Reality - thing or phenomenon?

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

But is there a difference between perceiving reality ...and reality?

Yes, a big one.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil, I think your ignorance is rivaled only by your arrogance. You won't speak to me, but you care enough to post about me, like some bitter and old gossip.
I don't mind that you're ignoring me, but I am wondering why you still post in the threads I make. I claim no ownership, but it seems rather weird if you want to avoid me.
And you should avoid me for your own sake. As experience has shown us, my opinions are disruptive to your illusions, and you handle that poorly.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Yes, a big one.

Well, what's the big difference then?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

But is there a difference between perceiving reality ...and reality?

Yes, a big one...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
But is there a difference between perceiving reality ...and reality?

Yes, a big one...

I'd like to hear that answer myself!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

One happens inside your head so to speak, the other one outside your head. Only the latter is truly real.

If you died while asleep, you'd still be dead even if you perceived none of your own death.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Ok. I accept your answer. I don't know either.

And if we don't know, we cannot exclude the possibility that there is no difference. Asserting that there is indeed no difference would be an assumption. Do you agree?

Would it not also necessarily then be true that asserting that there is a difference would also be an assumption?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

One happens inside your head so to speak, the other one outside your head. Only the latter is truly real.

If you died while asleep, you'd still be dead even if you perceived none of your own death.

I am missing your argument here, Olivier. Even though we disagree on most things...I usually find your arguements compelling. This one I don't. I'm going to respond to Cyracuz...if you can expand on your thoughts, I'd appreciate it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Ok. I accept your answer. I don't know either.

And if we don't know, we cannot exclude the possibility that there is no difference. Asserting that there is indeed no difference would be an assumption. Do you agree?

Would it not also necessarily then be true that asserting that there is a difference would also be an assumption?

I think asserting there is no difference...and asserting that there is a difference...are two sides of one coin.

I have no idea if REALITY is actually just what humans think it is...or if it is totally and completely independent of anything humans think about it or consider about it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I do not even know if REALITY is only what "I" think...just think.

"I" may be the only thing.

Scary as hell...but possible.

All of REALITY MAY be what is going on in my head...and nothing more.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yes. All of those are possibilities.
More possibilities include there being no real "I", or that reality is a phenomenon of some kind of awareness of which human awareness is a variation.
That last one is a personal favorite, but I realize that it is no more knowable than any of the others, and perhaps to some, far less plausible. But that's a matter of perspective.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Both are assumptions. One just works better than the other.

That's the thing: you might want to propose the most refined mystico-buddhist view of reality, and it won't work quite as well as the simple, no-fuss model I proposed above. So why jettison the idea of an real outside world independent of observers, if doing so will only result in one puzzling paradox after another?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

If you require a "model", how about this?

"Reality", in it's most fundamental form, is intelligence without form, shape, identity or self-awareness. But it is a form of non-localized awareness.

Awareness as we experience it is embodied. We perceive ourselves as having bodies and specific places in the world.
This localization, the fact that we have brains, is what enables self-awareness. Self-awareness requires memory, and to store memory, a brain is needed.

I realize that all this is way beyond what we can say for certain. I can't say that any of it is fact. It's just a perspective, or perhaps a theory..

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I'd agree with you if one puzzling paradox after another wasn't the reason I dislike the idea of 'a real outside world independent of observers'. There are too many indications by now that there's more to it than that.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I was asked a question and replied with my take on it. There's no definitive proof either way.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Like what???

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

According to this theory, babies who can't verbalize yet should be totally immune to the pain caused by hamers smashing their fingers...

Absolute logical twaddle !
Come on Olivier ! Do you know any newborn babies who say the words "pain", "hammer" or "toes" ?
All living structures react to environmental impact as best they can. Babies' reactions are pretty limited until they acquire concepts with which to report/handle their "reality".

I'll have a conversation with you if you can rise above the "gotcha level". If not, please don't bother replying.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Like how a physical, non living universe could produce living organisms, and how these organisms can have awareness and intelligence and even self-awareness.
The materialistic axiom of "physical, objective reality" steers our thoughts and influences which assumptions we are likely to make further down the road. There is good reason to examine alternatives, and doing so does by no means necessitate the abandonment of functional perspectives.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Yes. All of those are possibilities.
More possibilities include there being no real "I", or that reality is a phenomenon of some kind of awareness of which human awareness is a variation.
That last one is a personal favorite, but I realize that it is no more knowable than any of the others, and perhaps to some, far less plausible. But that's a matter of perspective.

All I ever do, Cyracuz, is to question assertions made a fact. If anyone wants to suggest such and such is plausible...I have no problem. But that is not what is happening here with several individuals.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Like how a physical, non living universe could produce living organisms, and how these organisms can have awareness and intelligence and even self-awareness.

That's a mystery, not a paradox.

Quote:

The materialistic axiom of "physical, objective reality" steers our thoughts and influences which assumptions we are likely to make further down the road. There is good reason to examine alternatives, and doing so does by no means necessitate the abandonment of functional perspectives.

No need for narrow materialism in my world view, just retaining the notion of an objective reality (which can be made of matter but of other things too, such as information). And just because your thoughts are steered doesn't mean you can come up with a better paradigm...

1 Reply

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know