Reality! Is it real?

[rageoftyrael]

Okay, i stated in another thread that i would start a thread debating the specifics of reality.

I will begin by giving you a general idea of what i believe reality is and how it is percieved. I believe that there are two different kinds of reality.

1. Personal Reality. In this reality, reality is based off of the five senses. Now, of course, you don't necesarilly have to be able to use all five sense on something to make it real. In fact, it is my belief that so long as one of these sense is used, that in your personal reality, this is real.

2. Collective Reality. In this reality, reality is also based off of the five senses. It doesn't stop there though, because in the collective reality, for something to be real, the majority, must be able to sense what you sense as well. Not everyone, because i blind person wont see the moon, but everyone else can see, and therefore know it is there.

Now to explain further about my theory of reality is that both of these coincide. Not only that, i also believe that the personal reality is just as "real" as the collective reality. Neither is more or less valid than the other. It is possible of course to fool many people into seeing or hearing something that isn't there, mass hypnosis would be a good example.

Now one could argue. One might say that while they agree that the collective reality seems valid, how can i say that the personal reality is equally valid? What if someone personally heard voices inside of their head? No one else can hear the voices, so therefore they can't be real. I disagree. The voices are real, because said person can hear them, thus making it real. It simply does not enter into the collective reality, but that makes it no less valid.

Now let's get weird. Say that you hear these voices, but KNOW that you are crazy and know that they are NOT real. Well, based on what i've said, you are wrong, the voices ARE real, they simply are not real in the collective reality.

Now for a more practical example. There is one man, he has the best hearing imagineable. Ten times better then the guy with the next best hearing. He can hear something far off, but no one else can hear it. Let's say it is a helicopter coming from far away. Now, since no else can hear it, according to collective reality, it is not real, but because he can hear it, it is real according to hsi own personal reality. An hour later the helicopter zooms by and everyone realizes that the man was correct.

So now we hit something i call Actuality. Actuality is what IS. We take our perceptions and beliefs out of the picture. Assuming that everything is as it is, ignoring our percieved notions of what it is, everything is. WE change the definition of somethings based on our collective or personal realities. But everything is as it is, we merely change it in our own realities to better suit our own needs.

So, Actuality, is Reality before we try to tinker around with it. So in all Actuality, the helicopter was there, coming towards them, because the man could hear it, he percieved it to be real, whereas the others could not hear it, and percieved it to not be real. So basically, im saying that the only REAL way to define reality is take our opinions and perceptions out of the picture and look upon it with a completely open mind. Thus we will never truly understand reality aka actuality, because we are incapable of truly opening our minds without some kind of bias or preset beliefs.

Okay, that's enough of that, im not sure if i explained that as well as i should have, but hopefully you guys understand(if not agree) what i was trying to say. Respond to this! Tell me im wrong, agree with me wholeheartedly, or just ignore my entire comment and express your belief of reality. I'm looking forward to reading what you guys have to say(and gals!). Thanks for you input!

 

[Twilight Hue]

So basically, im saying that the ONLY REAL WAY to define reality is take our opinions and perceptions out of the picture and look upon it with a completely open mind. Thus we will never truly understand reality aka actuality, because we are incapable of truly opening our minds without some kind of bias or preset beliefs.-rageoftyrael-

So your saying the ONLY real way to define reality is by looking upon it with a completely open mind. O.K. cool.......Tell me then, in that case, how is reality therefore undefined "looking away" with a completely closed mind?
Sliced orange juice? :beach:

 

[ChristineES]

What about phantom pain? If a man has no leg, but can still feel extreme pain in the missing leg, is it real? Of course it's real. The man is suffering, so it must be real.

 

[rageoftyrael]

I'm bumping this thread, cause i think it's interesting. Come on people, don't be afraid to read a long post! Wimps! Give me an opinion!

 

[Octavia156]

My Opinion: What is REAL?

The only thing that is REAL is the Absolute. The realities you describe are distant abstractions of True Reality.
For a better understanding of this read into the Qabalistic Four Worlds.

As for voices in the head etc...
Do Unicorns exist?
For course they do - they look like horses, they can fly and have a horn on their head. Anyone can describe one - if I close my eyes, I can see one right now.

Just because its not physical, doesn't mean its not real.

 

[Valjean]

Reality (big R) is objectively real. There are several degrees of subjective reality, though, that are not. Ordinary, 3rd-state reality, for example, is subjectively, but not objectively real.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Okay, this was a debate in another thread. And I read over some statements and entire posts attempting to explain how one can validate and/or otherwise be certain of objective reality. However, I didn't understand any of 'em, at least not entirely.

It seems to me, that since all of the data we acquire is through personal experience, there is no way to process this data without subjective bias. The only possible way I see of eliminating subjective bias is if there is some collective unconscious like that theorized by Carl Jung. Or something that works in a similar manner or in a "nonsubjective" manner.

Jung's theory is that there are areas in the brain for the storage of data. Most contain data acquired through personal experience. But at least one other area contains data that is passed on from other individuals of the species. Basically, according to Jung, mankind has the ability to access a storage area of data that contains images, thoughts and experiences from our ancestors. And if this isn't exactly what Jung said, please don't beat me up about it. I'm certainly no expert on Jung. But let's just go with this for the sake of argument . . . If necessary, we'll call it "Eliot Wild's proposal based on his ignorance of Carl Jung's theory."

My thought is this, this collective unconscious might not contain evidence of an "objective reality" because even our ancestors might have suffered from the delusion of an "objective reality". But at least this collective unconscious would contain data that wasn't acquired through personal experience, therefore it would have been acquired and might be processed without subjective bias.

I know, this theory is waaaaaaaay out there. And of course, I am most skeptical of it. But I haven't yet been able to discount it completely. If someone else can shoot it down, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Okay, this was a debate in another thread. And I read over some statements and entire posts attempting to explain how one can validate and/or otherwise be certain of objective reality. However, I didn't understand any of 'em, at least not entirely.

It seems to me, that since all of the data we acquire is through personal experience, there is no way to process this data without subjective bias. The only possible way I see of eliminating subjective bias is if there is some collective unconscious like that theorized by Carl Jung. Or something that works in a similar manner or in a "nonsubjective" manner.

Jung's theory that was there are areas in the brain for the storage of data. Most contain data acquired through personal experience. But at least one other area contains data that is passed on from other individuals of the species. Basically, according to Jung, mankind has the ability to access a storage area of data that contains images, thoughts and experiences from our ancestors.

My thought is this, this collective unconscious might not contain evidence of an "objective reality" because even our ancestors might have suffered from the delusion of an "objective reality". But at least this collective unconscious would contain data that wasn't acquired through personal experience, therefore it would have been acquired and might be processed without subjective bias.

I know, this theory is waaaaaaaay out there. And of course, I am most skeptical of it. But I haven't yet been able to discount it completely. If someone else can shoot it down, I'd appreciate it.

Okay, in re-reading my post, I might go out on a limb and state that if there is a collective unconscious, then wouldn't that prove, at least to some degree, that Objective Reality exists.

Wouldn't that be corroboration, of a sort? Wouldn't it sort of be like asking another person, "Oh, you saw it too, huh?", when checking to see if there is an Object that we as subjects are experiencing?

One might ask their friend, "Hey, did you see that shooting star?" "Yeah, cool, you saw it too." Hence, the object is confirmed. Wouldn't a collective unconscious that contains images of "objects" be some sort of proof of an objective reality, even if we have each subjectively intrepreted the data incorrectly?

 

[Willamena]

Okay, in re-reading my post, I might go out on a limb and state that if there is a collective unconscious, then wouldn't that prove, at least to some degree, that Objective Reality exists.

Your concept of an "Objective Reality" that resides in a locality somewhere "out there," outside your "in here," has already shaped this supposition --so, no, it wouldn't prove it.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Your concept of an "Objective Reality" that resides in a locality somewhere "out there," outside your "in here," has already shaped this supposition --so, no, it wouldn't prove it.

Dang!!! And I thought I had it.

 

[Valjean]

A multi dimentional universe and we perceive only three of them? How accurate could our reality be?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Okay, that's enough of that, im not sure if i explained that as well as i should have, but hopefully you guys understand(if not agree) what i was trying to say. Respond to this! Tell me im wrong, agree with me wholeheartedly, or just ignore my entire comment and express your belief of reality. I'm looking forward to reading what you guys have to say(and gals!). Thanks for you input!

I find that if one is unwilling or unable to begin with assuming the obvious and apparent, it makes it difficult to build a usable and practical framework of the world.

If you're looking for answers, there are enough complex things to consider, without complicating the simple.

 

[Comicaze247]

The cake is a lie.

 

[Eliot Wild]

I find that if one is unwilling or unable to begin with assuming the obvious and apparent, it makes it difficult to build a usable and practical framework of the world.

If you're looking for answers, there are enough complex things to consider, without complicating the simple.

However, there might be some applications for these sorts of questions. I agree with what you are saying for the most part and I wrote pretty much the same thing on another thread the other day.

But, then I got to thinking, not only can these questions be interesting and entertaining exercises, but they can also lead to some pretty clever revelations and imaginative discoveries.

For example, I bet the guy who imagined the "Matrix" probably started out considering questions sort of like these and it lead him to create a hugely compelling story about mankind suffering from a delusional concept of "Reality".

But you're probably right, outside of the entertainment value that such questions provide, there might not be a whole lot of practical applications for 'em. And furthermore, they may even lead to distract us from more important, answerable questions and dillemas.

 

[RiverSeed]

Your reality is very practical, isn't it?

 

[Eliot Wild]

Your reality is very practical, isn't it?

Forgive me if you are not addressing my post, but I can't tell if your question is for me or the OP or someone else. But since you were asking about the practicality of one's reality and I had been discussing the practicality of inquiries into whether or not there even is a reality, I figured I'd go ahead and reply.

I don't think there is a particular "quality" to my reality. Probably, I most identify with atotalstranger's perspective, which seems to be that these questions about the existence of an objective reality are mere philosophical exercises, at best. I agree with him that often times skeptically disregarding the obvious is just a synthetic motion, of sorts.

But I think if there is a "practical" quality to my personal reality, then it comes from a demand that reason guide and govern all beliefs. And often I fall short of this goal. Sometimes I'm unreasonable or just plain stupid. There are things I find inexplicable, and for those I try to make a good guess. For example, I find evidence of God's existence in nature but nothing conclusive. So, it is my guess, or better to say my HOPE, that a Divine Presence of some kind is out there. However, again, I certainly have found nothing conclusive either proving or disproving the existence of God.

I suppose the reason I leave open the possibility of God, even though I have found nothing to conclusively prove it, is because I found nothing thus far that forces me to rule out a supernatural explanation for the creation and engineering of the universe. As a matter of fact, I was thinking of starting thread on this very subject, but forgot to do so. I watched Sherlock Holmes over the weekend and Watson tells Holmes at one point in the movie when considering the explanation for a particular event that since he hadn't yet verified the cause of the event then he couldn't reasonably rule out the possibility of a supernatural cause. And I find this same logic at play when considering God and/or the creation of the universe. In the absence of a clear refutation of God, I must leave open the possibility of His/Her existence.

And again, I apologize if your question wasn't directed at me and for rambling on about a bunch of nothing, really, but sometimes I get bored and just need to stay on top of my expository writing skills.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Oh, of course i agree that questioning reality is pointless. we have to take our reality's as we see them. i just wanted to discuss it, though to be honest i was just randomly going through threads i had started, and trying to get a couple more going, lol. But yeah,riverseed, if you were talking to me, my reality is very practical, lol.

 

[BelieveMe]

Many people do not live in reality. It is what it is and we should just be. We cannot undo what time has created and destroyed. What WE as humans have created and destroyed. But who I am to say this? Can one truly define reality?

 

[Valjean]

The subjective but illusory reality presented us by our senses is eminently practical. It does a fine job of helping us navigate the world and, for millions of years, there was no reason to question it.
Yet today there are practical reasons to dismiss apparent reality and turn our attention to theoretical physics or mysticism. Without a grasp of real Reality our atomic reactors and i-phones wouldn't work, astronomy would be hobbled and our space program a shot in the dark.

 

[Orias]

Many people do not live in reality. It is what it is and we should just be. We cannot undo what time has created and destroyed. What WE as humans have created and destroyed. But who I am to say this? Can one truly define reality?

Of course considering the factual physical reality, most people do fantasize death however.

I have a decent definition of reality...something that can be seen, heard, felt, and smelled may be real, but what is within the mind may also be real to the invdividual, but obscene and illusional to the whole.