|
Post by Ancient Goddess on May 14, 2005 14:14:52 GMT -5
I remember getting into this discussion with one of my online buddies a while back...just thought I'd hear some opinions about it. I realize that there is another thread entitled 'Reality', but after skimming through it, I don't believe it covers the same thing I'm intending this thread to.
Anyway, the discussion was based on one of his psychology classes. The question was "How do you know a tree is real? That it won't disappear behind you once your back is turned and reappear once you turn around. How do you know it's reality?"
His answer was "If I can touch it, smell it, and see it. It has to be real." I disagreed with that because there is no real proof he can give me that verifies that answer. Who knows, everything around us could, in fact be an illusion. Just because we see something, doesn't mean that others won't fail to see things the same way.
My answer was simply this: "As long as I can see it, touch it, and smell it, it's reality enough for me...regardless if it does, in fact disappear when my back is turned. As long as I believe it's real, there's really not much else."
So...what is your answer to the above question?
|
|
|
Post by Sephiroth Kaizen on May 14, 2005 19:00:52 GMT -5
Even though there's physical attributes to prove the existance and reality of certain things, I don't think there's a real way to prove something is part of reality or not. Like you mentioned before, AnG, what may be one person's reality may not be another's. Just like having faith in God can be a reality for some other than others. Some people need to be proven without a reasonable doubt that something is real, others can debate on their own common sense, others just don't care. For the majority of people however, the tangible is more than enough proof for reality.
People create their own reality... the person who asked you this question may believe their reality is simply a progressive scan sort of thing. Others, (like me) believe things are there and aren't disappearing or reappearing whenever I look at them. It depends on the person. Someone without an imagination may say it's just there and may not want to think much about it.
I, personally believe in the tangible and intangible, based on my religious beliefs. Our physical world is tangible but our spiritual world is based on something intangible but also on faith. ^_^
I tried! Nice question to ask... it had me wondering for a little bit before I answered.
|
|
|
Post by Ancient Goddess on May 14, 2005 19:35:08 GMT -5
Had to definitely give you some karma points for that one. ;D
I didn't want to bring in the element of religion, since the person who I was discussing this to believes himself to be a satanist...but I definitely agree with you. There are many questions that fail to be answered with concrete proof, religion being one of the highest of those particular situations. God exists for some of us and within our faith and belief in Him, we form our perception of reality...Others see our belief as crazy or unproductive, because for them, their lives are not being run by a higher being.
Although there are physical attributes, like you said, there's not enough proof in those to really say if items are real enough and not an illusion. Smell and sight can take place in hallucinations, but it doesn't necessarily mean the illusion is real. Hell, even touch can be present in hallucinations. That's why I didn't buy his whole rant that it was definitely real if he could apply the 5 senses to it.
In short, I still say reality is what you believe. If you believe the tree is there and will stay there even if you turn your back on it, then it will. That's what I define to be reality.
|
|
|
Post by Sephiroth Kaizen on May 14, 2005 19:43:01 GMT -5
Oh, I forgot to mention, reality is what your brain can process... I completely forgot about dreams. We all know that our dreams aren't real, even though we can view them as messages or warning or whathaveyou. Anyway, I know I have experienced dreams that I thought was very real, I felt the cold of winter, joy of seeing someone for the first time in years, the hard ground underneath my feet, anger at something someone's done or even fear. Your brain applies most of your senses into your dreams as well, but does that mean it's reality?
I can't say smell is applied to dreams, simply because... I've never smelled anything in my dreams... >_>
|
|
|
Post by Makku on May 14, 2005 20:19:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ancient Goddess on May 14, 2005 20:54:46 GMT -5
Erm...as I said before..I skimmed that thread's defining post, and did not believe it carries the same point as this one does. The other thread was made defining reality and how it works an. This thread's meaning is to answer the question bolded above and state why you believe so. I didn't want to hijack the other thread, so I made my own to focus more about the question rather than the mechanics. We only added them as emphasis to our answers.
|
|
|
Post by Makku on May 15, 2005 2:33:29 GMT -5
I was actually going to make an edit to that post after I did it and expound.
But I got distracted.
And lazy.
So nyah.
|
|
|
Post by Sephiroth Kaizen on May 15, 2005 15:19:34 GMT -5
... um... okay... please try to expound on it when you get a chance. I wanna see what your take on it is... and not a link.
|
|
|
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on May 16, 2005 18:30:14 GMT -5
This is interesting. It makes me chuckle that you guys, once presented with or presenting the idea of reality being subjective, ran with it in every post following. And what of absolute objective reality? Without the ability to percieve it, does reality exist? It seems as if you`re saying no, which is a safe bet since if nobody could percieve reality, reality couldn`t exist (to them - and this is the subjectivity in action). Saying yes would be to believe in objective reality. I`d say the realities that people hold are not realities at all, or to clarify, not objective reality. And isn`t objective reality Reality? Does it not contain within it those "realities" that people experience subjectively? This surely proves objective reality's greatness over subjective reality. So does the tree disappear when you turn around? Film it ;D He he he, but for real though (as if that wasn`t evidence enough ), when you turn back, the tree is still there. Do it a hundred times and the same thing happens. Isn`t it safe to assume the tree remains when you leave? I wonder, if I planted a plum tree and unknowingly returned to the place I planted it, say 5 years later, if it wouldn`t be there if I didn`t expect to see it. He he he. Ha ha ha! MWA HA HA HA!!!!! How dare we question reality in the first place? We wouldn`t be able to question reality without it. And to doubt the ability of our senses to percieve reality, those senses that have percieved our complete individual realities. Our senses percieve all that they can for us, but we`re preoccupied with what we might be missing (I suppose I can`t complain. It`s only smart to be doubtful and curious). We have 5 senses and with those the reality that they present us with IS reality (subjective at least). We see green, and green is seen, we hear a voice, and the voice is heard. The reality our senses give us is the closest to reality we can get. Unless we develop new senses, this is as good as it gets. I had a couple of other ideas to share but I forgot them
|
|
|
Post by Sephiroth Kaizen on May 16, 2005 18:53:41 GMT -5
Kage, you said this:
And yet... I said this before you: Basically meaning the intangible can be a reality as well.
I'm sure most people assume that if the tree is there, it'll still be there when we turn our backs to it. It's really nothing more than a question formed by a person who's probably trying to pick your brain... it'd be obvious for everyone to just say, "Yes, of ocurse it's still there!" and not think twice about it, but opening your mind to other possibilities shouldn't be shunned.
But who's to say what my senses perceive is the same as AnG's, or yours? I agree our senses percieve all that they can for the individual, but we all don't share the same frame of mind. One person's senses may be completely fine when in comparison with ours, but their reality might be riddled with seeing things we don't see... they may see demons, spirits, whathaveyou (something their mind could've created), but nonetheless something their senses react to and/or perceive.
And as for what truly is reality when relying on our senses, one person can show you a car that's light or pale blue (like my car). One person may say the car is grey while I may say the car is blue.
I agree on some of your points, it's just that assuming our senses perceive the same thing seems a little off to me.
|
|
|
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on May 16, 2005 22:29:30 GMT -5
I wouldn`t argue that the intangible can`t be existent in reality; my consciousness is intangible and I know this, however, I`m not sure where I stated otherwise Here`s a little semantics problem, but it`ll be cleared up by the end of this paragraph. I didn`t assume that our senses percieve the same thing at all, not in the way you`re saying anyway. I`m guessing you`re talking about the "green is green" thing. Well, I`ll give you that, but it`s considered out of context. Apart from that, I can`t see where I gave the impression that I believe we all percieve the same way. But, yes, I believe we all percieve the same things (Given that the same things - objects - are being percieved). Reality doesn`t bend to the mind, the mind bends to an unbending reality (and all of a sudden this all sounds extremely familiar...) Is your car both grey and blue?Or is it truely the color it is, regardless of what people tell you or what you may think/'know'? Subjective reality is the best reality we can (have the ability to) percieve, because it`s the only reality we can percieve. However, as much as it does for us individuals, it`s far from objective reality; the futility of subjective reality in comparison is obvious when we consider a car of one color (and it is one color) being called more than one color, or any other circumstance involving two different takes on the same thing (I suppose that includes this conversation, quite ironically and degrading to our points).
|
|
Kurdt Cobain
Shadow
if i dont believe in myself would that be blasphemy?
Posts: 74
|
Post by Kurdt Cobain on May 17, 2005 9:03:53 GMT -5
hmm nice thoughts
ima try write some myself
what if all existence is nothing but energy and the reality we see is only an image created by the connected energy that humans are, what if its all mere projection of what most of us believe,
say the reality we see is the easiest way for the energy that we are to 1. exist & 2. to reproduce so this thing we call reality is a world that our kind of energy chooses to create as a collective in order to life, referring to basic logics of paranormal energy the fact that we choose to exist is the reason that we fade away.
to not take away all of the fun one can have spinning this theory in a nice conversation i'll just use it here to show how it explains
god:
say we are connected and our perception creates reality the moment we perceive it faith is only a way to create further content into this reality. meaning that if enough people believe in an idea the idea becomes real, god exists from the blind believe meaning he denies to prove himself which makes sense if you think about how he is only the product of faith...
darn i'm too tired to continue now... ima do it later
btw: "is this offtopic???"
|
|
|
Post by Ancient Goddess on May 17, 2005 15:09:50 GMT -5
Not at all, Kurdt. You bring forth some interesting thoughts to the table. Good theory about our energy creating the world...Has merit and there's not many items with in it I can disagree with. Actually, it kinda ties into my answer to the original question: "As long as I can see it, touch it, and smell it, it's reality enough for me...regardless if it does, in fact disappear when my back is turned. As long as I believe it's real, there's really not much else." As long as we can believe it's real, even if we make it, it's reality for us. I must say I agree with you in the sense about God...er rather, I can certainly see where you're coming from and what you mean when you presented the ideas. Religion is, in fact, a product of our faith...and well, faith has no concrete elements or proof in it, so it can easily be said that it is a 'made-up' reality. Now, I don't necessarily agree with that theory (because I have faith), but I can certainly see why others could come up with that conclusion and the reasons pointing to it. I think SK said it before, how people believe in religion and how it is reality for them. Whether either side is right or wrong...that'll have to be proven in the end. Good post, definitely earned you some karma points.
|
|
Kurdt Cobain
Shadow
if i dont believe in myself would that be blasphemy?
Posts: 74
|
Post by Kurdt Cobain on May 17, 2005 17:05:53 GMT -5
zomg a karma point
thx goddess
|
|
|
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on May 19, 2005 10:00:51 GMT -5
Gah... you guys... You make it too easy/fun for me sometimes... I used to entertain this idea that objective reality may be completely different to subjective reality, and it`s entirely possible. It it were anything (starkly different to what we believe it to be) I`d say it would likely be (pure?) energy. But the thought occured to me in the shower 5 minutes ago... If reality really is a swirling mass of energy that our brains reconfigure to make it easier to understand, then what of cameras? Shouldn`t they have a clear view of this unconfigured reality? They don`t have brains to reform what they see; all they do is reproduce what`s infront of them (albeit crudely ex. 2-D). I doubt the pictures that they take are translated into an understandable reality in our minds. Although I can`t speak of something that I cannot possibly know, it just seems far fetched to me. Taking a picture of energy that we see as a red house with a camera that recreates the image before it equals a 2-D picture of energy that we see as a 2-D red house? Shouldn`t we see the energy as jumbled energy on a piece of photo paper? The transition just doesn`t sit right with me. Then again, seeing as I don`t know much about the real FACTS regarding this, I guess it makes sense that the piece of photo paper is energy anyway, and somehow the representation of energy on this piece of energy equals the house on the piece of paper in our heads. In a positive light I like this view because we are all energy, no energy can be created or destroyed, only distributed and divided, physically speaking. It fits nicely with physics. Anyway, I`m probably babbling (not to mention appearing pretentious like I know everything). This seems like a contradiction of ideas, what is vs. what we see, the paragraph before being what we see, but I`ll ignore that for the sake of gaining insight into the truth. This part seems (to me) likely. I don`t know much about the paranormal, so I`ll shut up (but I`d love to hear what you have to say about it in referance to these ideas you`ve put forward. I promise I won`t be too critical ). I wonder, what of discoveries? How many people had to believe in Antartica before it existed? I`m not sure if I understand the whole paragraph too well. Also, most of the planet believes that the world is as we see it, so if you happen to be right about the world (or existence) being energy... well you couldn`t be because 'majority rules'. As for the phrase 'reality for us' or ' for them' (Ancient)... isn`t that kinda missing the point? Reality for us or them could be anything, but that doesn`t make it real. Is a psychotic who believes he is Socrates actually Socrates? According to him, yes, but don`t be surprised if he doesn`t know who was ruling Greece during the period Socrates was alive, or what his final words in Ancient Greece were because he was not there. So much for being Socrates and so much for subjective reality being 'real'. Infact, let me make it more concrete. Suppose there is a man who believes he is Jon Stewart and believes it is himself on The Daily Show instead of the real Jon Stewart, but isn`t Jon Stewart (He`s black). Is he Jon Steawrt and is he on TV? How real is his reality in the grand scheme of things? It`s all great saying it`s real to him, but it`s hardly REAL. Anyway, that`s just me and my overly critical input. Please, refute me.
|
|