Reality: Is It Real?

reply to post by NorEaster

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).

I'm trying to decide if we agree or not. It seems like we're saying the same thing but using a different definition of "blue," haha.

Regardless of whether or not the human mind can be said to produce its own contextual environment (c'mon--dismissing a very important--and, whatever you may say, unresolved--philosophical issue as a meme?), I still do not see how "blue" can exist independent of perception.

We *perceive* energy of a particular wavelength as blue. It interacts with out perceptive mechanisms to produce the color that we know as "blue." Sure, it can be reliably reproduced--but "blue" is only perceived when someone is there to perceive it (obviously). Without perception, energy of the appropriate wavelength does *not* interact with any perceptive mechanisms and is, therefore, not perceived as blue. It's tautological.

So I guess that that leads me back to my earlier claim. I ask, then, that you respond specifically to this issue:

I submit that:

(a) "blue" is a product of the unity of energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm with a given (for our purposes, human) sensory apparatus.

(b) energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm, divorced from perception, is not blue. "Color" does not exist outside of perception.

(c) energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm still exists outside of perception. It is not, in itself, any different from that same energy united with a perception mechanism. "Blue," however, is not a property of the energy *in and of itself.* It is only a property of the union of that energy with a sensory apparatus.

I think that (c) is the most difficult claim to support--there's really no logical basis for the presumption that the energy really does exist when not being perceived. Assuming that it does, though, works well for science and "feels right."

Overall, though, I agree with you (I think). Energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm can exist outside of human perception. Calling it blue, though, is just...totally meaningless. You cannot divorce blue from perception.
_______________________

Concerning the claim that "reality contains the human mind. The human mind doesn't create reality."

You're right, in a sense. Reality does, in fact, contain the human mind. This fact does not magically give the human mind direct access to reality, though. The mind accesses reality through perception. Using the tool of perception, the brain produces a usable image. That image--the things that we see, hear, etc.--is not reality in and of itself. It is specifically the *perception* of reality. So, sure, the mind is a part of reality. That statement does nothing to support your broader claims, though. A stone is a part of reality, but it cannot know reality in and of itself. Human perception can be used to examine that stone. The "seen" stone and the "felt" stone are not the stone itself, though. They are the stone through the filter of perception and mind. So, in another sense, the mind, though it is a part of reality, "creates" its own reality based on the perceived outside world.

I am not arguing for solipsism here. The "created reality" of the mind necessarily emerges from a synthetic unity of perception/mind and "reality in itself." We can know, examine, and fruitfully discuss that union. We can neither know nor fruitfully discuss the "reality in itself."

Originally posted by backwardluminary
reply to post by NorEaster

 

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).

I'm trying to decide if we agree or not. It seems like we're saying the same thing but using a different definition of "blue," haha.

It may be that we do agree. Maybe it's that we're having two slightly different discussions? Let's see if that's the case here.

Regardless of whether or not the human mind can be said to produce its own contextual environment (c'mon--dismissing a very important--and, whatever you may say, unresolved--philosophical issue as a meme?), I still do not see how "blue" can exist independent of perception.

This will likely depend on what you think is being described by the word "blue". I refer to the conditions that come together to cause our visual systems to perceive the color blue, when I say that "blue exists". To me, all that exists as material and/or perception, by the human corporeal data systems, is event-centric - meaning that all that you see, touch, smell, hear and taste are activity trajectories of various sizes, configurations and durations. Combinations of linear and redundant event trajectories, that we perceive as material existence, since we (our corporeal and intellectual selves) are also "matrixed" event trajectories - even though our intellectual selves are developing hybrid event/information trajectories, but that's another issue entirely.

Blue (in my own understanding of reality) is a configuration of relational circumstances (as are all things that exist as physical), with all that exists as consistent and dependable (especially that which is extremely complex and organizationally sophisticated) being "held together" by contextual precedence and the impact of historical ramification - in the form of residual information. We are epitome manifestations of what such organization and existential symbiosis (between the event and information) is capable of, and we routinely manipulate lesser event trajectories to cause blue to happen, and while that allows us to create blue, the fact that we can, makes blue just as "real" as each of us are.

When it comes to the full impact of perception on the human experience, trust me, you have no idea just how complicated it really is. The truth about what is real, as opposed to what we think is real, is a complete mind-bender. The malleable hue of blue is nothing compared to how absolutely lost the human mind is for the most part.

We *perceive* energy of a particular wavelength as blue. It interacts with out perceptive mechanisms to produce the color that we know as "blue." Sure, it can be reliably reproduced--but "blue" is only perceived when someone is there to perceive it (obviously). Without perception, energy of the appropriate wavelength does *not* interact with any perceptive mechanisms and is, therefore, not perceived as blue. It's tautological.

So I guess that that leads me back to my earlier claim. I ask, then, that you respond specifically to this issue:

I submit that:

(a) "blue" is a product of the unity of energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm with a given (for our purposes, human) sensory apparatus.

(b) energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm, divorced from perception, is not blue. "Color" does not exist outside of perception.

(c) energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm still exists outside of perception. It is not, in itself, any different from that same energy united with a perception mechanism. "Blue," however, is not a property of the energy *in and of itself.* It is only a property of the union of that energy with a sensory apparatus.

I think that (c) is the most difficult claim to support--there's really no logical basis for the presumption that the energy really does exist when not being perceived. Assuming that it does, though, works well for science and "feels right."

Overall, though, I agree with you (I think). Energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm can exist outside of human perception. Calling it blue, though, is just...totally meaningless. You cannot divorce blue from perception.

Are we discussing terminology or reality? Just so I'm solid on what's happening here.

As far as making any assumptions, let's not. Let's stick with what works when run through a logical gauntlet.

Concerning the claim that "reality contains the human mind. The human mind doesn't create reality."
You're right, in a sense. Reality does, in fact, contain the human mind. This fact does not magically give the human mind direct access to reality, though. The mind accesses reality through perception. Using the tool of perception, the brain produces a usable image. That image--the things that we see, hear, etc.--is not reality in and of itself. It is specifically the *perception* of reality. So, sure, the mind is a part of reality. That statement does nothing to support your broader claims, though. A stone is a part of reality, but it cannot know reality in and of itself. Human perception can be used to examine that stone. The "seen" stone and the "felt" stone are not the stone itself, though. They are the stone through the filter of perception and mind. So, in another sense, the mind, though it is a part of reality, "creates" its own reality based on the perceived outside world.
I am not arguing for solipsism here. The "created reality" of the mind necessarily emerges from a synthetic unity of perception/mind and "reality in itself." We can know, examine, and fruitfully discuss that union. We can neither know nor fruitfully discuss the "reality in itself."

We can't determine the level of perception distortion, but we can know that reality does exist, and that's what's actually being discussed in this thread. Not the true nature of reality, but the simple existence of it. Reality is whatever it is, and whatever that is, it's not dependent on our interpretation of it. If we can agree on that, then we agree.

reply to post by NorEaster

Are we discussing terminology or reality? Just so I'm solid on what's happening here.

That's what I'm still trying to figure out. I support the idea that energy waves of a particular amplitude can exist outside of human perception. Calling those waves "blue" is, in my opinion, nonsensical. Color is necessarily a perceptual property, so divorcing color from perception is nonsensical.

It seems that we differ here.

I refer to the conditions that come together to cause our visual systems to perceive the color blue, when I say that "blue exists".

You only include conditions that come together to cause our visual systems to perceive the color. If I take this strictly literally, you do not count our visual systems (perception machinery as I've been calling them) themselves as a prerequisite to the existence of "blue." Again, I think that this is nonsensical as "blue" is a color and "color" is an inherently perceptual concept.

But you have redefined "blue" in a manner that removes its color-quality. The "conditions" that you've mentioned, as far as I can tell, include the presence of energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm as well as the circumstantial conditions (temporal, physical, etc.) that allow it to come into contact with the visual systems. Essentially, you're adding some circumstantial conditions to the presence energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm and calling it "blue." The particular circumstantial conditions that you assign to such energy to make it "blue" are those that will lead it to interact with visual systems.

Based on that, I see your definitions as such (correct me if I'm wrong--I'm taking the above quoted statement to the strictest literal sense, so if you were at all imprecise, this holds no meaning):

(a) energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm that will never encounter a visual perception system: not blue.
(b) energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm that will encounter a visual perception system: blue.

My definitions, on the other hand, are:

(c) energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm that will never encounter a visual perception system: not blue.
(d) energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm that will encounter a visual perception system but has not yet done so: not blue.
(e) the unity of energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm with a visual perception system: blue.

So now it seems that definition *is* at the root of the problem. I stick with the standard perceptual definition of "blue." It seems to me that you define "future blue" as "blue."

So, based on this, my main question is: Why have you chosen to redefine blue? Why is the inclusion of "future blue" into the definition of "blue" fruitful?

Also, suppose for a moment that there is no visual system in the universe and never will be. In such a case, both of our definitions lead to the conclusion that "blue" cannot exist. Ergo, blue cannot exist without perception even if the definition of "blue" is expanded to mean "future blue" or "energy that will be perceived as blue in the future."

Without visual systems, the circumstantial conditions that come together to cause our visual systems to perceive the color blue cannot come together, so your redefinition of blue still relies on the existence of of a perceiving entity. By your own definition, blue cannot exist without an observer.
_________________________________
The claim that we can consistently reproduce "blue" does not support the notion of an objective "blue" that can exist beyond human perception. We can consistently produce things that reflect energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm. Unperceived, these still are not blue. Replication does not grant an objective external reality to "blue," it merely means that we can produce things that reflect or project energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm. Such things, if viewed, will result in the unity of perception and energy that is defined as "blue." By your redefinition, these things can be considered blue because they will, in all likelihood, be perceived. Again, I fail to see how such a redefinition is valuable.
__________________________________

We can't determine the level of perception distortion, but we can know that reality does exist, and that's what's actually being discussed in this thread. Not the true nature of reality, but the simple existence of it. Reality is whatever it is, and whatever that is, it's not dependent on our interpretation of it. If we can agree on that, then we agree.

I haven't reached the point where I feel comfortable claiming that there is an objective reality, but I have been taking the existence of an objective reality for granted when making my arguments, so we, within the confines of this discussion, agree on that point.

Originally posted by backwardluminary
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Are we discussing terminology or reality? Just so I'm solid on what's happening here.

That's what I'm still trying to figure out. I support the idea that energy waves of a particular amplitude can exist outside of human perception. Calling those waves "blue" is, in my opinion, nonsensical. Color is necessarily a perceptual property, so divorcing color from perception is nonsensical.


But you have redefined "blue" in a manner that removes its color-quality. The "conditions" that you've mentioned, as far as I can tell, include the presence of energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm as well as the circumstantial conditions (temporal, physical, etc.) that allow it to come into contact with the visual systems. Essentially, you're adding some circumstantial conditions to the presence energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm and calling it "blue." The particular circumstantial conditions that you assign to such energy to make it "blue" are those that will lead it to interact with visual systems.

Based on that, I see your definitions as such (correct me if I'm wrong--I'm taking the above quoted statement to the strictest literal sense, so if you were at all imprecise, this holds no meaning):

(a) energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm that will never encounter a visual perception system: not blue.
(b) energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm that will encounter a visual perception system: blue.

So now it seems that definition *is* at the root of the problem. I stick with the standard perceptual definition of "blue." It seems to me that you define "future blue" as "blue."

So, based on this, my main question is: Why have you chosen to redefine blue? Why is the inclusion of "future blue" into the definition of "blue" fruitful?

External conditions that result in the perceived "blue" is what I am referring to. The perceiver brings its own suite of conditions to the event, but the external conditions still exist regardless of what the perceiver does or doesn't contribute. I am not dealing with the relationship between "blue" and the perceiver of that blue. This is what you seem to be involved in, which is fine, but the lack of a perception relationship does not vacate the presence of the external conditions that I am referring to. It's not "future blue", since that blue may not have a future as a perceived blue.

My point is that "blue", as an event configuration, exists devoid of a relationship with an intelligent perception. All the perception relationship provides is the perceiver's perception of the blue that has occurred. The blue has occurred in spite of the perceiver.

Without visual systems, the circumstantial conditions that come together to cause our visual systems to perceive the color blue cannot come together, so your redefinition of blue still relies on the existence of of a perceiving entity. By your own definition, blue cannot exist without an observer.

Again, we're clearly not discussing the same issue. I'm discussing the existence of blue and you're discussing the relationship between blue and the perceiver of blue. Existence and perception of that existence by a disinterested party are two very different issues. This becomes very obvious once you've let go of the traditional view of material existence.

The claim that we can consistently reproduce "blue" does not support the notion of an objective "blue" that can exist beyond human perception. We can consistently produce things that reflect energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm. Unperceived, these still are not blue. Replication does not grant an objective external reality to "blue," it merely means that we can produce things that reflect or project energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm. Such things, if viewed, will result in the unity of perception and energy that is defined as "blue." By your redefinition, these things can be considered blue because they will, in all likelihood, be perceived. Again, I fail to see how such a redefinition is valuable.

(see above response)

We can't determine the level of perception distortion, but we can know that reality does exist, and that's what's actually being discussed in this thread. Not the true nature of reality, but the simple existence of it. Reality is whatever it is, and whatever that is, it's not dependent on our interpretation of it. If we can agree on that, then we agree.

I haven't reached the point where I feel comfortable claiming that there is an objective reality, but I have been taking the existence of an objective reality for granted when making my arguments, so we, within the confines of this discussion, agree on that point.

Well, that is a start, then. Thanks for the exchange.

I think what we view as reality is what we have been taught to accept. A child does not know what reality is, and therefore can have imaginary friends, or be receptive to things we are not. Is my reality the same as yours? In some cases, yes because we have been taught some things the same way. For other areas, no because I am my own person, I view reality on my level, not yours. I think this is where mental issues come into play. We label people who's view of reality that is different than ours as being mentally retarded. I think they just have a different sense of reality. To them, their view is normal, and ours is retarded.

I am amazed at the level of discussion that has taken place so far. Very deep thought. I think this subject is one that perplexed Einstein and contributed to his theory of relativity. I think he was intrigued by reality and fought to understand our perception of it. Being genius level intellectually can be a very burdensome gift.

reply to post by NorEaster

Again, we're clearly not discussing the same issue. I'm discussing the existence of blue and you're discussing the relationship between blue and the perceiver of blue. Existence and perception of that existence by a disinterested party are two very different issues. This becomes very obvious once you've let go of the traditional view of material existence.

Aah, alright. This is the origin of our disagreement. I think we are discussing the same issue, though.

I simply define blue as a unity between energy waves and perception. So, yes, I am discussing the relationship between blue and the perceiver of blue, but to me, you can't have one without the other. Your "existence of blue" is, at least using the standard definition of blue, wrapped up in my "relationship between blue and the perceiver of blue."

Existence and perception of that existence are certainly different issues, but both are necessary when one seeks to define a perceptual concept such as "blue."

So, accepting that our core definitions differ and probably will continue to do so--and that that is (probably) the heart of this issue--I have two questions.

How is your redefinition of blue from the standard perceptual understanding useful or valuable? What makes *unobserved* energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm blue?

Originally posted by haarvik
Being genius level intellectually can be a very burdensome gift.

It doesn't take a genius to experience relatively crippling existential crises.

reply to post by backwardluminary

It doesn't take a genius to experience relatively crippling existential crises.

You are right, it doesn't. My point was that being at that level of intellect has more of a perplexing problem analyzing it than the average person. As this thread illustrates, there are those who would start reading through it and go "Whoa! That's over my head". All I was saying was that it is much more of a burden to those with genius level intellect to ponder and debate reality than it is for the average person. I wasn't trying to belittle anyone.

reply to post by haarvik


Haha, sorry, I wasn't taking it as an insult or anything. I was just poorly expressing a general frustration at the existential issues that always lurk beneath the surface of every thought, action, etc.

I think I relied to heavily on the emoticon to convey my meaning. Too much coffee and not enough sleep went into the formulation of that statement.

Originally posted by backwardluminary
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Again, we're clearly not discussing the same issue. I'm discussing the existence of blue and you're discussing the relationship between blue and the perceiver of blue. Existence and perception of that existence by a disinterested party are two very different issues. This becomes very obvious once you've let go of the traditional view of material existence.

Aah, alright. This is the origin of our disagreement. I think we are discussing the same issue, though.

I simply define blue as a unity between energy waves and perception. So, yes, I am discussing the relationship between blue and the perceiver of blue, but to me, you can't have one without the other. Your "existence of blue" is, at least using the standard definition of blue, wrapped up in my "relationship between blue and the perceiver of blue."

Existence and perception of that existence are certainly different issues, but both are necessary when one seeks to define a perceptual concept such as "blue."

Keep in mind that the existential confluence that we perceive as blue has other relationships within the contextual environment, and that being the case, our observation (or lack of same) isn't an identity-defining factor for blue. Birds use color for mating purposes, and other animals use color for protection and predation. Color is employed by flowers to attract bees. Color has many applications that predate the emergence of the human intellect.

Perception is what color is all about, but its natural production occurs devoid of perception. In essence, a lone cardinal, stranded on a tiny island for its entire life, alone and never perceived, will still leave a little red corpse behind when it finally dies.

So, accepting that our core definitions differ and probably will continue to do so--and that that is (probably) the heart of this issue--I have two questions.

How is your redefinition of blue from the standard perceptual understanding useful or valuable? What makes *unobserved* energy with a wavelength of 440–490 nm blue?

Blue is a human term. Still, the contextual confluence that produces what we have decided to call "blue" involves existential properties and relationships that are independent of an observer. In fact, observation adds an additional factor to what was already "blue", and merely initiates a new relationship (a separate event trajectory of its own) that affects the observer trajectory (at a tangential/historical level, at the very least), but does not affect the event trajectory that we refer to as "blue". The "blue" in question is much too primitive to be affected by observation.

The value in understanding the nature of event physics (which is what my redefinition of blue involves) hasn't become noticed by the mainstream yet, but when it does, this approach will reinvent the questions that science asks about our world and ourselves. Those questions, by themselves, will take us much further down the road to fully understanding who and what we are, and effectively eliminate the larger mysteries that continue to run us in circles. I'd imagine that such a breakthrough has its value.

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by backwardluminary

 

It doesn't take a genius to experience relatively crippling existential crises.

You are right, it doesn't. My point was that being at that level of intellect has more of a perplexing problem analyzing it than the average person. As this thread illustrates, there are those who would start reading through it and go "Whoa! That's over my head". All I was saying was that it is much more of a burden to those with genius level intellect to ponder and debate reality than it is for the average person. I wasn't trying to belittle anyone.

We sleep in spurts.

Other than that - and every relationship disaster imaginable - it's not so bad. Sudoku puzzles solve themselves for the most part, and sooner or later you find some way to be of use.

It could be worse.

Perception is what color is all about, but its natural production occurs devoid of perception. In essence, a lone cardinal, stranded on a tiny island for its entire life, alone and never perceived, will still leave a little red corpse behind when it finally dies.

It looks like, at the very least, we have determined the fundamental root of our disagreement.

I think that your theoretical never-perceived cardinal leaves a corpse that reflects light with a wavelength of 630–740 nm. I also think that this light cannot be considered "red" if it is never perceived.

You think that the "red" character of that light exists regardless of perception.

Birds use color for mating purposes, and other animals use color for protection and predation. Color is employed by flowers to attract bees. Color has many applications that predate the emergence of the human intellect.

I've been referring generally to "perception mechanisms" or "visual systems," not just the human intellect. Other organisms also perceive color though the use of visual systems. I would still argue that the light reflected from a flower has no color-quality in and of itself when not perceived by the bee, but again, I think we just fundamentally disagree on this issue. "Blue" and other colors have certainly been perceived since long before the human intellect. We were merely the ones who assigned the term "color" to the union of certain wavelengths of light with a perception system, though.

I'm satisfied with the result of this discussion. I still can't say that I see the value of the redefinition of color, but I think I at least understand the basis of our disagreement, so that's something. Thanks for an excellent discussion.

As far as I can tell, reality exists for me, and that's all that really matters. The only constant I've seen in reality is me. I've always been here, and I'm still around. Is there such a thing as objective reality? I don't see how it's possible. No matter what measurements are taken, they still have to be experienced and understood by me in order to be real. If I get punched in the face, it seems real to me. I experience pain and see blood. That's plenty real for me, and all I care about.

And when I die, reality will cease to exist. So good luck. I'm destroying everything when I go.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
As far as I can tell, reality exists for me, and that's all that really matters. The only constant I've seen in reality is me. I've always been here, and I'm still around. Is there such a thing as objective reality? I don't see how it's possible. No matter what measurements are taken, they still have to be experienced and understood by me in order to be real. If I get punched in the face, it seems real to me. I experience pain and see blood. That's plenty real for me, and all I care about.

And when I die, reality will cease to exist. So good luck. I'm destroying everything when I go.

Judging by the content of this post (at least) your avatar does seem to suit you nicely. I think a positive self image is a good thing. Well done.

this question has done my head in for a while some interesting follow up reading for you is david icke tales from the time loop .stalking the wild pendulem by itzhak bentov .we are all just energy vibrating away .try www.documentry wire .com / john-harris its an illusion happy hunting