Existence and Perception

[sunsplash]

We are taught very early that grass is green, snow is white, the sun is yellow, etc... but what if what I see as "red" you see as "blue" and another sees as "purple?" We are all taught the "name" of the "color" that we each see, but that doesn't mean our perception of the the actual color is the same in every person.

Could it be that "God" is the same way? We can't "compare" my perception of black to your perception of black, just like we can't compare perceptions of God. Does that mean that any perception is wrong, that all are right, or is it possible that just because we perceive something doesn't mean it actually exists?

Perception is different from thought, right...as in perception is an awareness and thought is an idea? Does thought create reality? I mean no disrespect to God in this comparison, but because I'm thinking about a polkadotted unicorn doesn't manifest its existence. Or just because it isn't physically manifested, does it still exist because it is an idea?

I guess what I'm trying to understand is if person A views God one way and person B views God completely different, does that make either belief in God more correct - or does it not matter? Does God become whatever the perception of Him/it is, therefore being many Gods to many people but still one God ultimately? If you choose not to believe in God, does that make His/its existence non-existent to the non-believer, not just in the persons mind, but overall in that persons reality, while still existing to believers?

I've gone way more philosophical than I am ready for or can understand right now but wanted to open this up for discussion/debate to hear your take. I don't expect any or all questions answered, but whatever thoughts you'd like to offer - I'll be reading.

~ sunsplash
A spiritual seeker on a quest with questions

 

[Willamena]

Perception is different from thought, right...as in perception is an awareness and thought is an idea?

Good thread. I'll finish it tonight, but a question: How would you distinguish between awareness and the idea of awareness? How would you know which one is in play?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

We are taught very early that grass is green, snow is white, the sun is yellow, etc... but what if what I see as "red" you see as "blue" and another sees as "purple?" We are all taught the "name" of the "color" that we each see, but that doesn't mean our perception of the the actual color is the same in every person.

It's true we can never really know what another person experiences as "red," however, we can use tools to measure what "red" is, and we know that something measured as red will be perceived by each individual in whatever way they perceive red.

Could it be that "God" is the same way? We can't "compare" my perception of black to your perception of black, just like we can't compare perceptions of God. Does that mean that any perception is wrong, that all are right, or is it possible that just because we perceive something doesn't mean it actually exists?

Following your color analogy, if there were a god - even if it were perceived differently by individuals - at least, there would be some objective measure that something was being perceived by all. This simply isn't the case.

Perception is different from thought, right...as in perception is an awareness and thought is an idea? Does thought create reality? I mean no disrespect to God in this comparison, but because I'm thinking about a polkadotted unicorn doesn't manifest its existence. Or just because it isn't physically manifested, does it still exist because it is an idea?

Some things exist as only ideas. Some things exist as something more than just ideas. At this point, it appears god falls into the former category.

I guess what I'm trying to understand is if person A views God one way and person B views God completely different, does that make either belief in God more correct - or does it not matter? Does God become whatever the perception of Him/it is, therefore being many Gods to many people but still one God ultimately? If you choose not to believe in God, does that make His/its existence non-existent to the non-believer, not just in the persons mind, but overall in that persons reality, while still existing to believers?

The existence of things that objectively exist as more than simply ideas, is not contigent on anyone's perception. To determine how correct something is, or its truth value, you need to have an objective way of determining this. Since there is no objective measurement of "god," one person's perception of god is just as correct, or incorrect, as any other's.

 

[MSizer]

The problem of qualia IMO is completely unrealted to any theory of god's existence or alleged essence.

 

[sunsplash]

How would you distinguish between awareness and the idea of awareness? How would you know which one is in play?

Good question. Maybe this is where "enlightment" comes in?? Are you suggesting that perception and thought are the same? That was how I initially was writing the OP and then stopped to think of how I would define each, and then they seemed different - so I don't know.

 

[Zadok]

It's true we can never really know what another person experiences as "red," however, we can use tools to measure what "red" is, and we know that something measured as red will be perceived by each individual in whatever way they perceive red.



Following your color analogy, if there were a god - even if it were perceived differently by individuals - at least, there would be some objective measure that something was being perceived by all. This simply isn't the case.



Some things exist as only ideas. Some things exist as something more than just ideas. At this point, it appears god falls into the former category.



The existence of things that objectively exist as more than simply ideas, is not contigent on anyone's perception. To determine how correct something is, or its truth value, you need to have an objective way of determining this. Since there is no objective measurement of "god," one person's perception of god is just as correct, or incorrect, as any other's.

Electrons are very difficult to objectively be determined. Mostly we have learned to measure their effects on other things we can measure. But the real point here is that regardless of our perceptions or theories electrons were around for a long time before we could come up with electron ideas or figure out a way to see their effect on other things. The absents of proof is not proof of absence. It is as fool hardy to say there is no G-d without some common objective determination as it is for someone to say there is a G-d without some common objective determination.

Zadok

 

[dust1n]

I guess what I'm trying to understand is if person A views God one way and person B views God completely different, does that make either belief in God more correct - or does it not matter? Does God become whatever the perception of Him/it is, therefore being many Gods to many people but still one God ultimately? If you choose not to believe in God, does that make His/its existence non-existent to the non-believer, not just in the persons mind, but overall in that persons reality, while still existing to believers?

You basically got it.

 

[whereismynotecard]

I made a thread like this once. Just about the color part though. I really am curious if people see colors different. My colors could be inverted compared to yours. O_O We'll never know.

 

[joea]

sunsplash you ask, "Does thought create reality?", in my own opinion, Yes!. Sometime ago I posted a thread on the "law of attraction"hoping to get a lot of responses, but didn't.Anyway with my own understanding of the law of attraction, is that you can attract whatever you desire through the manifestation of your thoughts, another words, you can create your own reality, perception through the power of thought;But how to manifest these thoughts into reality is another question...still working on it.

 

[sunsplash]

sunsplash you ask, "Does thought create reality?", in my own opinion, Yes!. Sometime ago I posted a thread on the "law of attraction"hoping to get a lot of responses, but didn't.Anyway with my own understanding of the law of attraction, is that you can attract whatever you desire through the manifestation of your thoughts, another words, you can create your own reality, perception through the power of thought;But how to manifest these thoughts into reality is another question...still working on it.

But individual reality is subjective, is it not? If my thoughts create reality, is it just created in my reality? And then how do we judge ones reality against anothers? Wouldn't that make some psycho's delusions real, and not a delusion at all but rather his reality?

 

[Eliot Wild]

But individual reality is subjective, is it not?

Unless there is some truth to the prospect of a Jungian-type collective unconscious.

If I understand Carl Jung's theory correctly, then the human mind actually has multiple areas of data storage. Among these areas are the personal unconscious, which collects, organizes and stores data of personal experiences, and another area that acts as a database for experiences within the species.

Maybe someone who has studied Jung's theories might correct or clarify me where I am wrong.

But the prospect would be a collective unconscious that contains experiences, images and even thoughts, that are not personal, therefore not subjective. I suppose that doesn't necessarily make those experiences "true" or "real" in any objective sense, because the entire species could be misinterpreting data . . . or most likely in the case of us humans, the entire species could simply be delusional.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Yes, the Gospel of Philip says this very clearly:

Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which they would be able to see him. He appeared to them all. He appeared to the great as great. He appeared to the small as small. He appeared to the angels as an angel, and to men as a man. Because of this, his word hid itself from everyone. Some indeed saw him, thinking that they were seeing themselves, but when he appeared to his disciples in glory on the mount, he was not small. He became great, but he made the disciples great, that they might be able to see him in his greatness.

Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world [...] deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon.


Kahlil Gibran Said

"We see things as we are
Not as they are"

etc

 

[Mr Cheese]

Unless there is some truth to the prospect of a Jungian-type collective unconscious.

If I understand Carl Jung's theory correctly, then the human mind actually has multiple areas of data storage. Among these areas are the personal unconscious, which collects, organizes and stores data of personal experiences, and another area that acts as a database for experiences within the species.

Maybe someone who has studied Jung's theories might correct or clarify me where I am wrong.

But the prospect would be a collective unconscious that contains experiences, images and even thoughts, that are not personal, therefore not subjective. I suppose that doesn't necessarily make those experiences "true" or "real" in any objective sense, because the entire species could be misinterpreting data . . . or most likely in the case of us humans, the entire species could simply be delusional.

correct, they have been putting acid in the water for decades

 

[Zadok]

I made a thread like this once. Just about the color part though. I really am curious if people see colors different. My colors could be inverted compared to yours. O_O We'll never know.

The important thing here is that various people can differentiate colors and that all that have the ability to differentiate colors will identify the same color from the same sample. In reality color is really a perception defined by the brain in response to different wave length of light. Electromagnetic waves do not really have a property of color but that our brain provides us with this as a means of perception. The same is with sound. All that sound is – are vibrating molecules that our brain creates “sound” perceptions.

The problem with G-d is that we do not have that common stuff from which we can all establish our perceptions. In truth – rather than perceive G-d we make up a perception because we are not interfacing with something perceivable – at least not in the manner of defined senses. Thus the perception of G-d is more like perceiving love. Since there is no way to measure or quantify substance our perception is based instead on non-empirical impressions.

I figure that if someone is really being influenced by a higher intelligence we should be able to quantify something different (unlike others not influenced). If a believer in a “good” G-d does not display more “goodness” than the non-believer – what is the point or benefit of believing?

Jesus explained this to his disciples – “let your light so shine before men that they will see your good works and glorify your Father (G-d) in heaven.” If your good works cannot be perceived as better – what is the point of others being influenced by what you think is G-d?

Zadok

 

[Eliot Wild]

correct, they have been putting acid in the water for decades

I would appreciate it if someone would up the dosage in and around the Nashville, TN, area.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Unless there is some truth to the prospect of a Jungian-type collective unconscious.

If I understand Carl Jung's theory correctly, then the human mind actually has multiple areas of data storage. Among these areas are the personal unconscious, which collects, organizes and stores data of personal experiences, and another area that acts as a database for experiences within the species.

Maybe someone who has studied Jung's theories might correct or clarify me where I am wrong.

But the prospect would be a collective unconscious that contains experiences, images and even thoughts, that are not personal, therefore not subjective. I suppose that doesn't necessarily make those experiences "true" or "real" in any objective sense, because the entire species could be misinterpreting data . . . or most likely in the case of us humans, the entire species could simply be delusional.

Okay, in re-reading the above, I questioned whether or not the word "delusional" might not just be the simplified way of indicating someone is misinterpreting data.

Man, I'm messed up from another thread. Now, I am questioning every definition.

If reality can't be known objectively, then aren't we all suffering from one mass delusion?

 

[sunsplash]

Okay, in re-reading the above, I questioned whether or not the word "delusional" might not just be the simplified way of indicating someone is misinterpreting data.

Man, I'm messed up from another thread. Now, I am questioning every definition.

If reality can't be known objectively, then aren't we all suffering from one mass delusion?

I've confused myself too...
And yes, from the way we've been describing and defining reality, it doesn't seem much different from delusions. Majority rule seems to indicate what is real and what isn't, lol.

 

[Willamena]

Okay, in re-reading the above, I questioned whether or not the word "delusional" might not just be the simplified way of indicating someone is misinterpreting data.

Man, I'm messed up from another thread. Now, I am questioning every definition.

If reality can't be known objectively, then aren't we all suffering from one mass delusion?

The problem here isn't with the concept of delusion, but the concept of objective. Though, come to think of it, the mass incorrect usage of the concept of objective could be considered a delusion.

 

[Eliot Wild]

The problem here isn't with the concept of delusion, but the concept of objective. Though, come to think of it, the mass incorrect usage of the concept of objective could be considered a delusion.

LOL . . . now you're doing it on purpose, right? You're just messing with me? Please say yes.

On another thread, I got far too deeply involved in a huge dispute over the definition of the word, "ritual". My argument was that words often get diluted, often times lose some of their power, and can even be contextually misleading because people stretch the scope of their meanings by employing them as poetical and/or rhetorical devices. We might say at a comedy show, "The crowd was dead," to imply they were not laughing or responsive. We don't literally mean everyone in the audience was deceased. We are taking the meaning of the word and expanding it through poetical application. We are over-amplifying its usage.

I am now suffering from undue revisionist syndrome, rethinking and reworking every one of my posts out of fear I have not been clear enough or that I have misused and/or misapplied a particular word.

But, anyway, if the word "delusion" means a misinterpretation of data causing a false belief.

And if we are constrained to understanding reality only through subjective mechanisms.

And if it naturally follows there is no way for an individual to "objectively" experience reality.

Then isn't it possible we have all misinterpreted the data we've acquired from personal experience and are suffering from mass delusion?

Maybe the "crazy" guy on the corner is right. Maybe the sun is blue and the sound of one hand clapping is a thunderous, deafening explosion.

Do we just assume objective facts based on sheer numbers, as sunsplash indicated above? We say the guy on the corner is crazy if he believes the sun is blue only because there are more of us that believe it is yellow?

 

[Eliot Wild]

I've confused myself too...
And yes, from the way we've been describing and defining reality, it doesn't seem much different from delusions. Majority rule seems to indicate what is real and what isn't, lol.

I know. LOL . . . I mean, it is certainly most practical to assume "objective facts" based on majority rule. But, again, what if we are suffering from the same delusion?