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.

 

What makes "Reality" real?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by robhines
 


Thank you for posting this, i will be reading more. I have just written this one another thread and i think it says the same.

There is no stuff!! It is all made of nothing. Stuff or 'things' are illusionary. Stuff is no more than appearances appearing. The real is what sees the appearances. The real is also not a thing (nothing).




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   
At one point the atom was the smallest unit, so obviously the materialists claimed everything was composed of atoms, but then atoms became analyzed and quarks were found. And eventually something will be found in quarks, and this process could go on forever, meaning that if it is possible to physically see something, then it must also be possible to see something smaller than that thing, or at least that's what material science is hinting at. So in conclusion I think the smallest particle, whatever that is, can never be pointed at, and so the basis of ideas is a more solid understanding since the ideas in your mind can at least be cognitated as opposed to material atoms which can never be grasped at, not even with the most powerful microscope, because eventually a more powerful one will just prove you wrong. Just my opinion.

Oh I forgot the most important part, if the quark is further analyzed and the only way to describe it is through abstract mathematics, i.e. quantum mathematics, then what you really have is an idea, an abstract system of thought, as opposed to an actual thing or particle.
edit on 24-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Excellent, excellent post! Really, topics like these are why I relate to people on ATS, and this is one of the best threads I've seen in a long time. Thank you, op!



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by your maker
 


Saying that the world existed before you is no more than an assumption, yet you believe it is true. Believing that you are a mindless meatbag is also an assumption. This is what you say is reality, but really it is a belief. This belief has not been verified by you, you have not yet inquired into your real nature.


If it were not existing before me, then the conditions would not be right for me to exist at all, do you agree?
I know it's true, just as you know to put your pants on before your shoes.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Something tells me that "Robert Picardo" from the BBC is not listening in on this one. He was my friend when he had feathers, then I disappeared. Where did you go?

That's reality.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker
If it were not existing before me, then the conditions would not be right for me to exist at all, do you agree?


Let us rephrase: If it [The Universe] were not existing before it, then the conditions would not be right for it to exist at all, do you agree?

Do you? What is it to impose conditions upon the universe? What gaul must you have?


I know it's true, just as you know to put your pants on before your shoes.


Eau, contraire (de toilet), my touser legs have been known to snuggle my shoes from time to time and the shoes had declared in kind, "you may pass."
edit on 9/25/2011 by The1Prettiest1One because: Needed an 'n', Pat



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   


It was his view that reality was made of atoms and everything else was opinions. During that time, Plato was solidifying idealism which views reality as a mind-generated experience.


'Solidifying' is one way of describing it. Another way to describe his forms would that he 'insanified' thinking for mellenia, right down through the ages to now.



Depending on your point of view, both philosophers were correct.


I think Aristotle would be a more apt contrast, and I think 'The Philosopher' might agree. To paraphrase him badly "we love Plato, but we love the truth more.".

Since your above statement implies that truth is nothing more than a personal preference, I wonder how you might square away the canyon-like divide that exists between the Plutonic forms and the rational empiricism offered by each philosopher? Point of view is meaningless in relation to ontological reality. The two approaches are mutually exclusive.

Who is correct, in your opinion? Plato, who asserts concepts form reality, or Aristotle, who asserts that concepts are derived from reality? Cant have it both ways.




Reality is composed both of atoms, and ideas.


If my idea of atoms contradict my observation of said atoms, what must yield? Must I update and adapt my conceptual knowledge of 'atoms', if my idea of atoms contradicts their observed behavior? Or must atoms yield to my concept of them?




Why this is so, is because "Reality" requires an observer to make real the "experience of reality".


Is this assertion falsifiable in any way? In other words, how do we know if the above is untrue?

Are you saying that reality did not exist prior to human evolution? If so, how is it that the dinosaurs existed? Or single celled organisms? Did they require an 'observer' to be real beings? If so, who was this pre human observer? If not, how did they exist without conscious observation?



It is often the "experience of reality" that most people view as real. The human brain takes in sensory data from five physical senses and through various conversions to nervous electrical impulses these signals are sent to the brain, where billions of neurons work together like a computer network to "digitally" render out the mind-generated experience of reality.


Right. Is this perception in any way invalid or limited? if so, can you describe how our senses are limited?



It is here that Plato is correct, the "reality" that he was observing was what his mind was generating.


Wait. Platos mind didnt generate its stimulus, it only interpreted it. Platos mind generated its interpretation of the stimuli it was receiving. It did not generate it.



To him, this is all that mattered. He recognized that the objects and forms that he observed in this way was comprised of thoughts and ideas.


Wait. Earlier you stated that his view was correct, and now you caveat his conclusions with a 'to him.'

Is his metaphysical outlook correct, or not, in your opinion?



The Cartesian Theater is an idea that proposes within the mind sits a theater with a little man, the Homunculus sits to watch what forms in this mental canvas of the mind. In this idea, the Homunculus is the observer and what the observer experiences is the final result of information processing by the human brain that renders a virtual reality based on sensory data.


Its worth mentioning, I think, that Descartes went absolutely raving mad in the end of his life.

His conclusions about some demon who makes up our reality are in the same vein, imo.

If all sensory data = false, then every bit of information you, or anyone else has communicated to me must also = false. Thus if all reality is a contradictory illusion, I must assume that your words and the content they contain must also be false.

Thus I simply must assume that your arguments are indeed false, and in reality you are agreeing with me.



It is this mind-generated virtual reality which makes the external world appear very real to the observer. Without the human body's ability to take in sensory data, and interpret this data through a nearly computer like manner where the space, color, texture, light and other sensory expeirences are grouped together to form this mind-generated experience.


If I am indeed an illusion generated solely by your mind, and everyone else reading this thread is also a figment of your imagination...what the hell are you doing arguing with yourself? Even crazy people dont engage in furious and long winded debates with themselves; when they do it is only because they believe the object they contest with is an external entity.

If I do not exist, why are you trying to convince me of that?



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   


It is this mind-generated virtual reality which makes the external world appear very real to the observer. Without the human body's ability to take in sensory data, and interpret this data through a nearly computer like manner where the space, color, texture, light and other sensory expeirences are grouped together to form this mind-generated experience.


A 'human body' is required to experience the external physical world? If this is true, what did the dinosaurs experience, with their non human bodies?



What is this inner-canvas of the mind? Author Anthony Peake dives deep into this perception model of reality with his BIMAX experience that further describes a much more robust entertainment system that the brain uses to render experiences on. A virtual canvas of the mind which unlike a computer screen is the biological equivalent of virtual reality simulation.


Perhaps Im a little slow, but are you proposing that reality itself does not exist independently of conscious human observation?

If so, what reality existed before cro magnon man, if any?



Dreams also render on this BIMAX or Cartesian Theatre. When we sleep, the same information processes that go into creating experiences from sensory data go into creating vivid virtual dream realities. It is the nature of this inner-reality rendering farm that we possess that gives way to the very real experience of reality.


Do dreams exist in the same way the Earth exists? Are dreams real, in an ontological sense?



If we look at modern day metaphors, a 3D rendering farm is a good analogy of how the neural-network works together to process, and calculate data received by the senses to in turn render an output of this data in a coherent and meaningful way so that we, the observer can have a meaningful view of what that data is.


Does this analogy hold if the rules of said 3D world totally contradict the known physical rules of our reality? If so than COOL, but you must prove it. If not, wouldnt these artificial constructs be the exact same a dreams? (artificial constructs bound by subjective rules?)



Humans occupy one of natures most amazing reality rendering farms, the human brain. It is the human brain that makes reality appear real to the observer


So reality is fake, and we know this because the observer is all that exists. I see a number of logical and self destructing errors in this statement, but lets focus on just one.

Am *I* a unreal? Am *I* a creation of your mind?



. Without this observer model of reality, then regardless of how real atoms and matter is; the realizations, the awareness and ability to know and understand it would make such a reality seem like a void.


There is no 'observer model of reality' (and yes i know about quantum uncertainty) because such a hypothesis has no falsifiable criteria. In other words, if your thesis is true, we can never know because we are all 'stuck' within our own observer mode. If it is false, this also can never be known as it is impossible for a human to exist without observation.

If a tree falls in isolation in the forest, it of course falls, but its downfall is totally unknowable to humans, as they were not present to know it. Its stump and rotting log is evidence enough for us to say it did indeed fall at some point, though.

So this 'model' you propose is totally untestable and unknowable, and this is exactly the same as non existence.

No null hypothesis = non existent.



It is the living systems, the observers within this objective atomized Universe that turn this vast information system into a virtually rendered experience by which then the organism can respond to and survive within.


Wait, so experiencing reality does *not* require human consciousness, but instead only an 'organism'?

What qualifies as an 'organism', in this case?



Without sentience, intelligence and life, the Universe could be forever unrealized and unknown. It seems some how, through some miracle nature figured out a way to take this objective matter and turn it into a system that allows reality to have an experience of itself.


Did the universe exist, in your opinion, before the evolution of human consciousness?



With out the observer, what is or isn't real doesn't much matter. What makes Reality real, is a mind-generated experience that came from living organisms figuring out a way to process data and render this data into an experience.


Ok, I accept that our mental concepts must form around, and conform to reality. Does that our sensual and imperfect experience of reality not perfectly conforming to our sense data imply that all our experiences are false and subjective?

Does objective reality exist independent of our perception of it?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
'Solidifying' is one way of describing it. Another way to describe his forms would that he 'insanified' thinking for mellenia, right down through the ages to now.



I don't agree that he 'insanified' thinking rather presented an idealistic model of reality which showed his model was based on what the mind interpreted from the sensory data as the "experience of reality".


Originally posted by Neo_Serf
I think Aristotle would be a more apt contrast, and I think 'The Philosopher' might agree. To paraphrase him badly "we love Plato, but we love the truth more.".

Since your above statement implies that truth is nothing more than a personal preference


The truth is not a personal preference. One cannot prefer to have a belief and assume it is truth in light of actual truth. Truth however must be realized by the individual. My posting is not implying that there is no such thing as truth. Far from it.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
, I wonder how you might square away the canyon-like divide that exists between the Plutonic forms and the rational empiricism offered by each philosopher? Point of view is meaningless in relation to ontological reality. The two approaches are mutually exclusive.


My point is more relative to “Reality Theory” rather then a debate about Plato and Aristotle. I happen to enjoy Aristotles, “By Prophesying by Dreams” where he skeptically argues a phenomena that we know as precognitive dreams. Fascinating for a 350BC debate of the idea that some people can dream the future whilst others can not. A problem that seems to challenge humanity even today.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Who is correct, in your opinion? Plato, who asserts concepts form reality, or Aristotle, who asserts that concepts are derived from reality? Cant have it both ways.



They are opinions, and opinions go in every direction.


Originally posted by Neo_Serf
If my idea of atoms contradict my observation of said atoms, what must yield? Must I update and adapt my conceptual knowledge of 'atoms', if my idea of atoms contradicts their observed behavior? Or must atoms yield to my concept of them?


That's a good question. How should atoms behave when you observe them? Erwin Schrödinger
would probable enjoy such a thought paradox.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Are you saying that reality did not exist prior to human evolution? If so, how is it that the dinosaurs existed? Or single celled organisms? Did they require an 'observer' to be real beings? If so, who was this pre human observer? If not, how did they exist without conscious observation?


It's good to ask questions Neo_Serf. I feel like I am back in hi-school again being drilled with skill-testing questions. 1.) I am not saying reality did not exist prior to human evolution, reality has likely always existed. What I am saying is Humans and reality share an interconnected dependance on each-other in a way that is subjectively experienced as the “Experience of Reality”.

2.) That becomes a very mute point don't you think? Dinosaurs... cool prehistoric lizards.
3.) I like single-celled organisms, in fact I am compiled from trillions of single-celled organisms working together to form a human body. They are compiled from trillions of atoms. Atoms are comprised of trillions of wave-functions all collapsing. Wave-functions are comprised of... wait, I don't think our physics goes that far yet.
4.) Yes, all living systems require an “observer”. That's an easy question.
5.) I don't think this “who” is an individual pre-human observer. If we play on semantics, you are that observer right now within your own living-system. That self of which you are, is the observer. Is it a part of reality, or is it separate? I'll ask a question.
6.) The last question was a bit confusing. How does a living system exist without conscious observation? They do this all the time when sleeping. Are we arguing what consciousness is? To the observer, consciousness is key. It is the moment where the observer is self-aware. Now are all living organisms conscious and self-aware? That's a better and more intriguing question.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Right. Is this perception in any way invalid or limited? if so, can you describe how our senses are limited?

Of course perception is “limited”, that is why I am raising the conjecture on the “experience of reality”. Is it necessary for me to talk about how the human eye is limited to the visual spectrum? Google sensory limits if you need some in depth details, this forum has character limits.

New post I guess...
edit on 28-9-2011 by YouAreDreaming because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Wait. Platos mind didnt generate its stimulus, it only interpreted it. Platos mind generated its interpretation of the stimuli it was receiving. It did not generate it.


How do you know for certainty what Plato's mind generated? You dream when you sleep at night do you not? Well, your mind generates vivid dream virtual realities effortlessly. Do you know what this is? Are you a dreamer? Any knowledge and practical science offered on the topic of how Plato dreams?

Consciousness creates very detailed dream realities does it not? Dogs dream, cats dream... perhaps single-celled organisms dream. If dreaming is a part of consciousness within living systems. Why all the need for dreaming? Yet, dreaming plays a role living-systems as an activity during sleep. Why?



Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Wait. Earlier you stated that his view was correct, and now you caveat his conclusions with a 'to him.'

Is his metaphysical outlook correct, or not, in your opinion?



Perhaps you are chronologically coming to thought portrayed in textual-format in a forum. I said that his view of “idealism” when looking at the “expeirence of reality” which is the sensory-model was correct. It does exist. Dreams are but a living example of this idealism at work. Or am I wrong?

That would be more interesting to me if you say that I am wrong in stating that living systems dream.


Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Its worth mentioning, I think, that Descartes went absolutely raving mad in the end of his life.

His conclusions about some demon who makes up our reality are in the same vein, imo.


And that is fine, the fact is we do possess this mind-generated canvas of sensory data. It is relative to our senses, how our brain has evolved with those senses. And what it generates there is what every living system observes as an “experience of reality”. Or is this fact debatable for you? Say... only humans observe an experience of reality and amoeba's do not type of argument?


Originally posted by Neo_Serf
If all sensory data = false, then every bit of information you, or anyone else has communicated to me must also = false. Thus if all reality is a contradictory illusion, I must assume that your words and the content they contain must also be false.

Thus I simply must assume that your arguments are indeed false, and in reality you are agreeing with me.


An odd paragraph. Obviously we are having a conversation and are two very real people on computers posting on the Internet. I am not saying that reality is an illusion, I do not buy into such a belief. It's real. More so, I am interested in why it's real and how to better understand reality as a broad-spectrum system that engages us on so many levels.

Which is good, because we are talking about a very interesting topic when talking about reality. Who doesn't want to understand what it is, and on all of these levels?


Originally posted by Neo_SerfIf I am indeed an illusion generated solely by your mind, and everyone else reading this thread is also a figment of your imagination...what the hell are you doing arguing with yourself? Even crazy people dont engage in furious and long winded debates with themselves; when they do it is only because they believe the object they contest with is an external entity.

If I do not exist, why are you trying to convince me of that?


Well, yet another interesting paragraph. I'm not saying you are an illusion. I'm aware enough that you, and other people reading this thread exist. Even if I don't know you personally. Which is fine. I'm not interested in the idea that reality is an illusion. It's very real.

I'm much more interested in how reality exists. As an organism, with a certain level of intelligence I have observed many fascinating ways by which reality exists. For example, how it exists right now which for lack of better descriptions is just me typing on my computer in thought-to-text format. In an exchange of ideas with relative strangers to myself.

In this now past moment (you reading now) to my current present moment. I know time will have passed, the internet will exist and time is yet another very fascinating part of reality.

Relative, but different you will read this text and form an opinion about what my thoughts are. Perhaps express them and what not. All very much part of the same reality that I am experiencing.

Where I might detour a bit is in the metaphysical ideas that come with being sentient, self-aware and capable of dreaming reality in a different context when I sleep then how I perceive it when I am physical. Or in a similar way. Or in the same way.

It's all relative exposure to this amazing reality-system that I am both experiencing and understanding simultaneously.

Paddling the same boat, just differently.
edit on 28-9-2011 by YouAreDreaming because: To delete my other edits...



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
The word "real" begs the question. If you were to define it, it would be based on your own definition. We would merely be assigning values to our experiences. Therefore, instead of trying to define what real means. Instead, we should just accept that things just are. It is what it is.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Lose yourself in reality.

I'm lost.



What is real? water, water vapor, or ice? What is real? a tree, coal or ashes?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
the experiencer is who can make reality real.

Reality changes.
edit on 2011/9/29 by etherical waterwave because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
one word makes reality real - pain -

Without it, we wouldn't know whats real



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Although we digress on many an issue and conclusion, I gotta start by saying that I have a lot of respect and admiration for the high level thinking and responses youve put forward here. Not that you should need or care for my anon praise, of course! But still, thumbs up.



I don't agree that he 'insanified' thinking rather presented an idealistic model of reality which showed his model was based on what the mind interpreted from the sensory data as the "experience of reality".


That he 'presented an idealistic model of reality' is that which I believe is insane. Preferences and projections have no place in the rational exploration of that which exists and that which does not.

Also, I believe his model didnt at all rely on the sensory experience of reality. No where, in no way do we humans experience 'Plutonic forms' or other such extra dimensional expressions of perfect forms. A 'chariot' does not exist as an independent entity, floating flawlessly in some perfect realm of forms before out birth, but instead it exists as a concept that describes a certain configuration of discreet matter, combined with our intention of usage for said configuration, which is convenient to label a 'chariot'.

In other words, a 'chariot' does not exist in an ontological sense. It requires a human with free with to label and describe it as such. Plato would say that the 'chariots' existence supersedes a humans experience of it, and lives eternally in some realm of perfection.

Saying a 'chariot' exists in some other realm eternally, to me anyways, suggests a special, cunning kind of insanity. No evidence or consistent logic can possibly uphold this claim, since it is fundamentally a mere *assertion* based on no facts.



The truth is not a personal preference. One cannot prefer to have a belief and assume it is truth in light of actual truth. Truth however must be realized by the individual. My posting is not implying that there is no such thing as truth. Far from it.


On this we agree!~ So seeing as we agree that truth exists independent of the human mind, and it is the human minds job to discover that which already exists, I must implore you to abandon your support of Plutonic forms, as they only, by definition, exist in the human mind!

Unless, of course, you can convince me that a perfect apple exists timelessly in some ethereal realm of infinite perfection? And that I once lived there, before my birth, and knew all this, but when i was born forgot most of it, but not all...and I have some stirring of remembrance when I see a crab apple, and I compare it to the perfect apple I ate in the land of pure perfection....

Are you a religious man?




My point is more relative to “Reality Theory” rather then a debate about Plato and Aristotle. I happen to enjoy Aristotles, “By Prophesying by Dreams” where he skeptically argues a phenomena that we know as precognitive dreams. Fascinating for a 350BC debate of the idea that some people can dream the future whilst others can not. A problem that seems to challenge humanity even today.


imo Plato and Aristotles view form the foundation of both opposing camps of thought right up until today. Reason and evidence in one corner, which brought us such joys as the scientific method and capitalism, and in the other corner, superstition and irrationality, which have brought to humanity the inhuman body pits of nazism, communism, religion, and every other irrational beliefs that are the genesis of the majority of human suffering and is responsible for millions if not billions of deaths.

High stakes. I will also forgive Aristotles superstitions and faults in exchange for his codifying of logic.



They are opinions, and opinions go in every direction.


Waaait wait wait. Earlier you stated that 'truth is not a personal preference.' Now youre casting your judgement of validity into the 'who cares' realm of mere opinion?

So you have no judgement on either side of the Plato/Aristotle divide? Or is no conclusion possible?

Each philosophy presents its method as 'truth'. Which is valid, if any? If not, what approach is?



That's a good question. How should atoms behave when you observe them? Erwin Schrödinger would probable enjoy such a thought paradox.


I dont think a 'should' exists when observing reality, in the same way I dont think a rockslide 'shouldnt' land on my car.

cont.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Project Incognito

This 44 second intro to Obsidian Blue Project Incognito album tells me a lot. Basically just electrical signals interpreted by our brain that make it real....



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   


It's good to ask questions Neo_Serf. I feel like I am back in hi-school again being drilled with skill-testing questions. 1.) I am not saying reality did not exist prior to human evolution, reality has likely always existed. What I am saying is Humans and reality share an interconnected dependance on each-other in a way that is subjectively experienced as the “Experience of Reality”.


So our 'Experience of Reality' is subjective from our viewpoint? If this is true, how are you able to convey facts to me in an objective manner? Surely you and I agree, implicit in our very act of communicating, that there exists around us a world whos properties are objective, predictable and measurable, and not at all subjective? A world that exists without us?

In other words, Im relying on my light signals to cross the distance between us and be received by you in a manner that is totally non subjective, right? And you too implicitly accept that your communication to me will be received in a non contradictory and objective manner, right? If this was not true, communication would be impossible, of course.

So while I accept that many aspects of consciousness are indeed totally subjective, (dreams, emotions, preferences) I wonder if that those realms of subjectivity exists convinces you that *all* aspects of our experience are also subjective?



2.) That becomes a very mute point don't you think? Dinosaurs... cool prehistoric lizards.


Not if existence relies upon concious observation.



3.) I like single-celled organisms, in fact I am compiled from trillions of single-celled organisms working together to form a human body. They are compiled from trillions of atoms. Atoms are comprised of trillions of wave-functions all collapsing. Wave-functions are comprised of... wait, I don't think our physics goes that far yet.


Right. And these Facts are objectively true and do not change via our experience of them. right?



4.) Yes, all living systems require an “observer”. That's an easy question.


Well im glad you have it all sorted out because im still confused. Who observed the first single cell organisms?



5.) I don't think this “who” is an individual pre-human observer. If we play on semantics, you are that observer right now within your own living-system. That self of which you are, is the observer. Is it a part of reality, or is it separate? I'll ask a question.


Waaaait, hoold uuup! Im not asking about my own, current and local system. Im asking about the origins of life. Who is the observer in this case?



6.) The last question was a bit confusing. How does a living system exist without conscious observation? They do this all the time when sleeping. Are we arguing what consciousness is? To the observer, consciousness is key. It is the moment where the observer is self-aware. Now are all living organisms conscious and self-aware? That's a better and more intriguing question.


Youre losing me here, and that may be my fault but it may also be yours. Simplify it for me, if you would. Who is the observer in the case of single celled primordial ooze type organisms?



Of course perception is “limited”, that is why I am raising the conjecture on the “experience of reality”. Is it necessary for me to talk about how the human eye is limited to the visual spectrum? Google sensory limits if you need some in depth details, this forum has character limits.


Conjecture is right, heheh~ Sensual data is not limited to what is seen by the eye, though. The human eye cannot see electromagnetism, or radiation, but that does not mean we cannot create devices that sense these things and convert them into visual data. That we cannot 'see' radio waves does not prevent us from building a radio and listening to it.

And even if there are forces we currently cannot detect, which their surely are, this does not banish those forces into the realm of subjective unknowablity.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   


How do you know for certainty what Plato's mind generated?


Of course this is unknowable. Im simply going by his words and thoughts as he presented them. But I am certain that Platos mind did not generate, in any way, the physical matter that makes up our experience. Since Plato, and you, and I, are incapable of self generating physical and objective reality, logic dictates that his conclusions were generated in his own mind and did not originate from either reason or evidence.

If I say 'a tiny purple dragon lives on my shoulder', can you not say for certain that I am either trying to fool you, or totally mad?



You dream when you sleep at night do you not? Well, your mind generates vivid dream virtual realities effortlessly. Do you know what this is? Are you a dreamer? Any knowledge and practical science offered on the topic of how Plato dreams?


Are dreams and waking reality indistinguishable to you? Do your dreams follow logical and non contradictory rules, like reality does? Or does reality, to you, not have any definable rules, like dreams do not?

Can you tell a dream from being awake? Are you dreaming right now?

And no, no knowledge on the drug induced visions of the mystic Plato~




Consciousness creates very detailed dream realities does it not? Dogs dream, cats dream... perhaps single-celled organisms dream. If dreaming is a part of consciousness within living systems. Why all the need for dreaming? Yet, dreaming plays a role living-systems as an activity during sleep. Why?


When you use the universal of 'living systems' you include all entities that live.

Does seaweed dream?

Why dream? Great question! I make a practice of remembering and analyzing my dreams. Very fruitful. But I dont think crabs dream.



Perhaps you are chronologically coming to thought portrayed in textual-format in a forum. I said that his view of “idealism” when looking at the “expeirence of reality” which is the sensory-model was correct. It does exist. Dreams are but a living example of this idealism at work. Or am I wrong?


I dreamed of a circle that was both round and square one time. A square circle. Does this self contradictory entity exist in the universe, anywhere?



That would be more interesting to me if you say that I am wrong in stating that living systems dream.


Thats an interesting claim. Are you stating it as a 'fact', as in binding on me to accept it as such, like 2+2=4? Or are you stating that as an 'opinion', like 'I like rap music'? If you have some evidence, or reason to believe that all living things dream, id love to hear it. (honestly, not patronizing, I love avatar, heheh) But i see no evidence to support such a claim.



And that is fine, the fact is we do possess this mind-generated canvas of sensory data. It is relative to our senses, how our brain has evolved with those senses. And what it generates there is what every living system observes as an “experience of reality”. Or is this fact debatable for you? Say... only humans observe an experience of reality and amoeba's do not type of argument?


Im almost all the way with you here. We both agree that reality exists ontologically, and we both agree that the amoeba and I experience said reality very differently. As long as we can agree that *what we are both experiencing, albeit in slightly differing fashions emotionally, exists independently of our flawed experience of it.*

You and I both have separate and subjective emotional experiences when viewing the color 'red'. Based on genetics perhaps, and certainly on previous emotional experiences with 'redness', we both will inevitably have differing feelings and experiences when looking at 'red'. That we project our own subjective experience onto the color 'red' does not mean that 'red' exists in any way subjectively. We know this is the case because we can analyze a red wall with a spectrograph (or whatever device it is that reads the wavelengths of colors and translates them into graphs), and sight unseen, we will both agree that the color can objectively be measured as 'red'.

So that many aspects of our individual consciousness is indeed a subjective experience, that does not make the physical instances upon which we draw our experiences upon to be totally subjective, or whatever we want or imagine them to be.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Great topic - fascinating comments! But, why limit the examination of reality based on the theories of the two opposing philosophies of Plato and Aristotle?

What if reality is One United Consciousness experiencing the illusion of thought defined reality in fragmented parts of transitory existence? Much like a dream. But, what is the source?

All particles of existence when examined closely enough resolve into space. Where does space begin and where does it end? Yet, it is whole, one part connected with all other parts, with no division of time.

Reality is the other half of the sky - find it!



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   


An odd paragraph. Obviously we are having a conversation and are two very real people on computers posting on the Internet. I am not saying that reality is an illusion, I do not buy into such a belief. It's real. More so, I am interested in why it's real and how to better understand reality as a broad-spectrum system that engages us on so many levels.


Sorry. Im used to arguing with radical skeptics who claim that nothing is true, and this they know is true. My bad for strawmanning, if this is the case.



Which is good, because we are talking about a very interesting topic when talking about reality. Who doesn't want to understand what it is, and on all of these levels?


Hehe, you kid, right?
who doesnt want to strive for truth? Oh, prolly about 99.9% of humans alive or dead! Which is why I hold you in such great esteem, even if I think your conclusions might be just a bit off in a few cases~



Well, yet another interesting paragraph. I'm not saying you are an illusion. I'm aware enough that you, and other people reading this thread exist. Even if I don't know you personally. Which is fine. I'm not interested in the idea that reality is an illusion. It's very real.


Apologies x2 then! I think my confusion is rooted at your upholding of Plutonic forms as legit metaphysics. If what is real is real, then surely such imaginary constructs like invisible, perfect apples are not part of the 'real'.



I'm much more interested in how reality exists. As an organism, with a certain level of intelligence I have observed many fascinating ways by which reality exists. For example, how it exists right now which for lack of better descriptions is just me typing on my computer in thought-to-text format. In an exchange of ideas with relative strangers to myself.


Friggin cool eh. Sometimes I reflect on just how damn lucky we are to live in a time when our biggest immediate problem is packet loss, and not starvation. We have a long way to go, but what we have achieved is pretty friggin sweet!



Where I might detour a bit is in the metaphysical ideas that come with being sentient, self-aware and capable of dreaming reality in a different context when I sleep then how I perceive it when I am physical. Or in a similar way. Or in the same way.


Just for fun, can you define for me what 'reality' is, and what 'dreams' are, and how they differ, if at all?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join