are you happy in false realitly?

Yes, actually I am happy.

Me, too...

...whether it is a false realitly or not!

"Realitly" indeed!

False Reality is an oxymoron.

Indeed. Even a mirage is a real mirage.

Jeez, where are all the navel gazing OPs coming from.

I'm guessing Cleveland.

Or about a mile and a half north of Cleveland.

That's a great response, Nobody.

Where the hell have you been, JL?

I've missed ya. Actually, I needed you (or one of the other non-dualists) in a thread the other day...and you were nowhere to be found!

Hi, Frank. I've been busy with retirement activities. A while back I wondered what became of you too. I hope your golf is in good shape.

A more proper way to say it is "a false interpretation of reality".

A mirage is an illusion. In reality a phenomenon or event is happening, but when its perception is interpreted erroneously, then it becomes a false interpretation of reality.

A common example is when the loony of Einstein fell in the tricks made by motion and distance, and his stupid theories are the corollary of a deep false interpretation of the illusions. And today, lots of scientists still falling in the tricks made by distance and motion, and, funny, they still can't recognize that what for them is "reality" their conclusions are nothing but children's imaginations, this is to say, fantasies.

And you are correct, there is the tendency of portraying handicapped dudes as geniuses, and I don't fall in that illusion. I have read and analyze the books of Hawking, and they are full of caricatures. Some caricatures are made with geometric designs where, who knows how, he interpreted "time" as an arrow going in a certain direction and the universe going in a different direction... what a dump!

And his last book full of "real" caricatures in several pages, rather than a book of science is a children's book with fairy tale stories, like "black holes evaporate"...

Yes, people are happy with false interpretations of reality, because reality is crude, and no many like to face it like it is. Many people prefer to live in the world of the illusion, because when interpreted wrongly the illusions guide you to a word of superfluous possibilities.

I repeat...


"Reality" is merely a word used by humans to signify their agreement or otherwise about those states of affairs which concern them. As Kant implied, If there are states of affairs outside of human potential categorization of them, we have no access to them.

Why are all the crazies picking on Einstein? This has been quite a fad of late.

Because of their ego producing more hubris than the heart pumps out blood, so it all goes to their head.

I like to distinguish between the "mirage" which is a physical event and an illusion which is an interpretive one. Sometimes--not always--mirages are misinterpreted to be something they are not: that's when we aspire to drink sand.

All reported events are interpretive whether we class them as mirages or illusions or otherwise. A mirage is a type of illusion having an agreed physical explanation. There are other illusions which have neural explanations (such as Mach Lines due to lateral inhibition) or perceptually conditioned explanations (like Muller -Lyer due to living in rectangular buildings). The word "illusion" means that we are can be potentially aware of the fact that our interpretations of the event are "not to be relied on" for certain subsequent actions. Indeed, by extrapolation, the whole topic of religious "experience" can be categorized by differential degrees of reliance between followers and dissenters.

The issue us, as I see it, centred on the word "event". It involves how we define "the event window" and what cognitive tools we bring to bear in perceiving it.

No, wrong. There is the "tornado", the thing in itself and there is the "tornado", as we interpret it.

A mirage, the "distortion" in itself, is not the same as a "mirage", the interpreted experience.

Yes, is it not the case that Kant claimed all phenomena are human constructions, that what we experience are only the manifestations of how we filter the "thing in itself"? You agree it seems with Nietzsche and the phenomenalists that there are no things-in-themselves, only our "human" perceptions. That is my view: the world is me (or cada cabeza is un mundo) (or us: i.e., our culturally constituted reality is our effort to create the illusion of a completely shared experience). What is beyond that, the Tao, is ineffable.

Please tell me you're not into solipsism...

Come on, this Universe existed far before we did. There's physical and tangible evidence that suggests how we came here and why we are here. If you just look at how the eyes contain photo receptors which emerged from space billions of years ago prior to stars emerging. And the human eye has a nebula design, which is also interesting because there are nebulas that look like human eyes. Coincidence?) This world is not through us. We are through the world.