Will we ever know the true nature of reality?

reply to post by TheNewSense

You don´t get the point and you are stuck on semantics and shortsigted arguments.

I didn´t say you, others and me don´t exist, I said they all exist within consciousness.

What is there to understand? It sounds absurd. "They all exist in consciousness" is completely meaningless. How does something exist in consciousness? It is entirely void of anything outside of imagination and fantasy.

Lol are you for real? What about this world we live in along with everything in it for instance, like duh.

This all seems hard to compute for you.

It is only hard to compute because it means nothing. Seriously, what are you talking about? "We all exist in perception", "we exist within consciousness"—these statements are void of meaning.

You said you have proof. I am ready to look at it.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

What do 'things' appear to exist in?

To what 'thing' does it appear to?

reply to post by Aphorism

I am ready

No you are nowhere near ready.

You can´t grasp a simple notion.

Itisnowagain
reply to post by TheNewSense

 

Is there an 'inside' and 'outside'?

Only an inside....that we know. The "outside" is only experienced as subjective, distorted representations and can not be known directly.

So we can never know the true nature of reality, just the subjective nature of our local universe.

Is absolutely correct.

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

What do 'things' appear to exist in?

To what 'thing' does it appear to?

No - that was not the question.
The question is - What do 'things' appear to exist in?

Do you think you are a 'thing' that sees 'things'?

reply to post by TheNewSense


And you cannot explain or prove a simple notion.

ZetaRediculian

Itisnowagain
reply to post by TheNewSense

 

Is there an 'inside' and 'outside'?

Only an inside....that we know. The "outside" is only experienced as subjective, distorted representations and can not be known directly.

What is it that divides the 'inside' from the 'outside'? That is if there is an 'inside' and 'outside'.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

No - that was not the question.
The question is - What do 'things' appear to exist in?

Do you think you are a 'thing' that sees 'things'?

Aren't we talking in questions here? Why should I do as you say but not as you do?

To what thing do things appear to appear to?

Do you think you are not a thing that sees things?

Aphorism


Do you think you are not a thing that sees things?

I am not a thing that sees things.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

I am not a thing that sees things.

Then what am I conversing with?

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I am not a thing that sees things.

Then what am I conversing with?

Nothing.

I think that would be like a bottomless pit - kind of like science.

The more we find the more we wonder.

It may not have an end.

But we do.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Nothing.

If that's how you wish to esteem yourself, then I would have to agree. You are nothing.

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Nothing.

If that's how you wish to esteem yourself, then I would have to agree. You are nothing.

Nothing is prior to all things and is the true state.
This is/I am non existence and all existence.

In the beginning there was nothing - there still is nothing but it always looks like something. Yet the something it appears as cannot be named as it is prior to all concepts.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

What is it that divides the 'inside' from the 'outside'? That is if there is an 'inside' and 'outside'.

Illusory contours

olaru12

neoholographic







So we can never know the true nature of reality, just the subjective nature of our local universe.

That's right!

Our sense organs just aren't sensitive enough to feel reality. And even if they were; we are so cognitively constipated, we wouldn't be able to process the data that comprises reality. Mind expansion drugs only allow us to see only a little, mysticism and meditation the same.

I'd tend to agree with this. I've always thought that until we are able to create life from nothingness, we wouldn't be equipt to understand reality or how we came to be. We are probably destined to only be able to process enough of our subjective reality as our minds allow. The level of comprehension that would be required to UNDERSTAND reality is probably out of reach of corporal beings. Some type of major ascension of consciousness would have to occur and we'd probably no longer be "human" and be something else. Maybe all of that would happen simultaneously, the understanding and the ascension.

Regardless..I don't think "we" will ever understand reality, maybe just be able to interpret our local subjective experience more fully.

Great topic BTW.

Aphorism
reply to post by TheNewSense

 

And you cannot explain or prove a simple notion.

edit on 30-10-2013 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)

Omg, you are denser than matter.

Again, everything you see, touch and hear is proof that everything you perceive is at least within your perception or consciousness.

The world as we experience it is proof that things happen within our perception.

There is no proof that anything exists outside our perception because we have to perceive it in some way, shape or form to know it exists.

It is actually a very simple notion that you just can't seem to grasp.

It is quite entertaining.

reply to post by neoholographic


I'll explain it to you, it works like this....

We're humans on earth with free will to do whatever we want

We can have whatever we want, as long as we work hard and make the right decisions that lead us closer to those goals and dreams.

God loves us, and watches over us and wants us to have a relationship with him and worship him. We should. And we at times get very close to him, by way of prayer, worship etc. Then after we go back to our daily lives, we generally just go about trying to enjoy our lives and he watches over us. Then one day when we die we go to the afterlife.

That's it.

reply to post by TheNewSense

Omg, you are denser than matter.

Ad hominum. A common technique for those who lack argument.

Again, everything you see, touch and hear is proof that everything you perceive is at least within your perception or consciousness.

You never said everything you perceive is in your perception. You said everything that exists is within perception. Big big difference. Why are you backtracking?

The world as we experience it is proof that things happen within our perception.

No, it is proof that you are perceiving. I don't feel I need to explain this any further, but perception is an action, not a place things happen in. Simple grammar friend.

There is no proof that anything exists outside our perception because we have to perceive it in some way, shape or form to know it exists.

You never said "knowing it exists". You said "everything exists in perception". Seriously, simple grammar. What you should have said instead of making no sense was "we can only know what we perceive". That makes sense.

What about what you don't perceive or don't know? Obviously they exist outside of your perception.

It is actually a very simple notion that you just can't seem to grasp.

It is quite entertaining.

That's what I'm here for. I'm glad I could be of service.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Nothing is prior to all things and is the true state.
This is/I am non existence and all existence.

In the beginning there was nothing - there still is nothing but it always looks like something. Yet the something it appears as cannot be named as it is prior to all concepts.

I hear the faint sound of a nothing trying to say something. Must be the wind.