Perception and Reality

[Cobol]

We are constantly bombarded by believers telling us their versions of reality which includes gods, demons, angels and the supernatural which swirl around our heads in an endless battle of good vs. evil, where the invisible intervene in our affairs, and the supernatural taking place right under our noses.

Since there is only one reality and no one has ever proven it to be anything other than what it is, and reality never includes gods, angels or other supernatural events. Are believers perceiving that as reality, or are they just misunderstanding the terms of reality and perception, or are they just having a strong desire for reality to be what they want it to be?


Reality - That which exists objectively and in fact.

Perception - To become aware of (something) through the senses, to recognize or observe.

 

[sayak83]

We are constantly bombarded by believers telling us their versions of reality which includes gods, demons, angels and the supernatural which swirl around our heads in an endless battle of good vs. evil, where the invisible intervene in our affairs, and the supernatural taking place right under our noses.

Since there is only one reality and no one has ever proven it to be anything other than what it is, and reality never includes gods, angels or other supernatural events. Are believers perceiving that as reality, or are they just misunderstanding the terms of reality and perception, or are they just having a strong desire for reality to be what they want it to be?


Reality - That which exists objectively and in fact.

Perception - To become aware of (something) through the senses, to recognize or observe.

My definition of reality is different.
Reality:- That model of interpreting experience that proves to be of most use to the entity whose experiences they are.

 

[bobhikes]

Since there is only one reality and no one has ever proven it to be anything other than what it is, and reality never includes gods, angels or other supernatural events. Are believers perceiving that as reality, or are they just misunderstanding the terms of reality and perception, or are they just having a strong desire for reality to be what they want it to be?

Reality - That which exists objectively and in fact.

Perception - To become aware of (something) through the senses, to recognize or observe.

You mean the reality that contains dark matter, dark energy, black holes, consciousness, determinism, Free will, Time, Space time, Expanding universe. You mean the reality that is constantly changing faster than time itself. You mean the reality where as soon as you view something it is different. You mean the reality where two living things can never see the same thing exactly the same.

Yes of course the reality where everything is based on perception of the individual alone. You have your perception and I have mine.

 

[Quintessence]

My definition of reality is different.
Reality:- That model of interpreting experience that proves to be of most use to the entity whose experiences they are.

I like it. Not quite how I roll with the term, but I like it.

But apparently if we don't agree with the OP's way of looking at reality we are all "mistaken." Good grief.

 

[sayak83]

I like it. Not quite how I roll with the term, but I like it.

But apparently if we don't agree with the OP's way of looking at reality we are all "mistaken." Good grief.

No worries, we are in good company. Here is William James:-

Pragmatism, on the other hand, asks its usual question. “Grant an idea or belief to be true,” it says, “what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone’s actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth’s cash-value in experiential terms?”

. The truth of an idea is not a stagnant property inherent in it. Truth HAPPENS to an idea. It BECOMES true, is MADE true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: the process namely of its verifying itself, its veri-FICATION. Its validity is the process of its valid-ATION. But what do the words verification and validation themselves pragmatically mean? They again signify certain practical consequences of the verified and validated idea. They lead us, namely, through the acts and other ideas which they instigate, into or up to, or towards, other parts of experience with which we feel all the while-such feeling being among our potentialities–that the original ideas remain in agreement. The connexions and transitions come to us from point to point as being progressive, harmonious, satisfactory. This function of agreeable leading is what we mean by an idea’s verification.

true thoughts means everywhere the possession of invaluable instruments of action; and that our duty to gain truth, so far from being a blank command from out of the blue, or a ’stunt’ self- imposed by our intellect, can account for itself by excellent practical reasons.

The importance to human life of having true beliefs about matters of fact is a thing too notorious. We live in a world of realities that can be infinitely useful or infinitely harmful. Ideas that tell us which of them to expect count as the true ideas in all this primary sphere of verification, and the pursuit of such ideas is a primary human duty. The possession of truth, so far from being here an end in itself, is only a preliminary means towards other vital satisfactions.

You can say of it then either that ’it is useful because it is true’ or that ’it is true because it is useful.’ Both these phrases mean exactly the same thing, namely that here is an idea that gets fulfilled and can be verified. True is the name for whatever idea starts the verification-process, useful is the name for its completed function in experience.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My definition of reality is different.
Reality:- That model of interpreting experience that proves to be of most use to the entity whose experiences they are.

I like it - I may even use that one in future. But perhaps we can still acknowledge both concepts of reality by sub-categorizing them. How about we call yours "pragmatic reality", and the OP definition "objective reality"?

 

[George-ananda]

We are constantly bombarded by believers telling us their versions of reality which includes gods, demons, angels and the supernatural which swirl around our heads in an endless battle of good vs. evil, where the invisible intervene in our affairs, and the supernatural taking place right under our noses.

Since there is only one reality and no one has ever proven it to be anything other than what it is, and reality never includes gods, angels or other supernatural events. Are believers perceiving that as reality, or are they just misunderstanding the terms of reality and perception, or are they just having a strong desire for reality to be what they want it to be?


Reality - That which exists objectively and in fact.

Perception - To become aware of (something) through the senses, to recognize or observe.

I objectively believe that supernatural/paranormal things do occur based on the quantity, quality and consistency of human experiences. My view of reality includes things beyond the physical senses and instruments.

How do we learn about reality except through perception/experiences.

 

[sayak83]

I like it - I may even use that one in future. But perhaps we can still acknowledge both concepts of reality by sub-categorizing them. How about we call yours "pragmatic reality", and the OP definition "objective reality"?

I would consider objective reality to be that subset of pragmatic reality that can be constructed from shareable experiences of the largest communal group the being finds himself in. It gains a lot in general applicability but loses on personalizability.
What do you think?

 

[Cobol]

Whatever our five senses and intellect can discern about this universe within set limitations is the objective reality within which we live – period. Anything else is nothing more than allowing our imaginations to convince us that something exists which we cannot perceive or prove.

Reality is an absolute scale. ...Perception is different from reality, and that everyone has their own perception of the world. Everyone thinks their perception is reality. So, there become millions of realities, when in fact there is only one.

 

[godnotgod]

Reality - That which exists objectively and in fact.

.

For objectivity and fact to be a reality, there must first be consciousness. Are you saying that reality is dependent upon consciousness?

 

[Cobol]

For objectivity and fact to be a reality, there must first be consciousness. Are you saying that reality is dependent upon consciousness?

What existed before us and our consciousness? If the concrete universe didn't exist before us, how did we and our consciousness get here? Unless you believe in God. If you accept that our existence can be explained by natural causes - that is, we emerged from the substance of the universe - than you must accept that the universe existed before us and will continue to exist whether we and our consciousness inhabit it or not and reality is therefore not dependent on consciousness or a product of it in any way.

Consciousness can only be said to be our reality, not the reality independent of human experience. Without consciousness, reality wouldn't exist from our point of view because we wouldn't exist - we wouldn't be here to perceive reality.

The primacy of existence states the irrefutable truth that existence is primary and consciousness is secondary. Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies existence (things that exists). For two reasons we say that existence is primary, that consciousness requires existence, and that there is no consciousness without existence.

Consciousness is not responsible for creating reality or creating an individual reality. It is completely dependent upon reality. Existence is primary because it is independent of, makes possible, and is a prerequisite of consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

What existed before us and our consciousness? If the concrete universe didn't exist before us, how did we and our consciousness get here? Unless you believe in God. If you accept that our existence can be explained by natural causes - that is, we emerged from the substance of the universe - than you must accept that the universe existed before us and will continue to exist whether we and our consciousness inhabit it or not and reality is therefore not dependent on consciousness or a product of it in any way.

Consciousness can only be said to be our reality, not the reality independent of human experience. Without consciousness, reality wouldn't exist from our point of view because we wouldn't exist - we wouldn't be here to perceive reality.

The primacy of existence states the irrefutable truth that existence is primary and consciousness is secondary. Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies existence (things that exists). For two reasons we say that existence is primary, that consciousness requires existence, and that there is no consciousness without existence.

Consciousness is not responsible for creating reality or creating an individual reality. It is completely dependent upon reality. Existence is primary because it is independent of, makes possible, and is a prerequisite of consciousness.

By which means is existence determined as such?

Descartes tried to tell us that it is determined via the thinking agent. But his logic has proved to be faulty and circular:

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

• "x" thinks
• I am that "x"
• Therefore I think
• Therefore I am

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.

Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.

Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

My definition of reality is different.
Reality:- That model of interpreting experience that proves to be of most use to the entity whose experiences they are.

I am borg! I am assimilating this!

 

[godnotgod]

Existence of oneself or of anything else cannot be known except via consciousness. But I will take it a step further: The Big Bang was an event in consciousness. Everything that exists in Time and Space is being manifested from a timeless, spaceless, causeless state. That state is consciousness, which is unborn, uncaused, and unconditioned.

 

[godnotgod]

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

"Since it (The Absolute) is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it..... If we don't see the Absolute as it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

John Dobson, Equations of Maya

The Equations of Maya

 

[crowfeather]

Reality - That which exists objectively and in fact.

Big mistake, but a popular one.
Reality is that which also contains things that - to humans - exist objectively and 'in fact'.
Reality is the container of what-is, along with what-is.
The only beings that do not exist in Reality, are those who run counter to it, transgressing its laws, and substituting their own.
That is to say: human beings.

 

[Willamena]

Whatever our five senses and intellect can discern about this universe within set limitations is the objective reality within which we live – period. Anything else is nothing more than allowing our imaginations to convince us that something exists which we cannot perceive or prove.

Reality is an absolute scale. ...Perception is different from reality, and that everyone has their own perception of the world. Everyone thinks their perception is reality. So, there become millions of realities, when in fact there is only one.

The idea of reality being distinct from perceptions is paramount.

 

[crowfeather]

The idea of reality being distinct from perceptions is paramount.

Absolutely. As is perception being distinct from mind.

 

[Willamena]

Absolutely. As is perception being distinct from mind.

In what way is perception distinct from mind?

 

[crowfeather]

In what way is perception distinct from mind?

Perception shouldn't be a mind-action, although that is what perception means to most people.
In advanced terms, it is an intuitive awareness.
In absolute terms, as in Mystics and the Enlightened, it is entirely separate from the senses, or the processing of sensory input.
To perceive the world as the world is, isn't something humans are good at.