Cogito Ergo Sum.

[DarkSun]

Reality is merely the collective of electrical impulses interpretted, by our minds. By that notion, how can we assure whether our senses do define reality, or not? It could all be a facade.

 

[BucephalusBB]

I agree with both options
Now what?

 

[sandandfoam]

Why do you choose our senses to define reality?

 

[DarkSun]

Don't both options contradict with one another, though?

 

[BucephalusBB]

Don't both options contradict with one another, though?

Not perse. The second tells how one could feel, the first one implies that that can be wrong.

 

[DarkSun]

Why do you choose our senses to define reality?

Everything you see around you is just energy. Our perception, of everything, is dependant on our mind's interpretation of that energy. To do that, we taste, feel, see, smell and touch.

Everything around us, could ultimately be a mere figment of our minds. How could we know any different?

Myself, I'm a bit dubious about both options.

 

[DarkSun]

Not perse. The second tells how one could feel, the first one implies that that can be wrong.

Looks like I've been caught out.

 

[Fluffy]

The second option is incoherent. It purports to equate reality with sensory data yet sensory data is gathered from an external reality.

If reality is not external then our senses are illusionary.

 

[Sunstone]

Our senses do not need to represent reality for us to use them to navigate reality.

 

[DarkSun]

The second option is incoherent. It purports to equate reality with sensory data yet sensory data is gathered from an external reality.

If reality is not external then our senses are illusionary.

Pick the first option, then.

:yes:

 

[DarkSun]

Our senses do not need to represent reality for us to use them to navigate reality.

Prove it.

 

[K.Venugopal]

What our mind interprets is the reality for our mind. But our mind alters as it awakens to greater consciousness and reality too changes for us. They say beyond a certain stage, we can see it all as an illusion and reality would be on a different plane for us.

 

[Sunstone]

Prove it.

Are you familiar with the psychology of the senses? If not, simply refer yourself to any good psychology text on the subject. You will almost immediately see the senses do not represent reality, Dark Sun. At best, they symbolize it -- much as a map symbolizes a terrain, or an instrument reduces some reality to a simple quantity.

 

[DarkSun]

What our mind interprets is the reality for our mind. But our mind alters as it awakens to greater consciousness and reality too changes for us. They say beyond a certain stage, we can see it all as an illusion and reality would be on a different plane for us.

This is really interesting. What stage would that be?

And, if reality is the illusion, then what is real?

 

[DarkSun]

Are you familiar with the psychology of the senses? If not, simply refer yourself to any good psychology text on the subject. You will almost immediately see the senses do not represent reality, Dark Sun. At best, they symbolize it -- much as a map symbolizes a terrain, or an instrument reduces some reality to a simple quantity.

How do you know that reality is not defined by our senses?

I'm affraid that I'd rather not go near a psychology text. I won't indulge. Long story short, would you be able to ellaborate a bit for me?

 

[doppelganger]

How do you know that reality is not defined by our senses?

If it were, you'd be unable to distinguish anything in the constant stream of light, sound waves and smells your sense organs are ceaselessly encountering. Raw sensations have to be given significance (i.e. be noticed) and given relationship and meaning (i.e. interpreted) in order for the raw feel to become part of perceived reality. Reality is a transaction between sensory data and memory.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm affraid that I'd rather not go near a psychology text. I won't indulge. Long story short, would you be able to ellaborate a bit for me?

I'm looking at a green chair. My eyes and other senses tell me the chair is solid. Physics tells me the chair is mostly empty space. Hence, my eyes and other senses are not displaying or representing the chair to me but are doing something much more akin to symbolizing it -- in much the same sense that a dot on a map might symbolize the presence of a house. The dot doesn't display or represent the house ("represent" is here used in the quaint sense of "re-presenting"). Rather, the dot merely symbolizes the house.

Despite the fact the dot merely symbolizes the house, rather than represents or displays it, I can use the map to navigate my way to the house. Despite that my eyes and other senses tell me the chair is solid, rather than mostly empty space, I can use that information to interact with the chair in the thousand ways a person might interact with a chair.

In other words, my senses do not need to represent reality for them to allow me to navigate reality.

I would suggest, though, that you overcome your reluctance to go near psychology texts and read up on the psychology of the senses.

 

[DarkSun]

If it were, you'd be unable to distinguish anything in the constant stream of light, sound waves and smells your sense organs are ceaselessly encountering. Raw sensations have to be given significance (i.e. be noticed) and given relationship and meaning (i.e. interpreted) in order for the raw feel to become part of perceived reality. Reality is a transaction between sensory data and memory.

The only reason we can't pick up on every frequency a photon might be at, is because our senses never evolved to interpret them. Likewise, we can't feel our organs, because we don't need to. How does that invalidate the concept that our senses, those which we do have, might be at fault, and that reality may be an illusion?

 

[DarkSun]

I'm looking at a green chair. My eyes and other senses tell me the chair is solid. Physics tells me the chair is mostly empty space. Hence, my eyes and other senses are not displaying or representing the chair to me but are doing something much more akin to symbolizing it -- in much the same sense that a dot on a map might symbolize the presence of a house. The dot doesn't display or represent the house ("represent" is here used in the quaint sense of "re-presenting"). Rather, the dot merely symbolizes the house.

Despite the fact the dot merely symbolizes the house, rather than represents or displays it, I can use the map to navigate my way to the house. Despite that my eyes and other senses tell me the chair is solid, rather than mostly empty space, I can use that information to interact with the chair in the thousand ways a person might interact with a chair.

In other words, my senses do not need to represent reality for them to allow me to navigate reality.

I would suggest, though, that you overcome your reluctance to go near psychology texts and read up on the psychology of the senses.

I'm currently grasping at about three or four rebuttles, but I'm uncertain as to whether I quite undertstand the analogy. I'll think about it and get back to you.

As for the psychology book... Maybe. ^_^'

 

[doppelganger]

The only reason we can't pick up on every frequency a photon might be at, is because our senses never evolved to interpret them.

Senses interact with the environment and trigger an electrical impulse to the brain. Senses don't "interpret." The electrical signal sent triggers electrical signaling in the brain stimulating, if one is available, a "form" to be accessed. Consciousness lags behind this process. It's at the conscious level that the interpreting begins.

Likewise, we can't feel our organs, because we don't need to. How does that invalidate the concept that our senses, those which we do have, might be at fault, and that reality may be an illusion?

Reality is composed of both sensory data and memory. One can determine the reliability of the sensory data by intersubjectively comparing measurements. "Do you see what I see? . . . I don't know, what do you see?"

When the measurements align but the experiences are still different between two observers, the differences are in memory and forms. This will require a careful negotiation of additional information between the two disparate universes, in order to account for this difference and have a successful communication.