10 replies to this topic

[Jwheelz]

We live in a complex world, putting aside the social constructs and peculiarities of the human species, just on physical traits alone our world is immensely complicated.  We have sensory organs and nervous systems which take physical signals and stimuli and convert them into electrical pulses which then transfer that information to our brains which create a model of the world around us.

 

Between primary senses like touch, vision, hearing, taste and smell and secondary senses like equilibrium and proprioception (ability to recognize relative positions of our limbs and bodies), we receive a tremendous amount of information every second. Over millions of years of the evolution of all terrestrial life the ability to process ever-growing amounts of information has ensured the survival of increasingly advanced species such as ourselves.

 

But even with all of these senses we only directly experience a small portion of the world around us. For example I was watching a program the other day about the unseen world and they were talking about the electromagnetic spectrum. They said something along the lines of this, although I may not have the exact cities and distances: If the spectrum electromagnetic energy was a line extending from San Francisco to New York City, the portion our senses can directly detect would be approximately 1 inch long.

 

The exact details are not important because the point is we live in a world for which we are vastly underequipped to understand.  There are animals who can perceive parts of the spectrum we haven't even known about for more than a few hundred years.  We have managed to create tools which augment our abilities and the more we look it seems the more questions we find.

 

It brings me to the question of this thread. What is reality?  Is what we see around us the limit of reality or is it just the bare surface of the nature of our existence? Many cultures and traditions say with some variation that we essentially are living in a dream, maybe there is truth to this. How much similarity is there between the way each of us perceive the world? What are the differences?

 

I'm hoping to provoke an ongoing discussion and to hear a wide variety of perspectives on these questions.

 

What do you think?

[hoagie]

Having only what my senses tell me to go on, abd having no real way to objectively verify anything, it is easy to conclude that I may be the only "real" thing that exists (whoever "I" is).

[Cheezdude]

Ok, I'll take a shot at this. Reality truly is what we make it. We can only perceive what's around us.

What we can see, and feel, etc. But that's obviously not all there is. If you've paid attention at all, 

there are hints, or clues to other reality's we can't see or feel. So, it becomes speculation. And we

all have a slightly different perspective on it. Even if I'm standing next to you, our perception of

reality would be shifted slightly from the other. In other words, I can't see exactly what you see,

even if we're looking at the same thing. So, it's really subjective. 

And based on that. there is no substantial difference between a dream and a waking reality.

They both exist in some way. So they are both reality. But that's not all there is. We will never

know all there is to know. But we can contemplate it. 

[Jwheelz]

I agree I think it is very subjective,there is so much of our experience that goes into our own picture of reality, and there are so many factors and experiences we can have throughout our lives which can affect the picture that we construct of the world around us.

 

In keeping with that, I've just been reading a very interesting article about the way in which many of our modern ways of living separate us from the true nature of ourselves and the true experience of being outside of are constructed world. 

 

it's pretty long but here it is:

http://www.alternet....=0,2&paging=off

 

here's a brief excerpt about time which I thought was interesting:

 

 

[... in]  The Labyrinth of Solitude, the Mexican poet Octavio Paz states, “the conception of time as a fixed present and as pure actuality is more ancient than that of chronometric time, which is not an immediate apprehension of the flow of reality but is instead a rationalization of its passing.” He goes on to describe “original time” which “coincides with our inner, subjective time,” in which one's “subjective life becomes identical with exterior time, because this has ceased to be a spacial measurement and has changed into a source, a spring, in the absolute present, endlessly recreating itself.”

 

These descriptions of time are certainly different from the ways in which we are conditioned to conceptualize, and thus experience, time in modern Western society. Time as “pure actuality,” and as “a source…in the absolute present” connotes time as being and as presence, as the flowing of life, and as the flow through which we encounter existence. Experiencing time in this manner relates to the context and process of our lives, as well as the contents. In this mode of reality, by virtue of containing and underlying our experience, time becomes the ocean and ground of our being, and—through having been returned to its a priori or transcendent function—loses exclusive identification with going.

 

I have experienced the way time subjectively passes and I have enjoyed the times of my life where all sense of time's passage or even its relevance to my existence in that moment is gone and it really feels very right. I would even say getting back to that non-perception of time is a lot of the resetting that is so beneficial for our soul/spirits/essence or whatever you want to call it that many of us experience at festivals or on vacations or similar types of experiences when we are outside our chronological routines of everyday life.

[Jabadoodle]

Excellent question J, I like how you framed it. I have some observations on this, but it's been a long while since I tried to put them into words. Will put it in the hopper and then try to join the hopefully ongoing discussion. 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's a good question and an interesting discussion. Before proceeding though, I find it necessary to point out the definiton of reality.

 

re·al·i·ty  

/rēˈalətē/

 

 

Noun

1. The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".
2. A thing that is actually experienced or seen, esp. when this is grim or problematic: "the harsh realities of life".

 

 

Synonyms

actuality - fact - truth - verity

 

 

The reason this is important is because it is the sword's edge of perspective. Each and every person has their own unique perspective (at least from listening to others, and in my own perspective ), but reality is not negotiable. It is the hard/natural sciences that we've given name and description and which we all, at least in large majority, agree to be true.

 

Such as the Earth is round. It wabbles around the sun in a circular motion.

[TakeAStepBack]

It can also be more complex.

 

https://sites.google...logical-reality

 

 

 

Scientific vs. Phenomenological Reality

It is believed by many, that the mathematical means used to model nature, constitute a valid and intrinsically comprehensive means of understanding reality. Religion and religious experience, it is believed, certainly has a place in the modern scheme of things, but it is viewed as a projection of personal meaning onto the life we experience. It is not seen today as statements of and contact with an objective reality.

The modern scientific method of description is mainly quantitative. Reality is reduced to measurement (This is a legacy of Descartes). For example, suppose you were to show a scientist a table and ask him what it essentially is. He would first describe it as a top supported by legs. Both the top and the legs could be described as rectangular solids (These are geometrical entities). In describing the material, he would discuss the various molecular and atomic bonds which exist within the substance of the table. These would be described in terms of bonding angles (a quantity), and electrostatic forces (another quantity). This, in turn, depends on quantum mechanics (reducible to probability). For specific phenomena, reality is reducible to the measurement of a ruler or the reading on a meter. For general phenomena, mathematical formulae are applicable.

Is this view sufficient, or is there something more?

 

Read on at the link

 

http://www.world-of-...is-reality.html

 

Non-reality

simply means that there is no such thing as objective reality. Every possible observation or interpretation is tainted by subjectivity and therefore does not constitute truth. Nothing is real! This is supported by quantum theory, which states that prior to observation, nothing can be said about a physical system (read In Search of Schrodinger's Cat by John Gribbin for an excellent introduction to this topic). This theory is further backed by the Double Slit Experiment, which suggests our mere observation changes the outcome.

 

 

As Niels Bohr once said, "Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." Another quote by Richard Feynman goes "It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

We are all just guessing - albeit using all the scientific evidence gathered to date - and the universe could well be unthinkably bizarre. If we are on the right track with current theories, it could be terrifyingly bizarre. We just don't know yet.

This particular experiment, which remains one of the most famous and tantalizing experiments of quantum mechanics to date, implies that there are multiple realities where every possible outcome is played out in a parallel universe. Each scientist in each universe observed a different outcome, throwing our original question - what is reality? - into more chaos, as now we have infinite realities.

[Jwheelz]

It's a good question and an interesting discussion. Before proceeding though, I find it necessary to point out the definiton of reality.

 

re·al·i·ty  

/rēˈalətē/

 

 

Noun

1. The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".
2. A thing that is actually experienced or seen, esp. when this is grim or problematic: "the harsh realities of life".

 

 

Synonyms

actuality - fact - truth - verity

 

 

The reason this is important is because it is the sword's edge of perspective. Each and every person has their own unique perspective (at least from listening to others, and in my own perspective ), but reality is not negotiable. It is the hard/natural sciences that we've given name and description and which we all, at least in large majority, agree to be true.

 

Such as the Earth is round. It wabbles around the sun in a circular motion.

 

My entire life I've accepted that there is an objective reality, that there is definitely one set of circumstances which we all agree on and accept as the true nature of things. But quantum physics shows that reality itself is much more complex and stranger than we realize. When you get down to very small and when you get to the very very large our ability to conceptualize existence tends to break down. I don't know how far that uncertainty permeates in the world which we experience and the scale at which we experience it day-to-day.

 

It's very interesting to me though that reality and what is accepted as reality still requires consensus and mutual agreement. Because we're the same species though there's going to be commonalities in the way we perceive the world around us which would then promote mutual agreement since our senses function in the same way as everyone else. But there was a point in our existence where the reality of why people get sick is because of an imbalance in their 4 humors, or it was bad air. That comes down to a lack of understanding due to our inability to perceive the existence of microbes. We developed tools which allow us to see microscopic organisms which led us to the germ theory of disease.

 

I guess what I'm getting at with this thread is what undiscovered aspects of the universe or physics or whatever else might still happen in the future which could turn our concept of reality upside down again? As we increase our understanding that picture of objective reality itself can change. This doesn't mean the actual reality has changed but what if in quantum physics our observation is what locks it into a particular form, does it change the nature of what we're looking at just because of the fact that we are looking at it? I tend to think it doesn't but sometimes I'm not so sure.

[TakeAStepBack]

Exactly, J. We don't know. We spend our "time" consrtructing reality based on our observable surroundings and understandings. These change over time, by either coming to new realizations with current understanding or breakthroughs in how we measure. Quantum mechanics is a really interesting and yet also dicey subject.

 

We go by what we know at a given time because we dont know anything else...yet. That always being the catch. We will probably revamp what we know about quantum physics in theory several times again too. It's subjective until we can nail it all down. We're nothing if not completely curious beings.

 

As someone once said "so called experts, we're all beginners."

[hoagie]

Doesnt the fact that all we have to compare notes against is other humans' observations of the world around them prove that we have no objective idea of the world AS IT IS? It is self-evident that we are only able to sense only what we can sense...while knowing there are thing we cant sense.

What we sense as "blue" may only be "blue" to human beings. What then is "blue" if it cant be independantly verified? And how valid is any observation that is just echoed by another human, when it may be an anomoly of our sense organs...

[hoagie]

It is entirely possible that human reality is conpletely different than dog reality, than cat reality, etc etc forever