Different realities

I haven't the slightest.

I assume there is no way of testing reality except faith in it ourselves or else someone would have a test made.

I was in a coma for a month, and I don't remember a thing. I know this is a late response, but better late than never.



The.............

Better than being in a colon, or even worse, a semicolon.

I sometimes feel that I exist in a reality that is outside of everyone else's reality. Sometimes, when I go to a coffeehouse I will sit there for hours, and I get this feeling that no one else realizes that I am there. I, of course, know that physically I am there. I am not suggesting anything crazy like I am there, but no one can see me. I am suggesting that sometimes I feel that I exist in a reality that is not congruent with the realities of those around me.

Example: at this one coffee house I sometimes go to they used to have a large table where all of the studious people would go to spread out there books. If one person had sat down on one side of this table sometime later another person might come up to him and ask if they could use the other side. Of course, the primary used would say yes, and then they would share the table for whatever purposes. One time, I was the first person at this table, and without saying a word someone sat down, and began to loudly sip his coffee and do other things to disturb my concentration.

I considered it rude. I didn't care that he sat there. I didn't care that he broke the politeness of asking if he could use the other side of the table. I had gone to that coffee house for seven years, and it was just local custom to do that. The thing that bothered me is that he slurped his coffee, got on his cell phone, and did everything to make me want to yell at him. The only reason I didn't because he was also a regular.

I believe realities cross. I believe that sometimes realities are congruent to each other and sometimes they are not. If they are congruent, then it will lead to some type of bond, such as friendship or marriage; but if they are not congruent, the incongruent realities of two people will lead to what we know as, "two ships passing in the night."

The reason I say I sometimes feel I exist in a reality outside of everyone else's is because sometimes I feel like I don't belong. Sometimes I feel that I am missing something that everyone else gets, and sometimes I feel like I get something everyone else is missing. I am sure I could just be called crazy, but the funny thing about calling people crazy is that when crazy people run the world it will be the normal people who will be the crazy ones.



The.............

Poet, you don't sound crazy to me, just observant.

JL,

Thx. This world would be boring if there was only one reality. The fun of having so many is the it keeps the dialectic moving, which I feel is more of a spiral than a triangle.

The..........

Some thoughts.........

If there are different realities, and no one person's reality is truer than anyone else's reality, and if according to my reality God exists, then it would seem that although God may not exist in another person's reality, that that person cannot say that God does not exist or can he/she? For something or someone to not exist wouldn't that something or someone have to not exist in all realities, including hypothetical reality? Though realities also change, so just as God has not existed for many atheist at one time, but then they convert to theism (C.S. Lewis, Andrew Flew). So is it right to say that existence is dependent on reality? If I decide to mint a green penny with the face of J. Edgar Hoover on it, then I bury it, and when I die I tell someone it exists, but then I never say where it is and no one ever finds it, does that mean it doesn't exist? Logic demands that it cannot be proven that leprechauns don't exist. It cannot be proven that Fairies don't exist. It cannot be proven that God doesn't exist. If I speculate that something or someone exists, but the existence of that something or someone never becomes part of a person's reality than I believe that that something or someone still exists. It may not exist congruently to anyone's reality, but existence doesn't have to be congruent to reality in order for it to exist. The reason I say that is because even though at some time in history no person may believe in leprechauns if leprechauns do exist than that leprechaun is also a person and has the ability to believe in himself. The leprechaun exists within his own reality. It is not and cannot be the same with a green penny with a picture of J. Edgar Hoover on it. If at any time in history the realization of that penny is not congruent with any person's reality, and that penny has no awareness of itself, then does that penny exist? I postulated that it does exist, because it's existence is not dependent upon anyone's reality. I say that because that penny at one time or another may be discovered by someone, and even if it never is there exists the possibility for it to be discovered. Since the possibility for it to be discovered exists, it exists in hypothetical reality, and since it exists in hypothetical reality it does not not exist in all realities. For something to not exist it must not exist in all realities.

It is the same question as has been asked about the trees. If a tree falls in the forest, yet no one hears it, does it make a sound? If there is a green penny with the face of j. Edgar Hooover on it, yet no one realizes it, does it exist? If a single teenage mother cannot handle taking care of her six month old downsyndrome child, so she throws it in a garbage dump, then kills herself, and no one realizes that that baby is alive, does it exist? Does the existence of something have to be congruent with present reality in order for it to exist? Can something exist in certain realities, yet not in others? If I call someone a terrorist, yet someone else calls that person a freedom fighter does that person exist only as one or the other, or does that person exist as both? So if I say God exists, yet someone else says God does not exist, does God both exist and not exist, dependent on each person's reality?


Just thinking out loud



The............

TheUndonePoet,

You are on the brink of a reconsideration of the meaning of "existence". I would normally jump in with a possible solution at this point but to avoid repetition (for others) I refer you to earlier threads for your consideration.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17919&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1119&highlight=

If we take a perspectivist perspective (ha!), we can argue that, in a sense, all possible realities exist from all possible perspectives. Your Hoover coin is not JUST a coin; it can also be considered a collection of molecules, atoms, quarks through which nutrinos are passing, etc.. We CAN consider ONLY its coin-ness, as we can for falling trees, ideas of Godness, etc. Actually nothing exists except as constructions, e.g., a "flag" exists only for humans who make, think and salute flags. The substance of which it is constituted is indefinately manifold...without limit as far as human experience is concerned. I would think that the pragmatic notion of existence is, here I go again, most useful. For me the notion of God has no reality in the sense that I can't do anything with it. Whether or not "god" exists makes no difference FOR ME. For certain others it has powerful currency, at least psychologically--and economically if you are a televangelist. My "car", on the other hand, exists in a different sense; I can use it to get around. But my notion of "time machine" is useless in terms of time travel. In that sense it does not exist.
This is all off the top of my head. If it contains absurdities, forgive me. BTW, I think absurdities "exist" as human constructions and have consequences in terms of embarrassment. So--really--forgive me.

JLN & Poet

A little thought experiment.

If I ask the meaning of a word like "hopsters" watch how your mind immediately begins to hypothesize linkage to a mutual semantic web. We try to embody an unknown word with "reality" like "seeing pictures" in an inkblot. If I then tell you that "hopsters" is a new fashion in "dancing pants" you may say"of course". The fact that (as far as I know) "hopsters" don't as yet "physically exist" (I invented the word) does not detract now from the mental existence we have just mutually established as a category within the semantic web.

Now if you agree with the above, and if we concur that the distinction between the "physical" and the "mental" is at least "problematic", it follows that "existence" is about relationship within a shared social network rather than one of "independent reality".

Indubitably!

I have some problems with this:

When you invented the word "hopster," it does not "physically exist," but it does exist physically as an image one has created in one's mind; an image that is derived from previous images and concepts. If you were to talk in terms of an independent and objective reality, then you would say that it ("hopsters") exist merely as a concept and an image created by the person creating that image. So you can talk about existence in terms of independent reality, if you include a person's phenomenal existence as a part of thta reality.

Ray,

I needed to use the word "existence" in its traditional sense in order to then attempt to deconstruct it. A fuller version of my position is presented below.

By saying "notice how your mind....(etc)" I intended to draw your attention to the interactional process involved in the usage of a word. We do not passively "perceive"....we actively prepare the ground for such "perceiving". In this sense "existence" is a test of "goodness of fit" within a ready prepared slot. The process of "fitting" involves both observer and observed. There are no "things" without "concepts" in the mind of the "thinger".The concept sets up expectancies of relationship and these expectancies don't necessary involve "the immediate physical" (as in the case of theism). The question of whether the "concept" differs from "the thing" may merely be a case of whether the expectancies have been "satisfied." (Perhaps this relates to your concerns with noumena and phenomena)

Although we project such "onging satisfaction" as "reality" we are usually unconscious of our linguistic and social conditioning prior to that point. (The native tribesman who has different words for "water he crosses" and "water he drinks" has a "reality" in which these are mutually exclusive substances from a "taboo" perspective.) In this sense there is no "objective reality". Reality is "process", and in as much that we have interpersonal engagement via a common language we may "agree" on the current status of such reality.( Unlike the tribesman, we don't see "two waters" because of our shared heritage is encapsulated in the single word "water")

And when disputes arise as in the case of theism vs atheism we tend to have a futile argument about "the objective existence of God" when in essence, the theists should say they are "satisfied with the fit" and the atheists should say either "I am not satisfied" or "I have no concept to fit"

fresco,

Our minds do create a spacetime context to concepts, and this is because the mind has a built in precondition of space and time. The "fitting in" you're describing is the attempt of the mind to describe a concept without having information of the concept. If the concept is a thing that can be shown, then when the person senses the thing, the person might have to change his or her view of it.

In terms of concepts influenced by social and linguistic conditioning, I believe that when the concepts are detached from these factors (well it's harder for linguistic) they can show a basic, common representation of reality. In the example of "water he crosses" and "water he drinks," both ideas refer to a common thing we call water ( the tribesmen too see that there is something in common). "-he crosses" and "-he drinks" are description of functions of water. The distinguishment between the two ideas are a result of the creation of complex ideas from these basic ideas.

If we were to talk about reality in terms of what we sense, then we see that there are sets of preconditions for this also. We sense colour for certain wavelengths for example. However, our senses are direct representations of reality because our senses are directly caused by interactions from direct external causes.

Because reality cannot be observed without there being an observer, we can observe reality using our senses, and it would be real to that extent. In order to maintain the "realness" of that observation all the time, we have to understand that our senses are limited and that they are representations of reality. An "objective reality", requires a representation of reality, imagination, and a rational faculty to connect things together.

In a nutshell, I do agree that we are working toward a common set of complex ideas that fits reality, but I think you're using the word "reality" too loosely, as I sometimes do too (I blame it on the English language ).

double post

Ray,

There is much to reply to there but in essence you seem to be advocating an "objective reality" and I am not. For example I would disagree with your analysis of the tribesman. He does not see "two different functions of water" all he "sees" are two different relationships hence two different "things". Of course in extreme conditions his "reality" may alter and he may be obliged to save his life by drinking "the forbidden". All this means is that all "animals" share some basic physiological needs irrespective of species specific perceptual apparatus. It does not give "independent reality" to a single substance "water". i.e. Water is tautologically "a thing" because animals with particular physiology are "things".

fresco-

What about the difference between short,hard consonant sounds and those of long,soft vowels?

A comparison between eastern European languages and those of Italy and Spain say.Would these different sounds affect the psychologies of the two regions?

fresco-

In the Foreward to Mailer's The Time of Our Time there is this-

"Once,in describing how I came to have the confidence to write a long novel about the CIA,I remarked: 'It is a fictional CIA and its only real existence is in my mind,but I would point out that the same is true for men and women who have spent forty years working within the Agency.They have only their part of the CIA to know,even as each of us has his own America,and no two Americans will prove identical.' "

Is that connected to your discussion on "hopsters" which ,by the way,I thought of as boozers.

Spendius,

Such divergent thinking !!

On the phonetic point I once did a joke thread entitled something like: "Could you have a sense of humour if you had to speak German ?"...but seriously though folks my linguistic points were at the semantic level and refer directly to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis..."language directs thought".

Your reference to "the reality of the novel" is of course an extension of my point about single word "concepts". A novel can create a whole "web" of concepts some of which must have roots in "non fictional reality" in order to start the communication rolling. An interesting side issue is the manipulation of reality by "big business" via advertising. I remember a programme about Freud's nephew who almost single handedly invented "the consumer society" by clever advertizing. (Incidently he also "invented" Sigmund Freud as a celebrity in the US. He had hitherto been an obscure European.)