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.

 

Reality: Is It Real?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bea2theJ
Think of reality in levels. The first would be objective reality, it's the world as it really exists to the observer. The second, subjective reality is the level of your own personal reality and no two people exist on this level together. The third, conscensus reality is the reality we all "agree" to share on a local and global level.


Yes!
...and all of these levels are working, all at the same time.
Akushla




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 


We are here now. Why should we need to debate that fact.
Whether its real or a dream or some other state that we have no concept of is beside the point. There should be no need to stress ourselves out over these questions..
I am reminded of a quote, "Have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer." — R.M. Rilke



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
reply to post by haarvik
 


We are here now. Why should we need to debate that fact.
Whether its real or a dream or some other state that we have no concept of is beside the point. There should be no need to stress ourselves out over these questions..
I am reminded of a quote, "Have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer." — R.M. Rilke



I like the quote...however, we're not leaves in the wind.
If individuals are asking for answers...it is incumbent on those who spied, behind the veil, to reveal what they have seen, to help make sense of the questions they have.
Cheers
Akushla



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Bea2theJ
 


Yes, that is on the correct assumptions I believe. As Rene DesCartes said "Reality is in two parts, the physical reality..( as we all know) and the mind, spirit reality" which we do not know, but some may feel.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


Yes, but most people don't realize that one single thing. Some are conditioned to only see subjective and consencus, that's why they call people capable of objective observation "prophets". It's not that we see the furture, we just have a more accurate view of the situation. This time? We have a tool to work with. Never in our entire history have we had more information to base it and the power to change it. We see the connections, let's show them, shall we? That's what shamans do and we're shamans all.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bea2theJ
reply to post by akushla99
 


Yes, but most people don't realize that one single thing. Some are conditioned to only see subjective and consencus, that's why they call people capable of objective observation "prophets". It's not that we see the furture, we just have a more accurate view of the situation. This time? We have a tool to work with. Never in our entire history have we had more information to base it and the power to change it. We see the connections, let's show them, shall we? That's what shamans do and we're shamans all.



Akushla



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Bea2theJ
 


Yes and absolutely! Good analysis.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bea2theJ
reply to post by akushla99
 


Yes, but most people don't realize that one single thing. Some are conditioned to only see subjective and consencus, that's why they call people capable of objective observation "prophets". It's not that we see the furture, we just have a more accurate view of the situation. This time? We have a tool to work with. Never in our entire history have we had more information to base it and the power to change it. We see the connections, let's show them, shall we? That's what shamans do and we're shamans all.



Subject -Object

Subjectivism and Objectivism, on a mundane level, appear to be at polar opposites.
We experience this level of reality as, us...separated from things, and other experiencers. This is subjectivism.
Objectivism, catapults you out of the 'car' you chose to inhabit to see things in a more 'whole', and complete way.
I think both are necessary.
Subjectivism, because it requires that we take personal responsibility for our actions...Objectivism, because it tells us that taking responsibility is good for the whole.
Akushla



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


Agreed, I liken it to the mind, body and soul. The mind sees subjective reality, what it wants to see. The body sees objective reality because it's matter. The soul sees consensus reality because it's the world we walk in. Intergrated, they work together seamlessly. The trinity we seek outside us. We're not gods, but we are creators.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by blazenresearcher
 


There are, of course, some issues with the Cartesian reality. I agree that we cannot totally know the internal or "spiritual" reality, but I do not think that we can truly know the external reality, either.

Everything that we see of the supposedly "objective" external world goes through a personal, subjective filter--the mind. We can only know our perceptions of things, we cannot know anything about a thing "in itself." Look at your computer. You perceive it. You perceive its colors, the light coming from the screen, the texture of the keyboard, the sounds from the speakers. Do you know anything about the computer as an object "in itself?" No. All that you can know is your own perception of the object.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
A computer / higher power (aliens!), etc wouldn't make something as flawed as our reality, to the point that we would search for other "realities" or better realities.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by backwardluminary
reply to post by blazenresearcher
 


There are, of course, some issues with the Cartesian reality. I agree that we cannot totally know the internal or "spiritual" reality, but I do not think that we can truly know the external reality, either.

Everything that we see of the supposedly "objective" external world goes through a personal, subjective filter--the mind. We can only know our perceptions of things, we cannot know anything about a thing "in itself." Look at your computer. You perceive it. You perceive its colors, the light coming from the screen, the texture of the keyboard, the sounds from the speakers. Do you know anything about the computer as an object "in itself?" No. All that you can know is your own perception of the object.


But we're not working on script now. Sure, philosophers of old saw pieces of it, subjectively. They described their models to us, models being the framework we work with be it spiritual, mathmatical, mythological, astronomical, etc. We describe it via our model, like RAW said, the map is not the territory; the menus is not the meal. We have to let others see our constructs, the tools, the skills, we all have different abilities in relation to our models. Think of it this way, buidling a house... carpenter, there's a clue. We build and expand, we use our model to reach out to others. Since we're aware it's subjective, we find the metaphor or language they understand and give them the concept. Like us, they start building their own models with full realization the model is not the experience. So looking to the past for clues works, but like i intuited a few weeks ago from my model, we have to purge. Everything must go. We don't tear it down, we just use the previous frameworks intergrated to create. Not get caught up in dogma, be it religious, scientific, etc. We pretend no one told us we had to do it this way or that.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
We are happy because we are able to experience reality.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Reality is something that can be relied upon, something real and solid. A thing that does not change or move.
There is such a 'thing' but it can not be found in the world of 'things'.
The one constant, Presence.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CriticalCK

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by redoubt
 


So would you subscribe to the string theory? I think that it may be a plausible explanation into why we have these moments of either premonition or dejavu. Of course it may also be that knowing we only use 10% of our brain, maybe in some of us, a larger percentage becomes active and this is why we see things. Perhaps at some point in our past we actually did use more of our brains. Maybe this is why there are the pyramids, or some of the other mysteries we can't seem to explain. But then that raises the question as to if we did use more, what happened to make use decrease the use of our brains?


This urban myth is getting annoying. It has been clarified again and again that the notion that humans only use 10% of their brain is plain wrong. Well, maybe the people who propagate this idea do. It is amazing that people still come up with this time and time again.

Now you know better.


I agree. the truth is that someone stated that at any one instant, the average person is only using `1/10 of their brain's overall capacity, or something very much to that effect, and (just like the statement that energy....cannot be created nor destroyed....) the sweaty masses took that half statement and ran off a cliff with it. Now, it's an axiom that will never die or be true.

As far as reality is concerned....the term "real", and the term "reality" both refer to that which IS regardless of whether you notice it, believe in it, agree with it, or completely dismiss it. Does such a thing actually exist? Well, the evidence suggests that it does.

And what evidence is that? (one might ask)

I would offer a conversation I once had with a grad student in a Cambridge MA bar, concerning the reality of the color blue.

"It's just rods and cones," he demanded. "From there, it's just a combination of cultural expectation and intellectual interpretation of what is sent to the brain via those rods and cones."

So I asked him what the html code for blue was. He didn't know offhand, but the code is 0000FF. "What's the RGB code for blue?" Again, he didn't know. (it's 0, 0, 205, by the way).

"What's the importance of that?" he asked.

"They standardized blue, and every damn time they produce it, they use these codes to make sure it's the same exact blue each and every time. You can't do that to something that doesn't exist as anything other than human perception. Even if you see #0000FF as being lighter than I see it, there is a definitive #0000FF that has been established and that color is a real and authentic color of blue that does exist. My perception of it and your perception of it has no effect on what it actually looks like. Blue does exist, and you can physically produce it from a variety of ingredients."

Real is like the color blue. You can refuse to believe in it, but it's there, and it contributes to the very real fact that you are capable of dismissing its existence as being a malleable product of your own perception.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





Real is like the color blue. You can refuse to believe in it, but it's there, and it contributes to the very real fact that you are capable of dismissing its existence as being a malleable product of your own perception.


I don't disagree with you, but I think the grad student's point was simply that the human notion of "blue" is fundamentally tied up in human perception. "Blue" is only fundamentally real as it is perceived. Human perception and human definition gives energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm the title "blue." It is impossible to divorce the notion of "blue" from human interpretation.

That said, it is not unreasonable to believe that energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm exists objectively while not being perceived. Can we define that energy as "blue," though? I don't think so. "Blue" is inseparably tied up in mechanisms of human perception. Energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm, on the other hand, may exist without being perceived, but "blue" only emerges from the unity of that energy with the human mechanisms of perception. When you remove that unity, there is no blue.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I was just thinking that since we are alive in our consciousness, it could be like a ghost that is running ourselves, not just the mind. My main question is what is inside? We wake up in reality. I am starting to become aware that we are Waking up in Reality, and I am getting Lost in Dreams during my sleep.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Reality is what you make it. Your whole point of existence is that you create your own world. You aren't put here like an ant on a cantaloupe. You are the cantaloupe, and that ant is just something that you created.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
The only way to gauge reality is by individual experience. No two realities are the same though they may be similar in experience, they are not equal. It's like saying that a "normal" human being and a Skitzophrenic share the same wave of reality. Of course they don't and to the Skitzophrenic the "normal" subjects scope of reality might seem completely absurd. Whatever "reality" is, it remains to be seen by all in the exact same way.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by backwardluminary
reply to post by NorEaster
 





Real is like the color blue. You can refuse to believe in it, but it's there, and it contributes to the very real fact that you are capable of dismissing its existence as being a malleable product of your own perception.


I don't disagree with you, but I think the grad student's point was simply that the human notion of "blue" is fundamentally tied up in human perception. "Blue" is only fundamentally real as it is perceived. Human perception and human definition gives energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm the title "blue." It is impossible to divorce the notion of "blue" from human interpretation.


But - and this needs to be considered when addressing the existence of anything, whether it be blue or reality itself - the presence of that blue, regardless of how I perceive it compared to how you perceive it, is proven by the fact that it can be reliably produced in replication, and by a variety of means. No philosophical argument can trump the very simple fact that every time that blue is produced, you will see it as being the same blue, even if my view of it isn't exactly aligned with your view of it. It's not about you and I agreeing on what it looks like. It's about being able to consistently replicate it in laboratory (and many other) conditions upon demand. That's the gold standard for proving what does and/or doesn't exist, and blue satisfies that standard. If that's not good enough, then nothing is good enough. And if nothing is good enough, then you're not really addressing the subject of existence anymore. You're fighting the notion of existence, and that's a very different effort.


That said, it is not unreasonable to believe that energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm exists objectively while not being perceived. Can we define that energy as "blue," though? I don't think so. "Blue" is inseparably tied up in mechanisms of human perception. Energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm, on the other hand, may exist without being perceived, but "blue" only emerges from the unity of that energy with the human mechanisms of perception. When you remove that unity, there is no blue.


The blue still exists. It's not perceived, but it still exists. Reality contains the human mind. The human mind doesn't create reality. I know that this sort of statement isn't popular with with the enlightened kids, but it can ceratinly be proven, as opposed to the meme that the human mind is the engine that supplies its own contextual environment (another word for reality...a bit more descriptive, but accurate nonetheless).
edit on 8/29/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join