I have an interesting question. Is reality subjective or none subjective? Is it somewhat subjective in that much of it is due to our limited perspective and paradigms? I'm interested in people's opinions and observations. Go as deep as you'd like.
Reality is purely undefinable. If anyone tells you they can prove that it's real, they're lying. There is always going to be a seed of doubt - it's like religion. You can't definitively prove it. For a start, they say everything we see is made up of charged particles of light. What about things we dont see? The inside of a brick? Do those light particles only exist once we shatter the brick? What if these particles of light simply weren't there? Would we still exist? It's all so vague. But intersting never the less.
Well... that's definately an interesting view. But sometimes comparisons don't really fit. I don't believe in God, so my brother told me this story: An atheistic scientist has a religiouse friend who builds a massive structure of the solar system which is according to scale. When the scientist sees this he asks his friend: "Wow! This is amazing -- who built it?" So the friend says: "No one." This flusters the scientist, so he pesters his buddy until finally the scientist's friend says: "Why is it that SOMEONE had to have made this structure... this mere impersonation of the real solar system and yet NO ONE made THE REAL DEAL". ---THE END--- So my retort for my brother's story is: "If I were to make a sculpture of Jesus, or of God, or of any diety, can I say no one made it? It's the same logic." Going back to some of your comments. The fact of the matter is, we know that the brick is there. And although we can't prove it, we can experience it. Ultimately, if we want to become picky bastards, we can only prove that we ourselves exist. Hence the saying: "I think, therefore I am." I personally believe in reality, but... unlike you (respectfully) I believe it's definable -- but like all things in the human experience, very much unprovable. It's an odd point you've put accross. I heard an old Chinese proverb from someone (at least they said it was chineese) "If a tree colapses in a forest, where there's no one to hear it, does it make any sound?" You somewhat made me think of that... Science is a very interesting thing. Science is merely the observation and description of that which is there. It's not the explenation of things that exist. No matter how in depth you go with science, you'll never be able to find THE PERFECT description. So yes, things are always going to be very very vague. But I'm curious if anyone is able to dumb anything down. This is a little bit off topic but it is an example of dumbing something down to become rather understandable. I was doing research on "Morality" and essentially every time I'd look up Morality it would lead me to another vague word which I'd have to look up and then I'd find another and then another and then another -- until FINALLY I wound up running into the word "Morality" again... Morality is a catch 22 in most defanitions -- especially on regards to religion. Sure, there's plenty of different scripture that talks about what Morality's qualities are or potentially are... but it never actually tells you what it is. I think it's merely efficiency. If you're a new guy on the job, people will be correcting your mistakes. What qualifies as a mistake? That which is inefficient. And then they teach you the RIGHT way of doing things, which is efficient. And I believe it expands much further than this.... but it also leads you to the debate "What's efficient in X and Y situation"... but it's still a work in progress -- but the dumbing down of a complex term is progressed at least by a bound or two.
Interesting points. We can experience it, but can we not also experience dreams? Yet we "know" that what happens in a dream isn't real. Proving that us as individuals exist is easy, because we only need to prove it to ourselves. It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks. Same concept I guess. Does what we cant see still exist? That sort of deal.
For everything to exist, it has to be perceived. The bugger about this, though, is it means that something doesn't necessarily have to be real to exist. For example, let's say you're a crazy old man who lives in the desert. Once a week, you eat some local mushrooms, and drink some disgusting water, which keeps you alive. But in your head, you hallucinate that every day you feast on plump turkey, chicken parmigian, spaghetti, kalamari, anything and everything you desire. Instead of lying on a rock in the desert, you see yourself lounging on a giant, comfortable bed. You guzzle gallons of imaginary beer- and never get a hangover. To us, this may sound like fantasy and delusion. But to him, his self-made reality is stronger in presence than ours. And since he perceives his ideas and not ours, that's what's real to him. He may seem poor to us, but in "reality," he leads a king's life, and he is truly a man to be envied. So that's the problem with the fact that all things need to be perceived to exist: Some things that aren't real still exist anyway.
Here's the thing, FACT -- I started this thread. Fact: Handguns For Hearts, Frost, Crazy Ivan, and Myst have all responded to this thread. It's not just that I've precieved it to happen. It's that it's actually happened and I know SOMEONE will most likely reply to this comment in this thread even as I'm writing it. I've merely precieved that these things have happened but THEY HAVE HAPPENED and all sane and sober individuals can attest and agree that these things are indeed true and real. So I think perception is just a part of it. Perception and our paradigms on what occurs are indeed huge factors... but I don't think that's it... Hmm... any thoughts? I like the responses thus far. Keep it up.
Really? There is no way at all for me to prove that you as a poster on this forum are nothing but a fantasy in my head, that this computer does not exist, that the very concept of a computer does not exist in my world, that my world does not exist and that I am some sort of spark of neurons in a protoplasmic life form on some whirling rock in a big black void that has amazing delusions that include it talking to complete strangers within mere seconds by means of a large, square-ish communication device. For all I know, you don't exist, and I'm not typing, and that makes me feel like a silly fool. Therefore, your argument is rendered to nothing. And if you are real, then the same applies vice versa, so everything you said is pointless. But, because I perceive you and not the previously stated barren rock/gooey life form, you exist in my mind and the other "version" of reality does not. So. Perception is everything.
How can reality be limited to perception? Just because you don't see the floor doesn't mean it's not there. Crazy Ivan's gooey-rock theory is however somewhat plausible, since we are all only sure of our own individual 'realness'. But then, Crazy Ivan, maybe you're just a very advanced A.I that scientists are using for experiments of feeling and understanding, injected into the program we call the 'real world'? & vice versa.
Really? Just because you can't see a great creator who made everything doesn't mean it's not there, but that doesn't get in the way of thousands of opinions.
Im finding myself to agree with Ivan more; in effect we've said the same things. Your reality is what you percieve. The general reality is what nearly all people in the world perceive - things like the seven continents. Everyone says they're real, but no one can prove that our existence and that the existence of the things around us is all real. They could say, sure but it's there, and every other sane person can verify - but what is sane? Does an insane man think he's insane or does he think he's a person who's more sane than the rest of us? It's all just a big circle of questions and uncertainty, to be honest.
You guys are going to drive yourselves insane with this queastions! I regect your reality and insert my own! hahahah!
… I’m not talking about singular reality, but plural reality. My point is that sane and sober individuals can all attest to the same or similar experiences and that’s in some way related to reality and the fact that specific things do indeed occur. Although you yourself may not realize the computer exists – you’ve still responded with an intelligent response… possibly even a bit sarcastic and humorous. Since someone is insane and perceives things differently than most people – it doesn’t mean that he’s experiencing HIS reality and it’s every bit as justified as everyone else’s community experience of reality… yes yes – it’s real to him, but it’s not real to others around him and no one else can attest to what he is reacting to. He’s insane. He may not see himself that way, but he is. Suppose he’s violent and winds up killing people. He’s factually a dangerous person, though he may not see himself that way. The community around him sees him as a danger and sees what he’s experiencing to be completely unrelated to the community’s experienced reality. I hope I’m making sense.
What you said has nothing at all to do with my argument. Sorry. If you are a figment of my imagination, I must be quite the poor debater. Apologies to myself and all others (Existent and non.)
what is general perception but the opiate of the masses? In truth, there is only one way to be sure you are not all figments of my all encompassing mind, and that is the consequences that would befall me if i so had the desire to do away with you all. LOL.
Well -- consequences... in a way are whiplash of reality. With the naked eye, air can't be seen, and as can many other forms of gas... like mine for example... But we know those gasses are there through daily use of technology and such. We flip a switch, the light comes on. Action -- Reaction. Cause and effect. Action and Consequence... Yup yup yup -- I sound just like Merovingian -- Mr. Matrix himself. There has to be some sort of laws guiding these concepts. I know everyone here is having fun playing with words in order to say "I'm the only thing that exists" and I pretty much stated that in the my second post... so sinse that's pretty much all that we're saying so far, can anyone assist in trying to define it? Oh -- and someone said that reality just can't be limited to perception because just because you don't see the floor doesn't mean it's not there. That's a good point. So that theory can't be entirely plausible. Perception alone can't be the dictating factor of reality... but don't you think it would be a large one?
"Footfalls echo in the memory Down the passage which we did not take Towards the door we never opened into the rose-garden." ~ T.S. Eliot Perception in itself cannot be defined, for whoever so defines perception will have tainted it with his own.
