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.
*Concerning thread hijackers; These people will do what they do, but I'm hoping for a deep examination of the topic here. It's been shown that these types focus on certain board members from time to time, and for a range of reasons - I would imagine. Since I've drawn my own percentage of their focus in recent months when initiating a thread, all I can say is please try to ignore these folks, as this question seems to address the core essence of what can ever be known by the human being about itself and the reality that it exists within. What is plausible when examining the authentic, the dependable and the true - an essential advanced debate for serious intellects that are devoted to seeking real answers to the largest and most enduring questions. Let the hijackers have their fun, and we can simply ignore the bandwidth they grind up with their foolishness. Thanks.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Which is LESS based on human perception - and therefore more concretely related to a pure and disinterested "real" - the human experience of Corporeal Existence or Post-Corporeal Existence?
This isn't an issue of ideology, and faith is not a tool that is available for use in this examination. The question pertains to the comparative level of human perception that exists (one physical state to the other), and how that comparison affects the relative capacity for the human being to trust what it experiences (again, one physical state compared to the other) as being real and authentic in a larger, more comprehensive definition of "real" than merely an individual perception delusion.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Originally posted by NorEaster
Which is LESS based on human perception - and therefore more concretely related to a pure and disinterested "real" - the human experience of Corporeal Existence or Post-Corporeal Existence?
This isn't an issue of ideology, and faith is not a tool that is available for use in this examination. The question pertains to the comparative level of human perception that exists (one physical state to the other), and how that comparison affects the relative capacity for the human being to trust what it experiences (again, one physical state compared to the other) as being real and authentic in a larger, more comprehensive definition of "real" than merely an individual perception delusion.
Both are based on perception. The corporeal being based on what is perceived by the five senses, which themselves are merely tools with limitations. The Post-Corporeal being based on what we what we are told about the 'true' nature of what is real, and then filtered through our 'heart', or gut instinct as to whether or not it rings true.
It could be argued that the corporeal is the most real, for no matter what your belief system, (most) everyone agrees that a spade is just a spade. An object in the corporeal world is percieved as it is no matter what you believe the ultimate truth is. An animal, who may perceive the object (e.g the spade) slightly differently purely due to the differences in anatomy of their senses can still be trained to recognise the spade. And this will also be what you yourself also recognise as the spade, differing perceptions aside.
The post-corporeal is all merely conjecture, no matter how strongly you feel your version to be true. People can have the most 'real' experiences within the belief system of thier version of post-corporeal reality, but someone with a completely different experience can have an experience that is just as 'real', thus validating their beliefs.
What is real can be thought of as that whch is true. But the very nature of truth implies that their can only be one version. New Age beliifs (which I lean toward) like to break things down in terms energy, which in itself is supported somewhat through science. But most traditional belief systems don't go down this route mainly due to their antiquity and unwillingness to embrace new information. But even this is mainly just a theory as to 'what is most likely'.
Therefore as much as it pains me to say, the corporeal world is the most 'real' for we can measure it and see it and touch it. And if it indeed flows from the the collective creative power of our consciousness, it is still the most real for it is a reality that is shared by all, therefore suggesting that it is a relatity that we have all agreed upon subconsciously.
Ultimately I guess you have to ask is what is a better representation of 'Real'. A lie shared by all, or different attempts at the Truth as seen through an individuals intellectual and cultural filters. For all lies hold some measure of truth, but the truth can hold no lies. If we are all one, then the shared lie of corporeal reality can indeed tell us everything we need to know about ourselves, if indeed it is a lie at all.
Originally posted by NorEaster
So, where does that put the "Matrix - It's All An Illusion" notion. Even in the movie, no one actually offered a tangible idea concerning how such a perception illusion could actually be stabilized to the degree that blue (the color) could have a strict RGB 0;0;255 standard that can be immediately replicated every time by a clothing manufacturer, paint manufacturer, or whomever it is that perceives that blue and wants that very specific hue of blue for his/her own use. Sure, it makes for a great philosophy debate in a Cambridge pub, but when these deft and convincing debaters, then, go to the bar for last call, is anyone really doubting that they're buying a nightcapper with the money they have in their pocket? No. Not a single one of them. In fact, it's as real as anything can possibly be - even as mundane and trite as it may sound in this sort of discussion.
Originally posted by cuervo
Originally posted by NorEaster
So, where does that put the "Matrix - It's All An Illusion" notion. Even in the movie, no one actually offered a tangible idea concerning how such a perception illusion could actually be stabilized to the degree that blue (the color) could have a strict RGB 0;0;255 standard that can be immediately replicated every time by a clothing manufacturer, paint manufacturer, or whomever it is that perceives that blue and wants that very specific hue of blue for his/her own use. Sure, it makes for a great philosophy debate in a Cambridge pub, but when these deft and convincing debaters, then, go to the bar for last call, is anyone really doubting that they're buying a nightcapper with the money they have in their pocket? No. Not a single one of them. In fact, it's as real as anything can possibly be - even as mundane and trite as it may sound in this sort of discussion.
I've studied this topic extensively and it is one of my favorite subjects, second only to its more esoteric cousin, spirituality. My conclusion is that they are all equally valid realities. Even if we were to determine that one is "fake" and one is "real", all we have to do is point back to our perception and validate even a "fake" reality.
The implicit and explicit realities are one and the same. Just as a bat can hear a broader scope of frequencies than a human, we can experience a broader scope of reality than (perhaps) a cockroach. It's your spirit (or intellect, if you wish) that determines what is real and ours say that whatever we perceive to be real, is real. No matter how it is perceived.
For the sake of being parsimonious, I'll stop there but, in a nutshell, I believe reality is both shared and personal and whether those realities overlap or not, none are more or less real than the other.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Everything else in developing reality seeks the path of least resistance - given the effort under way, of course. In fact, the only violation of this existential tenet is this perception matrix infrastructure that must exist if all individual corporeal reality perceptions are siloed to the degree where they can be considered completely unique and individual, with varying areas of overlap, as you suggest. Maybe the overlaps are much more comprehensive than some want to accept, with these overlaps appearing where all human perception bumps into definitive slabs of concrete reality - as fleeting as everything obviously is within the corporeal realm.
Once death has freed us of these reality anchors, then we'll discover what real perception as reality is all about, but until then, I defy anyone to dismiss the need to take a dump on the basis of it being simply part of a perception illusion.
Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by NorEaster
If I, like Plato, was to believe the idea of the rock was more real than a rock in my hand, where would that fall in your corporeal vs. post-corporeal problem? If an idea is post-corporeal, it would seem that the post-corporeal existence is still based on human perception and I don't think I can fathom separating the two.
Originally posted by Cuervo
Originally posted by NorEaster
Everything else in developing reality seeks the path of least resistance - given the effort under way, of course. In fact, the only violation of this existential tenet is this perception matrix infrastructure that must exist if all individual corporeal reality perceptions are siloed to the degree where they can be considered completely unique and individual, with varying areas of overlap, as you suggest. Maybe the overlaps are much more comprehensive than some want to accept, with these overlaps appearing where all human perception bumps into definitive slabs of concrete reality - as fleeting as everything obviously is within the corporeal realm.
Once death has freed us of these reality anchors, then we'll discover what real perception as reality is all about, but until then, I defy anyone to dismiss the need to take a dump on the basis of it being simply part of a perception illusion.
I see what you are saying now. Out of the varying realities in the material side (what I like to call "MeatSpace"), some have got to be more real than others. If we were of a hive consciousness on this plane, I'd agree as the degree of reality would be based on a consensus. However, my perceived personal reality does not become more validated just because others jump on board with it.
As far as effort being involved in creating some "matrix" or what-not, we don't actually know if that's not the path of the least resistance. It may be easier to construct reality in a fashion we are not accustomed when we are on the flip-side.
All I know is that, the more that is revealed to me, the less urgent it all seems. These aren't our first nor last rodeos.edit on 7-12-2011 by Cuervo because: coffee...
Originally posted by tgidkp
with reference to cosmology, the basic function of the universe is the dissipation of information (energy) via entropy.
considering the conditions commonly accepted for the "big bang", after the initial perturbation of the singularity, and before the formation of the first massive particles, there was a very brief period of time in which occurred a complex interaction and transformation of energetic potentials. this resulted in the condensation (reverse entropy) of energy into matter.
Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by NorEaster
i certainly cannot deny that i (nor anyone else) really have no clue at all about which is the primordial primary.
i think that you are being far too strict in what you require of an "idea"....and of the necessary directionality of causality in the universe. i am certainly not a cheerleader of the "all are one" dogma. i am a true and unapologetic believer in dualism.
however, you forced me to choose... and that is what i chose and why.
there are plenty of observed examples of legitimate (not just spooky, arbitrary, or vague) cases of emergence, particularly in the field of physics there is the concept of the "protectorate". also, superconductors, mono-atomic elements, and plasmas. in each of these cases, the whole system is qualitatively distinct from its fractionated parts. while in the strictest sense, the potentials (ideas) within these systems are dependent upon their constituent parts, there is an abrupt bifurcation at a critical limit of the system at which the novel behavior of the system is truly (truly) novel (as in, independent of the system altogether).
it is often suggested (but of course, not proven) that the nature of causality in these cases is future->backward, or teleological. which, i am sure, is something that you reject altogether. and thats okay.
Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by NorEaster
a related physical concept, used often in chaos and fuzzy fractal analysis, is that of the "strange attractor". it is my favorite pet interest at the moment. the basic idea is that for any fractal system for which there is no well-defined edge or boundary, there is an apparency of randomness and disorder in the localized motions of the curve.
this suggests a noise input to the system. and noise, by definition, cannot have any regularity to it. however, there is a scale-invariant self-similarity in deviations in the motions from the mean-value. the range of this scale-invariance is across the entire system (universal, if you will). so, the disorder and randomness are not generated by noise. they are generated by chaos. and regularity within the chaos is dictated by the "strange attractor".
this effect is completely observational. the only "leap of faith" that is required in this explanation is with the strange attractor itself.
so, here is a great example of a completely disembodied and AT PRIMARY CAUSE "idea". what is really great about it is that this concept is already revolutionizing perspectives not only in quantum physics but also in the chemistry and biology of self-organizing systems.
so, in summary, your requirements of an idea are too strict and, dare i say, not well founded in observational reality.
where, exactly, is the bootstrap of the system you propose? how the hell does that thing get off the ground?!