Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
When determining what is real there needs to be objective indicators.
Interesting.. So, at what point does one know something has gone from subjective experience, to objective fact? Both on a personal experiential
level, and on a social level.. Social level, meaning everything from mass "truth," to scientific "fact." As far as science goes, i am just
asking, at which point does one know something will absolutely not ever change? A basic example would just be something like moving from the
consensus that the earth was flat to the consensus that the earth was round, or finding something like the giant squid, or the coelacanth. How does
one determine what is absolute truth in its absolute entirety (no more to learn about any facet of the given item or subject), and what is subject to
change? Such change can seemingly take place as new information that completely changes the understanding of the initial information, or new
information that makes "false" the initial information. Sometimes a bit of both
If someone claims we must distinguish religion from "spirituality", and that person cannot accurately describe "spirituality", their entire
point is essentially useless. Maybe I'm just a stickler for trying to figure out exactly what people mean when they make a statement. I guess that's
a bad thing these days?
Not bad at all. Just because im asking questions about your perspective doesnt mean anything negative. It means i am trying to understand where you
are coming from. I just ask questions, and offer my own perspective intermittently (unless specifically asked). While others may not, i view all
perspectives as valid. Who am i to say that your, traditionaldrummer's, reality is not what you perceive to be true? However, our perspectives
differ, as they must. It is only through communication and discussion that we can learn how different perspectives on any single item or
topic can be. Much less "lifes big questions." i do not expect the same curiosity or respect. If i did, web forums, or anything on the internet,
would lose its enjoyment factor entirely
So, the way i come at this is that it is very difficult to align two perspectives to the same objective information on individual experience, but
perhaps possible in as controlled environment as possible. If two people were to.. sit and watch the same sunrise. They are sitting side-by-side,
so roughly in the same spot. variables are reduced to the greatest extent possible, say even down to the socks they are wearing. Perhaps say they
are twins, with the same eye sight, eye color, etc. So, they view 30 minutes of a sunrise, no more, no less. They are then told to quantify the
entirety of the experience, in any and all ways possible, but only using words and numbers. They are allowed to use measuring equipment, but not
imaging. While doing this, they are not allowed any contact with each other, so no communication. How does one assure that they will both write the
same "truth." If they differed in any way, how would one determine which one was right, and which one was wrong?
Now, take those two papers on the 30 minute experience, and give them to another set of twins, same eye color, etc. Reducing variables to a degree
(just for simplicity, as a real experiment, one would obviously want to sample on large scales with many controls). Have a photo book of say, 365
sunrises (each day of the past year). The test set is separated (as the original set), and each are given both manuscripts from the original
experience. How does one assure these two separated individuals pick the same picture of the sunrise? How does one assure these two individuals pick
the correct picture of the original experience?
Hypothetically, if these sets were then brought together and were given a.. hologram software generator (a la star treks "holodeck"). Lets say
they know how to code, and are absolute masters. They can perfectly replicate "reality" (once again, hypothetically, thought that should be obvious
). Only given their memories, and test items (experience manuscripts, measurements, and pictures), they are told to recreate the original sunrise.
How does one assure they are able to replicate the experience exactly
? To make it easier, lets say they only need to create a single
half-second that matched up with a single half-second of the original 30 minute experience. How would one ensure the quality and depth of data was
sufficient to be able to replicate the experience precisely, down to the smallest minute detail? Everything from the different atmospheric pressures,
to the different lengths of grass on the ground, to the flow of blood through their veins. Emotions can be dismissed, to once again make it a bit
easier. How does one eliminate the possibility for something to be missed, or lost in translation?
Please let me know if i was completely unclear about what im trying to convey (believe me, i know it can happen, i can be as clear as mud sometimes
). I also apologize if at any time you think this one is insulting you. It is never my intent, but its hard to communicate completely
effectively over the internet
It is basically trying to figure out how to control variables if doing something like the above. As far as the hypothetical part, i know its not
possible, but lets just say it is for the last part of the experiment. Plus, holodecks would be cool
To be honest, im not really sure how one would go about it, but it would be a necessity to be able to relay the entirety of "truth" of a given
experience. I am interested to know your input on it.