How do we conceive reality?

[blü 2]

Is there such thing as objective existence? Certainly I have never seen any.

To oversimplify, it's what science studies. It's the world external to the self, which we understand first by our genetic equipment for responding to it, and second by our senses.

Two people will experience the same thing differently. Which is objective truth?

That will only rarely be a relevant question, but in general, the view that most accurately reflects / corresponds with / conforms to reality will be the truth. (Truth of course isn't absolute ─ it's our best honest opinion at the particular time.)

We experience a subjective reality.

We also subjectively experience an objective reality ─ the air we breathe, the chair we sit on, the keyboard I'm typing on, and so on.

Why dwell on some imaginary objective reality which nobody has ever experienced

You've never experienced air? A chair? You have no parents? Never owned a suit, a car, a book? Really? Where do you think the words you're reading come from? You think your dinner was imaginary? Your partner, your friends, are figments of your brain?

You refute yourself by posting here, don't you? Or are you the first strict solipsist I've ever met?

 

[ChristineM]

Reality :-

1. The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
   
   
2. The state or quality of having existence or substance.

 

[Frog]

Reality :-

1. The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
   
   
2. The state or quality of having existence or substance.

Awwwww You choose dictionary in comparison to the theosophic approach?

 

[ChristineM]

Awwwww You choose dictionary in comparison to the theosophic approach?

Yup, definitions allow people to communicate without blurring the issue with the obfuscation inherent with subjectivity

 

[blü 2]

God is everything but also nothing.

That's to say, God is anything you want God to be, which is the way of imaginary things.

God is right in front of your nose. Can you guess in which form?

What definition of 'God' are you using? In other words, what objective test will tell me whether I've found the God you speak of or not?

God is reality.

So 'God' and 'reality' are synonyms, you say? Why do we need both words, then?

 

[Frog]

Objectivity is in the physical plane. You cannot view god objectively because there is nothing to compare God too. We live in a universe therefore everything inside of it is of it and the same.

God is reality but much more. God is everything in between, above, and below. The fabric that holds everything, not at all imaginary.

God is like the number 1 and 0 collectively.

 

[Thinking Homer]

I would hate to think I'm nitpicking, but assuming you believe in a creator in some way distinct from his creation (the broadly Abrahamic idea), where does the creator come from? The existence of a creator beyond matter does not remove the issue of how the very first something came out of nothing, as a self-creating creator is no more logical than a self-creating universe.

The Creator lies outside the boundaries of space and time. He was never created, He was always there.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The Creator lies outside the boundaries of space and time. He was never created, He was always there.

He still requires an explanation. Otherwise this is just a cop out.

 

[Frog]

He still requires an explanation. Otherwise this is just a cop out.

Sure, mind giving the interview?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Sure, mind giving the interview?

If you're not even going to try making sense...

 

[Thinking Homer]

There is no need to reach for some higher understanding. If we can accept reality just as it appears to us, we can realise it as true perfection.

But the problem is that the perceived reality does not answer some fundamental questions for us as human beings. Where do we come from? What is the purpose of my existence? Where are my morals derived from? Where do I go after I die?

Of course you can choose to ignore these questions, but personally for me these are important questions that need answers to.

 

[Thinking Homer]

He still requires an explanation. Otherwise this is just a cop out.

Are you going to seriously ask me who created the Creator?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Are you going to seriously ask me who created the Creator?

Not necessarily. But if the Creator was never created, it still requires an explanation. Just saying "oh, God's always been there" doesn't actually answer anything.

 

[Thinking Homer]

Not necessarily. But if the Creator was never created, it still requires an explanation. Just saying "oh, God's always been there" doesn't actually answer anything.

Honestly I wish I could give you a better answer, but it's either the Creator story or Stephen Hawking's self-created universe.

 

[PureX]

Most people, I think, just accept their sensory impressions, as a Gestalt.

As parts of a greater, transcendent whole? (Just clarifying "gestalt")

 

[PureX]

Must we break down reality into its individual ports and study it selectively? Or collectively?
How do you do it?

The human brain perceives/conceives (I prefer the term "cognates") by comparing and contrasting sensory information sets and then holding them in our memory, relationally. "Here" is recognized as not being "there". "There" is recognized as not being "somewhere else". "This" is not "that". "Then" is not "now". And so and so on. "Reality" as we humans cognate it is a collection of remembered relationships.

But 'actuality' is a singular whole. It is one giant simultaneous event, occurring. "Here" and "there" are just illusions being created in our minds by the way our minds cognate experience. In actuality here and there are everywhere, all the time. This is what we humans nearly always fail to recognize. And why what we call "reality" is very different from the actuality that we mistake it for.

 

[Frog]

cognates

me to.

collection of remembered relationships.

Yes

Here" and "there" are just illusions being created in our minds by the way our minds cognate experience.

Oh, thats deep!

IN essence, gathering your take on the understanding reality, I, at least to me, see you form a strictly logical outlook. You're safeing it within the confines of what is cognitively ascertained by the most juvenile of minds.

 

[PureX]

We can't escape our limitations. But we can become aware of them, so that they don't 'own' us.

 

[David T]

oh I love this. What of those who do not believe in God, therefore do not believe reality exists? They would require proof? Proof of reality by subjecting reality unto reality. Its madness. Do these people notice that they are insane? Or are they ignorant of there ignorance? We are not talking about a man in the sky with a beard here. We are discussing our creation.

Replace the word god with nature it makes it a bit clearer. There is no such thing as a reality creating reality thats a virtual statement. NAture is not encapsulated or determined by the sound we create "nature" any more than another sound we make "god" or another sound we make "cosmos" . Interesting how words which are mearly sounds take on literal meaning into which we then debate with other sounds..

 

[Yerda]

Must we break down reality into its individual ports and study it selectively? Or collectively?
How do you do it?

Maybe there aren't parts. It might be that the subject and the object are not separate and that the world is one 'thing'.