Reality

caprice wrote:

Boy I'm glad this isn't one of those things that keeps me up at night. But let me leap into the fray! *grins*

I have this to ask:

If it isn't reality, is it non-reality? Is there another option besides those two?

Thanks for bringing this up. This was the reason I started this topic. I had my opinions but I wanted to see everyone else's.

Reality is the ore of life. It is what is there. Reality can be observed but there also may be parts of reality that are not able to be observed. My thoughts and observations exist. Are they reality? I'm not quite sure. My observations are translations of the ore of reality. Can these translations be considered part of reality?

There is no in between. There is no non-reality. There are infinite realities. The only thing is, which one is the reality?

0 Replies

Why can't they all be real? Smile

0 Replies

"THE" reality that is

0 Replies

Mhatte-Rhaye wrote:

caprice wrote:
Boy I'm glad this isn't one of those things that keeps me up at night. But let me leap into the fray! *grins*

I have this to ask:

If it isn't reality, is it non-reality? Is there another option besides those two?

Thanks for bringing this up. This was the reason I started this topic. I had my opinions but I wanted to see everyone else's.

Reality is the ore of life. It is what is there. Reality can be observed but there also may be parts of reality that are not able to be observed. My thoughts and observations exist. Are they reality? I'm not quite sure. My observations are translations of the ore of reality. Can these translations be considered part of reality?

There is no in between. There is no non-reality. There are infinite realities. The only thing is, which one is the reality?

I will stick with my first answer which essentially is: We do not know what REALITY is -- but we do know that whatever IS -- IS. And whatever IS -- is independent of our being able to KNOW what IS.

0 Replies

Frank

Quote:

I will stick with my first answer which essentially is: We do not know what REALITY is -- but we do know that whatever IS -- IS. And whatever IS -- is independent of our being able to KNOW what IS.

I would say, "Whatever IS, is neither dependent nor independent.

.

0 Replies

Is there another option, twyvel? Either the two are unrelated, or one dependant in whole or in part.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Frank

Quote:
I will stick with my first answer which essentially is: We do not know what REALITY is -- but we do know that whatever IS -- IS. And whatever IS -- is independent of our being able to KNOW what IS.

I would say, "Whatever IS, is neither dependent nor independent.

.

Yes, I understand that to be a basic tenet of the Church of Twyvel. :wink:

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

The current paradigm shifts are (a) at the level of cosmology involving "dark materal" (b) at the level of quanta and multidimensionality and (c) at the level of cognition and perception with models such as "quantum consciousness", and "second order cybernetics". (see Google). All of these seriously question a narrow epistemological viewpoint and take account of the mutuality between observer and observed.

(a) neither dark matter nor dark energy require interaction with an observer

(b) If by multidimensionality you mean string or M-theory, what role does an observer play?

(c) exactly what do you mean by "quantum consciousness"?

0 Replies

Mhatte-Rhaye wrote:

Reality is the ore of life. It is what is there. Reality can be observed but there also may be parts of reality that are not able to be observed. My thoughts and observations exist. Are they reality? I'm not quite sure. My observations are translations of the ore of reality. Can these translations be considered part of reality?

There is no in between. There is no non-reality. There are infinite realities. The only thing is, which one is the reality?

IMO, there is a "real" physical universe which is the source of the stimuli which our sensory organs detect and from which our brains construct their perception of reality.

Some people's perceptions are more accurate than others, and are therefore closer to "reality." Inaccurate constructions of reality may be due to faulty sensory equipment, less-than-optimum processors, or acquired beliefs that affect how the data is processed.

For instance, someone who "believes" in ghosts may interpret ambiguous patterns of lights, creaking floors, and cold drafts as evidence of supernatural beings, while a skeptic would attribute them to natural causes.

In any case, there can be infinitely many interpretations of reality, but some of them are more fanciful than others. That doesn't mean that the most accurate ones are "best" if our goal is blissful certainty. :wink:

0 Replies

Trying to pinpoint what is "true" reality is an almost impossible task, because we all come wired somewhat differently on what we believe to be true/factual. I'm just wondering how much we can depend on "common knowledge?" It can get pretty dicey when we start any discussion on gods.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

From a dualistic perspective it cannot be denied that what we refer to as consciousness or awareness is present, yet it is not any ?'thing' that can be observed, yet appears to exist. It is ?'nothing' yet here it is. It has no qualities or characteristics.

Awareness CAN be observed, both by the person who is aware, and by anyone else who interacts with them. Try talking to someone in a coma.

Awareness DOES have qualities and characteristics. There are different levels of consciousness which are measurable by brain waves as well as by observation of behavior and self-reporting. We know exactly which parts of the brain are necessary to produce core consciousness and extended consciousness. We know that the process of generating the autobiographical self (see Damasio) calls on memories to augment current sensory information and data. How can you deny that it has these qualities?

Frankly, your continued insistance that the "self" (that everyone of us can - and does - experience directly) is not observable, makes me wonder why you didn't choose an ostrich as your avatar. Very Happy

0 Replies

Terry's quote, "Frankly, your continued insistance that the "self" (that everyone of us can - and does - experience directly) is not observable, makes me wonder why you didn't choose an ostrich as your avatar." Laughing

(Worth five smileys.)

0 Replies

truth
Hi folks, I forgot all about this post. Looks like I was lucky. So much strife and grief, as if something were at stake. Whatever is the case, it remains the case even though our understanding of it is wrong. So relax. I once got a very philosophical fortune cookie in an upscale chinese restaurant. It said, in effect: "Why do we worry about the nature of the universe. I just assume that that is the universe's problem and pass my days with a smile." That calmed me down for a while.
But let's put our assumptions about the observing self to the test. One way to do that is empirically. When I look at whatever passes into sight that whatever-passes-into -sight appears to be an "object" of "my" perception. The same happens with my body sensations--those I'm aware of--sounds, sensations of temperature, etc. etc. And I can even have the feeling of my "self", the subject of all those "objects" of experience. The trouble is when I try to feel this self it consists of body sensations, and, in my case, a sensation behind and around my eyes. And these sensations of self, the self that I presume to be the SUBJECT of experiences, are themselves "objects" of experience. My sense of self is "SEEN" by something that I cannot see. I could try to get around that by saying that my self 1 is perceived by a self 2, and then, since self 2 has become an object of perception, I say "I see self 2 with self 3 behind it." This regression can go on forever. It seems to me that I don't have to go through all of that. All I have to do is acknowledge that all of my objects of perception, including my sense of self, are experiences or objects of experience, and that there is no observable subject of experience. This, I believe is what Tywvel is trying to tell us. I will not argue this with anyone. We've seen that that is a futile task. I just invite you to find for yourself a 'self' that is not an object of perception. If the futility of that effort that does not change your mind, no arguments will.

0 Replies

Very clear post JLNobody, I hope some can grasp the simplicity of it.

0 Replies

Terry

Quote:

Awareness CAN be observed, both by the person who is aware, and by anyone else who interacts with them. Try talking to someone in a coma.

Awareness DOES have qualities and characteristics. There are different levels of consciousness which are measurable by brain waves as well as by observation of behavior and self-reporting. We know exactly which parts of the brain are necessary to produce core consciousness and extended consciousness. We know that the process of generating the autobiographical self (see Damasio) calls on memories to augment current sensory information and data. How can you deny that it has these qualities?

You are talking about observing behavior not awareness, and the ?'flow' of consciousness not what consciousness is. It cannot be said to have ?'qualities' because we don't know that consciousness can ?'have' anything.

That awareness can be observed is a contradiction. Subjectivity cannot not be objectified for if it were it would cease being subjectivity. That subjectivity ?'can' be objectified is oxymoronic.

I think the autobiographical self is an observed object.

Terry the most promenant issue in contemporary philosophy is the nature of consciousness and ?'self'. Some of the brightest minds on the planet bent in that direction, haven't got a clue what it(?) is. And I do suspect that eventually they will be informed and directed towards, Buddhism, Advaita, and nondualism awareness, if they haven't already.

Here's a [snip]

Chalmers, a steely-eyed rationalist when the need arises, is
not above indulging in a little speculation on the matter. And
-- surprise, surprise -- he suggests that perhaps
consciousness is a bit too complicated to be invested
exclusively in our puny, palpitating brain tissues.

"You know, we have physicists who want to build a
so-called Theory of Everything using just a few basics, such
as spacetime, mass and charge," Chalmers notes. "They
want to explain everything in terms of a few reductionist
components. And they can certainly explain a whole lot of
complicated stuff that way -- maybe even chemistry, life and
behavior.

"But consciousness seems to be left out. And so what I tend to think is that if we're reasoning
consistently about these things, if we've got something that these fundamentals can't explain,
then we need something else which is new and fundamental. So I've argued that perhaps we
need to view consciousness as a kind of fundamental constituent of reality."

You heard right:

The world's foremost thinker on the Hard Problem is speculating -- and Chalmers would be the
first to stress it's only speculation, mind you -- that consciousness may one day very well turn
out to be a basic building block of the universe. Like photons are to light, or cream filling is to
Twinkies, consciousness may prove to be an inherent requirement of all that surrounds and
composes us.

[/snip]

http://www.conferencerecording.com/conflists/tsc20tw.htm

0 Replies

rufio, I was thinking along the lines, Whatever Is, is trans-conceptual and trans-self.

0 Replies

That would be completely dependant then, and vice versa. But if that's so, than how do we discover things that are at odds to our past beliefs and that we did not know about previously? You'd think that if self were inextricably part of reality that everything we thought would be in harmony with the rest of existence.

0 Replies

Nothing really is in 'harmony,' but in flux.

0 Replies

Thanks, c.i. Very Happy

0 Replies

JLN, perhaps the problem is trying to use the same word for biologically different kinds of consciousness. We can "see" the autobiographical self, but not the proto-self. That's where the regression stops. Here's how Damasio explains it:

Proto-self - a non-conscious collection of representations of the multiple dimensions of current organism state

Core self - a transient but conscious reference to the individual organism in which events are happening

Autobiographical self - dual dependency on both continuous pulses of core consciousness and continuous reactivations of autobiographical memories (an organized record of past experiences of an individual organism)

The autobiographical self changes over time because of changes in memory due to experiences, but it has a continuous history that leads us to believe that we are the "same" self we were years ago.

Quote:

... consciousness is not a monolith, at least not in humans: it can be separated into simple and complex kinds, and the neurological evidence makes the separation transparent. The simplest kind, which I call core consciousness, provides the organism with a sense of self about one moment - now - and about one place - here. The scope of core consciousness is the here and now. Core consciousness does not illuminate the future, and the only past it vaguely lets us glimpse is that which occurred in the instant just before. There is no elsewhere, there is no before, there is no after. On the other hand, the complex kind of consciousness, which I call extended consciousness and of which there are many levels and grades, provides the organism with an elaborate sense of self - an identity and a person, you or me, no less - and places that person at a point in individual historical time, richly aware of the lived past and of the anticipated future and keenly cognizant of the world beside it.

In short, core consciousness is a simple, biological phenomenon; it has one single level of organization; and it is not dependent on conventional memory, working memory, reasoning, or language. On the other hand, extended consciousness is a complex biological phenomenon; it has several levels of organization; and it evolves across the lifetime of the organism. Although I believe extended consciousness is also present in some nonhumans, at simple levels, it only attains its highest reaches in humans. It depends on conventional memory and working memory. When it attains its human peak, it is also enhanced by language.

The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the making of Consciousness By Antonio Damasio

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know