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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   


Great topic - fascinating comments!


I think so too!



But, why limit the examination of reality based on the theories of the two opposing philosophies of Plato and Aristotle?


Im not sure were are limiting our analysis of reality by considering the two opposing, polar opposite positions. The two outlooks, in my mind, encompass and express, and are the superset of, all modes of thinking right up until today. Every philosophy, every rational and every justification fall into either one or the others camps - all modes of thinking are a subset of these two modes systems of thought, and the consequences of this ring loudly in our ears even now.

Either the thinker submits his methods and conclusions to the evidence of his senses and the reason of his mind, and finds that reality itself is the ultimate arbiter of truth, or the thinker creates his own truths and calls them reality. If the thinker submits to reason and evidence (where evidence trumps reason 100% of the time, and reason, in order to be reasonable, must conform as best it can to physical reality), then that thinker accepts an objective methodology for resolving his disputes with others. If the 'thinker' elevates his thoughts or concepts above physical reality, and declares that his concepts or 'forms' dictate physical instances, he must, by the 'logic' of his argument, also dictate and enforce upon others his vision of the truth, which cannot be proven or communicated, and to do so he must use force. This is why Plato advocated a total dictatorship.

This is why there are no 'science wars' or a 'pope of science'. Scientists may disagree, vigorously at times, but they all agree to an objective methodology by which they resolve disputes. The scientist *submits his thinking to objective reality*, while the priest or government official tries to *dictate reality*. Since an assertion without evidence can never be shared in a real way, those who put forward irrational and non reality based assertions must fundamentally back up their crazy ideas with violence.



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?


Sorry for the sass in advance, but what if a tiny purple dragon lives on my shoulder? What is the source?




posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Love your posts Neo_Serf - very thought provoking! Don't worry about the "sass", always appreciate an honest approach. But, you'll have to tell me about the "source" for the Purple Dragon on your shoulder - I'll never deny it's possibility based on your perceptions! But, I think the source is very important in deciding!




Either the thinker submits his methods and conclusions to the evidence of his senses and the reason of his mind, and finds that reality itself is the ultimate arbiter of truth, or the thinker creates his own truths and calls them reality. If the thinker submits to reason and evidence (where evidence trumps reason 100% of the time, and reason, in order to be reasonable, must conform as best it can to physical reality), then that thinker accepts an objective methodology for resolving his disputes with others. If the 'thinker' elevates his thoughts or concepts above physical reality, and declares that his concepts or 'forms' dictate physical instances, he must, by the 'logic' of his argument, also dictate and enforce upon others his vision of the truth, which cannot be proven or communicated, and to do so he must use force. This is why Plato advocated a total dictatorship.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be the gist of your perspective. The one line I find somewhat limiting and perhaps erroneous, is in attempting to give substance to reality based on the statement -"must conform as best it can to physical reality". The reason why? Who can with any lack of contention define what physical reality is? In my view, we can only arrive at a subjective assumption regarding the transitory factors of evidence regarding physical reality at any given point in time. Our knowledge of the physical elements of reality are subject to change at any given point in time and therefore our thoughts and interpretations constructed on such observations will alter after awhile. It also fails to take into account our state of consciousness and influence of our perceptions in arriving at a conclusion of absolute truth while attempting to do so, not to mention the reasoning process used in constructing our conclusions. Do you see what I'm trying to get at? How can we say with certainty that 'physical reality' is the entire spectrum of what reality consists of? That's why my original post is worded the way it is. Do I know what reality is? Well, this conversation with you is probably as close as I'll get to it! See what I mean? Reality is so much more.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Great points. Lets see if im up to the challenge.



But, you'll have to tell me about the "source" for the Purple Dragon on your shoulder - I'll never deny it's possibility based on your perceptions! But, I think the source is very important in deciding!


The source is my own assertion of this being true. I have a long and complicated (and internally consistent) story as to how and why my tiny dragon sits there, but as an initiate youll have to rise through the ranks in order to ask me such questions, as myself and my inner circle of philosopher kings are the only minds capable of seeing and comprehending my pet purple dragon. If you cant see it, you see, youre not wise enough~ *take my word for it*




Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be the gist of your perspective. The one line I find somewhat limiting and perhaps erroneous, is in attempting to give substance to reality based on the statement -"must conform as best it can to physical reality". The reason why?


Thought must conform to reality because reality supersedes thought. It was here before us. Our physical makeup conforms to its rules, which are universal. The properties of logic are the properties of matter.



Who can with any lack of contention define what physical reality is?


You can. and have. and are.



In my view, we can only arrive at a subjective assumption regarding the transitory factors of evidence regarding physical reality at any given point in time.


So why did you post this message to me implicitly accepting that reality is *not* subjective and is *not* transitory? If your view was true, it would make no sense for you to rely on the stability of the information youve communicated to me here.

If reality is indeed totally subjective, how do I know youre not agreeing with me now?




Our knowledge of the physical elements of reality are subject to change at any given point in time and therefore our thoughts and interpretations constructed on such observations will alter after awhile.


Of course our understanding of reality updates and improves over time, but it can only do so * relative to objective reality*. If all existence is totally subjective, like a dream, no alterations to our theory describing it would be necessary or even possible. In the subjective and valueless world youre describing, observations would alter moment to moment, and not after a while. No theories describing this environment would be possible because the rules, if there were any, would change moment to moment.

Thus words like 'interpretations' and 'constructs' only exist to describe an objective, stable reality, however imperfectly.



It also fails to take into account our state of consciousness and influence of our perceptions in arriving at a conclusion of absolute truth while attempting to do so, not to mention the reasoning process used in constructing our conclusions.


Sorry, but what exactly fails at this? Im not sure i understand.



Do you see what I'm trying to get at? How can we say with certainty that 'physical reality' is the entire spectrum of what reality consists of?


because non physical 'reality' would have to = non detectability, non testibility and would have no null hypothesis. in other words it would be exactly the same as non existence.

This does not mean we have it all figured out, tho! I just means any additional knowledge must be in some way verifiable.



That's why my original post is worded the way it is. Do I know what reality is? Well, this conversation with you is probably as close as I'll get to it! See what I mean? Reality is so much more.


Right, and the only way to discover is properties is to explore it rationally with constant reference to evidence. To say that since we dont know everything, that everything must be subjective is to reject all of humanities hard earned wisdom, however limited it may be.
edit on 2-10-2011 by Neo_Serf because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Nothing makes reality real.
The thing that is not a thing makes a ding a ling.
A ding a ling is a sound and sound can not be sound without a hearer.
A hearer, a seer is what makes it real.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Hi Neo_Serf,

At the crux of this conversation, we are discussing “Reality Theory” in an effort to better understand what is, and what isn't reality. I might start from the bottom-up on your reply because we are getting closer to more important matters of the discussion.


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


I'll define dreams and reality in my own words, based on my own observations rather then quoting known dictionary terms.

1.) Reality – Reality is the content of existence, it is what is real. Everything exists as a part of reality and cannot exist separate from it. It simply is what is.
2.) Dreams – Dreams are thoughts. These thoughts take on a non-verbal system that creates a psuedo-reality, or virtual dream reality by which a dreamer is creating.

How do dreams differ from reality if at all is a good question, because dreams exist within “Reality” and are a part of reality. They are real events that people experience during sleep. Dreams can appear as real, if not more real then how people experience their waking reality. During dreams, a person may not even realize that what they are experiencing is a dream, and will think of it as reality, until they wake up.

There is an idea that dreams because they exist as mind-generated experiences are not real. However, they are real to the person having the dream. The context of reality that dreams exist in however is probably better defined as a part of reality within cognitive mind-space, or non-physical reality.

Reality Theory is fundamentally what I am better striving to understand and define within my own scope of existence. For that to branch out into meaningful context, I have to address both the dream reality and the physical reality as both being part of reality, however different aspects of existence.

The most obvious idea of reality the physical point of view. The fact we exist on Earth, in a solar-system, in an expanding Universe and have chronological events in time and can reduce matter to atoms, quarks, electrons, neutrinos and wave-function tells us that in reality, there exists an observable objective system. This is best defined as Objective Physical Reality.

OPR is what we can test with the scientific method, it is what can be measured and follows a very well-define set of natural laws that bring gravity, thermal dynamics and living systems all into place.

It's a well established fact that we exist in this objective physical reality and share our experiences with it, with one-and-other.

The second aspect of Reality is what we as the subjective conscious observer “experience” as reality. You've picked up my meaningful of this idea as “The Experience of Reality”. My use of examples from the Platonic world was to mostly raise the idea of “idealism” more than Platonic forms. An idea that reality could be composed of thoughts and ideas rather then atoms.

To better define it, I call it “Cognitive Reality” and it is a mind-generated phenomena of living systems that have evolved the ability to render physical data into meaningful interpretations of that data in a way that is relative to biological constraints.

“Cognitive Reality” is the product of the mind. It is what the mind renders as a filtered-down view of objective data perceived by the physical senses. I believe, and I could be wrong... that it was this aspect of reality which Plato felt was most real, not the objective data that was being interpreted. It is why I raise a point to say, he's correct in that “cognitive reality” does in fact exist.

If we look at the processes involved in the perception of objective physical reality, we know that a body acts as an interface for the mind, to interpret data through 5 sensory organs whereby electrical signals are produced that travel through the nervous system and begin to be processed by the brain.

The brain preforms a unknown series of neural calculations on that data and renders an approximate view. In computer science, we have a computer that uses a computer screen whereby to render a view of the software. In living-systems, nature has evolved a similar system, but there is no physical screen in the brain whereby this all comes together.

It is a virtual canvas of the mind. In Plato's Cave, it is the Cartesian Theatre. Descartes furthered described this as a place where the homunculus sits observing all this sensory data of that era of thinking. More modernly, Daniel Dennet proposed his Multiple-Drafts Model. British author Anthony Peake further defines this as the Bohmian IMAX or BIMAX after David Bohm as he takes on a quantum neurological model.

Suffice to say, existing within all living-systems which require information processing from OPR exists a mind-generated interpretation of that data. This is “Cognitive Reality” and this is also where our dreams are...



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
this is also where our dreams are rendered, it is what I also call the experience of reality, and Qualia becomes an issue of how the objective data is experienced.

Any mind-generated experience be it the perception of reality, dreams, out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences must be rendered on this canvas of the mind. It is this canvas of the mind which makes the experience of reality appear real.

Unlike OPR, CR is a subjective-model of reality and is difficult to objectify. Recent research into MRI and decoding the visual cortex is leading to some breakthroughs allowing science to now begin to render information from the visual cortex and provide a blurry image, and series of images from the mind.

medicalxpress.com...

So what does this do for reality theory? It allows us to see reality in two ways.

1.) Objective Physical Reality – Matter, Atoms, Materialism.
2.) Cognitive Reality – Thought, Ideas, Dreams, Idealism.

Both exist, both are part of a more encompassing model of Reality. In metaphysics, CR is also called, Non-physical Reality. I like the use of cognitive better because it implies strictly that a cognitive, conscious process is at work to make this reality function and exist.

The next important fact about reality is the spacial manifolds of dimensions. It is clear that “this” reality is a 3-dimensional system. This geometrical 3rd-dimensional manifold is an important clue into the nature of reality from a mathematical perspective.

In dimensional theory, you cannot have the third-dimension without subsequent dimensions. This means, the zero-dimension (the spacial point), the first and second dimension must also exist. If this is true, the a forth and theoretical number perhaps 10 or 11 depending on your flavor of String-theory or M-theory exist.

Because of dimensional boundaries, we are limited to data from the constraints of 3rd-dimensional boundaries. We cannot perceive reality in the 4th, 5th etc dimensions because of this boundary. I always like to bring up Carl Sagan's Flatlander video to demonstrate how dimensional manifolds truncate data geometrically when crossing from a higher to lower dimension.z



Both Physical and Cognitive reality have dimensional manifolds. One is derived from atoms, where the cognitive model is derived from information processing. And I feel this is very important in reality theory to understand that our dreams are also 3 dimensional geometrical manifolds.

What can produce 3 dimensional reality?

Apparently a singularity can expand dimensionally into the physical Universe in the Big Bang theory.

What can simulate 3rd dimensional reality?

A single-point can replicate or stretch into the first-dimension and propagate into all the other dimensions in geometry.

In math we can create a cartesian system to represent each dimension so computers can simulate it.

In Biology, a neural-network can simulate it.

Next point.

What this also tells me about reality is that it's founded on the expansion of a singularity into dimensionality. This is true for geometrical expansion where the singularity is the spacial-point in the zero-dimension.

It produces an interconnected and entangled system; where the single-point enfolds into multi-dimensionality; perhaps the same is true for the expanded singularity of the big-bang. That everything in every dimension comes from oneness. And in consciousness theory; many of us claim that we are part of one universal consciousness, or one universal self.

If the singularity is the self, and consciousness in a primordial state, then perhaps there is a measure of truth to that idea.

At any rate, I have to go but will be back to further address more points.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Hey Neo_Serf,

Ok, first, I am more than happy to take your word on the Purple Dragon!

But, with your next statement I have a few small difficulties -



Thought must conform to reality because reality supersedes thought. It was here before us. Our physical makeup conforms to its rules, which are universal. The properties of logic are the properties of matter.


Where's the evidence any of these assertions are true? It seems that an artificial construct of logic would allow such statements to appear to have some substance of verity, but once again, these arguments exist only in the mind. For example, what gives space a sense of reality? How do we prove and verify the height, width and dimensions of such a concept? What are it's limits if any? Did space and time exist before my mind became aware of it or do these ideas exist only within my own mind? Are the rules of reality universal or is it only my mind which has conjured up this determination to govern and structure my ideas of existence?




So why did you post this message to me implicitly accepting that reality is *not* subjective and is *not* transitory? If your view was true, it would make no sense for you to rely on the stability of the information youve communicated to me here. If reality is indeed totally subjective, how do I know youre not agreeing with me now?


Ah, as Albert Einstein once said, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent." You see, at some point in time I might agree and at another disagree - but it's all part of the same thing.




Of course our understanding of reality updates and improves over time, but it can only do so * relative to objective reality*. If all existence is totally subjective, like a dream, no alterations to our theory describing it would be necessary or even possible. In the subjective and valueless world youre describing, observations would alter moment to moment, and not after a while. No theories describing this environment would be possible because the rules, if there were any, would change moment to moment. Thus words like 'interpretations' and 'constructs' only exist to describe an objective, stable reality, however imperfectly.


Yes, you are right in regards to this ever changing three dimensional physical world our senses perceive - whether thought of as real or as a dream, our understanding and definition of it will constantly change in terms of our conception of reality. What is real for one person here and another one a trillion miles away in time and space, may be the same, may be different, but which one is closer to the truth?




because non physical 'reality' would have to = non detectability, non testibility and would have no null hypothesis. in other words it would be exactly the same as non existence. This does not mean we have it all figured out, tho! I just means any additional knowledge must be in some way verifiable.


I think YouAreDreamings most recent posts address this issue very nicely, especially Carl Sagan's video about the 'Flatlands'. Such dimensional considerations of so-called non physical realities extend the possibilities and acceptance of the ideas concerning spiritual realms as well. After all, where does Consciousness exist? Where did it originate? Is that really the source of our reality?




Right, and the only way to discover is properties is to explore it rationally with constant reference to evidence. To say that since we dont know everything, that everything must be subjective is to reject all of humanities hard earned wisdom, however limited it may be.


Even scientists will tell you that the more we discover about the world and the universe only reveals how little we really know. That doesn't reject any knowledge gained by humanity, but it might hint at the possibility that we need a lot more wisdom in what to do with that knowledge..



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Smash three huge lungs of '___' and then ask yourself within twenty mins time.

Load universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Reality is composed both of atoms, and ideas. Why this is so, is because "Reality" requires an observer to make real the "experience of reality". 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.


Reality is real regardless of how it is experienced and/or interpreted. If that weren't true, then please explain how the human brain can exist as real even as the human mind is incapable of perceiving without it. It must exist as real. If it doesn't, then how can it be any part of what brings the perceiving mind into reality, and yet, the mind - if it is the Alpha and Omega of "real" Reality itself - relies on (at the very least, employs) the brain as its sole corporeal data management center; the epicenter of its own Reality creation system (per your own assertion here). This suggests that without the brain, the individually perceiving mind itself has no means of existential genesis (which I fully embrace as being the truth, by the way). This suggests that the brain came together (as material cells and residual data directives - DNA protocols) long before the associated mind emerged to generate its own individual version of reality (the word we generally use is perception) in response to what is fed via data stream into the brain by way of the body's corporeal sensors.

Since this is what you're clearly alluding to, then the chicken-egg dilemma sits as a buzz saw in that doorway you've decided to cross through in your effort to present the mind as primordial; above and encapsulating all that exists as "real" Reality. The brain itself must be reconciled as being "real" if the mind is to be described as you've described it. If you want to declare the mind as being some sort of esoteric universal quantity, then forget trying to align it with anything that you can slip under a microscope, and just declare it to be "of God" as the religionists have been doing for centuries. In other words, don't try to re-describe what's been the go-to description of the mind and its relationship with Reality if all that description is going to do is debunk itself.

The truth is that there's no way to align what has become theological and/or secular spiritual scripture with what has been proven to be reliable concerning the nuts and bolts of material and non-material reality. I know that everyone is trying to find that missing link, but that link simply doesn't exist. That's got some people demanding that the proven tenets of material reality are a complete (and often deliberate) fabrication, which is an assertion that has stumbled badly since launching out of the gate as well. Then, there are the folks who completely dismiss the mind as being anything but the firing and misfiring of electrical impulses inside the brain, even as they end up failing miserably to explain what's emerged as clear and compelling evidence that such a rigid materialistic view is also fatally flawed.

The issue is that human beings have decided that their interpretation of what they've established as reliable data is the correct interpretation, and while this may be true concerning most aspects of that data, the underlying structure that presents that data has yet to be accurately assessed. Until that happens, reality will continue to be a mystery to even the most gifted thinkers. Even brilliant intellectual convolutions like yours will never be more than clever closing arguments in a trial being held by a court with no jurisdiction whatsoever and no real capacity to render a verdict.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nomad451
Smash three huge lungs of '___' and then ask yourself within twenty mins time.

Load universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.


Schizophrenia will deliver even better than that. Really. It's a full perception experience, from what I understand. Some serious "real", if you know what I mean.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reality exists independently of your perception of it. all that philosophical stuff while sometimes interesting to think about, doesnt have anything to do with the nature of reality.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Reality is real regardless of how it is experienced and/or interpreted.


Which I agree with fully.


Originally posted by NorEaster
If that weren't true, then please explain how the human brain can exist as real even as the human mind is incapable of perceiving without it. It must exist as real. If it doesn't, then how can it be any part of what brings the perceiving mind into reality, and yet, the mind - if it is the Alpha and Omega of "real" Reality itself - relies on (at the very least, employs) the brain as its sole corporeal data management center; the epicenter of its own Reality creation system (per your own assertion here). This suggests that without the brain, the individually perceiving mind itself has no means of existential genesis (which I fully embrace as being the truth, by the way). This suggests that the brain came together (as material cells and residual data directives - DNA protocols) long before the associated mind emerged to generate its own individual version of reality (the word we generally use is perception) in response to what is fed via data stream into the brain by way of the body's corporeal sensors.


The coming together of the cellular network that now “renders” an experience of reality is fundamentally what makes the datastream compile into meaningful data for the observer. Reality can be as real as it wants; but for it to be perceived and realized, a very complicated system of perception, information processing and interpretation has evolved from living-systems.

The perception model of reality is what many of us believe “reality” is definitively; when we know that the perception model is a limited view of a filtered down glimpse at the big picture. For example, we see a flower and it has relative details and information that we identify with. A bee comes along perceiving in the ultra-violet spectrum and a new UV pattern on the flower emerges; invisible to the human eye.

This emerging property of perception renders a subjective-reality to the observer that is an interpretation of sensory-data based on constraints. Which suggests that there is more data available from reality; but evolutionary efficiency opted that it wasn't important. I feel that living-systems evolve efficiently to adapt with optimal requirements to interface with the larger reality and co-exist within it.

How bee's render reality is different from cats, dogs, humans and so forth. These micro-views in essence are unique nodes of the bigger-picture. Reality canvasing from living systems that produce unique interpretations of the data; thus unique subjective views.

This is a fascinating and interesting quality of life; and how it's evolved this ability to render data in the form of energy, chemicals and matter interactions to produce this mind-generated view of the data. Its quite computational and digital in nature. Natural reality rendering systems to produce a subjective virtual-reality view. Amazing.


Originally posted by NorEaster
Since this is what you're clearly alluding to, then the chicken-egg dilemma sits as a buzz saw in that doorway you've decided to cross through in your effort to present the mind as primordial; above and encapsulating all that exists as "real" Reality. The brain itself must be reconciled as being "real" if the mind is to be described as you've described it. If you want to declare the mind as being some sort of esoteric universal quantity, then forget trying to align it with anything that you can slip under a microscope, and just declare it to be "of God" as the religionists have been doing for centuries. In other words, don't try to re-describe what's been the go-to description of the mind and its relationship with Reality if all that description is going to do is debunk itself.


This is another interesting fact regarding the self; or the observer which sits within the end-result of both the atomized world, the biological interface and the mind-generated perception. Where religious people describe it as God, and new-age ideas call it consciousness; within reality is this observer that is another part of the bigger picture.

The self is made aware of itself through consciousness. However, consciousness can be turned off, the self will still exist until it can resume conscious awareness. This conscious and unconscious pattern emerges between physical sleep and wakefulness.

The physical brain slows down brain-function during sleep and areas such as the frontal-temporal lobe and the hippocampus slow down causing a form of sleep-induced amnesia. This means the self looses consciousness and becomes unaware of the next phase of experiential reality – dreams.

cont...



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Dream studies suggest that we have up to 6 dreams a night. Most people are lucky if they can remember even one. There is a lot of “mind-generated” virtual-reality being conducted in the form of dreaming. During this time, the self, or the observer can become another person, an animal, an insect... there are lots of cases where people experience dreams where they are not the current self they are used too.

Somehow this self seems to enter into a new field of experiences that are real experiences only in the form of a dream. From this dreaming realm of reality comes many reports as such:

People have experienced time stretching where dreams can last days, weeks, months.
People have reported dreaming future events.
People have reported sharing dreams with other dreamers.
People have reported become awake and aware in the dream (lucid dreaming).
People have reported being able to control the dream and change the content.
People have reported being other people in other times in history. Other life-forms.
People have reported out-of-body experiences and other reality-systems discovered in dreams.
People have invented, solved and preformed scientific discovery from dreaming.

This suggests to me; that a lot is going under the hood of a sleep-induced affecting the self. Quoting Zhuangzi - “One night, Zhuangzi dreamed of being a butterfly — a happy butterfly, showing off and doing things as he pleased, unaware of being Zhuangzi. Suddenly he awoke, drowsily, Zhuangzi again. And he could not tell whether it was Zhuangzi who had dreamt the butterfly or the butterfly dreaming Zhuangzi. But there must be some difference between them! This is called 'the transformation of things'.”

Dreams are a type of reality, but more on the subjective scale and non-physical. They exist within this reality as a part of the bigger picture. The precognitive dream angle demonstrates the chicken-egg argument in a way that is clear to those who have them.

A future event in the form of a dream came first. That has huge implications. I for one have explored this particular caveat of dreaming through lucid dreaming and have even changed the precognitive dream and observed these changes occur when the dream actualized. Hence why this is worth mentioning because from this point-of-view there is a literal bridge between dreams and reality that is definitive. Not saying I fully understand it; but certainly in proxy to figure it out.

From this point-of-view given such examples one could still argue that all reality comes from this process of dreaming; and physical reality is merely a universal dream scaled up. The end-result of a creative process that all of those who exist within it; are a part of.


Originally posted by NorEaster
The truth is that there's no way to align what has become theological and/or secular spiritual scripture with what has been proven to be reliable concerning the nuts and bolts of material and non-material reality. I know that everyone is trying to find that missing link, but that link simply doesn't exist. That's got some people demanding that the proven tenets of material reality are a complete (and often deliberate) fabrication, which is an assertion that has stumbled badly since launching out of the gate as well. Then, there are the folks who completely dismiss the mind as being anything but the firing and misfiring of electrical impulses inside the brain, even as they end up failing miserably to explain what's emerged as clear and compelling evidence that such a rigid materialistic view is also fatally flawed.


I agree; one must really be a seeker of truth, and willing to pioneer and explore areas that other consider irrelevant, nonsensical or lacking. There is so much more out there, and within us to explore. Having had lucid dreams, precognitive dreams since I was 15 followed by out-of-body experiences, shared dreams, and lucid precognitive dreams, I am left with the opinion that one must do their homework in observing reality in many different states of potential awareness.

This doesn't mean I have a definitive declaration of what “reality” is; rather there is just a self-evident path that seems to exist where we simply begin to see more then the physical idea; and a larger more detailed system of reality emerges.

cont...



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
The issue is that human beings have decided that their interpretation of what they've established as reliable data is the correct interpretation, and while this may be true concerning most aspects of that data, the underlying structure that presents that data has yet to be accurately assessed. Until that happens, reality will continue to be a mystery to even the most gifted thinkers. Even brilliant intellectual convolutions like yours will never be more than clever closing arguments in a trial being held by a court with no jurisdiction whatsoever and no real capacity to render a verdict.


The fact about the truth is; sometimes it cannot be told, only realized. Each of us has to discern the truth for what it is. And in no way am I imposing my truth as the definitive truth knowing what I know about the nature of subjective-reality in the objective model. That said, how I have experienced my relationship in this larger reality-system suggests there is a lot left to be discovered and explored.

Another wild-card in my personal journey stems from pre-life memory and dying as a soldier in a war. Memories that haunted my earliest childhood. Another area that I explored during my out-of-body phase of conscious exploration of the self. This suggests to me at least; that there is a self that preceeds physical reality and collapses into it as an immersed player or actor on the stage of life.

It is the self that we are all seeking, it is the self that we all possess. How we better define it and understand it part of the journey. I do not see it as God, Spirit... just the self.

For me, that is the better descriptor of what we are regardless of the biological suit we don on to experience a small portion of this astronomically vast reality-system we exist in.

I also like dreamer. Because we are all dreamers here.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 

Fantastic! You're posts are wonderfully written, containing so many provocative and challenging ideas regarding the theory of reality. I hope other people are enjoying your posts as much as I do. Thanks for creating this thread.

I did have a question for you in reference to this -




Another wild-card in my personal journey stems from pre-life memory and dying as a soldier in a war. Memories that haunted my earliest childhood. Another area that I explored during my out-of-body phase of conscious exploration of the self. This suggests to me at least; that there is a self that preceeds physical reality and collapses into it as an immersed player or actor on the stage of life.


I have many such memories that I puzzled over for a long time. Initially of course, I thought perhaps they were memories relating to past lives. Gradually, I speculated that perhaps, they are memories belonging to other parts or fragments of my awareness of consciousness. Meaning, that what we conceptualize as individual, isolated, self-existent modes of consciousness dependent upon limited corporeal bodies for existence is not really a proper understanding at all, of what consciousness actually is. In addition, this hints very strongly towards the concept that our consciousness is not dependent at all on these mortal, biological bodies, but the body is indeed very reliant on the connection and presence of the consciousness in order to give it some semblance of life.

Imagine, that you are part of my awareness of consciousness, along with everyone who has posted or is reading this thread, or in reality ever is, or has or will exist. What if in reality, each of us is really only a small fragment of a much larger consciousness that has chosen to play within this realm of physical existence in order to experience and discover something remarkable about itself? We are all interconnected in a manner and on a level that is usually given very little examination. By design, this naturally necessitates that this consciousness was in existence before the physical, material elements of this existence ever became manifest.

I could elaborate upon this proposition further, but I think you'll grasp what I'm trying to present. My question is regarding what you think of such an appraisal of reality and how does this aspect of examination influence our perception, understanding and definition of the theory of reality in general?

Thanks again!



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShakaDoodle
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 

Fantastic! You're posts are wonderfully written, containing so many provocative and challenging ideas regarding the theory of reality. I hope other people are enjoying your posts as much as I do. Thanks for creating this thread.

I did have a question for you in reference to this -


Thanks ShakaDoodle. I find reality to be one of the most intriguing things to ponder. Especially since we are all heavily invested in the experience of reality, it's worth raising conjecture on the topic.


Originally posted by ShakaDoodle
I have many such memories that I puzzled over for a long time. Initially of course, I thought perhaps they were memories relating to past lives. Gradually, I speculated that perhaps, they are memories belonging to other parts or fragments of my awareness of consciousness. Meaning, that what we conceptualize as individual, isolated, self-existent modes of consciousness dependent upon limited corporeal bodies for existence is not really a proper understanding at all, of what consciousness actually is. In addition, this hints very strongly towards the concept that our consciousness is not dependent at all on these mortal, biological bodies, but the body is indeed very reliant on the connection and presence of the consciousness in order to give it some semblance of life.


Consciousness, the ability to be self-aware is very fascinating. Where I think I differ on the idea of consciousness then much of the current consciousness movement is that my emphasis is more on the self that possesses consciousness as being a fundamental core component in existence.

There are theories that the human body is acts as an antenna for the mind, as purposed by Sir Roger Penrose, and I know other consciousness researchers are saying similar ideas regarding the function of the human brain.

In action, consciousness as observed medically shows that it can vary depending on the current state of the brain. It's the Concussion Grading System which measures loss of consciousness and amnesia relative to concussions.

Sleep causes a similar challenge to maintaining conscious awareness when the body falls asleep, the loss of consciousness and amnesia is also present. This sleep-induced amnesia is a critical tool in how information is controlled within this system; meaning you can have revolutionary experiences as the self with absolutely no waking-conscious awareness of them.

In fact, when you manage to maintain enough consciousness during sleep to become more involved in this process; the role of this amnesia becomes very apparent. It can allow the self to have alternative experiences without the waking-conscious part of the self having any awareness of such activities.

This reason, that the self exists both in states of amnesia and conscious self-awareness is why I emphasis more on the self, then on momentary states of consciousness. I raise this point to say that you belong to other parts, or fragments of your awareness of self when conscious of it.


Originally posted by ShakaDoodle
Imagine, that you are part of my awareness of consciousness, along with everyone who has posted or is reading this thread, or in reality ever is, or has or will exist. What if in reality, each of us is really only a small fragment of a much larger consciousness that has chosen to play within this realm of physical existence in order to experience and discover something remarkable about itself? We are all interconnected in a manner and on a level that is usually given very little examination. By design, this naturally necessitates that this consciousness was in existence before the physical, material elements of this existence ever became manifest.

I could elaborate upon this proposition further, but I think you'll grasp what I'm trying to present. My question is regarding what you think of such an appraisal of reality and how does this aspect of examination influence our perception, understanding and definition of the theory of reality in general?

Thanks again!


The idea of an interconnected and entangled Universe is not far fetched at all. In Quantum Mechanics we observe and now use quantum entanglement. John Wheeler proposed the idea of a “One-Electron Universe” where he tackles the property of the electron appearing as the same electron with the idea that it is the same electron we observe only entangled throughout time/space.

It may not be true that it is a one-electron Universe. However, if we look at dimensional theory and understand that because we exist in a 3rd-dimensional manifold; then interconnectedness and entanglement naturally predicts itself.

cont...
edit on 4-10-2011 by YouAreDreaming because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
The Big Bang theory suggests we came from a “Singularity” that expanded in an explosion creating the Universe. This means the manifold of time/space did not exist, and that the Universe had to propagate from a singularity or a zero-dimension into many dimensional manifolds.

In geometry it is the zero-dimension, or the spacial point that must also now expand into the next dimensional manifolds. The point can either replicate itself over and over again, or stretch into a line to become the first-dimension. As the second, third, forth dimensions propagate out from this single point we can argue that: The point is in every dimension in an interconnected and entangled state. If we remove this single point, every dimension it props up collapses.

The Singularity in the Big Bang also had to expand into spacial manifolds, which also means that it must follow strict and simple rules that predict how spacial manifolds must exist. Basically, the 3rd-dimension becomes inevitable and predictable at that point. It simply emerges from fundamental mathematical law governing geometric space.

We know in the atomized Universe that if everything came from a singularity, then everything must be at some level entangled. As to how far reaching entanglement is; is unknown. But if we look at the geometrical equivalent of the point; it can suggest that a single point could be in all dimensional manifolds either through replication or stretching.

What if the “self” is like this single point? What if it also expanded similarly in dimension relative to the laws which naturally predict itself with how dimensional manifolds unfold as they propagate into higher dimensions.

If the self, is akin to the point in geometry then it's very plausible that everything is the self in this Universe but constrained by geometrical boundaries and compartmentalized in a very profound way. It's not entirely dismissible as an idea. We could all be from one primordial self, just as we are all part of one primordial singularity that has expanded.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 

I am awed by your response. Thank you!

This opens a new door on the possibilities of discovering that as some have already posted, that the universe is in some way conscious and consciousness is entwined with the totality of reality. I understand your point concerning the individual "self", but if this individual "self", if based on the singularity principle, is entwined with all that is, has been, or will be, that gives tremendous hope that exploring this aspect of reality presents an aspect of unrealized potential in comprehending exactly what makes reality real. An interesting connection to this particular consideration would be documented cases of 'out of the body' and/or 'near death' experiences. Simply stated, in general, this would mean that the individual "self" is not dependent on a biological apparatus such as the brain for inherent existence. It supersedes that conundrum and is at least theoretically, replaced by a model on which consciousness or the "self", (similar to the principles of energy), finds it's existence soundly based in a propositional relationship with a sentient "universal consciousness" if you will.

Please understand that I am simply playing with some ideas at this point, none of which are fully formulated as you can tell from my post, but I am beginning to see some potential in examining this issue further with particular reference to Super-string theory and it's vibrational characteristics. As you know, thought itself is vibrational and can effect the outcome of observations, which also might be a vital key to understanding a bit more about our friend reality.

Wonderful! Wonderful! You have given me a lot to ponder now!



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I have no issue with our other points, but would like to offer a thought concerning something you brought up here. And while it may or may not be accurate, it's certainly something to consider. Certainly not a notion that is ubiquitous is reference to the very specific point you made (that I have highlighted below).


Originally posted by YouAreDreaming

Originally posted by NorEaster
The issue is that human beings have decided that their interpretation of what they've established as reliable data is the correct interpretation, and while this may be true concerning most aspects of that data, the underlying structure that presents that data has yet to be accurately assessed. Until that happens, reality will continue to be a mystery to even the most gifted thinkers. Even brilliant intellectual convolutions like yours will never be more than clever closing arguments in a trial being held by a court with no jurisdiction whatsoever and no real capacity to render a verdict.


The fact about the truth is; sometimes it cannot be told, only realized. Each of us has to discern the truth for what it is. And in no way am I imposing my truth as the definitive truth knowing what I know about the nature of subjective-reality in the objective model. That said, how I have experienced my relationship in this larger reality-system suggests there is a lot left to be discovered and explored.


Another wild-card in my personal journey stems from pre-life memory and dying as a soldier in a war. Memories that haunted my earliest childhood. Another area that I explored during my out-of-body phase of conscious exploration of the self. This suggests to me at least; that there is a self that preceeds physical reality and collapses into it as an immersed player or actor on the stage of life.


It is the self that we are all seeking, it is the self that we all possess. How we better define it and understand it part of the journey. I do not see it as God, Spirit... just the self.

For me, that is the better descriptor of what we are regardless of the biological suit we don on to experience a small portion of this astronomically vast reality-system we exist in.

I also like dreamer. Because we are all dreamers here.


The issue of empirical data is one that I've taken on in my own research, and have actually discovered some interesting possibilities - especially when observations such as the ones you've noted are offered as evidence of prior corporeal manifestations of your unique and inimitable intellect whole. I'll try to explain without the thousands of words in preparatory digression.
  • "Another wild-card in my personal journey stems from pre-life memory and dying as a soldier in a war. Memories that haunted my earliest childhood."

I, too, experienced an anomalous ongoing experience as a child - mine involved growing up (in the present) on a hill that overlooked an Atlantic Ocean harbor, located probably 5 miles away. In truth, I lived on the walls of a steep valley in Little Falls, NY, with the canal tug boats as the soundtrack to my fantasy. What's odd is that I used to love watching the sunlight dance on the choppy water - a visual concept that I couldn't have known about as a preschool kid in the 1950s, with no TV, no movies, nowhere near the ocean or any lake, and no view of the actual Erie Canal that was hidden behind trees and a row of factories blocking any view at all of the canal.

I've worked hard to try and understand that experience, as I've gotten older, and it led me to research Savantism, and the more inexplicable cases of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). The key is always the person's acquisition of "impossible knowledge", with traditionalists either throwing up their hands or declaring these people to be reincarnates who've retained previous life knowledge. I did discover another means of acquiring significant memory data without having lived a previous corporeal existence, and it involves the nature of residual information (like DNA) and its impact on the human brain's cognitive functionality.

--------to be continued
edit on 10/4/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Now, I'm not going to declare that Savantism is the result of anything other than a severely malformed brain, but in those few cases where a child - particularly one with no necessary exposure whatsoever - is gifted with extraordinary degrees of both talent and maturity of skill, the indications demand that an external influence of some sort be involved in what a relatively clean-slate human brain is capable of producing; especially one that is so challenged in all other ways. The issue, in these cases, is Residual Information, and how this information is applied by the brain when configuring dynamic data clusters in service of the corporeal whole and the DNA directives that govern that whole.

DNA is sufficient as point-of-application information when the corporeal whole is relatively simple - like a tree, or a flower. When the corporeal whole began developing sub-assemblies and entire activity sectors (like the most primitive animals clearly contain within their holon systems) what was developed to administrate these DNA directives, and interpret them as point-of-application protocols, was the corporeal brain. Of course, we have brains that manage a lot more than simple reflex responses (raw survival of the whole) and the urge to eat and sleep (again, raw survival of the whole), but that's due to the profound impact that the relative sophistication of our brains has had on us as corporeal wholes. The truth is that this tipping-point level of sophistication (developed in direct response to environmental competitive demands) has caused our brains' data cluster configurations to feature relative awareness of self within the competing and complimenting linear event trajectories that exist to define what we refer to as physical reality.

This awareness has been a hell of a leg-up in the survival game, but the byproduct of this enormous advantage is that this dynamic information (it exists as active protocol directives, originally meant to manage sub-assemblies within the body via the nervous system after all) - like all information - has no decay half-life. For all intents and purposes, it's eternal (at least compared to our own understanding of progressive linear event trajectories) and can't simply cease to exist. What else is important to note, is that our ongoing cognitive functionality is experienced through the loading of this dynamic information (I'll refer to it as Intellect) into the brain's short term memory as Residual Information, to ensure that we have it available for each new data cluster our brain configures - and launches in service of our corporeal whole at a very specific burst rate called the Unit Rate of Change (URC), which is the indivisible unit rate of progression - the "common clock" that everything shares within our own reality confine. This shared rate allows all perception to experience a very stable "now" with everything else that is also changing from instant to instant, but that's a completely different thread subject.

What brings us back to the value of empirical observation, when seeking truth, is that the data stream that is being constantly loaded into the brain's short term memory (you alluded to this process with your statement concerning the lag-time between reality and our conscious experience of reality, established as fact in 2008) is a vetted data stream; an effort of the dynamic Intellect itself as it manages its own ongoing burst development in constant (and often open) competition with the body's DNA survival directives. Yes, this does explain why smart people often do stupid and dangerous things in search of inimitable identity, which is the primordial survival imperative expression that all existence seeks to establish and defend (again, a topic for some other thread). This data stream is what we experience as perception - basically our own unique version of relative reality. If something affects that data stream, regardless of what it is, our entire sense of real is immediately and forever affected.

Now, since our conscious awareness is the immediate experience of this data configuration information being loaded into our brain's short term memory as fully representative Residual Information (which is what all Residual Information is), it stands to reason that this original Intellect (as a collective of all such bursts of this very specific information) is the soul/spirit/ghost that we've been chasing for millennia. In fact, while I won't press it here, I've logically proven that this is the case, and have published the entire effort - as well as the extensive ramifications that this sea change has had on physical existence as a whole. What I do know is that this fully explains and fully defends the notion of eternal life as a human-embraced concept, as well as the ideas of ethereal realms and things that go bump in the night. In fact, all the crazy stuff loses its crazy when addressed in this manner, and that's pretty significant.

to be continued



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join