The Myth of Objective Reality

[southflorida]

The Structure of DESIRE:

1) the first component of desire if the possibility of a future

...desire is based on the same dynamic as fear, it is basically the other side of the same coin, and in fact, fear, is what creates the ego, and ego is what creates desire (wants, needs, expectations, etc)

...as a rule, desire is created by the ego to cover up fear. Fantasies and delusions are an excellent material for ignoring any fear, and this is why the ego (self-mind) with a little help from our friend, the intellect, uses them on a regular basis!

certainly, sometimes we perceive something and say that we desire it in this moment, but what we're actually relating to is something not occuring now.

think about it. if it were occuring already, you would be enjoying it, not desiring it.

and if you are enjoying something and still have a desire about it, then clearly what you desire is that the enjoyment continue on into the future.

2) the second component of desire is an assessment that something is missing now

desire, like fear, is not about the present moment, it is about what is not occuring presently

with fear, we imagine something unwanted may come to pass that is not presently so, with desire we imagine something we want to occur that doesn't exist now

3) the third component of desire is a conceiving a concept of a preferred experience

we rarely make the distinction between the thing we desire and the concept of the thing we desire

we assume that our fantasy of the experience, imagining whatever happiness or pleasure the object of desire will provide, is the same as the actual experience or encounter with this object in reality (direct experience)

of course, this is not true

4) the fourth component of desire is the separation between the object of desire and the self

another element we rarely notice is the unseen barrier that is created between our feeling of desire and whatever is desired.

simply the fact that we desire implies a separation between us and the object of desire, and between our present experience and the desired experience

if there were no such separation, we can see there would be no place or need for desire

we would not be desirous, we would be instead enjoying or experiencing what is otherwise only a concept.

this suggests that the very act of desire separates us from the thing we desire

to bridge this gap we are drawn to take action

sometimes we take objective action, go buy the tasty food, buy a new car, find a chick for a one-night-stand in a bar, or meditate for peace with incense.

In this way, desire is associated with conscumption, gratification, possession, and achievement.

since desire implies there is something wanted that we don't have now, taking action to get it seems like the logical choice.

Still, many times the first and only action taken is within our mind

We imagine, fantasize, or make plans, and although this is often as far as we go with our desires, it may not be as harmless as we presume.

It might produce a kind of suffering that is not immediately apparent.

this is because we frequently get our desires mixed up with what we actually want or intend to have happen.

intention is committing to take a course of action, it is what we actually end up doing, and so in this way we can say it is what we want to do.

desire, on the other hand, is imagining something we'd like to experience in the future. It is indulging a conceptual possibility, recognizable as the pleasure-charged effect evoked by imagining that experience comming to pass.

This is different from what we intend to do.

Although there may be an urge or impulse to have a desired experience come about, desire doesn't demand action.

Intent does!

We might intend to act on our desires, or we might not. If we say we want to bring about our desires, or we want to do something else, we are talking about what we intend to do rather than what we merely desire.

5) and the fifth component of desire is the feeling sensation of imagined pleasure, masking the overlooked pain

generally, we think of desire as a good thing, or a pleasant feeling

this seems reasonable, since it is relating to something we want, some experience we want to have, to enjoy.

isn't that pleasant?

imagining the enjoyable experience can seem enjoyable, and any fantasy about having that experience would include imagining the pleasure or good feelings that we crave.

yet, what is also true is that we are in fact not having it. If this absent experience is contrasted with what we are having now, and we find our present lacking, this will tend to elicit a form of suffering

from this suffering, putting up with an unwanted experience, be it dramatic suffering or a burried, almost unnoticed itch to scratch, we are moved to take some form of action to turn the not-so-enjoyable present into the enjoyable future

...but, as a rule, the only actions we actually take is in our imagination. This projection into the future helps to cover up the fear and the pain that is hidden from our awareness by the ego.

so, as you can see that some form of pain actually accompanies all desire; it's just difficult to perceive because it's always buried underneath the anticipated pleasurable experience.

 

[southflorida]

Jumping in a bit but my 2 cents:

To understand anything we have to make three base assumptions:

1. That the universe exists
2. You can learn something about reality
3. Models with predictive capabilities are more useful than models without predictive capabilities.

We can sit here for eternity discussing whether or not we can know if everything is just a figment of our imagination or not, however the fact that the assumption that it isn't allows us to predict certain things (i.e. Superbowl was mentioned earlier, if the world is real we'd assume that x number of people also saw the exact same thing - hey presto! what do you know they did!).

I think instead of arguing whether or not everything is real, it's more interesting to ask how can the failures of our nervous system alter perception of reality. Look at the numbers of people who genuinely believe in a personal, intervening God for example Essentially, our minds have not evolved to cope with many of the areas we are now investigating, the sorts of distances, sizes, speeds and spans of time involved are just beyond any kind of comprehension and do not act in ways that we would intuitively assume they would.

how about not having ANY assumptions or beliefs?

how about directly experiencing who we really are and what reality is?

 

[BullDogUK]

how about not having ANY assumptions or beliefs?

how about directly experiencing who we really are and what reality is?

Well exactly, but as I said, whether the universe is a true thing or whether it is just an illusion of our senses is not something we can prove either way.

I mean are you genuinely considering the possibility that you are not real when you're taking a shit on the toilet or walking around shopping for groceries? The point is that they are basal assumptions that are almost hardwired into us.

And on knowing yourself, is the best way to break down all these hugely complex and subjective topics, such as specific emotions? There are a huge number of ways in which emotions can be brought about or how they can manifest themselves. Whilst I don't have a problem with the approach you seem to be taking here, I'm more of the opinion that calm comes from within and not from what some guy on the internet says you should feel

The human brain is the single most complex thing in the entire galaxy and each is utterly unique with it's own history and prejudices and circumstances of maturation therefore it seems somewhat pointless to try and describe these things [edit: emotion, feelings, self/ego etc.] on anything other than an individual level. But what are they? We are all here evolved creatures. We come from a line of plain dwelling, mid to bottom rung omnivores with the capability to examine and interpret a huge and bizarre world (both external and internal) with no means of explaining it or basing ourselves. We have concocted hugely elaborate explanations for what are, ultimately, natural and understandable processes.

But to get back to the original point: A series of events must have occurred for you to come into existence. This could be your parents having sex or Hitler committing suicide, essentially past events must have happened in a concrete, linear fashion in order for you to come about and we have no idea what the alteration of one event or the sequence of events might have meant for today's world. You can verify this by consulting records, talking to witnesses etc. How can you then say that this is my imagination whilst also saying the world is a concrete thing? Either we assume the universe exists and has existed in the past also or we assume that everything but me is a product of imagination. But of course the latter beggars the question "how did I get here?". If you don't want to believe in the past then how do you get around that rather essential point?

 

[1TWISTEDTRUCKER]

S.Fla. good stuff Man. Thx
Bull Dog,, Brah. whats your vote Objective/Subjective???
1TT

 

[BullDogUK]

It depends on the context Twisted. I think reality and the universe as a whole is most definitely objective. This line starts to blur once it's being interpreted by the human brain however, so the emotional subtext or what have you is probably pretty subjective. A piece of music that makes you cry could be completely boring for me, for example.

For another analogy (maybe) wine tasting might be good. The wine is there, it contains whatever it contains and it'll probably intoxicate you when you drink it. But when you sample or taste that wine, each individual is going to being to add their individual nuance to it's description.

So considering that we each have a nuanced and individual 'emotional' (whatever that might mean, I'm inclined towards chemical levels but I concede there could be some deeper basis) filter through which we see the world, and we are constantly, constantly receiving a hash of sensory input, it's not so surprising to me that the world can seem so different to two different people.

 

[southflorida]

The first step toward directly experiencing reality is to notice that we actually DON'T KNOW what anything really IS. This includes objective objects, and subjective concepts like thoughts, ideas, beliefs, assumptions.

Let's take an example: If we use an apple as an example and ask what IS it?

Our answer will be that it is a fruit that we can eat. This shows that we have a label for this object and how it relates to us, in other words how we can use it. Besides this label and use, we actually don't know what an apple is. It is simply an object...period. Obviously an object is also a label, so this is not what something IS either.

So, go ahead and look at any object or concept in your mind, and be honest with yourself, do you really know what something IS besides it's label and use?

The answer is NO.

If you are honest with yourself, you will see, no matter how hard you try, you will continue to bring up labels and uses for whatever you perceive. All these things will be concepts, things made up by your mind. None of them will tell you what an apple actually IS.

Not-Knowing is true. Each of us in our experiences can confirm that we don't know what anything IS.

This by the way...includes our "self."

We have a lot of beliefs and assumptions, but fundamentally, we don't know who or what we are, or what our existence is about.

Take away all concepts in our mind, and all the beliefs and assumptions, and you will be left with ONE thing...

...NOT-KNOWING.

 

[southflorida]

Well exactly, but as I said, whether the universe is a true thing or whether it is just an illusion of our senses is not something we can prove either way.

There is only ONE place that we can prove something to ourselves, and that is in our own personal, and direct experience.

Anything else that comes from an outside source of any kind is hearsay.

This is why what I'm writing here is not THE TRUTH, it is simply a possibility for any individual that is interested to actually observe their own moment-to-moment experience and become aware of the truth for themselves.

I mean are you genuinely considering the possibility that you are not real when you're taking a shit on the toilet or walking around shopping for groceries? The point is that they are basal assumptions that are almost hardwired into us.

In an in-direct way, as an illusion that is occuring, the toilet experience and the walking, these are objective occurences in our subjective, imaginary, virtual world. These are all secondary processes occuring in our self-mind.

But, fundamentally, as a primary reality, none of this exists.

If one asks a question: What is primary, original, authentic? What is the first thing, as-itself?

The answer: Nothing.

This points toward the true nature of reality.

Obviously it is NOT the kind of nothing we can grasp with the intellect or intuition, or any other sense organ, but it is something that can be directly made conscious.

This is that way already NOW and ALWAYS.

The problem is that all of our attention is focused on the circumstances occuring on a moment-to-moment basis that are being interpreted by our self-mind as it works on one thing and one thing only >>> helping us SURVIVE as whatever we believe and assume we ARE.

We are existing 100% of the time in a survival-experience.

This experience is created inside the self-mind, by the self-mind, and interpreted and given meaning also by the self-mind.

The last part, an emotional charge, the actual effect that is sent to us by the self-mind to force us to take or not to take certain action is also occuring in the self-mind.

As you can see this is an experience that is occuring inside the self-mind, inside your imagination. It is all completely virtual.

Inside this virtual world, there are objective and subjective "stuff" - but all this "stuff" is a secondary process provided to us through the senses and our self-mind.

This means that as a primary, direct experience, none of this exists.

This is a paradox, and our intellect can't grasp it.

Consciousness is absolutely nothing and infinitely everything.

It is all occuring inside of Consciousness, but none of it exists.

This is NOT to be believed, in fact it is un-believable, but it can be directly experienced by everyone, because we ARE this Consciousness.

I mean, where else are YOU going to experience the TRUTH, except for where you are each moment?

And on knowing yourself, is the best way to break down all these hugely complex and subjective topics, such as specific emotions? There are a huge number of ways in which emotions can be brought about or how they can manifest themselves. Whilst I don't have a problem with the approach you seem to be taking here, I'm more of the opinion that calm comes from within and not from what some guy on the internet says you should feel

My post on emotion shows that we ARE creating our emotions. All 100% of them. Simply observe how you create them when it occurs. Emotions don't come from anywhere except inside of your self-mind.

I don't want to spend writing examples over and over, I have written examples in the break-down of each emotions. Take any experience you are having with these three emotions and simply be honest while observing what is actually occuring.

As a rule we generate all three of these emotions in the order of fear, then anger, and then desire. All of this is simply our self-mind working on helping us survive as the "self" that we believe and assume we are.

The human brain is the single most complex thing in the entire galaxy and each is utterly unique with it's own history and prejudices and circumstances of maturation therefore it seems somewhat pointless to try and describe these things [edit: emotion, feelings, self/ego etc.] on anything other than an individual level. But what are they? We are all here evolved creatures. We come from a line of plain dwelling, mid to bottom rung omnivores with the capability to examine and interpret a huge and bizarre world (both external and internal) with no means of explaining it or basing ourselves. We have concocted hugely elaborate explanations for what are, ultimately, natural and understandable processes.

This is the problem when you believe that a physical world exists as a primary event.

This is an illusion.

What exists is some DATA that is not-known and is interpreted by your self-mind. Our senses are indirect. This has been known for thousands of years and currently it is a 100% scientific fact.

And still the majority of folks keep believing this BS.

It just shows how powerful beliefs and assumptions are. Taking them for facts creates the whole confusion between REALITY and ILLUSION.

But to get back to the original point: A series of events must have occurred for you to come into existence. This could be your parents having sex or Hitler committing suicide, essentially past events must have happened in a concrete, linear fashion in order for you to come about and we have no idea what the alteration of one event or the sequence of events might have meant for today's world. You can verify this by consulting records, talking to witnesses etc. How can you then say that this is my imagination whilst also saying the world is a concrete thing? Either we assume the universe exists and has existed in the past also or we assume that everything but me is a product of imagination. But of course the latter beggars the question "how did I get here?". If you don't want to believe in the past then how do you get around that rather essential point?

You keep repeating the same false assumption over and over, not realizing or grasping that what you keep saying is false.

The physical world you are talking about is ONLY in your mind. There is nothing outside of your mind that is physical the way you assume and believe.

You are interpreting DATA on a moment-to-moment basis, and this experience that is occuring inside your awareness exists ONLY in this moment.

There is NO past, there is NO future.

There is only now, this present moment, this here and now.

And there has never been anything except this present moment.

It is simply IMPOSSIBLE.

Have you ever been in any other place in your life then NOW?

Think about this question honestly. And notice if you think back to the past or forward into the future, these conceptual occurences will all occur inside your consciousness NOW, but they will NOT be about the present moment. You will not be focusing on what IS, but on what IS-NOT.

Past and future are simply impossible, no matter how much you want to believe and assume that they existed or will exist.

 

[southflorida]

S.Fla. good stuff Man. Thx
1TT

 

[1TWISTEDTRUCKER]

Bull Dog, you put this in words that I cannot, but I pretty much see it like That.

All Good stuff to ponder,,, I stay away from Folks, Who are not willing to look at
ALL the possibilities, just cause they may not agree, dont mean I Bale on um.

Close your mind and I am outie like Curt Gowdy.

PEACE & LOVE

 

[BullDogUK]

There is only ONE place that we can prove something to ourselves, and that is in our own personal, and direct experience.

Anything else that comes from an outside source of any kind is hearsay.

This is why what I'm writing here is not THE TRUTH, it is simply a possibility for any individual that is interested to actually observe their own moment-to-moment experience and become aware of the truth for themselves.

Yeah, frankly mate I do not disagree there but ultimately a reality exists outside of our perception. We know that certain things are universal and constant from what our senses tell us. We all feel wind, we all feel the effect of gravity and we are all dependent on neuronal signalling to gain any kind of knowledge of this. I suppose I have to ask, do you think your body is real or is that just an illusion of our minds as well? I find the whole concept pretty difficult to grasp so sorry if my answers come across as simplistic or anything : /

In an in-direct way, as an illusion that is occuring, the toilet experience and the walking, these are objective occurences in our subjective, imaginary, virtual world. These are all secondary processes occuring in our self-mind.

But, fundamentally, as a primary reality, none of this exists.

I took an interest in this thread because it means I get to do this:

How do you know that? It's not something that can be proved either way therefore we must go with whichever model provides the best predictive capability as I explained before.

In fact screw breaking down your response; how do you know any of that? It's not possible except through deductive reasoning. Now unless you also want to end up on the same path as Aristotle, you cannot trust your brain.

I mean, ultimately you are completely right, what we experience as reality is all completely virtual, but that does not stop that reality from being there in the first place. There is such a huge volume of evidence outside of our own senses to verify its existence that we can fairly safely assume its existence even without personal 'proof' or some kind of unveiling, because (again you are correct) it's not the kind of way of thinking that our brain has had to handle over its development and evolution.

On the point of emotion, we create our own glucose and ATP yet none of us are sat here pondering the implications of this. Of course emotions are self generated, if they weren't things like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy would be a complete waste of time. I think you're not quite understanding that a neuronal impulse requires an initiating stimulus from the outside world which in turn requires some kind of sensory organ in which something happens to generate the potential difference. So, for example, you 'feel' touch due to the compression of pacinian corpuscles. You can continue thinking that this is all just an illusion but where does that get you?

Personally I think we're better with the objective assumption as it encourages us to accept what we have, to strive for a better world (what's the point if it's not real eh?) and to base things on the reality we see and interact with.

 

[southflorida]

Yeah, frankly mate I do not disagree there but ultimately a reality exists outside of our perception. We know that certain things are universal and constant from what our senses tell us. We all feel wind, we all feel the effect of gravity and we are all dependent on neuronal signalling to gain any kind of knowledge of this. I suppose I have to ask, do you think your body is real or is that just an illusion of our minds as well? I find the whole concept pretty difficult to grasp so sorry if my answers come across as simplistic or anything : /

Yes, our body is also an illusion of our minds. Everything we perceive with our perceptions IS an illusion, a secondary process.

This is a FACT, that our perceptions are in-direct by the way.

The best way to grasp what is actually occuring is to look at what you are perceiving as a 3D-movie that is being played, and you are the awareness that is observing this movie.

The whole problem with realizing that the reality in which we live is virtual is that the current perceptions that we are having ARE the only perceptions we ever had. So we believe and assume that they are completely real and objective.

But, even if we take into account that our bodies are made out of cells, and those cells are made out of atoms, and so on, we arrive at a point where our knowledge stops, and we don't know what's there.

What is the fundamental substance from which everything is made?

It is not-known. Folks are looking, but how can you tell the human race that it seems there is nothing there?

Still, my point is that even inside of this secondary reality, it is obvious that all objects are fundamentally made from something more primary.

Meaning, that things are NOT what they seem.

I took an interest in this thread because it means I get to do this:

How do you know that? It's not something that can be proved either way therefore we must go with whichever model provides the best predictive capability as I explained before.

In fact screw breaking down your response; how do you know any of that? It's not possible except through deductive reasoning. Now unless you also want to end up on the same path as Aristotle, you cannot trust your brain.

I mean, ultimately you are completely right, what we experience as reality is all completely virtual, but that does not stop that reality from being there in the first place. There is such a huge volume of evidence outside of our own senses to verify its existence that we can fairly safely assume its existence even without personal 'proof' or some kind of unveiling, because (again you are correct) it's not the kind of way of thinking that our brain has had to handle over its development and evolution.

On the point of emotion, we create our own glucose and ATP yet none of us are sat here pondering the implications of this. Of course emotions are self generated, if they weren't things like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy would be a complete waste of time. I think you're not quite understanding that a neuronal impulse requires an initiating stimulus from the outside world which in turn requires some kind of sensory organ in which something happens to generate the potential difference. So, for example, you 'feel' touch due to the compression of pacinian corpuscles. You can continue thinking that this is all just an illusion but where does that get you?

Personally I think we're better with the objective assumption as it encourages us to accept what we have, to strive for a better world (what's the point if it's not real eh?) and to base things on the reality we see and interact with.

I'm not saying that we should ignore this secondary reality in which we live, in which we live assuming and believing that it is primary.

I'm saying that we shouldn't ignore the FACT that we don't really know what anything IS and that our senses provide us with a secondary, in-direct perception.

This means that whatever we perceive in our field of perception is not what is actually there, but instead, it IS an image that our mind is providing to our awareness.

Fundamentally what IS there is not-known.

Not-knowing is the only door toward actually directly experiencing reality, because if you think that you believe and assume (i.e. know) something, than all you will perceive are those beliefs and assumptions, because those beliefs and assumptions ARE what your self-mind uses for all of your perceptions.

You cannot believe and assume your way into the TRUTH.

...think about that.

 

[BullDogUK]

Not-knowing is the only door toward actually directly experiencing reality, because if you think that you believe and assume (i.e. know) something, than all you will perceive are those beliefs and assumptions, because those beliefs and assumptions ARE what your self-mind uses for all of your perceptions.

You cannot believe and assume your way into the TRUTH.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree completely that assumption and belief are things we should put aside when searching for truth. But what is true? I think the point I'm trying to get across is that our senses are tied to the 'secondary reality' as you call it and thus your entire emotional and mental being is determined by outside forces. You, or other past events that add to your emotional filter might give some control or variability over that affect but ultimately an external stimuli of some kind is responsible. I raise the corpuscle quite specifically. We don't believe that it is responsible for the sense of touch/pressure, we know that it is. It is a functional, replicable model of the observable world that can be independently tested and verified by anyone. The whole point of science (if I may jump into this) is precisely to remove the human element from an investigation as much as (heh) humanly possible precisely because our senses are flawed and we are prone to heavily bias results, so that being the case, is it all an illusion? I mean I get your point, and the 3D movie is perhaps a good one but not fully correct, it is perhaps more like living with a scarf or soft material covering your body, eyes, ears, nose etc. etc. What you are sensing and 'seeing' is a virtual reality, yes. But the stimulus to create this virtual image is necessarily related and connected to reality as it is derived from it.

What is the fundamental substance from which everything is made?

It is not-known. Folks are looking, but how can you tell the human race that it seems there is nothing there?

Still, my point is that even inside of this secondary reality, it is obvious that all objects are fundamentally made from something more primary.

Meaning, that things are NOT what they seem.

Because we do not exactly know something does not mean that things are radically wrong. We had working electricity, magnets and electromagnets for over a century before anyone even started considering something like quantum theory. I mean, it is a good and interesting point to raise. Nothing ever truely 'touches' in the sense that electron shells ensure atoms and molecules repel at the very small level. Is it then ok to say that no one walks and we actually just hover around? No! Once again, our minds are completely unable to grasp these kinds of concepts. I think you need to remember that it is energy and not 'mass' that is important. It's the energy of empty space that adds mass to atomic nuclei, it's the inherent energy and 0-scale size of an electron that means it occupies an entire orbital at once rather than one specific location. Things, life and the universe are fucking weird, and they don't make much sense without years and years of education in Physics (which sadly I do not have) to really get close to understanding what reality might be made of.

 

[BushyOldGrower]

Taking a shit seems real and there is evidence left behind. Most agree it smells bad but that's a subjective judgement.

Reality does exist but we may have some doubts. It takes faith in your perceptions and those of others but if you don't even have this basic faith what do you have but your imagination.

So you just figured this all out yourself without reading anything?

 

[BullDogUK]

Taking a shit seems real and there is evidence left behind. Most agree it smells bad but that's a subjective judgement.

Dude I couldn't have put it better myself

edit: Personally I love watching and having debates/discussions on esoteric topics, you pick up some good analogies and things but I think the key is to just recognize what is an assumption and what isn't. I think they can be quite hard to untangle sometimes, especially once you consider what SF has (rightly) been saying about the subjectivity of the senses.

 

[BullDogUK]

I just read this article, I think it does a good job of explaining our current understanding of how the brain works and how it is possible to model some aspects of it.

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2013/07/features/thought-experiment

Personally, I have my bets on something besides basic neuron structure being responsible for the 'me' aspect of consciousness. I studied Astrocytes (another type of brain 'glial' cell) a little bit a few years back and found some fairly interesting ideas. They form their own networks that interface with both the typical neuronal structure and respond to various bodily conditions. They seem a good candidate for this deeper thinking we seem to be capable of. Saying that, it's all speculative and I doubt we'll have anything like a definitive answer on for decades to come.

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/6484/version/1/files/npre20116484-1.pdf

 

[southflorida]

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree completely that assumption and belief are things we should put aside when searching for truth. But what is true?

What is true can't be an in-direct concept created by our self-mind...that's for sure.

For something to be TRUE, it has to be whatever it is AS-ITSELF.

It can't be something interpreted by our senses.

I think the point I'm trying to get across is that our senses are tied to the 'secondary reality' as you call it and thus your entire emotional and mental being is determined by outside forces. You, or other past events that add to your emotional filter might give some control or variability over that affect but ultimately an external stimuli of some kind is responsible.

Yes, IF the outside forces are "inside" this secondary reality.

I already wrote that all objective and subjective "stuff" inside the "secondary" reality are what they ARE. There, our bodies are our bodies, our thoughts are our thoughts, etc.

This is a good point that you are making by the way. Inside the "second reality" everything is REAL. But, only from the point of view of this indirect-perception inside the "secondary reality."

I raise the corpuscle quite specifically. We don't believe that it is responsible for the sense of touch/pressure, we know that it is. It is a functional, replicable model of the observable world that can be independently tested and verified by anyone. The whole point of science (if I may jump into this) is precisely to remove the human element from an investigation as much as (heh) humanly possible precisely because our senses are flawed and we are prone to heavily bias results, so that being the case, is it all an illusion? I mean I get your point, and the 3D movie is perhaps a good one but not fully correct, it is perhaps more like living with a scarf or soft material covering your body, eyes, ears, nose etc. etc. What you are sensing and 'seeing' is a virtual reality, yes. But the stimulus to create this virtual image is necessarily related and connected to reality as it is derived from it.

There really is no good example to explain what we're trying to explain, but the primary point is that we are NOT perceiving what is actually there.

Can you explain what you mean by:

the stimulus to create this virtual image is necessarily related and connected to reality as it is derived from it.

Because we do not exactly know something does not mean that things are radically wrong. We had working electricity, magnets and electromagnets for over a century before anyone even started considering something like quantum theory. I mean, it is a good and interesting point to raise. Nothing ever truely 'touches' in the sense that electron shells ensure atoms and molecules repel at the very small level. Is it then ok to say that no one walks and we actually just hover around? No! Once again, our minds are completely unable to grasp these kinds of concepts. I think you need to remember that it is energy and not 'mass' that is important. It's the energy of empty space that adds mass to atomic nuclei, it's the inherent energy and 0-scale size of an electron that means it occupies an entire orbital at once rather than one specific location. Things, life and the universe are fucking weird, and they don't make much sense without years and years of education in Physics (which sadly I do not have) to really get close to understanding what reality might be made of.

Things are not wrong, they are what they are.

My point is that what we are experiencing is a secondary process and it is in-direct. Inside this secondary reality all we have are our senses in order to perceive and interpret all incoming data on a moment to moment basis.

Since we don't know what anything is primarily, originally, and authentically, all we have are our beliefs and assumptions with which to interpret any perception.

We can "know" something in our awareness only as a concept, and this creates the difficulty in talking about these kinds of "topics."

Because what we are really doing is sharing beliefs and assumptions with each other, and agreeing with the ones that match our own, and at some level disagreeing with the ones that don't.

We can only communicate in relative terms in this "shared reality" - and because of this, the topics in the domain of ontology will always be next to impossible to share.

But, it is a lot of fun, at least for me.

 

[trichrider]

so what IS, isn't?
only so much as we aren't.

reality cannot be observed by our senses, so why is IT? who is IT reserved for?

how is reality manifest, or why isn't IT?

why would/should anyone care to contemplate nonesxistence/existence other than to eliminate the fear of confronting finality.

bulldog mentioned energy out of nothingness of space, the magnetic nature of spinning electrons forming mass that comprises what our senses perceive has polarity.

nothing in my experience deviates from this model.

wave or partical matters not, the void is full.

when speaking of absolutes, i take exception.

i agree with your precept of reality being nothing and everything...it fits my model.
there is no positive without negative. there is no left without right.

you make very good arguments for our "REALITY" being conceptualized perceptions and i applaud your persistence and patience in 'splainin' it to us/me/we.

conciousness is being. and if so, we are all of one being.

like dreams, not all of conciousness is apparant. waking state/dream state two sides of the same coin?

btw, thanx for putting up with my cryptic entries.

 

[southflorida]

Taking a shit seems real and there is evidence left behind. Most agree it smells bad but that's a subjective judgement.

Reality does exist but we may have some doubts. It takes faith in your perceptions and those of others but if you don't even have this basic faith what do you have but your imagination.

We can only have experiences inside of this secondary reality, inside our imagination. Everything that is occuring inside this Consciousness is really happening, I'm just trying to point out that it has a different nature than the primary reality...which is Consciousness itself.

What that IS - is not-known, and it can't be "known" - but it can be directly made conscious. We are Consciousness, so we ARE directly conscious obviously, we are simply confused with our "conceptual self."

This "conceptual self" is also Consciousness, but once again, it simply has a different nature.

So you just figured this all out yourself without reading anything?

I'm 43, and have been studying about ontology for almost 30 years.

But, these distinction that I'm writing about have come as insights from contemplating my own experience, while in a state of not-knowing and simultaneously being in the present moment completely.

 

[southflorida]

so what IS, isn't?
only so much as we aren't.

reality cannot be observed by our senses, so why is IT? who is IT reserved for?

how is reality manifest, or why isn't IT?

why would/should anyone care to contemplate nonesxistence/existence other than to eliminate the fear of confronting finality.

bulldog mentioned energy out of nothingness of space, the magnetic nature of spinning electrons forming mass that comprises what our senses perceive has polarity.

nothing in my experience deviates from this model.

wave or partical matters not, the void is full.

when speaking of absolutes, i take exception.

i agree with your precept of reality being nothing and everything...it fits my model.
there is no positive without negative. there is no left without right.

you make very good arguments for our "REALITY" being conceptualized perceptions and i applaud your persistence and patience in 'splainin' it to us/me/we.

conciousness is being. and if so, we are all of one being.

like dreams, not all of conciousness is apparant. waking state/dream state two sides of the same coin?

btw, thanx for putting up with my cryptic entries.

always a pleasure

 

[BudToaster]

I'm 43, and have been studying about ontology for almost 30 years.

thanks for that info ... i was going to ask for the Cliff notes version, and there it is.