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.

 

Will we ever know the true nature of reality?

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

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

How could you possibly know? Is it obvious that they exist outside your perception? Or is it an assumption?
edit on 30-10-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 





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


Please, it was a friendly little jab with some intended pun that probably went over your head I guess.



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?


I am not backtracking at all.

There is no real difference. Only the things that we know exist for sure are the things we can perceive. There is no proof that anything exists outside of our perception.




No, it is proof that you are perceiving.


And since we can only know things exist when we perceive them in some way, shape or form, everything we know exists, exists within our perception.

It has nothing to do with grammar or semantics.




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.


Who is backtracking here?

It boils down to exactly the same thing. It's not my fault that it takes you so long to grasp a very simple notion.

There is no proof that anything exists outside of our perception, we do know that everything exists in our perception.




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


Lol, please prove this. EDIT, if you mean that things I can't see, but you can, exist outside of my perception, you are besides the point. I was talking about OUR perception which encompasses both your perception and mine.




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


Yes lol, it is hilarious, you still think this is a discussion you can win but you can't argue against a simple truth.
Well you can try....


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



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





How could you possibly know? Is it obvious that they exist outside your perception? Or is it an assumption?


The strangest thing: a nothing started typing to me today. Words appeared out of nowhere.

I am not the one assuming that I've perceived everything and that there is nothing left to perceive. I am fairly certain I will witness things and events I have never seen before. And you?


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



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheNewSense
 


I cannot grasp your "simple notion". It really makes no sense to me and has no coherent argument. I fear we have both wasted our time.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Floydshayvious
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.


Exactly!

This is because the answers you discover through science only apply to your local universe. You can't know the true nature of the wave function of the universe because it can't be measured. It's constantly flipping like the coin.

So science will continue with discovery after discovery after discovery ad infinitum because the true nature of reality can't be measured.
edit on 30-10-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I don't even have a choice anymore, I don't know what I did. I just know that sometimes there is enough memory and perception of existence in 3 seconds to make me overwhelmed.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


Aphorism
I am not the one assuming that I've perceived everything and that there is nothing left to perceive. I am fairly certain I will witness things and events I have never seen before. And you?

You are avoiding the questions - as usual.

Itisnowagain
How could you possibly know? Is it obvious that they exist outside your perception? Or is it an assumption?


The perceiver and perceived are not two things.

edit on 31-10-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





You are avoiding the questions - as usual.


Since whatever I say is the wrong answer, perhaps you can just tell me the answer, and how it is you know and don't assume that you are correct.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





You are avoiding the questions - as usual.


Since whatever I say is the wrong answer, perhaps you can just tell me the answer, and how it is you know and don't assume that you are correct.

It is hard to assume that you have given the wrong answer when you provide no answer.
The perceiver and the perceived are not two things.

The questions are so you can look deeper into what is going on - Socratic Method. I am not here to prove anything to you - only you can look for yourself.
edit on 31-10-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 




The perceiver and the perceived are not two things.


How so? This is the part I cannot understand.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reality exists as probability

it has been said, that conscious observation breaks down the probabilistic wave function of matter



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





The perceiver and the perceived are not two things.


I've thought about it, and I cannot see it, itsnowagain. I'll explain my reasoning.

You've asked, "What do things appear to exist in?" I have a feeling that you might say things exist in awareness or consciousness, and I'm fairly certain you know I will oppose such a place, as I feel no such vessel or container exists. Unfortunately, I cannot even imagine such a vessel, as I've never come across such a place in my experience.

When we see through the eyes, we are not seeing something called "sight" or "perception", as these are abilities and not things to see or to contain other things. We are seeing, we are perceiving, we are feeling. Just like when we run, we are running; and if we search for things inside the ability to run, nothing can be found, except for something performing that ability.

In your opinion, who or what entity or "thing" (or nothing), do you feel is capable of these abilities?



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 




The perceiver and the perceived are not two things.


How so? This is the part I cannot understand.

Just found this on line.


Arthur Shopenhauer said we "lose ourselves in the object of perception so that we are no longer able to separate the perceiver from the perception but the two have become one since the entire consciousness is filled and occupied by a single image of perception."


Quite a nice little statement I think.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


Here is more of his view on the idea of things and the end of things.


When we "lose ourselves in the object of perception so that we are no longer able to separate the perceiver from the perception but the two have become one since the entire consciousness is filled and occupied by a single image of perception. (WR I, 118-119). We cease to be aware of ourselves as spatio-temporal objects amidst other s-t objects, and so cease to view individual objects as objects of our will. We become (like for Kant) disinterested. The subjectivity of ordinary consciousness disappears – perception becomes "objective" – and pain disappears. If my consciousness is absorbed in the object of perception, I can't be aware of a disjunction between will and object, nor can the will be objectless. This is aesthetic pleasure. Example: if you are completely absorbed in an aesthetic object, either in creating or in experiencing, you aren't thinking of you as creating it or viewing it, but you enter into its world. Music can "carry you away", and you become "ecstatic", out of yourself. But that "out of" does not suggest that you are in another self, but in no-self. The aesthetic state is a glimpse of the permanent solution to the problem of pain.
pegasus.cc.ucf.edu...
The perceived and the perceiver become one. They have never been apart - there is just a day dream of separation happening in that one image. That 'separate one' is the will that fights what is - it is futile, it is the suffering. It seeks to find a way out - the only way out is to find no self. When there is no self found - it is seen that nothing is mattering because it has no one to fall on anymore. There is just life happening - so full and alive and totally delightful.
edit on 31-10-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join