Why is your reality valid?

[ladylazarus]

It is well understood that humans experience reality differently from one another. Sometimes, these people experience reality so differently that they aren't capable of functioning in human society, and so we call them insane and place them in asylums. In these cases, the individuals senses actually take in and interpret information into a different physical reality. They are hallucinating. We all experience this to some degree -- William Blake used to have vivid visions of angels.

Others do not physically experience reality differently. Their body reacts to external stimuli just like most people, and processes it the same way. However, from this, some people draw conclusions which lead them to "delusional" beliefs. For example, someone might hear a siren and think it's a sign from Odin that it's time to die. Again, when these delusions get too overwhelming to allow to person to function in society, they are considered insane. Again, we all experience this to some degree.

"Truth" is simply correlation between a statement and observation. From this we can conclude that any belief is "true" within a certain framework of experiencing reality.

My question to you, is what makes your framework of experiencing reality more valid than any other? Why is your truth truer than others?

 

[fromthe heart]

From my perspective to me my truths ARE what I see have proven themselves true in my eyes...call my crazy but I believe Jesus DID exsist despite the Italian courts.

 

[ladylazarus]

Right, but I'm asking why your truths should apply to others. What makes you more right than a Satanist?

 

[Ori]

My reality is no more vallid then anyone else's, people see many versions of myself in their own mind, as many others will see them.

 

[Weeziana]

My reality is that exist on this planet amonst thousands of other species and I survive everyday. You don't get more point blank simple than that. Everything else is just extras. My reality is valid because it can be proven and other humans experience that same thing. That's what reality is, what's really going on.

 

[michel]

My reality is that exist on this planet amonst thousands of other species and I survive everyday. You don't get more point blank simple than that. Everything else is just extras. My reality is valid because it can be proven and other humans experience that same thing. That's what reality is, what's really going on.

I agree; even if we all have a different input from our senses, we still recognise them by a common name. We all know what the color 'blue' is, but I might be seeing what you call red as blue - I have just learned to accept the 'common name'.

Yes, my reality is as valid as anyone elses - even the poor man who is insane. He, however, has to be separated from the rest of the world and given medication, because his reality has no common points with ours; it doesn't make his wrong - it is just different.

 

[Quiddity]

So when to the rules of logic apply? Regardless of your worldview or reality.

 

[michel]

So when to the rules of logic apply? Regardless of your worldview or reality.

Sorry Victor, I am not sure what you are asking........

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

what makes your framework of experiencing reality more valid than any other? Why is your truth truer than others?

I think it is easier to think about the question the other way around.
Does any framework of reality or truth have greater validity than any other?

realities and truths whilst they may be said to differ, have great commonalities.
It is these agreed commonalities and agreed truths, that make human society possible.

The fact is, we have numerous functioning societies, who are capable of interacting with each other,
this Proves by experience, that our commonalities are greater than our differences.
Those whose realities lay outside the norm, will experience varying degrees of difficulty in communicating with societies consensus.

They are rightly deemed by society to fall on a scale from eccentric to mad.

Terry________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[Halcyon]

They are rightly deemed by society to fall on a scale from eccentric to mad.

Or... maybe the 'mad' people's brains couldn't be brainwashed into experiencing reality as society wishes them to experience it.

My reality is that exist on this planet amonst thousands of other species and I survive everyday. You don't get more point blank simple than that. Everything else is just extras. My reality is valid because it can be proven and other humans experience that same thing. That's what reality is, what's really going on.

Really? Ok, you go and prove to a blind man that the sky is blue - then maybe i'll accept your reality as "what's really going on."

 

[mr.guy]

Or... maybe the 'mad' people's brains couldn't be brainwashed into experiencing reality as society wishes them to experience it.

Thus they are wrong. Two people staring at a table from seperate vantages experience the table simillarly, but distinctively differently as their position would dictate (never mind individual faculties). In the end, if they can't agree on general (base critical) properties of said table, they will presumably kill each other. THEN we find out who's right.

 

[Halcyon]

Thus they are wrong. Two people staring at a table from seperate vantages experience the table simillarly, but distinctively differently as their position would dictate (never mind individual faculties). In the end, if they can't agree on general (base critical) properties of said table, they will presumably kill each other. THEN we find out who's right.

Why would they kill each other over the definition of a table?

 

[mr.guy]

Why would they kill each other over the definition of a table?

To the best of my knowledge, that's just how things are done.

 

[Halcyon]

To the best of my knowledge, that's just how things are done.

I see... you have an interesting reality.

 

[mr.guy]

Interesting? No. My point is, someone HAS to be right. Correlation is key to social experiential reality, as presupposition can greatly add to future filtering and formation of "reality". If the base agreements (whatever that means) don't add up between two people/cultures, it might be a safe bet that further "built" arguments on this "base" will be even more grotesquely disengenous. This, of course, is generally false the larger history of civilization.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I'm not sure if I could argue that my reality is valid. Whether it's being one of those 'waffling' Libras, or studying Shamanism, I tend to live in several different realities and be at least aware of many others. The thing I most often think of when trying to find an explanation for this is a piece of flourite. Someone can look at it and think it's blue. Another person can look at it and think it's green. You could interpret it as one or the other two is wrong, or that they're both wrong. I prefer to think of it as that both of them are right.

 

[flupke]

What is reality ?

Reality consists of my observations. All the rest is 'mere' theory I create about how these observations SEEM to be organized. I INTERPRET that there are other people who have similar observations. Yet nothing will ever prove there are any other people around. For all I know, I may be the only mind existing.

But IF my INTERPRETATION that there are other human beings is CORRECT (which is the easiest way for my mind to handle my observations) then there is room for discussion about a subset of the reality. IF we are human beings with sensory modules, then we can analyze these modules in a scientific way, and make SIGNIFICANT statements about which humans are functioning properly and which are not.

What makes my INTERPRETATION more valid than yours ? If, assuming that both you and I did a 100% rigorous scientific analysis of our observations (which is usually not the case when two people are discussing a theory), and they disagree, then we can assume that at least one of us has a faulty sensory/interpretation module. The only option to figure out which one is faulty is to compare to the majority of people. The one that disagrees with the majority of the other people is likely to be wrong. This is NEVER a real proof to be wrong, but it is as CLOSE as one can ever get.


Flupke

 

[ladylazarus]

My point is, someone HAS to be right.

If Mark looks at a cup, he would describe the cup from a certain angle. As long as his statements remained consistent with what he observed, he was right. His friend Punjab Bin-Laden (we have to be politically correct and all) is sitting two feet to Mark's right. When Punjab looks at the cup, he sees it from an angle different than Mark's, and describes it as such. But still, as long as his statements correlate to what he observed, Punjab is right. Both Punjab and Mark are stating truths about the cup, even though they describe it differently. Their other friend, Juan, is sitting two feet to Mark's left. But strangely, he describes the cup from an angle that Punjab would see if he moved right. Still, as long as his statements correlate with what he observes, he is right.

There may be valid argument with this in general relativity, given that spacetime is there considered absolute. Never accepting anything 100% is an integral part of my worldview, so I think it's important to examine possible problems with the conclusions I largely accept, but I don't want to go into that if no one is going to discuss it, and I address it somewhat below.

The only option to figure out which one is faulty is to compare to the majority of people. The one that disagrees with the majority of the other people is likely to be wrong. This is NEVER a real proof to be wrong, but it is as CLOSE as one can ever get.

No two people can observe reality the same. Two people could theoretically observe reality in a way that correlated with the other relative to their respective angles to each other, but that still gives no basis for how the main axses should be positioned (viewing space as a cartesian-coordinate system with 3 axses). Time would work in the same way, except with only 1 variable.

 

[michel]

I don't know, reading this thread through again, it strikes me that the answer is maybe "Each individual's reality is right for him/her".

 

[flupke]

No two people can observe reality the same. Two people could theoretically observe reality in a way that correlated with the other relative to their respective angles to each other, but that still gives no basis for how the main axses should be positioned (viewing space as a cartesian-coordinate system with 3 axses). Time would work in the same way, except with only 1 variable.

Mind that in this answer of yours you are already assuming to be in a space, which is an interpretation of what your senses input to your mind.
Assuming your assumption is valid, two people cannot directly have the same sensory input at the same time point (unproven, but a fairly confident assumption). But this does NOT mean they cannot make a similar, or even identical, spatial map of their surroundings in their respective minds, and this have a same INTERPRETATION of what reality is.