter. Both 'The Matrix' and especially Plato have extrapolated on this.
Fresh ideas are always nice.

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 02:28 PM
Oh no! Don't bring the Matrix movies into this as that seems to destroy any credibility that the ideas within may have on every thread I have seen. Can we censor the word Matrix as a dirty word so that it will not show up?

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 02:45 PM
Yes Jonna. Lumping things together is always a convienent way of disregarding something.

I wanted to get some insights into what I proposed.
Why that bothers some people is their problem, not mine.

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 03:36 PM
Hi all!

Following this discussion, I was reminded of the works of Rene Magritte, for example, with his own take on "reality" and perception:

More about him here

"The fascinating and challenging images in Magritte's works stem from revelations of the mystery of the visible world. To him this world was a more than adequate source of lucid revelations, so that he did not need to draw on dreams, hallucinations, occult phenomena, cabalism. Nonetheless, preconsciousness - that is, the state before and during waking up - always played an important role in his work...."

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 03:39 PM
ahhh is this one of those "matrix" threads?? there's loads of threads on ATS about defining whats real
*note: been drinkin vodka so expect this not to make any sence lol*

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 03:39 PM
If you drop 20 hits of acid you can see all the angles.

seriously, i'm not thinking mental powers can push you beyond dimentional boundrys.

there's a strict order to the "foundations of the earth."

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 03:58 PM

Yes Magritte was quite an artist. The surrealists really expounded on perception and stretched it artistically to new boundaries. People like Man Ray, Bunuel and Dali really found exciting ways to tangibally express modes of perception. I particulary like this piece: La Condition Humaine

I also like 'This is not a Pipe' as it so keenly makes the viewer aware that they are not looking at a 'pipe'...( couldn't find a pic of that)

posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 04:05 PM
'If you drop 20 hits of acid you can see all the angles.

I am astutely aware of lsd perception but will not get into it here.

I think 'the foundations of the earth' exist IN your mental capacity. Therefore they are only bound by your mind. I can go into this much further if you so wish Mr. Fury.

But I'm trying to generate conversation on the limited way in which we actaully experience matter. MIND is very different from brain, and I think MIND can percieve multidimensionally, or in the least... comprehend it. It seems brain is lost in a world of shadows and reflections.

new topics

<<   2 >>

log in