text:
- Harald Jezek
- Merida, Yucatan
- Mexico
Owner, Nuada beauty+wellness
This conversation is closed.
What is reality ?
Did you ever think about what it is that makes reality real ?
How is our reality created ? Isn't it the perceptions our brain creates based on our sensory inputs ?
But what if we lack a sense ? How does reality change for somebody who cannot hear or see ?
Or take it even a step further, assume you are deprived of all your senses, What would reality mean in such a case ?
And last but not least, let's assume you are born without any senses. What would that mean to your reality ?
So what is reality and what are we as part of this reality ?
Closing Statement from Harald Jezek
Thanks everybody for participating in this conversation.
After 900+ comments did we solve the question of what reality actually is ? Probably not, however it was a good exercise in contemplating what it actually means when we say this or this is "real".
What most of us agreed upon is that there are different aspects to reality.
One is the reality we deal with on a daily basis and which we share to a large degree. For example we agree upon common things, such as when we see a car we all agree it's a car, a tree is a tree and a house if a house.
Although we know that this reality is created by our mind based on sensory inputs which is not only incomplete but often also faulty, it still is "real" because we share the same benchmarking (same sensory inputs, generally same mechanism how our brain interprets those sensory inputs.
Beside this shared reality we all have our own reality. This can be something simple like the perception of a taste, odor or a color.
Although we might agree that a given color is read or an odor is that of a pine, we never can know how another person actually perceives this sensory input.
Individual reality also becomes visible in our beliefs. For a religious person the existence of a God is a fact and hence part of reality while for an atheist reality is free of such a God.
Differences in this aspect of reality can also be observed in how different people get different perceptions of the same situation.
Last but not least there must be an underlying objective reality which includes the laws of nature (whether those are the ones we believe are valid today or perhaps something even deeper which we don't have discovered yet) and which exists regardless of us being here to contemplate it and regardless of our beliefs.
Next time we insist something is real, let's think whether it's real for me, for all(most) of us or real in an absolute sense.
To finish with Albert Einstein:
""Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Nov 24 2013: Reality is an illusion.
It's one of those words which defy definition. Google defines reality as "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them." But what does it mean to "exist"? Here is the definition from Google again: "Exist: have objective reality or being." There you go.
Here are some more things to ponder for you: "free will", "consciousness", "self", "omnipotence", "omniscience". I gave up on trying to understand these things. What does it mean to "understand", by the way? And what does it mean to "make sense"?
There is also a saying "reality causes a major stress in people who are in touch with it". It may be best to leave this question unasked. :-)
Nov 24 2013: I like the honesty in your comment. Thanks.Nov 25 2013: I liked the saying you quoted "reality causes a major stress in people who are in touch with it". Fortunately some structures can withstand the stresses within and without. I am glad you gave up trying to understand those things ... and hope you decided to focus in understanding them.
Definitely some possibilities are best to leave as just possibilities.
Keep in mind that the goal of the questions-answers some interactions centers on learning
... a teacher used to say : "there are no dumb questions, only dumb answers" ...
.... then he met one of those teachers disguised as a student who showed him the truth of the matter...
... and the teacher became the student and the student became the teacher as they shared a learning experience to truly understand the truth of the matter.
Many can give you the answer to the questions you put forth for each and all to see... question is will someone understand and make sense of them contributions in a meaningful way.
BTW words are like energy-matter and ideas... its what one does with them that determines whether they function right and cultivate well-being or function in a different fashion.
Nov 25 2013: This is one of my favorite TED talks:
I love the quote "we can all see matter, but we cannot see what IS the matter".
Nov 25 2013: Thanks,
I managed to get a couple of good points from that ... one being that : "you cant see light only what it hits"
The other being something to the effect of "Cant see cant understand... some projecting that it doesn't exist"
The real knocker ideas there where towards the end: the two fundamental questions and a subtle message...
... If you ask me, only one of the queries is actually relevant .... it has to do with what to do? which to me involves being better... help each other .... to better understand ... to better make sense of the what be... to better each point and actually see what is the matter and what to do 'with' it...
Wonder a bit why the clip included so much negative framing... almost seems as if that Ignostic wanted to cultivate it ... Do notice that the narrator called himself that and declared to refuses to be drawn on the question of the existence of God unless someone properly define the term. I suppose it has something to do with a fixation with the dim stars rather than an appreciation of the mundane and the divine. To a point the more light there is the more we see certain things and the less we see other thing. It also works the other way, to a point the less light there is the more we see certain things and the less we see other thing. In the open we see certain behaviors while we tend to see other behaviors behind closed doors.Nov 25 2013: The animation is based on John Lloyd's TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/john_lloyd_inventories_the_invisible.html. I like the animation better for the great visuals.
Re: "it has to do with what to do? which to me involves being better... help each other .... to better understand ... to better make sense of the what be... to better each point and actually see what is the matter and what to do 'with' it..."
He addresses this in his last quote: "We are here on earth to help others. What the others are here for, I've no idea." :-)
I don't view this video as negative. I guess, the message of the talk is to "empty our cup" of our preconceived opinions so that we can learn something new and perceive things as they are instead of perceiving them "as we are".
Nov 25 2013: Arkady,
Thanks for providing the second link I can 'perceive' the animations resemblance ... well as far as I can tell its the same audio for both of them :-) In my response I first included the quote you mentioned and then decided to use a bit of a different framing... which shifted the focus from "We are here on earth to help others" to - We are here to be better - yea that may involve helping others or helping each other to be better... just as it may involve not helping others and even taking actions to interfering into what others want to do... To me it was important to make that 'subtle differentiation'.
For the record like you "I don't view this video as negative"... what I basically asked out loud was "why the clip included so much negative framing". Which sought to draw attention into wondering about the framings individuals choose to use. Take for example this paragraph. What are the ideas and the framings here? Let me use a different approach ... we agree on the notion "learn something new and perceive things as they are instead of perceiving them 'as we are'". It just you propose that we should "empty our cup" of our preconceived opinions so that we can do that, where as I propose that we should "fill our cup" with the appropriate conceptions and opinions so that we can do that. Note that it's actually impossible to empty a cup, a cup is always full! Note that its certainly possible to fill the cup with air then fill it with something else. If I instructed "not to think of an apple" what was it you thought and then tried not to think of it? Had I said think of an elephant, its highly unlikely that you would had thought of an apple.
In principle we agree while in practice we each seem to follow a different path... (Well maybe its the same path and we are just going in different directions).Nov 25 2013: Have you gone past the illusion or should I say layers of illusions?
Nov 25 2013: Larry,
wonder who you are directing that question to... if its to me... then well lets just say that rather than focusing on determining if one be asleep or awake I just focus on what to do in the state I be in ... either way it focuses on always choosing the best possible option.
Do note I said "always choosing the best possible option" which may or may not correspond to what I/you/others may think is the best possible option.
Nov 25 2013: Re "here" and "there" (your post below). You need to see this :-))
Re: "BTW how do you manage to chose a starting point different from the point you be at?" It's funny, but not only I always start from where I am, but I also always end up where I am. I don't think, I can be anywhere except where I am, so it appears to me, that this is where I am ought to be.
"We are here and it is now. Further than that, all human knowledge is moonshine."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
This distinction between "ought" and "is" seems to be a major source of anxiety and dissatisfaction with life. We are happy when "ought" is the same as "is". We are unhappy/angry/frustrated when we think that what "is" is not what "ought". We can bring them together by "going where we want to be" or just "wanting to be where we are".
Re: "ehm.... my beliefs are based on something rather than nothing :-)"
Yeah, I know. And why do you believe that your beliefs are based on something? And what are they based on? My bet is, on some other belief. And if you say, they are based on facts, then you got to believe that you perceive and interpret these facts correctly. So, in the end, we either find "turtles all the way down" or base our beliefs on some tautology like "Reality is real" or "I think that I think, therefore I am." Or come to a contradiction like "I know that I know nothing." And that's where we should stop and hold our peace.Nov 25 2013: Yes. I think, I've peeled this onion with layers of illusions to discover that there is nothing in the middle. This is why I made my post.
This is a liberating understanding. As Esteban points out, we still need to live and do something to make our life "better". And since there is nothing "at the heart of the onion", we have to create a starting point, a belief. And, again, since there is nothing "at the heart of the onion", we have a great freedom in choosing the starting point. It does not have to be based on "evidence" because we do not know that evidence is real and how to prove the proof or find evidence that the evidence is "true". We don't even know what "truth" is. It has something to do with "reality" which nobody can define. It's a rabbit hole of infinite regress. Our core belief does not have to be based on reality since nobody can define what it is. So, we can freely choose our core beliefs: define our meaning of "better", to begin with.
Since I realize that my core beliefs are not based on anything, I'm tolerant to other people's beliefs because I know that they are also not based on anything.
Nov 25 2013: ehm.... my beliefs are based on something rather than nothing :-) and my starting point is from the point I be at... that way I can start and take the first step right away without having to figure out how to move from where I happen to be to where I choose to start from... BTW how do you manage to chose a starting point different from the point you be at?
Then again maybe the point that we ought to keep in mind and focus upon has to do where we be going ---- getting there might just be a bit easier if we seek to get there!
where we are, where we ought to be, next step to get there is a simple heuristic to follow.
Seems to me that you pick the nothing onion... and believe all onions are the same. A simple definition of truth involves positive congruence between claim and fact... when one chooses to think to be what happens to be one gets to know from what one thinks what happens to be... Reality is defined as what be. There I just defined it... I suppose that based on what you said that make me be a nobody... in somebody... how about that I am both material and immaterial in nature.... sounds about right... body-mind-spirit and a bit more...
Yea you /each can choose their core beliefs: each can define their meaning of "better" and if they happen to define it according to what be better they got the better definition right... I concur "our core belief does not have to be based on reality" but when they are its much more better...
Do notice that if 'my core beliefs are not based on anything' then implicitly that means core beliefs are based on something!Nov 25 2013: Arkady, Yes, is think. A thought, one always followed by another. How can I find peace in this? I can not think my way to the core. Although thinking can bring me closer. The last step involves giving up everything. My mind, my thinking, my senses and plunging into the nothing. For me there was great fear involved. You have a core, a center, a heart, whatever you want to call it. Be determined and vigilant do not settle for nothing. I would like to leave a quote for you.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light and not our darkness that most frightens us.
Your playing small does not serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.
We are all meant to shine as children do.
It's not just in some of us, it's in everyone and as we let our own light shine we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear our presence automatically liberates others.Nov 25 2013: Larry,
First, thank you for that...
Know that I can find peace in a thought followed by another ... maybe it has to do with the thought one chooses to think. I think I understand what you state and while in principle seem to agree with it I also think that one can think all the way to the core. Rather than giving up everything I consider its about embracing everything as one ought to embrace each thing. I can see how plunging into the nothing can be fearful, its like stepping into the unknown. I can also see how stepping into the unknown can be divine especially when plunging into something divine. As you sort of pointed out there exists a core, a center, a heart, whatever you want to call it. Be determined and vigilant do only settle for the actual truth of the matter and doing what ought to be done upon getting it.
THE deepest fear of fear is not that FEAR is inadequate, THE deepest fear is that FEAR be irrelevant to the lovely beyond measure beings who step into the unknown without fear. Moving to that domain of peace, and joy, and happiness that knows fear only as a distant possibility that shall forever remain as such, a distant possibly.
I find curious how it seems everyone wants other to be just like them... the superior want other to raise up to their level and the inferior want others to lower down to their level... the things isn't about levels its about what one be doing there.Nov 26 2013: Arkady,
That you have peeled the onion to find nothing inside and that such realization is liberating to you is because you have reached (or almost reached) a point where the destination starts to move with you. I think we all reach that point somehow.
We live in multiple realities, none being a preferred one. In one level we crave the reality to be absolute, visceral, raw and fleshy as if our life depends on it. In other level, we see the center of the onion and feel in our guts that we are after all in a 'pretend play', albeit an adult version of it.
I find this script with the doubtful beginning, confusing climax and uncertain end utterly interesting.Nov 26 2013: Re: the quote.
I've seen it. It belongs to Marianne Williamson. A good one. Of course, I don't settle for "nothing". I create my own "core". My reality is my beliefs. If I believe I have free will, it is as I say. If I believe I am happy, it is as I say. If I believe, I love my wife, it is as I say. If I believe, people are good in their heart, it is as I say. You see, these beliefs are not based on anything other than "self" (that's how I understand "I am who I am" mentioned in Exodus 3:14), there is no fear of losing them. But if I base them on "something" (an idol), they will disappear as soon as the idol corrupts and falls.
Nov 26 2013: I remember the first temptation in the bible involved seeking the place of God for oneself...
BTW if you base them on God ... well they will remain even if you disappearNov 26 2013: The quote from Marianne is brought forth from the principles of ACIM. She is the extension of those principles. Does it belong to her or is a gift being passed to everyone? I do have free will and when I see the choice I recognize I have no choice. Is not self the ultimate false idol? The only thing I am capable of making of myself is an empty shell of human existence. When I look upon that I see nothing.Nov 26 2013: Esteban, You've really done it now, you have used the God word.Nov 26 2013: Larry,
Yea I used the word, some will smile and some will snarl :-)
Originally had no idea what you meant by ACIM and decided to look it up and saw that it likely refers to a course in miracles... Is it a gift that wraps the same old apple that eve and adam got offered?
Each does have free will (well if we don't any dialogue about free will is mute as each just does what they have to do). I hold to believe we each see the choices ... some choose to recognize that they have no choice and choose no choice while some choose to recognize that they have a choice and recognize the choices for what they be and make the right choice.
To answer your question about self... self is self what each self chooses to do with self determines is self becomes the ultimate false idol or becomes a self. I made a comment the other day related to escapism the ego needs to be educated rather than negated. Similarly with the self it needs to be guided to do what ought to be done as it ought to be done. When I look upon that I see that and a bit more.Nov 26 2013: Re: "Is not self the ultimate false idol? The only thing I am capable of making of myself is an empty shell of human existence. When I look upon that I see nothing."
The physical "self" - yes. But, as many people mention here, "self" seems to be more than the physical shell. Simply because when a person dies, we do not speak of his body as we spoke of the person. We describe it as his body.
There is nothing *physical* at the core of the onion, but where does it grow from? There is some principle at the core. It grows from "self".
Nov 26 2013: As for me if I see an empty shell in the physical outer I know the source of the reflection. When someone dies, I will leave that to a higher authority. At the core may we find the sum of all principles. self or Self grows from what it's fed.Nov 26 2013: Arkady,
Thank you for your comment... :
"self" seems to be more than the physical shell.
There is nothing *physical* at the core of the onion
at the core of the onion is something non-physical !
Didn't see that one coming .... and appreciated it when exposed!Nov 26 2013: I once saw this in a grocery store
This pattern is fascinating because it is self-repeating. It is extremely common in nature. Shapes of flowers, pine cones, pine apples, tree leaves, sea shells, hurricanes, and galaxies are based on the same principle which, in this case, is described by Fibonacci series.
Most physical processes are described by exponential functions. Exponential functions are also extremely common in nature. They describe most oscillations and waves. Reason? What's so special about them? Nothing other than they happen to be their own derivative and thus, a solution to most differential equations that describe natural processes.
Most beautiful and most powerful things in the universe seem to be based on the same principle - they build on "self". I'd say, this "self", as a principle, transcedes the physical nature of the things where it is present. The substance and the physical nature of a broccoli flower is different from that of a galaxy, but they are still formed by the same principle. This "self" cannot be physically found. Numbers, patterns, and laws are ideas.
Ideas are often juxtaposed with reality. But it seems impossible to have ideas without physical things they represent or perceive physical things without forming an idea of what that thing is.
Nov 27 2013: Fractals also fall in the same category, I guess. I agree with your idea of self as my observation is that in exponential growth that most natural systems follow, complexity followed by some typical phenomena like self replication, emergence and fractalization are common.
Comment deleted
Nov 26 2013: Jason,
Why should we consider your definition of reality as the definitive definition of reality?
In other words why should someone think that what you think to be corresponds to what be rather than think what be?
Nov 27 2013: Esteban, one would consider Jason's definition simply to deal with the ought/is dichotomy to find a rational common ground. I, by no means, am saying Jason is 'absolutely' right. Just that what he is saying appears to me a rational view with more and more commenters arguing in the same line.Nov 27 2013: Pabitra,
I agree we ought seek and to find a 'rational' common ground. The thing is that many use the notion "its my way or the highway" and when one responds to them: "Fine let the common ground be the highway" they insist that any common ground can only be their way.... It would be fine if their way corresponded with a truly rational form or had a direct correspondence with the highway... I can even deal with twisted logics of opposites... the thing is that there confusion reins! If you managed to understand that there understanding reins (because the opposite of confusion is understanding) you understand how simple it can be :-)
Again if we focus on just appearances rather than the actual content we may get some surprises ! I like good surprises and the others I will pass them up...
Harald Jezek
Nov 28 2013: Hi everybody, this conversation will soon come to an end. As the author of this conversation I will be asked to make a final statement.
- +3
However, I prefer that all of you who participated in this conversation just provide a final post summarizing your own views on the topic.
This way we avoid that somebody gets left out or misinterpreted.
Nov 28 2013: Harald,
In addition to what you proposed which I find ought to be done I wonder IF as a group of participants we can unite to produce a shared document.
Personally I would like to read in the individuals final post a recount
1- What ideas they found valuable
2- What ideas made them wonder the most
3- What notions changed thanks to this conversation (and which stayed the same)
4- If they where to go at it again what would they do different
You all know we are close to that time of the year where one makes their wish lists...
Nov 29 2013: Creating a shared document might be a bit a stretch, considering that this format here is not conductive for any collaborative work.
Beside, nothing will be lost. This conversation will stand here also for people that might be interested to read it in the future.
Just getting a general summary of everybody's point of view, perhaps integrating the 4 points you suggested would be good enough. Whoever wants more detail can read the individual posts.Dec 1 2013: Thanks for the invitation to share our perception of the conversation Harald.
The conversation seems to reinforce the perception of reality I had at the beginning of this discussion, in that there are a variety of meanings and applications for "reality", some of which have been expressed here.
There is objective reality, which may be more scientific, with tangible evidence, and there is subjective reality which may be influenced by many internal and external factors.
What seems like evidenced, objective reality, can still be rejected by some people whose belief system, as created, does not accept the evidence. An example might be evolution, for which there is considerable evidence, and yet the evidence is rejected in favor of what appears in holy books as their personal "evidence". We may, as groups, share perspectives, depending on our own personal belief system.
Subjective reality, seems to include our personal thoughts, feelings, ideas, beliefs, perspectives, impressions, presumptions, assumptions, etc., all of which may be influenced by many sources, and include our own personal experiences and perceptions.
I did not address your question about "senses" because I am not aware of anyone ever being born with no senses whatsoever, and with a quick search, I could not find any information about that, so my belief at this time, is that everyone has some senses, which may differ from what is considered "normal", but none the less important and valuable.
As I said in one of my first comments in this discussion…
"Within the simple concept, there may be complex information on many different levels for different people. So, what an individual can or cannot sense or perceive is subjective.... how one's brain processes sensory input data and supply the compiled interpretation to one's ego/self is subjective, and there are probably other elements that are subjective as well."
You did a good job of facilitating Harald....thanks:>)Nov 30 2013: As per Harald's request, I am trying to sum up the question, the answers, different insights and whatever I learnt from this discussion.
Things (both physical and non-physical) exist within and beyond the boundary of known and knowable. Reality is that part of the existence that is included within our perception through senses, understanding, logic, introspection, inference, feeling and belief. Some of reality is rational, explainable and demonstrable - most of us agree with that. Some, however, are beyond reason and explanation and we have our individual say on it.
There is a part of physical reality that scientists and philosophers work on and strive to find out a common, underlying understanding and agreement (a theory of everything). There is a standard model of it, but true to scientific tradition it is open to challenge and transmutable.
I have found no proof, logic, evidence or hypothesis, this discussion included, to accept the notion that there is an objective, absolute, perception independent reality (an 'explain all' version of it) as more preferable to an observer/perception dependent, relative, transmutable and subjective reality ( a personal, 'aha' version of it) up till now. I am open but will prefer to follow Ockham's principle, which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
This had been a great discussion. I will thank Harald and all those who contributed.
@Arkady: Peeling onion may be more interesting than finding anything at its center. :)
Harald Jezek
Nov 26 2013: Esteban, I can't reply to your post below so I just start a new one referring to:
- +2
"the 9/11 notion... the fact of the matter is that it is what it is... you believe it being real doesn't make it be real....."
It doesn't matter what I believe. The earth is round, no matter whether or not I believe it. 9/11 was no conspiracy as some people believe. Again, that's the case independent of my belief.
If for some reason our knowledge about something changes (e.g. the earth is a cube) we will adjust our "belief" accordingly.
Again, we are running in circles.
On one hand I "accused" you of not putting any value on evidence. You denied that, yet you keep insisting that evidence (e.g. evidence showing us that 9/11 was a terrorist attack) cannot be trusted.
So what is it ? And if you don't trust evidence what do you trust ? Your intuition ? voices speaking to you in your head ?
Nov 26 2013: H call me E (if it's ok with you?)
Yea I did the same thing responded up above to another post...
We agree in that: it is what it is depending on what it is.
In relationship to 9/11 the evidence would demonstrate if it was a controlled demolition or the result of the airplanes crashing ... we agree in that whatever the case happens to be that's the case independent of what you or me may belief to be the case. From the evidence we know that some will NOT adjust their 'beliefs' accordingly to the evidence.
Yea I noticed that you keep "accusing " me of stuff like not putting any value on evidence that a single fact will lead you to change your stand on the matter yet when I presented such evidence (in one particular case) you basically just brushed it aside and continued to insists on more examples.
Yes I keep insisting that "evidence" should be questioned and cannot be trusted... ironically its based on the evidence of the past where individuals where so certain of their claims and assertions that they missed being misguided by other who eloquently and authoritatively pushed their case. I am sure that if you seek you will find enough evidence to support what I just stated... though at this time I doubt that you will go that way...
In another post I sort of explained what I trust... a unifying congruent story that incorporates every perspective coherently ... Intuition has its place, as does logic, as does heuristics, as does feelings as does many other factors... by the way voices speaking to you in your head sound like thought seeking your attention... beware that some opposing ideas like to silence their opposites because if you where to compare the opposers vs drivers next to each other you would always pick the drivers!
Nov 26 2013: "Yes I keep insisting that "evidence" should be questioned and cannot be trusted."
So here we go again, if evidence is not trustworthy, what is it ? A question that I asked already several times to no avail.
You seem to misunderstand evidence. Evidence in itself is no guarantee for something to be true. Evidence is not proof.
However, the more and better the evidence for a theory the more likely that this theory is true.
Example: We take it as a given that the earth is round (well, almost round) based on a vast amount of evidence.
Can you question this evidence ? Sure you can, but you will have to provide an alternative and support this alternative with evidence on its own and if your evidence showing that the earth is a cube is of higher quality than the one showing it's round then people will start listening to you.
But, just saying I don't trust evidence without providing alternatives is absolutely meaningless from a scientific point of view.
".... as does many other factors......." vague as usual ;-)
What are the "many other factors" ? Be specific.
If you write up a scientific theory you can't say, well, my theory is based on A, B and a "lot of other factors".
Nov 27 2013: Harald,
You ask : if evidence is not trustworthy, what is it ?
evidently it still is evidence.
I would had hoped that by now you would had recognized that its not about how likely something may be it is about what actually happens to be.Nov 25 2013: I'm going to attempt to answer this question however; I do believe I'm under qualified, especially among you elite intellectuals. I say this with the utmost admiration.
I follow the Copenhagen interpretation, "there is no deep reality". "Our senses are constituted to give us an impression of a material world, but that this reality is a reflection of something of a different nature." Our physical senses each have a spectrum, these senses perceives the sea of energy from a certain limited standpoint and makes up an image from that. This image is just an interpretation. Our interpretations are solely based on the 'internal map' of reality which is a result of our collective experiences.
Copenhagen interpretation states that we create reality by observation and that there is no reality without observation. Heisenberg divides the universe into real and semi-real and considers the elementary particles to be only potentialities or possibilities. They are made real only by the act of observation. In the not real world of potentia, all of the reactions are present. Only one of these possibilities manifests in the real world. This possibility is made solid (physically apparent) only by consciousness.
Consciousness is an ability to be aware of external forces. Cellular life and plant cells fall in this category. Their awareness is considered very rudimentary, but cells do sense in a chemical way light, heat, foreign cells, pH condition in liquids and other states of matter that can be good or bad for their survival. Awareness (consciousness) can be reduced to very minimal states. Additionally, any action also involves a large number of conscious entities. The people, plants, animals and all things that are considered as part of the action, will have input into the degree of control of the action and reaction. This depends on each entities' ability to phase quantum waves of possibility so that they add amplitudes enough to make them apparent in our physical world.
Nov 25 2013: Christine, There is non among us greater than you. I f you have a birth mark you've been approved if not get a tattoo are we will accept that. Intellect is a double edge sword, understand that.Nov 25 2013: Christine
I see that reality contains within it a space of infinite of possibilities (some of which remain as possibilities and some which manifest into reality). I too hold that "Only one of these possibilities manifests in the real world". To me, what possibility manifest in reality depends on a bunch of stuff that may or may not depend on the observers or individual consciousness. While we only experience reality through what we think, this map we use could accurately correspond to the reality itself... In other words if one thinks to be what actually be the map and the territory become singular identical copies corresponding to each other and picking one or the other is basically the same thing. That can't be said when what one thinks to be differs from what actually happens to be. The reality that I consider existing has material and immaterial stuff in fact the human being integrates body-mind-spirit and partakes in those three dimensions and a bit more ... Humans even have the capacity to create stuff or rearrange the existing stuff. We ought to be good caretaker of the places we happen upon.Nov 25 2013: Christine,
It's sort of lonely in the high tower of intellect. Thanks for joining. :)
Honestly, you said it nicely.
Nov 25 2013: Some have the illusion that they are there all alone because they only perceive those who see similar to them. :-) they just need to widen their understanding ... of course one may also have to wonder why they be at the tower of intellect rather than the library of intellect :-)
Fritzie -
Nov 25 2013: I took Pabitra's post as a joke. There is not an ounce of arrogance in him.Nov 25 2013: I did too! and responded in kind with a post that was intended as a joke... and also included a bit of truth... I hope you take my post as a joke too...
- +1
BTW the moment I thought of something you mentioned was when you mentioned it...Nov 25 2013: Christine, I think there is no disagreement with your comment, however, the observer principle is something that applies to the quantum world but not the macro world.
In other words, our universe will still be here regardless of us being around to observe it or not. Best proof for that is probably that the universe is much older than we are. So, obviously it was around long before we showed up to observe it.
Actually when we go with Feynman's "sum of all histories" then our universe is just one of many, however, we can't observe them.Nov 23 2013: Eventually, reality comes down to what one experiences -- either somebody has one or more senses, or has no senses. It's difficult to imagine what would be the reality for someone born without any senses. But the one certain thing is that whatever any reality he/she experience, that reality will be always related to his/her consciousness, exactly like anyone born with senses. So consciousness in whatever form is finally the sole conceiver of any reality one lives in.
Nov 23 2013: Let's assume a person is born without any senses (let's also assume that's possible). Do you think that consciousness would develop without any sensory input ?
Nov 24 2013: As I wrote in my comment, "It's difficult to imagine what would be the reality for someone born without any senses". But please see that your question is not that simple as it looks. Because it should be noticed that among the 5 senses we have, 4 are very sophisticated, and so perhaps we can imagine that somehow one might for some reasons could be born without them. But there's the 5th sense which is not that sophisticated, but also I guess it's the most direct and basic one, and that is the sense of Touch. Perhaps better to say it's actually the 1st sense, as I guess it was the first to be developed in the most primitive life forms 3 billion years ago. So I just don't know if it's ever possible to completely lacking that sense on each and every centimeter of the human skin.
However, even we assume it's possible to completely missing all the senses, it should be remembered that reality is not composed only from outwardly impressions but also from inwardly /feelings//thoughts//imagination. So, suppose this utterly senseless person walks. Since he is missing even the sense of Touch, he does not feel whether the ground under his feet is cold or hot, thorny or smooth, hard or soft and so on. But still he has got the feeling that something is supporting his legs from underneath, because otherwise he could not walk. Assuming his brain is functioning well, this would be his rational conclusion. Henceforth, his imagination will get into action and start building his mental reality and so on.
Nov 25 2013: We tend to think in pictures. If somebody says "car" you get a mental picture of a car and know what this person is talking about. If you never saw a car before you still could ask questions as what this object is about and once explained to you, you most likely would have a good understanding of the term car.
However, a person without any senses couldn't create mental images because they rely on memories and past experiences, nor could he ask questions to narrow down what the object in question might be.
In other words, could this person even develop thoughts, imaginations and feelings ? Don't they always rely on past experiences and memories of one sort or another ?
Hence, he wouldn't be able to conclude anything. Actually I assume he wouldn't even be able to formulate a thought.Nov 24 2013: I think no, the person will have no consciousness at all. I am in a little disagreement with Yubal and let me explain why.
Human beings have more than 5 senses. They have 5 specialized sensory organs. But those 5 and rest of all sensory processing are done by the brain directly or indirectly. So if we take it that a human being has strictly no sense, there is no communication of outward stimuli to the brain and the brain is only conducting business of the internal working of the body. That being the case, I think, the basic premises of a self recognizing consciousness is lost.
There is a valid scientific theory of the evolution of a complex brain in animals that says that the it evolved from the basic necessity of locomotion. So merely walking would require neuro-sensory support (hence some form of consciousness).
It may be possible that some form of consciousness is existent in organisms devoid of a highly developed specialized organ such as a brain. But still they must be able to exchange information with the environment surrounding them in order to live. That exchange will ensure some form of consciousness.
This part of discussion is interesting as it points out to the dependence of reality on the sense/perception and consciousness.
Nov 25 2013: Pabitra, please see below my reply to Arkady.Nov 26 2013: Harald, this is my reply to your last comment "We tend to think in pictures."
You make a very good point. I agree with your analysis with car. But please see that in your reply also you are thinking in pictures. Because our conceptions are not limited to only what we see, hear, touch...etc. You are giving this example and come to such conclusion because we have these senses and they occupy our mind. We get indulged in these sensory impressions because they grab the domination on our minds, as they are so powerful. And as such, we build our reality under their domination. So you are perhaps correct in saying that such senseless person could not ever imagine what a car is and also other mental images. But who says that's the only possible way to create the overall mental images ??
If we return to my previous example, where such a senseless person walks or even just lies permanently in his bed, assuming his brain is functioning OK....... Please try to imagine how he would be thinking. Can you say beyond any reasonable doubt that he can't create absolutely any image of some possible reality in his mind, using his imagination ?? It does not mean that the reality he creates in his mind is correct or factually true. But that IS the only image of reality existing in his mind.
Nov 26 2013: Hi Yubal, you are right, I can't say beyond a reasonable doubt that a person born without senses can't think anything at all. Perhaps a neuro scientist could answer this question with more certainty. Maybe the brain could resort to another mental "language". Who knows ?
However, when we analyze our own thoughts, aren't they all made of our experiences and memories that our mind created based on whatever sensory input we got at some point in our lives ? Is there anything in your mind that wouldn't have required any sensory input ?Nov 27 2013: Harald, this a reply to your reply, "Hi Yubal, you are right, I can't say beyond a reasonable doubt......."
I assume that when you say "sensory input", you mean only to external sensory input. My reply and all my arguments from the beginning are based on this assumption.
I am not sure that everything we think, imagine, feel is made only from external sensory input. In our routine way of life and thinking it's extremely difficult to analyze and try to differentiate between what is originated in our minds from external input and what from our in-built qualities. There had been all along the history major debates and controversies between these 2 outlooks.
But we don't need to go that far. Suppose you eat a mango and experience it's taste. Now somebody who had never seen and eaten a mango asks you to scientifically and verbally analyze the taste of mango for him. With all the sophisticated scientific instruments we have invented, and with all the highest verbal skill anybody can have, will it be ever possible to describe the mango's taste for such a person ?? No. Because the very experience of mango's taste, like perhaps all other our experiences, are beyond any verbal or scientific analysis. What scientific or verbal analysis do, is just to map our experiences and to express them in technical or illustrative terms. But they are not able to replace the very experience itself. It's the same with our much deeper emotions like happiness, anger, love....etc. Indeed they can be provoked by external sensory input, but they are not exclusively dependent just on the external input.
Nov 27 2013: "I am not sure that everything we think, imagine, feel is made only from external sensory input"
No. I'm not certain either, but on the other hand, when I try analyzing my thoughts I always have to conclude that at some point, the source for them was a sensory input.
"With all the sophisticated scientific instruments we have invented, and with all the highest verbal skill anybody can have, will it be ever possible to describe the mango's taste for such a person ??"
Well, we certainly can analyze all the components that make up the aroma of a mango and the fragrance industry uses this capability extensively in order to manufacture artificial flavors and fragrances.
The real question is whether or not we are able to communicate a odor or taste, or any sensory experience in such a way that another person gets a 100 % accurate impression of our own experience, I agree with you, I don't think we can.Nov 28 2013: Even if we prepare artificially the perfect flavor and odor, finally that person needs to taste that artificial product to know what is the taste of mango. There's no another way.
Nov 28 2013: Agreed, we can't describe it.
Vera Nova
Nov 24 2013: Just a notice - no living creature can survive if it is having no sensations - sensations indicate the very basic process of life. Brains cannot function at all withoit any sensations (even in clinical experience of cases of intensive care artificial support). Absolutely Senseless "person" will not walk, unless it is a robot.Nov 25 2013: If I understand your point correctly, Yubal, you, essentially, say, that whenever we have life, we have some sort of sensory input processing. I think, we have many more senses than 5. The 5 are just the most obvious - we are aware of them. There is also a sense of gravity and balance. It seems to be distinct from the 5 usually mentioned. We are also processing signals from our internal organs. E.g. feeling constipated or feeling fatigue in our muscles does not seem to fall into into any of the 5 senses. So, when you say that a person deprived of senses would still have some sort of self-awareness, you seem to limit the meaning of "senses" to the 5 classical ones. Which, essentially, means that there will be other senses to build consciousness upon.
- +1
Pabitra's point seems to be that in the absense of ALL senses, consciousness is impossible. After all, we would have no information to be aware of ourselves. Without sensory input, there is nothing to be "aware" or "conscious" of and there is no way to be. I think, the common ground in what you say is "whenever we have life, we have some sort of sensory input processing" - simply because life means adapting to external conditions which implies a feedback system.
But here is a related question: Is what's going on inside my body "internal" to "me"? What is "I"? Is it just my body or something transcedental? My brain melts down when I ponder these questions.
Nov 25 2013: Arkady & Pabitra, excellent distinctions you make about the various sorts of senses. You are also right that I had limited the senses to the 5 input senses from the external. I did that because for me that is the first meaning when talking hereby about senses. There are 2 reasons for that.
1. SENSE by Oxford dictionary:
The first meaning there: "faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus; one of the faculties of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch."
2. The host of this discussion asks most of his questions at the title regarding these 5 senses. Just In his 2nd last question he asks about getting born without any senses, but still in that question there's a hidden pre-assumption that our awareness is functioning.
However, people too easily ignore our internal world which is emotions, imagination, thoughts – which all influence our consciousness. Suppose one doesn't have even sense of gravity & balance as you say. But so what ?? He can lay down on bed and be fed by somebody. But this does not cancel his consciousness – even suppose just consciousness that he exists.
Not only your brain melts down when pondering these questions. Many brains had melted in the past by these questions. Exactly because of this the ancient Indians came to the conclusion that to answer these questions, brain and its normal thinking activity are not enough. What's required to answer these questions is to get rid of this brain activity, to completely pause the thinking activity and then just to watch yourself without interferring, to experience the pure consciousness. Not to think about it, not to talk about it, not to describe it. They said it's absolutely impossible to really grasp what the consciousness is just by thinking because the thinking process is subordinate to the pure consciousness. To achieve all this they developed the Yoga and Meditation.
Nov 25 2013: Yubal,
Note that what they say, what happens to be and the actual congruence between them.
Just think that they may not want you to think about it because they can't think about it nor want to be subordinate to the pure consciousness. To really grasp what the consciousness is may be accomplished through the appropriate thoughts, ideas feelings emotions actions... which can only be understood by those who understand. Kind of esoteric from a certain viewpoint. What I want to share is that to answer these questions one needs the proper thinking activity and with the proper thinking activity it is more than enough for anyone can get it right when they know the right answer... those who know the right answer don't have to ask what is the right answer... those who don't know the right answer will not understand the answer even when given the right answer.
You probably know the saying that when the student is ready the master-teacher shows up... and they walk as one sharing the adventure of learning. Before the student was ready there was just the students.Nov 25 2013: Re: " But so what ?? He can lay down on bed and be fed by somebody. But this does not cancel his consciousness – even suppose just consciousness that he exists."
That person would still have a sense of hunger, perhaps. So, there would still be sensory input to the brain from the person's stomach. And if not, people would call such person "unconscious". So, my point still stands: "wherever there is life, there is some sort of sensory signal processing." And, by the way, we may have sensory input, but be unaware of it like, for example, we do not "feel" a watch on our wrist unless we consciously direct our attention to our wrist. We also may have a lack of sensory input and be unaware of it being sure that we have sensory input where we don't (e.g. blind spot or being sure that the watch is on our wrist when it's not). So, what does consciousness have to do with reality? It perceives things that are not there and fails to perceive things that exist.
So, signal processing seems to be necessary for life to exist. However, life is not necessary for signal processing to exist. Cell phones these days have visual sensors, audio sensors, touch sensors, RF sensors, gravity sensors, proximity sensors. I'm sure, taste and smell sensors are technically possible. There is a great deal of signal processing going on in cell phones. Cell phones are "aware" of many, many things. Can they be called "conscious"? Can consciousness exist outside a living body?Nov 25 2013: There is much talk about AI these days. AI presumes that it is possible to create consciousness or awareness outside a human being. But then, why can't we think of the universe as conscious? E.g. Earth receives "sensory input" from the Sun and the Moon. It "reacts" to these signals in various ways. Why can't living creatures on Earth be compared to neurons establishing links with each other? White cells in the blood attack and destroy bacteria and viruses, much like police tackles criminals or predators kill the prey.
We don't usually think of Earth as conscious. And, if we do, we mean it in metaphoric or allegorical sense. But then, when we talk about our own consciousness (a concept which is reduced to nonsense by the reductionist approach widely used in science), don't we also use allegories and metaphors?
I'm not trying to argue with you or push any particular agenda or opinion of mine. I'm just shining light on some facets of this question that cannot be answered. These discussions can go on and on and on and, at the end, we will just confess our inability to answer them (if we are wise enough to do that like Socrates who, allegedly, said "I know that I know nothing").Nov 25 2013: Dear Arkady,
It is better to risk your brain to melt down rather than having the safety of getting it frozen! :)
There are levels of consciousness I think.
The most developed and complex one is one associated with mind, the self recognizing one that gives us the idea of 'self' as observing and making meaning of the external world through inbound stimuli. The 5 senses that we are so familiar with are important in this context. The sense of orientation controlled by middle ear also fall in this category. The sense of temperature too, I guess.
When brain stops processing all those signals, we are in what we loosely call the 'unconscious' state. But there are other senses still functional; senses that are internal to the body, senses that control bowel movement, complex decision making of guts to digest food, senses that control heart rate etc. The brain is still functioning and one can say, there is some sort of consciousness that works for preservation of life.
I think we can hardly take it as a consciousness that has anything to do with processing the reality.
Nov 25 2013: I agree.Nov 26 2013: Arkady, this is my reply to your last replies ("Re: " But so what ??", " There is much talk about AI these days.").
This discussion was initiated with the question, "What is reality?"
When discussing reality as perceived in our minds, there's a pre-assumption that we are talking about conscious minds. Even when we dream in sleep and we experience the dream as reality while sleeping, there must be at least some level of alert consciousness to experience the dream so lively. So it's obvious that whenever we say reality hereby, even in the most senseless person's mind, we mean to a conscious mind who can experience things while being alertly aware of whatever reality it experiences//creates//imagines in his mind. It's not about just life signals or anything else in unconscious mind. It's not just about hunger, but it's about the awareness of being hungry, which I say the senseless person can experience lively in his mind, and so this like other things would be his//her mind's subjective valid reality.
You gave an example of a watch on our wrist we do not feel. So think what does this mean reality-wise. It means that as long as one does not feel the watch on his wrist, that watch is NOT a part of his reality. For that period of time the watch does not exist for him//her.
Cellphones, cameras, computers, AI, are not conscious at all, and in my view they will never be. They do not have minds and so they are incapable of being conscious for experiencing, although they have all the electric currents and the sophisticated components. So we see that reality as we experience is not just about electric stimulus in our nerves. It's not just about replicating mechanistically the brain processes.
I had elaborated discussions about this in another TED debate:
Nov 26 2013: Yubal,
I read your comments. Thanks. I don't disagree with you. But all the examples you have simply express a belief that consciousness is something that only live creatures can have. However, you do not explain why.
I also had a couple comments in that thread. I don't know how to create direct links to them, but you may scroll down below your comment to find them. I also explored this question in my own conversation http://www.ted.com/conversations/14279/is_artificial_intelligence_pos.html but I did not get the answer.
What is it exactly that allows us to say that we are "conscious" and "intelligent"?
Watch this http://youtu.be/W1czBcnX1Ww
When I first saw this video, my reaction was "WTF?" But I was very impressed when I watched the guy trying to kick this machine out of balance and I saw how it behaves on a slippery surface. It does seem to be "aware" of the environment and I doubt that the exact movements of the legs to keep balance on ice is programmed. I think, the time is near when these things will look like living creatures.
Another example: http://www.ted.com/talks/raffaello_d_andrea_the_astounding_athletic_power_of_quadcopters.html
Note what Raffaello says about the quads around 12 min of the video:
"Take this quad, for example. It's trying to stay at a fixed point in space. If I try to move it out of the way, it fights me, and moves back to where it wants to be." I find it very interesting that, perhaps, he does not consider these machines conscious or intelligent, but, nevertheless, he uses language as if they are. The machine is "trying" to do something, "fights" and "wants".
It seems to me that if AI is created, it will not be on purpose and it will look different from what we expect. It will be real. I asked this chatbot http://www.chatbots.org/chat_bot/captain_kirk/ "what is intelligence?" The chatbot replied "Intelligence is the ability to fake intelligence". There is no difference between "real" and "fake" intelligence.Nov 27 2013: Just watched a fascinating film about "intelligence of plants".
It turns out, plants react to stimuli - touch, light, electricity, gravity, sound; plants have memory; plants communicate with each other, and have cells resembling and functioning like neurons. Can it be called "intelligence"?Nov 27 2013: Arkady, this is my reply to your last 2 comments: "I read your comments.", "Just watched a fascinating film......"
I would not call it my belief. It's rather my reason's judgement summing up what we know and see today. Perhaps my judgement will be found to be wrong somewhere in the future. Or a new data will come tomorrow which might change my this judgement. But right now this is my best judgement about machines and their inability to acquire consciousness.
My explanation is this: Life (consciousness) as we know today began to form about 3 billion years ago. Besides some very marginal exceptions, this life has something very common and that is it's Organic (Carbon) basis. I have no clue, and I doubt if any scientist has, why the life got formed and evolved only on such narrow basis of carbon, etc. Why life did not evolve on the basis of so many other elements ?? My reason tells me that if any consciousness or life could be formed by some alternative way, this alternative way would not wait for 3 billion years to get started. We would see at least some very basic forms of life in that alternative way, whatever it might be.
Another explanation is that, we find out that life is not merely playing around with electro-chemical processes, or with electric currents, or with various mixtures of chemicals. If this was so, scientists would be able to create life in laboratories from the basic elements 100 years ago. But they are unable to create even a single cell in their laboratories.
Plants do have consciousness. IMO, any consciousness means some sort of intelligence. Intelligence does not has to be only like humans. Intelligence in my view is anything which allows its carrier to feel its surrounding, make distinctions between the countless parameters constructing its surrounding and to selectively interact with its surrounding for its conscious, sub-conscious or unconscious purposes.
Nov 28 2013: I think, "why life is carbon-based?" seems to be a fairly easy question if you consider the properties of carbon. Here is an interesting discussion about it: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=156166
The answers seem to be: a) carbon is very abundant; b) carbon can give up as easily as attract up to 4 electrons. Hence it allows a huge amount of combinations to form molecules with other atoms. More difficult question is whether other life forms are, at all, possible. To answer it, we need to consider all possible life forms. The thread I referred to discusses life based on silicon and mentions that if metabolism is to be based on oxidation, SiO2 (sand) is more difficult to expel from organism than CO2 (a gas).
So, you seem to claim that consciousness is impossible without a living organism. And, since we do not know life forms based on other elements, it's got to be a carbon-based life form.
But really, is life characterized only by carbon? What if humans create an artificial something able to grow, reproduce, and adapt to the environment. Why can't it be called "life"?
Consider the swarms of quadcopters in those videos. If there were millions of those things, flying around, wouldn't people just treat them the same way they treat flies, locusts, or birds? And if you encounter "something" which looks like a human, communicates like a human (creates and communicates ideas, understands humor and cultural references, relates to emotions), wouldn't you treat it like a human? Would it matter whether there is blood or electrical circuits under the skin?
I have a feeling that if something like this ever emerges, it will be unintentional. Emotions are irrational. A programmed emotion is not an emotion. So, we will not be able to call it "artificial intelligence".
Quite honestly, I myself am not a believer in AI. But I tend to argue with myself to see if I could be wrong.Nov 28 2013: Arkady, you wrote: "So, you seem to claim that consciousness is impossible without a living organism. "
I am not sure if the above follows from what I had written. I think, in my view, it's vice versa. I think life is impossible without consciousness. What we had seen until today, consciousness gets created only within certain pattern of atomic arrays, which we call Organic and we define it as life. There are theories, and even some deeply thinking philosophers and deeply experiencing mystics who claim that pure consciousness actually does not require any physical mean to exist. I don't want to go into this. I just try to find what CANNOT be rather than what can be. Definitely I can't void the possibility that some new and unexpected discovery or invention will occur and thus we will have totally new external entities or internal insights.
About people treating something artificial as a human. That's not rare even today. We sometimes get emotionally attached to certain object. In the dreams we treat an absolutely virtual reality as the absolute truth. In Asimov's SF stories we had seen how people treat robots as humans, etc. I tend to agree that if some true intelligence emerge, it might be unintentionally created.
That's one best thing -- to argue with yourself. That's perhaps the best way to make real mental//intellectual breakthroughs. I do it too. And after reaching some subjectively convincing conclusions, to share them with others and discuss in case of disagreements.
Nov 29 2013: I watched this video of Allan Watts http://youtu.be/P78hrdZutsI where he describes two ways of learn about the world. One way is labeled "western" - to divide things into parts and describe how the parts work together step by step. This is how machines and artificial things are put together. The other way is labeled "eastern" - to understand things as a whole and perceive how they "grow" from within, rather than being put together from the parts. I think, this reflects the fundamental difference betweeen living things and artificial machines: machines are put together from parts, step by step, while living things grow from within, all at once. See how he juxtaposes making an artificial flower to the growth of a live flower.
He also mentions that words, by nature, cannot adequately describe growth of natural things because words are sequential, and in nature things are happening all at once. Inspite of our inability to describe these things in words, it can be said that we "understand" them because, for example, we can coordinate hundreds of muscles in our body without even knowing how many we have.
This is a paradoxical statement, because in his lecture, Watts does exactly that - tries to divide concepts into parts ("western" - "eastern") and put them into words.
Perhaps, this is the reason we have difficulty telling whether consciousness can exist without life or life without consciousness. Perhaps, they constitute a whole. Without thinking too deep, it seems fairly clear that consciousness is inseparable from life and we don't think of machines as conscious. But when I try to define things - what is consciousness? what is life? what is the difference between a living thing and a machine? That's when things get awfully confusing and complicated.
Who doesn't understand what reality is? Yet, try to define it - and it just falls apart, turns into utter nonsense.Nov 3 2013: Reality is commonly understood by "what exists" or the cosmos more specifically... (or you could check wikipedia for an elaborate introduction).
Most evidence points that there is only one reality, and that each human (and many living beings) has an image of it -perceived through our senses-. A representation of our direct reality (let's say earth). We (humanity) have discovered much more about reality than we can directly perceive, and our best descriptions come from scientific inquiry.
If you are not receiving sensory input, you start hallucinating (or dreaming during your sleep).
If you wouldn't have any senses, you would not survive. Life needs external information to anticipate danger in order to avoid it (think this in evolutionary perspective, or in primitive forms in 'life games').
Reality is not created, or at least, not as far as we know. There seems no need to assume a creator. We are unsure what happened around what we call 'the big bang'.
For further understanding of reality on a particle level: check physics. For more about our planet: check all sciences (including sociology and psychology).
I think you should not mix reality with what we humans believe reality is (our mental representation). Thinking that we only have a representation (of reality) implies reality is relative is wrong. Precisely because there is a reality, we can have an (inaccurate) perception of it.
[edit: this talk is somewhat apt: http://www.ted.com/talks/devdutt_pattanaik.html]
Nov 3 2013: Morals, ...any emotion, creative ideas, freedom, liberty, justice, slavery...
Anything people would die for is not reality?
Chris, you and I live in two different realities. You create yours and I create mine as far as you and I know it..
Agree to disagree. :)
Nov 3 2013: This is an interesting point, though I wouldn't agree absolutely with your 'Anything people would die for' commect. The first thing people would die for (or without) is food, water, air - all elements of physical reality.
But certainly, there are many things that are important to us - emotion, thoughts, music, religion to name just a few - that are not part of physical reality. Yet it feels very uncomfortable to therefore state that they are not real.Nov 3 2013: all you mention is clearly part of our reality... ( I wonder how you infer that I would claim the opposite)
An active brain is capable of producing those... like electricity and a television can produce moving images (well, a set of images that seem to move). You label certain patterns as those emotions... and the experience of the living creature is really felt and value attached to it.
Liberty, justice, slavery,... exists in a social context, where you label patterns of human behavior.
Your perception of reality is clearly different than my perception of it. Although we are able to communicate on a shared medium which seems to exist for both of us. I assume this is a part of reality that is not different from you or me or an elephant in the Savannah.
Your perception of planet earth is different from mine, but I am quite confident it is round and that we have oceans and continents and people living on it and dividing with borders they agree upon (more or less) and call it a country. I am quite confident that an aspirin works as I learned but for some it is more harmful than beneficial and the reasons for that are also the same for any observer.
Assuming different realities would imply all those things could be different for any observer... I have not met people who are unaffected by earth's gravity at sea level, or can remain without oxygen for more than 1000 hours and turn themselves into frogs afterwards.
The assumption that there are more realities is a mere play of words or semantics.Nov 3 2013: Just like 'there seems no need to assume a creator', I consider no need to reject the existence of a creator. In my book whatever happens to be the case be what happens to be the case.
The burden of proof... will talk about it latter have to go this instant
Precisely because there is a reality, we can have an (accurate) perception of it. (or an erroneous one :-)
Nov 3 2013: True, you don't need to reject that assumption, though you would violate Occam's razor and prefer a theory that has more redundancy. I would only assume extra parameters in a model if it is needed.
we can talk about the burden of proof, but only if you assign meaningful aspects of your assumption that are test-able. (If I would add unicorns to the equation that don't influence the remainder of reality, and keep that as my world-view, it's still consistent, though I added an unneeded assumption)
Nov 3 2013: Christophere
Please keep in mind that this is intended as an objective intellectual interchange, putting personal feeling a bit aside and seeking a more enriching understandings on all parts an we jointly seek to explore the topic.
Considering that you are introducing the assumption of what is test-able, and shifting to hypothesis and theory rather than sticking to knowing simple facts based on knowing the facts... it seems quite evident to me why you mention Occam's razor violations :-) . Yes 'the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected'. That being the case when one knows what be, it needn't require hypothesis nor be test-able nor need to be proven, for one knows what be. To use a rather simplistic example a murderer becomes a murderer when they perform the act not on the grounds of getting caught and some authority declaring them guilty or innocent or being mercifully forgiven.
"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained" becomes obsolete when an individual knows something directly and does not need the explanations of something.
Note that 'we can talk about the burden of proof' if we choose to talk about such matters... adding the assumption that it must be test-able excludes that which be and which isn't test-able... non the less it be and remains being. To link it back into the context of this conversation it would be akin to seeking to talk only of the reality which can be sensed and exuding the reality which can't be sensed which be and which isn't sensible... non the less it be reality and remains being real.
BTW some moles require the extra assumptions and extra parameters to model reality... and when done correctly add noting nor take away anything relevant to the reality modeled never the less to keep things simple its best to seek to keep models simple...Nov 3 2013: Esteban,
I understand we are on an intellectual interchange, so I don't take difference in opinion as an offence.
Your example of a murderer is a definition... 'someone who murders' is 'a murderer'... So the to 'test' if someone is a murderer is to find proof that he/she did murder someone. I don't need to accept that the person is a murderer until I have the evidence. So assuming that one is a murderer is not even a redundant assumption, it might even be a false assumption.
I can go with the idea that a person doesn't "need" an explanation, but if he wants to convince others of his/her beliefs he sure needs to have one (unless he wants to convince people who take a person's conviction as true, which is something a kid does naturally from a parent for example).
There might exist things that are un-testable, but those things might as well not exist.
Important note: I mean test-able in principle (as there are things that are hard to test, but are not un-testable in principle while it might take eons to do in practice): Something that cannot affect us (like an invisible/intangible gnome that doesn't even affect the molecules, radiation or neutrino's in our universe in any direct or indirect way) can as well be said to be non-existent for all practical matters. People are free to believe in it. There is no possible (test-able in principle) way to prove it. I, however will consider it among the fairy-tales and fantasy of our imagination.
The expression "it does not matter" comes to mind. So on intellectual level, I cannot exclude such gnomes, but they don't (affect any form of) matter.
I don't get your 'mole' argument... do you mean the blind moles that have a queen and are one of the strangest mammals on earth? I don't get how they would need extra assumptions when it comes to evolution theory.
Nov 3 2013: Glad to see that we agree on differences in opinions being differences in opinion and not insulting offenses :-)... its been an experience that some do find offensive when others points out the truth especially when it shows the veracity (or lack of it) in what they said... the righteous welcome the truth even when it exposes an error related to them for they see such occurrence as an invitation to correct what needs correcting.
The subtle point I was seeking to make with the example of a murderer was: that the murderer be a murderer given the murderer be a murderer and finding the proof (or not being able to prove ) that the murderer be a murderer does not change the fact of them being what they are. Of course if one assumes someone is a murderer when in fact they aren't one belongs to a different topic. Evidently to me, 'you' does not need to accept that the murderer is a murderer even when 'you' has the evidence.
The notion of one wanting to convince others of certain true beliefs/facts can presents quite a challenge especially when others 'refuse to be convinced' because of certain beliers/'facts' they hold to be true. Its also possible that this results in shifting the burden of proof from 'one' to 'the other' while also introducing additional assumptions. We could get into dialoguing why this may take place and instances of where this takes place if need be... In principle everything is test-able, in practice somethings are practically impossible to test especially for some of us and still what exists exists. Take for example the claim "There is no possible (test-able in principle) way to prove it )". Do we know for a fact that true? BTW stories are one of those things that is something that cannot affect us which does affect us.
I had to go look for the 'mole' argument ... I realized it should had been the 'model' argument... no wonder that 'mole' made little sense to you... thanks for providing interesting notions related to the moles
Daniel Boyd
Nov 3 2013: I would agree with Chrisophe on this one. It is important to separate external reality from our percention of it. There most definitely is an 'absolute' physical universe that is independent of human existence or our perception of it (or that of any other animal on planet Earth) since it existed long before life did. This reality just trundles along, doing its thing, oblivious to the fact that we may or may not be watching.
- +3
Along come animals with sense organs designed to help them find their way in this physical reality by providing them with a selection of relevant information about their surroundings. On the basis of this information they construct an internal representation of external reality. Importanly, this is a representation, not the same thing. It's like a photo of a tree not being the same thing as the tree.
Somewhere down the line, humans popped up with basically the same functions, but the additional capacity to ponder this situation and get confused by it. When you look at your hand, you are not seeing the physical reality of your hand. You are seeing the picture that your brain has constructed on the basis of the photons that have reflected off you hand into your eye and stimulated light-sensitive cells there to fire off impulses into your brain. The two are connected by of a completely different nature.
The fact that it is difficult to perceive our perceptions in this way is entirely understandable. If we were to perceive it as no more than a subjective sketch, we would be less effective in matching our behaviour with events taking place around us. Little surprise, then, that evolution has built into our minds the impression that our representation IS reality.Nov 4 2013: There is the kind of reality we use as a model to make sense of our surroundings. But at the same time we also know that this "reality" is a pretty faulty and incomplete representation of what really is.
Nevertheless, for all practical purpose it works because it is a model we all share.
However there is much more to reality than the working model we use on a daily basis.
In physics the currently most accepted theory is M theory which has it its core the idea that there is no single history to the universe but that the universe has all possible histories and our observations right now influence its history. What does something like that mean to the concept of reality ?
Nov 5 2013: Yeap right now one each and can change the future, the present, the past... so what will each choose to cultivate?Nov 5 2013: I don't think your claim about the M-theory is right... but I might be mistaken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory) Maybe you could provide me with some links to more information?
Nov 5 2013: Hi Christophe, it was taken from Stephen Hawking's book "The Grand Design"Nov 6 2013: @ Harald. I read 'The Grand Design' and it's an interesting read. But what I got from it about M-theory is slightly different from what you got. In simple words, M-theory is like the story of five blind men and the elephant. When reality is as vast as anyone can think of and any given theory can explain only a part of it and starts to conflict with another theory that otherwise explains another part of it nicely, the most intelligent choice seems to be making a map of theories to try to have a complete understanding of reality. It is essential in this approach to disregard the fundamental incongruities between major theories. It's like two spouses deciding to make a compromise in order to run a family.
It seems therefore that a general form of reality is disjointed at this moment. I know we love to believe it is complete but until we have a solid evidence to that, assuming a continuous all conforming reality is a mere wish.
Nov 6 2013: the fundamental incongruities between the stances require adequate resolution... which may involve distinguishing and separating functional properties from systemic properties and effects. to but it bluntly when someone who is wrong tells me I am wrong I thank them, when they tell me I am right, I wonder if its because they realize that I am right or because I happen to be wrongNov 6 2013: Pabrita, I don't think I got into any explanation about M-theory and yes, I agree with what you state here.
M theory is string theory taken a step further. Stephen Hawking actually explained it quite nicely with his analogy to multiple, overlapping maps.
If true, it would change our concept of reality completely. Who can easily wrap his mind around the existence of 11 dimensions or branes ?
Personally I'm a bit skeptical whether M-theory will actually gather steam. The problem I see so far is that there is no way to measure or observe the constructs the theory is calling for and more importantly, it lacks predictions that, if coming through, would be evidence for the correctness of the theory.
So far, everything is just a lot of mathematical constructs.Nov 6 2013: My familiarity with M theory and string theory is quite limited... what I stated stems from a model I created to exemplify and make a point in a different dialogue... I used Cartesian an polar coordinate systems and a simple 'constant' function to demonstrate how a horizontal line and a circle represented the same thing... and how these where a particular case of a spiral and an inclined line... of course depending on the coordinate system a circle was a simple constant function or a quadratic equation... I also developed and extended the dualistic metaphor that uses a map and territory into a triad metaphor that links to other models I have created. In a way its like moving from a dualistic hot-cold subjective notion into an standard objective scalar notion involving temperature. Its easy to move from knowing the temperature to declare if its hot or cold but the other way is a bit more complicated and less accurate...
Joshua Bond
Nov 2 2013: From reading the comments so far, I agree with the general sentiment that there is an "absolute reality", and then there are our own very varied perceptions of that reality. The question "What is Reality" addresses both of these levels.
- +2
Those with one or two sensory deprivations can compensate amazingly, but that just gives them a perception of reality "enhanced" (or skewed) in a particular way as it were by being deaf, blind, or whatever.
People who've experienced "isolation tanks" where the opportunity for sensing is deliberately diminished, tend to report the ability to perceive reality through some other latent sensing mechanism which is usually not noticed because of the day-to-day dominance of the 5 physical senses (6th sense, 7th sense?). The same can be said for meditation, or drugs, which give the experience of perceiving reality from a different angle, or level.
All of which points to the fact that there are many ways in which we try and grasp and build a picture in our minds of that "ultimate reality". Maybe it's beyond words, despite the best attempts of mystics and poets down through the ages.
I would ask though, what might be the "qualities" of that ultimate reality?
With some idea of "qualities" in mind, we have some kind of guidance whereby our individual perceptions of that ultimate reality can be 'corrected' towards a more unifying global perception. Hopefully this might contribute to less war, and more co-operation.
Nov 2 2013: Hi Joshua, yes people can compensate with other senses if the are missing one.
Did you ever see this blind guy who makes kind of snapping sounds and orients himself by the reflection that comes back from the objects surrounding him ?
What are the qualities of this ultimate reality ? I don't know, but that's what I like to know.
I like to use an analogy. Think about whirls in a river. You can easily see them, so in some sense they are real, yet they are nothing else but the rest of the river of which they are a part. Could it be that the whirls are our subjective reality while the river is the underlying "absolute" reality ?
Joshua Bond
Nov 2 2013: Hi Harald,
- +1
I think your metaphor of the still deep water as ultimate reality, and the surface activity on the water as our perception of it, is a good one. It also pictures a "continuum" from the surface, with the promise of the ability to reach reach deeper and deeper in a progressive manner. The "progressive" element to me is realistic - I'm not a believer in instant enlightenment.
The qualities of this ultimate reality?
The first quality that springs to mind is that it is eternal, or beyond time.
A second quality might be that it is forever growing, developing, expanding, moving, changing - and perhaps this is reflected in the human desire to grow and reach for a higher potential.
A third quality (sort of expected maybe) is Love, where I'm defining love as "an unconditional acceptance of what truly is now". Bit tricky to explain this one, but we can only grow and move on from a unconditional acceptance of where we are now; ie: growth is organic. But of course knowing and being aware of what truly IS in any one moment or situation is not always easy because of our limited perception of what "now is". This was brought home to me with a recent illness; I got the sense that only when I fully accepted the situation (instead of moaning about being incapacitated) only then could my body recover. Ultimate Reality is always unconditionally accepting itself and so that is why (it's a theory) it grows and develops optimally.
A fourth quality might be benevolence, or beneficence. ie: ultimate reality has the quality of being essentially "good", rather than evil (it's not out to "get us"; but to help us grow). To me this implies also we are essentially innocent not guilty, essentially good not bad, and essentially co-operative, not combative.
Nov 3 2013: A conscious choice pro wellbeing is how I prefer to define love... it recognizes what truly is now and chooses to manifest the better possibilities.... sometimes in the past when seeking to define what's 'good' I gotten into 'conflicts' with others mostly because they see conflicts as good :-) what helped me sort out the situation consists of using a sustainable-desirable-congruen with life filter... it gives each a taste of their medicine while giving each the same thing... I liked most of what you said...Nov 4 2013: Hi Joshua, I think you go to far into the spiritual realm here.
As to eternal. Probably, at least that would be the most intuitive answer because otherwise we would have to ask when reality began and if we ask this question, something must already have existed that gave birth to reality unless we accept creation ex nihilo which is kind of difficult to imagine.
Nevertheless, quantum physics clearly shows us that intuition in certain realms of reality just breaks down. So we have to be careful with jumping on something just because it's intuitive.
As to points 2-4, here you lost me. That's too metaphysical from my point of view.Nov 5 2013: Hi Harald, I guess that if the question of the nature of ultimate reality is to be addressed at all, then it's likely to be something beyond what we can currently grasp with our limited perceiving minds. And when we go beyond our perception, then we are into the realm of meta-physics (though of course one day it might be "just physics" - or perhaps we could optimistically call it "future physics").
Did you have in mind yourself any qualities of ultimate reality?
Nov 5 2013: I agree with you Joshua, although I wouldn't call it meta physics. However, physics is getting in a realm where proof becomes increasingly difficult.
If I had any understanding of the ultimate reality I probably would already have won a Nobel price...lol
I know as little about the ultimate reality as a Goldfish knows about climbing a mountain.
The only glimpses we get from quantum physics are that most likely it's very different from the reality we take as a given.Nov 2 2013: Nicely put... maybe the underlying idea in what you stated involves what do we listen to ...now consider that the qualities of the ultimate reality are sustainable-desirable-congruent with the ways of life. Something interesting about 'words we use' is that they do not actually contain the meanings we use, the words absolute meaning is relative and set once and for all when used, the thing is the author uses it when composing, then each individual reader uses it; every reading, every conception and reconception and think of it. It can even be a bit more complicated with the author creating the play - directing the play actors to perform a certain scene - the audience experiencing the actors enactment of the play under the influence of what they know --- the critics stories they hold, expectations, dreams, prejudices etc.
usesthough we often think that they do and for all


text:
Philadelphia FlyersThis panorama, taken by James Blakeway, features the Philadelphia Flyers playing on home ice to a capacity crowd. The Flyers were established in 1967 as part of the NHL expansion and went on to complete their inaugural season by finishing atop all expansion teams in their division. In the 1973-74 season, the Flyers were the first team to win the Stanley Cup that were not part of the Original Six teams. The Flyers began the 1979-80 season by going undefeated for a North American professional sports record, 35 straight games (25010). The Flyers have played their home games on Broad Street since their inception, and are well know as the Broad Street Bullies.
A must for any true Flyers fan! Printed in brilliant color and perfect focus on high-quality print stock, and complete with a sharp white border that includes the official team logo, the commemorative title, and a brief descriptive paragraph, this Wells Fargo Center game night panorama is both a beauty for the wall, and a great collector's item for years to come. Perfect for the wall of home, office, locker room or classroom!
Product Specifications:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Moto Hagio's 'The Heart of Thomas' Is A Dense, Heartfelt Read [Preview]
Moto Hagio's Heart of Thomas, recently translated and released by Fantagraphics, is my first proper introduction to the shounen-ai, or "boy's love," genre of manga. I have friends who are into yaoi and boy's love, and they have been remarkably generous with their time, knowledge, and gag gifts of yaoi versions of comics I like, but it isn't quite my thing. I generally like comics


text:
'Steve Ditko's Monsters, Vol. 1: Gorgo' Delivers Classic Kaiju Goodness [Preview]
Most fans know Steve Ditko as the artist who co-created Spider-Man with Stan Lee, but his career in comics and the wider world of illustration not only could fill dozens of tomes, but, well, totally does fill several tomes! The latest look inside the prolific artist's portfolio comes via IDW's new Steve Ditko's Monsters, Vol. 1: Gorgo collection by Ditko and writer Joe Gill. Curated, edited and designed by Craig Yoe, the 224-page hardcover showcase


text:
Enter your Email Address and click 'Continue' Example: firstname.lastname@example.com For further assistance in retrieving your
password, please call:
(800) 770-3387 Submit Cancel Forgot Password Close /TravelSmith/US/Global/Popups/forgot_password Enter your email address:
false pdp {"scheme":"product1_cr"}
false pdp {"scheme":"product2_cr"}
Rated 4.9 out of 5 by 9 reviewers.
Rated 5 out of 5 by JaniceG Perfect size! I bought this secret travel wallet hoping it would hold enough of my valuables and still fit under my clothes. Perfect! The waterproof slide-zip pocket is big enough to hold my new, thicker passport as well as some cash. I can separate my different currencies in the two pockets as well. This is the only type of product that makes me feel my valuables are secure while traveling. Now that the RFID-blocking feature is added, it's a total home run. May 23, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5 by Gagiraffe Added Travel Security This travel waist wallet worked quite well for my trip to Paris. it's very comfortable to wear. I used it basically for to and from Paris and it made me feel more comfortable having my passport, charge cards and extra cash safely tucked inside my clothing. May 24, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5 by MJTemp Don't Leave Home Without One In today's high tech world, Pacsafe RFID accessories are a must have for the experienced traveler. Snaps on the zippers are an extra protection. Fully adjustable and comfortable to wear. April 1, 2015
Rated 5 out of 5 by Loisfromga Great idea Have not used this yet but will in near future. Will keep items safe and will be under my clothes so no way someone is going to rob me of everything! November 14, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5 by GlamorGirl1016 Excellent Purchase Highly recommended. Fit perfectly under clothes. Was the right size to hold my items, passport, credit cards, money, and several other items. Very secure. Very comfortable. June 20, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5 by Buff Well Used This product is very useful when traveling - I carry a couple hundred for incidentals as well as a copy of my passport. This is my second wallet and almost identical to the first. The first one gave out after 20 years of hard wear January 16, 2015
Rated 5 out of 5 by Drash Useful travel wallet I bought this for my husband who hasn't used it yet. I tried it out on walks in the neighborhood on hot days and was pleased that it was quite comfortable and am sure it will provide the needed protection on our next trip. While it is a little pricey, it offers RFID protection that typical waist belts can't offer. I like the zipper snaps too. June 5, 2014
Rated 5 out of 5 by Buyer2306 Effective & Comfortable Travel Protection I ordered two RFID Safe Waist Wallets for myself and my husband for our trip to Italy. They were lightweight and roomy enough to hold our passports and currency. There are two pockets which snap closed, and one contains a separate plastic pouch to keep the items from absorbing moisture. The adjustable elastic waistband made for a comfortable and unobtrusive fit under our clothes. It was a good solution to protect our valuables. July 13, 2013
Product:90933-Pacsafe RFIDsafe Secret Travel Waist Wallet