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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
So, we have a workable theory concerning dynamic and aware information that "lives on" after the corporeal brain has died. In truth, it takes anywhere from 40,000 to 70,000 words (depending on the level of specificity required by the recipient) to adequately defend this theory, but you sure don't want that kind of dry narrative here. How does this explain anything like Savantism, or like your own experience of having been a soldier that was killed in a previous life? Again, let's examine that vetted data stream that is flowing - right now - into your short term memory, and that will be transfered while you sleep tonight into your brain's deeper recesses for possible use as a future instant of data configuration.

What I've learned is that the Informational Realm (Spiritual Realm, for you traditionalists) features no such thing as relative proximity. What it features is contextual association/relevance, which acts similarly as walls of access between Dynamic Intellect (DI) wholes - since these are the only entities that exist as aware and active within this realm. What does occur, however, is that DI entities have a fair amount of contextual latitude - if they're actively aware of that latitude, of course - and most focus on what is most comfortable for them; the Corporeal Realm where they began their conscious existence.

Now, they can't generally affect this realm, since it's in relentless and frenetic change - since change is what the Corporeal Realm is based on, as opposed to the Informational Realm, which is relatively static in direct comparison. After all, a fact (the simplest unit configuration of Information) is a fact, and that's about it. You can add to it and create a new fact, but that original data configuration doesn't cease to exist as what it's been since it emerged in response to the event that initiated that emergence. Yes, Intellect is unique, but it's still information. Directly affecting the Corporeal Realm - for the DI entity - is akin to typing a letter on a manual typewriter at a desk in an office as the entire building that contains that office is collapsing in complete disintegration. That anything ever achieves any amount of contact is extraordinary and due to the obsessive nature of some people (living and passed). What's usually done, instead, is affecting the short term memory data stream of the individual, when contact is desired. It's a lot easier, and just as effective if what's needed is simple contact and not a YouTube video clip.

If a DI entity succeeds in accessing the cognitive data stream of a corporeal brain - which happens more often than you might think - then that access can manifest in perception (apparition, touch, smells, vague sense of presence) for the living person. This happens a lot, and is dismissed just as often, even as the experiencing person is absolutely sure of the authentic nature of the contact. What can also happen is a DI entity can become attached to a newly developing corporeal person (a small child, perhaps), and it's becoming clear that small groups of DI entities have been engaged in this unusual tendency since there have been people on bot sides of the veil. The impetus involves complicated survival imperative expression suites, but the net impact is that most of us have at least one DI entity that accompanies us throughout our lives. When a small child is facing a horrific instant, one of these DI entities can directly affect the memory data stream to try and avert or reduce the damage to the child's own psyche, and while this is noble, the impact of "stepping in" to take the brunt of the moment leaves Residual Information similar to the child's own Intellect but cloned from the Intellect of the DI entity that stepped in to protect the child's delicate sensibilities by shielding the brain from the event itself.

In some cases, the net impact is a full establishment of alternate memory - loaded into its own "folder" within the brain's longterm memory - which, normally can be experienced as a long ago memory by the cognitive mind of the living person from time to time. In the case of repeated trauma, the young brain can end up putting this folder on "speed dial" since it handled the previous trauma so effectively. This can cause neural pathways to this folder that are a lot more significant, thereby causing the skeletal personality profile to develop a greater degree of sophistication, and even its own sense of relative self when repeatedly included in the dynamic data cluster configurations. If the personality clone is powerful enough, the host personality clone (since this is all Residual Information once leaded into the brain's memory system) can become deferential to the developing hybrid personality. The assisting ID entity has not been active since that first and only instant of rescue, but the cloned personality skeletal structure has developed into its own unique character.

.....more ahead




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
As you can see, the potential for all kinds of confusion is right there and ready to toss all perception into a spinning fit. Regarding the classic gifted Savant, the child's brain is severely damaged, and some ID entities are less honorable than others. People are people. I don't know what the ID entity might "get" from affecting the data stream of a mentally challenged child, but it may have to do with relative association between itself and the creative genius that the child is capable of producing. After all, what is art but the creation of identifiable expression. Expression that is brought into physical manifestation and directly associated with the artist - establishing and defending that artist's own cherished Identity. The desire to continue to create drove Beethoven to set his piano on the floor so that he could sense the vibrations of the notes after he'd lost his hearing. That drive was integral to the man himself, and as such, it is still surging throughout the Intellect whole that he had been constructing of himself over the course of his entire life.

So, experiencing memories is not proof of a previous corporeal existence. You can see it as proof, but I've just offered a very reasonable alternate explanation, and if plausibility and logical stability are what is required of a workable hypothesis, then I've certainly achieved that much. In the end, there will be very few of us human beings that will ever figure out the core of what's real - even after death has released us to our eternal selves. Maybe none of us will ever grasp the whole of it. It's good to consider all possibilities, even as you challenge those possibilities for what they might contribute in part, if not in whole.

The experience of God, The All, The Universal Consciousness, or whatever you call it, by some during astral projection, is a very fascinating subject too, and I don;'t think I'll address it here. This took longer than I expected it to, and I have other work to get to. Thanks for an interesting and high level thread discussion.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakaDoodle
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.


I think we need to start with the singularity to understand “Reality” and interconnectedness and entanglement. Next is how do singularities evolve into multidimensional manifolds as that is the next step in progressing from a singularity into something more.

What I enjoy about this next-step is there are fundamental Mathematical laws that dictate how this must progress thus predicts to a certain degree how the third-dimensional reality can unfold mathematically when a singularity expands. Thus we have all the dimensional boundaries, the fact that the Universe could be derived from information processing and could quite easily be simulated based on this system.

This is why so many Mathematical theories show that the Universe seems founded on Math. Why the Greeks where so interested in Geometry because geometry is simply visual mathematics.

Then finally, how is the self-aware aspect of reality interconnected assuming the singularity is self-aware and this primordial self? It would then become everything within the manifolds that it expands into and thus become compartmentalized subject to information within these dimensional boundaries. Which is intriguing.


Originally posted by ShakaDoodle
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!



I think it's great to ponder these ideas as we clearly are all part of this reality and those of us seeking to better understand it can engage such ideas. I make no statement to know it all but what I have seen through first-hand experience with the out-of-body and precognitive dream point-of-view is that we sincerely are beyond the physical scope of matter reality within a larger reality-system. In fact, physical reality is merely a sub-system in this larger model.

It would have to be; as its a three-dimensional boundary within a multidimensional reality-system.

Thanks for all your insights.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
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).


Hi NorEaster,

I finally have the time to go through your extensive post. Sorry about the delay. I'll truncate the post for character limit issues and get to the point of your reply.


Originally posted by NorEaster
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.


I'm aware of the idea of DNA memory and have considered this idea but there is a very logical and apparent piece of evidence that breaks any support I would have for it regarding my previous life; and that is the memory involves specifically dying. This means, DNA could not be transferred at least sexually to another human.

Also, in this life my history of family and war is only on my Father's side where his father died (from diabetes) but was a pilot in WWII.

The memory that I have specifically has my previous self lying in mud against a trench looking down the sight of a wooden bolt-action rifle. It was a grey, wet day. Then something, and I can only assume this is either a head-shot or shrapnel hit me with such force that I entered into instant shock. The blood dripping by my ear was the last few sounds I remember hearing before waking up into the non-physical state that then was relative to the “being of light” a small tour and re-processing to specifically go back and be human again. All of these memories can be traced back to when I was even 2 years old. They haunted me until I was 5.

So, no link between DNA and my grandfather and the memory I have. That doesn't mean DNA doesn't present some potential for innate knowledge. How information is stored in DNA could potentially be looked at based on our own digital model of bits of information.

Assuming atomic arrangements in DNA nucleoids provides a useful bit of data then theoretically we could have up to 24 GigaBytes of “atomic” data in a DNA strand. Or 358 MegaBytes of “molecular” data in Molecular nucleotide strands.

204 billion atoms in DNA with 6 billion nucleotides

24 GB of atomic data.
357.6 MB of Molecular data.

That's assuming a binary 0/1 relationship to each atom or molecule. However, we have evidence that plants use quantum superposition for photosynthesis. If quantum-level information is used, the information potential exponentially increases because it's not a base2 system, could very well be much higher.

One can only theorize as to how information is stored in DNA and what we do know is molecular genes form and we can cut-n-paste them into other organisms with transgenetic research.

My experiences do not dismiss the idea that DNA residual memory could exist, rather it does provide an argument against this being the case due to the death factor.


Originally posted by NorEaster
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.


There are those anomalies where people develop savantism with music, math etc. You are very aware so no need going through some cases. Which is very intriguing and fascinating. If it's not DNA residual memory, it could be linked an entirely different realm where information is not physically stored; rather stored holographically, electromagnetically or in other geometric boundaries beyond the 3rd dimension.

cont...
edit on 6-10-2011 by YouAreDreaming because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Anthony Peake a British author has been extensively trying to understand the zero-point field and how the brain uses the “Quantum Pleroma” and draws information from this field. He attributed the idea to the Akashic Records based on Erwin Laszlo's work.

I also think that there is localized memory within the physical brain an non-localized memory which is not stored physically rather as residual electromagnetic patterns within time/space that we are still interconnected and entangled with. This extends both forward and back in time thus precognitive dreams are connections with this field in at best, a fourth dimensional relationship of entanglement and information within the larger scope of time.


Originally posted by NorEaster
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.

This is something also that I think about which is the computer-metaphor regarding human cognition. Since the brain is like hardware, the quantum CPU of a DNA/neural information processing system. What is the software, what is the data and what operating system has evolved? Like it or not, the brain is computational and although not nessicarily programmed by scientists, it has evolved a natural system of information processing, data relationships and “software” applications to handle practical survival functionality and beyond. A different subject but very intriguing.


Originally posted by NorEaster
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.


This is very true. Even dreams are datastream orientated events that are processed and rendered by the same system that renders the physical datastream if we use this analogy. The entire process of how perception works and how information is retrieved and rendered from this datastream is how reality is experienced and made real to the observer.

cont...



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
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.


And for my own use of language and symbols I like to call this the self. However, spirit/soul/ghost and other metaphors can describe it also. It's my own preference to localize the idea with what we are as a self-aware sentient entity within a biological matrix experiencing a reality. Wonderful.


Originally posted by NorEaster
So, we have a workable theory concerning dynamic and aware information that "lives on" after the corporeal brain has died. In truth, it takes anywhere from 40,000 to 70,000 words (depending on the level of specificity required by the recipient) to adequately defend this theory, but you sure don't want that kind of dry narrative here. How does this explain anything like Savantism, or like your own experience of having been a soldier that was killed in a previous life? Again, let's examine that vetted data stream that is flowing - right now - into your short term memory, and that will be transfered while you sleep tonight into your brain's deeper recesses for possible use as a future instant of data configuration.


There is always Quantum immortality as we know that within a lifespan we create a string of existence within time/space that will forever be residual quantum information that could be accessed within the zero-point field. Like data on a hard-drive all that is required is a tool by which to access temporal nodes of information, and I do believe we do access quantum-state information from reality in a non-temporal, non-linear and non-localized state.


Originally posted by NorEasterWhat I've learned is that the Informational Realm (Spiritual Realm, for you traditionalists) features no such thing as relative proximity. What it features is contextual association/relevance, which acts similarly as walls of access between Dynamic Intellect (DI) wholes - since these are the only entities that exist as aware and active within this realm. What does occur, however, is that DI entities have a fair amount of contextual latitude - if they're actively aware of that latitude, of course - and most focus on what is most comfortable for them; the Corporeal Realm where they began their conscious existence.


Which is another interesting observation of information and entities that access it. The idea that a higher-order of intelligence exists within reality is not new. Gnostics called it the Daemon and Robert A. Monroe call them INSPEC or intelligent species beyond human intellect. I've observed this higher-level intelligence both when I died an one descended from a different local, grabbed me and dragged me back for reprocessing.

It was through numerous out-of-body explorations that I reconnected with this “intelligence” which seems Godlike. After all, encounters with it brought about the lucid precognitive dream experiences whereby I was able to see clearly and definitively how a dream literally forms an event that later actualizes into waking reality as if slotted into a chronological order. It was the first encounter that was the most dramatic.

Needless to say, your idea of the Dynamic Intellect Wholes is very much on board with not just my observation, but that of many others. We can look closer at that relationship if needed.

I'll truncate this area because I feel that you are bringing attention to this other order of intellect that is evolving within this system. We might have different language metaphors to describe it but it's something that is considerably real and part of the larger reality.

cont...



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
So, experiencing memories is not proof of a previous corporeal existence. You can see it as proof, but I've just offered a very reasonable alternate explanation, and if plausibility and logical stability are what is required of a workable hypothesis, then I've certainly achieved that much. In the end, there will be very few of us human beings that will ever figure out the core of what's real - even after death has released us to our eternal selves. Maybe none of us will ever grasp the whole of it. It's good to consider all possibilities, even as you challenge those possibilities for what they might contribute in part, if not in whole.


I agree that even having past-live memory may not be proof of a previous corporeal existence; we can argue since information and memory is programmatic in this system, something could have implanted the memory to create the illusion of previous lives. That said, it really comes down to personal discernment as to the truth or not in this regard.

Separate from this pre-life event which strongly influences my awareness that potential past-lives exist; I have in later years at a more mature level of development returned to not just one potential lifetime and observed numerous clusters of lifetimes within myself. What makes it so is that they ring true, feel true like memories. Yet it required being completely out-of-body and in these higher-order realms to access and begin to remember. Other then that, it suggests this exists in an state of amnesia to my waking self. When I wake up, the memories rapidly fade into amnesic states. Hard to explain but that is precisely what happens.


Originally posted by NorEaster
The experience of God, The All, The Universal Consciousness, or whatever you call it, by some during astral projection, is a very fascinating subject too, and I don;'t think I'll address it here. This took longer than I expected it to, and I have other work to get to. Thanks for an interesting and high level thread discussion.


It was an extensive and informative post. I enjoyed it very much and had to take time to ensure I had the right amount of time, and right head-space to address it.

[end]



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
What is consciousness without the 5 senses? Imagine if someone would be born without sight, without hearing, without the ability to smell and taste and even without the ability to feel touch...He/she would say reality is...??? Fake?



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zagari
What is consciousness without the 5 senses? Imagine if someone would be born without sight, without hearing, without the ability to smell and taste and even without the ability to feel touch...He/she would say reality is...??? Fake?


I believe Helen Keller is somewhat of an example in this case. The fact is, "reality" is information that is interpreted by senses and made "real" by the end result of information processing whereby a model-view of reality is projected into a mental-canvas and observed by the self.

With that much sensory deprivation, it's likely that they would start to exist in more hallucination then reality as we have evidence that sensory-deprivation causes the mind to generate dreams and other experiences.

The fact is, the person would exist within reality and have a totally subjective view with limited data regarding what that reality is. They would miss out on a lot of rich expeirences however still be real and existing.

There are probably cases of people this detached from sensory-perception, I don't doubt that some may actually exist due to birth defects or other damage to the brain and nervous-system.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Reality is set of rules our universe was programmed to follow. Like gravity and such.
edit on 10-10-2011 by shogu666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I really wish to respond to the brilliant posts in this thread, but I cannot find the time to muster the responses they deserve!



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
PS will do asap.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
I really wish to respond to the brilliant posts in this thread, but I cannot find the time to muster the responses they deserve!


I can relate, it takes time. Your contributions have been excellent and thought provoking. Thanks Neo_Serf.

@shogu666 - There are rules. Science defines what it observes in the objective world. One of the ideas that I enjoy is the "Brain in the Vat" which movies such as the Matrix founds it's plot from.

The idea that we could exist within a digital, virtual and simulated world. It's a hard argument when you look at certain facts relative to simulated reality ie... virtual reality and this physical reality. To fully embrace such an idea, one has to view reality as if it was a very advanced, computer-generated virtual reality.

Mathematically, reality does follow the same rules of a 3rd dimensional manifold which by all intensive purposes is reproducible mathematically as evident from our modern CGI and 3D rendering software. Not to say, or dismiss that reality could be simulated, I can look at geometry, computer science and math to see how this is possible.

If we existed in a virtual reality; then atoms, gravity and all objects are merely data within a system that is propped up by another reality. The one that is propping up the virtual reality. Musing in VR theory, the reality that props up the virtual reality is in fact the real reality. However, the people in the virtual reality are not aware of this simulation.

At the perspective of the citizens of virtual reality, physics, chemistry and all sciences are merely describing the physics engine driving the simulation. Gravity would appear real, it would behave predictably as defined by the rules. The players would engage in collision detection algorithms and other digitally plausible facts that could simulate the illusion of physical reality.

The idea that reality could be simulated and digital is not entirely speculative. This very well could be a "matrix". How would we know otherwise?
edit on 15-10-2011 by YouAreDreaming because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Apologies for nitpicking this one statement out of your extremely well presented and thought out post. I considered responding point by point, but to me your following quote sums up the fundamentals of our point of contention.



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.


Of course I agree that dreams, and all experiences for that matter, are a part of 'reality', insofar as they exist as thought patterns which can be measured objectively via brainscans and such. These scans also seem to indicate to me that the centers of activity in the mind that are dreaming are lit up and can be measured in the same explosions of neural activity that waking experience can be. In less meandering terms, a dream state and waking reality can appear, at times to the person experiencing it, to be indistinguishable from one another. As a one time sufferer of sleep paralysis, I can certainly attest to the seeming realness of the dream state.

But my question to you is this - given that a dream exists in physical reality in terms of neurons firing, and given that some dreams can seem as real, if not *more real* than waking reality, must it logically follow that *all* experiences that meet the above conditions are also *real*, in terms of objective reality?

Does that I dreamed of a sparrow last night prove the existence, in some realm, of my dream sparrow? If it does, how could this be proven or disproven? What is to be the standard of truth or falsehood in my claim? What null hypothesis can be brought to bear upon my assertion? Even if we could prove objectively that I did indeed dream of a sparrow last night, does the fact that I did so mean that my dream sparrow exists unto itself, independently of my dreaming of it? Did it exist before i nodded off? Does it exists now, many weeks and many dreams later? Can my dream sparrow be observed? Measured? Validated in any way?

To apply your principle further, do the hallucinations of a psychotic exist ontologically? If so, do they reside in this realm, or another? What about the visions of somehow high on acid? Are the walls really melting, in some way that is real outside of the trippers mind?

The above examples are for sure very real to the people experiencing them. Does their belief in them *make them real*? If so, how could we know either way? What is the negative proof? At what point can we say to ourselves 'well, this guy swears up and down that an invisible dragon lives on his shoulders, and his brainscans indicate that he is indeed perceiving something there. But no other measurement can detect what he claims to be real, and thus we must assume that the dragon he sees exists inside his own broken mind, and nowhere else in physical and objective reality'?

If I am dreaming, are you a figment of my imagination?



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   
I think its "real" because of persistence of time.

If a car drives by you, and you look away for second, you know it will be where it should be when you look back. This persistence of "things" that are constantly there are what makes it real. Granted its a collection of impossibly small things traveling in a pack, or a packet of energy or waves (depending how you look at it) it will always persist. Things that we dont believe are real are, coincidentally not visible to us. Once we see something with a device or our own eyes and it persists we believe it to be real.

Basically, something is real when a group of humans decide it to be real. We cant think about something we cant think about, or know something we cant know, so... we only say things are real when we can quantify something's persistence.

Interesting how things change when you look at them. Ive always wondered if you discover something new, is it really a discovery, or did you just create it by thinking about it. Order from chaos using your consciousness as a tool. I've had some personal experiences... little ones where things would kind of..well... work out because I wanted them to. I dont believe in coincidences either.

A moment should be taken to define the word "persist". What I mean by that is something that can be measured or predicted with some accuracy. Sometimes even random persistence like waves or wind.

edit on 15-10-2011 by R3KR because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-10-2011 by R3KR because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-10-2011 by R3KR because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   


The idea that we could exist within a digital, virtual and simulated world. It's a hard argument when you look at certain facts relative to simulated reality ie... virtual reality and this physical reality. To fully embrace such an idea, one has to view reality as if it was a very advanced, computer-generated virtual reality.


One can view reality in anyway one wants, be it that some god ejaculated us into existence, that the sun gave birth to the earth, or that space pirates from another dimension seeded our planet, only to return one day as our masters.

The problem with such 'ideas' is that they dont rely on a scrap of evidence or logic. (in the same way that Plutonic forms came fully formed out of Platos left armpit.) There is simply no evidence or reason to believe that reality is some sort of hologram, regardless of the numerous elegant theories that state so.

If it is indeed your contention that reality is indeed unreal, and you of course realize that this theory flies in the face of every moment of every day of our waking sensual experience, you of course know that youre making an incredibly wild and counter intuitive assertion of truth. This is not to say youre wrong, of course, as saying the earth was round seemed to our ancestors as totally counter intuitive. It just means that you will require incredible evidence, or at a least logically consistent theory, to support your claim.

If the world is indeed a hologram, how would we know this to be true? What observation could be made to support this? What evidence would disprove it?

If reality is a perfect hologram, and the holographic nature of existence is indistinguishable from actual existence, couldnt the two be described as the same thing?



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   


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


Well I hope they are just 'small' cuz I wouldnt want to look like a fool~



Where's the evidence any of these assertions are true?


2(atoms) + 2 (atoms) = 4 atoms.
A tree remains a tree until acted on.
Light moves at a defined speed.
Gravity attracts. ect.

Logic is only viable to the extent that it describes base physical reality that we experience at the sensual level. The consistent and non contradictory properties of logic mirror and describe the consistent and non contradictory properties of matter.

Matter precedes the mind. The mind created logic. Logic describes matter. Thus logic is valid a priori, and exists to describe ontological reality. (what actually exists)

Logic springs from the need to describe and discover our world in a valid way.



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.


Do we conclude then that all logical arguments exist only in the mind, and are thus invalid?

If so, do we conclude that your above argument only exists in your own mind, and is thus invalid?

That 2+2=4 only exists in our minds render it untrue?



For example, what gives space a sense of reality? How do we prove and verify the height, width and dimensions of such a concept?


With a measuring tape.




What are it's limits if any?


Need bigger measuring tape~

If no outer limit to space is detectable, does this mean that my height is not 5'10?



Did space and time exist before my mind became aware of it or do these ideas exist only within my own mind?


Do you believe your mind is responsible for placing dino fossils in the ground?

Where were you in the 17th century?



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?


Drop a ball where you are, and measure its speed. Ill do the same, well share notes.

If gravity is universal and exists independently of our minds, we should have the same results.



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.


As much as I love the big E, he was a genius physicist and not so much a genius philosopher. Quoting him wont save you from answering the question, if you dont mind.

Again, if reality is subjective and unstable, why did you decide to send an objective and stable message across an objective and stable reality to me?

If no truth is knowable, why did you *act as if* you believed you knew it was true that I would receive your message in a comprehensible way? Count the number of known physical and objective laws you implicitly relied upon in order to tell me that there are no objective or knowable laws.




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?


Is there such a thing as truth?



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 that but some guy said some thing make the purple dragon on my shoulder any more a possibility?



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   


Basically, something is real when a group of humans decide it to be real.


Precisely. If, let's say, 51% of the human population on this planetary sphere started to consciously have so-called "out-of-body" experiences, then OBEs would become part of "reality".

Now, if 90% of the human population is asleep/unaware to the parts of reality that 10% or less of the population are exposed to or directly partake of or participate in, then the "greater" reality prevails. It's a matter of consensus agreement. A matter of numbers.

And it's also a matter of semantics. If you ceased trying to define or differentiate "what's real" from "what's not", you would understand things so much better. Consider, if you will, that "reality", in all it's various layers and densities, is an "illusion", and that the illusion is real.

An illusion of the mind, for the mind, to experience/know itself. That is reality.

This, of course, will be hard to grasp for those who feel strongly attached to, dependent and secure within the solid, physical "matereality" of planet Earth at this current space/time nexus (i.e. the predominant reality/illusion experienced by most human entities at this moment). These entities will call "their" perceivable reality the "only" reality.

Consciousness, however, is "destined" to evolve. Thus, all foci of consciousness, from elemantal/material nature spiraling up, will always change, evolve and adjust, transitioning from the experience of one "density" of reality to another. All in due "time".


edit on 15-10-2011 by RKallisti because: Additions.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
We are not what we think we are...We are what we think.........................................Think about it ....



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Apologies for nitpicking this one statement out of your extremely well presented and thought out post. I considered responding point by point, but to me your following quote sums up the fundamentals of our point of contention.


And I am also sorry for the delay in getting back to the thread.


Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Of course I agree that dreams, and all experiences for that matter, are a part of 'reality', insofar as they exist as thought patterns which can be measured objectively via brainscans and such. These scans also seem to indicate to me that the centers of activity in the mind that are dreaming are lit up and can be measured in the same explosions of neural activity that waking experience can be. In less meandering terms, a dream state and waking reality can appear, at times to the person experiencing it, to be indistinguishable from one another. As a one time sufferer of sleep paralysis, I can certainly attest to the seeming realness of the dream state.


What is interesting about dreams is that fundamentally they are a non-verbal thought process. The neurons firing in the brain are likely responding to the thoughts of the dreamer. Why dreams are thoughts in a non-verbal way does become self-evident. As a practicing lucid dreamer, I have observed the phenomena of how the mind is capable of thinking in sensory-forms such as visual images, sounds and even tactile sensations.

For example, as I fall asleep with the intent to lucid dream I create a construct (much like the construct talked about in the movie the Matrix) which is generally a stairwell leading down with a railing and a door at the end. As I start to fall asleep, I imagine the stairway. At first everything is very faint, barely noticeable. As the phenomena of sensory thoughts start to emerge, the stairway becomes more vivid. Sounds emerge relative to walking down stairs. The railing begins to give back tactile feedback.

When the body falls asleep, and I knock on the door testing for full audible, tactile and visual vividness, I open the door and emerge into a dream. The construct can be anything I can imagine, and the feedback becomes vividly real once the body falls into sleep and this phenomena of sensory thought kicks in.

What emerges is the dreamstate, and the entire dreamstate runs on these fundamental principles of being able to organize thoughts into a non-verbal sensory virtual reality. Amazing that one can even achieve this phenomena because it's quite profoundly "real" in terms of how it's experienced.

Which leads to your question.



Originally posted by Neo_Serf
But my question to you is this - given that a dream exists in physical reality in terms of neurons firing, and given that some dreams can seem as real, if not *more real* than waking reality, must it logically follow that *all* experiences that meet the above conditions are also *real*, in terms of objective reality?


They are real in objective reality however an outside participant observing the person sleeping will not know what the content of dreams are, but may observe rapid eye movement and know the person is dreaming. The dreamer, the dream both exist within objective reality, but in a sub-category of subjectivity within what I like to call "Cognitive Reality" which is the reality that our minds produce such as “Dreams, lucid dreams, out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, hallucinations etc”

Anything mind-generated exists within a “Cognitive Reality” which is a mind-generated virtual reality. And are not “atomized” like things are in physical reality. That is the distinguishing quality here. On reality is objective through atoms, the other is “subjective” through thought.

I think “Cognitive Reality” is a good definition and let's us address these further points



Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Does that I dreamed of a sparrow last night prove the existence, in some realm, of my dream sparrow? If it does, how could this be proven or disproven? What is to be the standard of truth or falsehood in my claim? What null hypothesis can be brought to bear upon my assertion? Even if we could prove objectively that I did indeed dream of a sparrow last night, does the fact that I did so mean that my dream sparrow exists unto itself, independently of my dreaming of it? Did it exist before i nodded off? Does it exists now, many weeks and many dreams later? Can my dream sparrow be observed? Measured? Validated in any way?


In your own Cognitive Reality there was a dreamed of sparrow. Are you aware of breakthroughs in MRI research that is allowing neurologists to render visual data from the human visual cortex. Here is an article that will blow all of this subjective thought into potentially objective data. There is a link to the video of extracted images as people watch movies.



new topics




 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join