Is it possible that reality is not what you think?...yes?/no?...lol

[Frozenguy]

Our brains warp reality so that we can mentally cope with life.

Most people who see pure reality are in mental wards.

Can you give me an example of the true reality that people in mental wards see?

 

[HempKat]

But, the majority of the time, we perceive concepts, and not what
is really there, and this is why when you look at yourself on tape
you say that this doesn't really look like me or sound like me, and
other people say, of course it does...lol

No, we don't believe that's what we look like or sound like because we are not use to experiencing ourselves from a different perspective. When we speak and hear ourselves we are hearing both externally thru the ear and internally thru vibrations that reach our eardrums thru the fact that the eyes, ears, nose and throat are all connected. When we hear a tape recording of ourself we are only hearing externally thru the ear and that's why we sound different.

With seeing ourselves on tv or in a movie it seems different because again we're not used to seeing ourselves that way. Also it has to do with the fact that in filming we take 3D, convert it to 2D and then our mind has to convert it back. Most people don't see themselves other then when they look in the mirror and for most people that's a very small part of our day. The rest of it is seeing the world from that first person perspective we work with which doesn't allow us to see us in our entirety. So we fill in the blanks with what we think of ourselves. If we think well of ourselves we probably see ourselves idealistically, like maybe we think we are not as fat or as skinny as we are. If we think poorly of ourselves we tend to see ourselves more critically as either fatter or skinnier then we are.

It has nothing at all to do with percieving concepts rather then what is really there.

 

[BagseedSamurai]

This is a long thread and I am too high to want to read it all. I wanted to chime in anyway, because it seems like waxing philosophical is the word. So lets do it.

First, the poll doesn't offer an accurate reflection of a good way of thinking about reality. Your poll allows for either A) "Reality" is an illusion, or B) Reality is real; not an illusion. This is a forced question in any case because it does not offer anything in between. In the vast array of possibilities, it could even be said that this reality is an illusion that exists because it is real to the person viewing it. What then? It has been said by many modern philosophers that reality is an illusion, sure, but if we can be fooled, how do we know the illusion itself isn't real? How can we know any other reality than that which we have experience?

"You cannot be anything that you do not know yourself to be."

Our finite "realizations" are things that the universe itself, in all its nothingness and somethingness, already knows. I think it has become pop theory to protest the nature of the universe and of reality without a proper attempt to really understand it. People follow through with experiences of the mystical. Stories of the entities of mescalin or the altered perceptions of LSD are nothing more than perspectives of the universe as it exists normally. People that see reality as "mostly empty" profess that since everything that exists is supposedly empty space correlate this basal data of practical nothingness to illusion when this could not be further from the case. The people that seems to see the illusion side of the coin look for answers beyond our reality even though it is abundantly clear that breaking the barriers of our perception only goes so far as to create myth, or see a bunch of funny colors.

To clarify this "half empty" view of reality, the amalgam of this theory explains everything within the human experience as illusory, and that nothing that happens within our mortal lives is anything but empty and not-at-all-real. If you imagine the atom, you see the proton, the neutron and the electron whereas the Illusion Theory seems to see only the space between. This supposedly empty space seems to form the blockade of the theory, bulwarking theologic mantra with a smidgen of science.

This is not to discount science either, as seeing reality as "half real." This side of the coin offers the problematic view that reality is real, and attempt to explain how. This Half Full Theory looks mostly at the protons, neutrons and electrons and dissects them to attempt to find the fundament of anything that exists. This perspective falls into problems when it attempts to explain only the things that we can explain as fact, or real. Most other things are dismissed unless they have evidence. The problem there is that human perception is so small, so infinitesimal that even if god were to show up at our house to play a game of Left 4 Dead, we probably wouldn't even be able to see or comprehend what has happened or would be happening. So, if our minds would block out such an important event due to the sheer stress it would cause, how could we hope to measure something supposedly super or supranatural? And if anything exists as a natural occurrence in nature, then how could something like a ghost be supernatural?

The balance between the two sides of your poll seems the logical progression. Do you honestly think reality and our perception is just an illusion? Sure, we cannot be sure we are not dreaming and we can never truly trust our senses (n.d. Socrates), but to dismiss the binary nature of reality is to deny half of the truth. Even if the reality is illusory, to what point is the illusion real? If reality exists, then what forces cause it to be?

Nothing that exists in nature can be supernatural.

Delve deeper. You're on the right track.

 

[southflorida]

No, we don't believe that's what we look like or sound like because we are not use to experiencing ourselves from a different perspective. When we speak and hear ourselves we are hearing both externally thru the ear and internally thru vibrations that reach our eardrums thru the fact that the eyes, ears, nose and throat are all connected. When we hear a tape recording of ourself we are only hearing externally thru the ear and that's why we sound different.

With seeing ourselves on tv or in a movie it seems different because again we're not used to seeing ourselves that way. Also it has to do with the fact that in filming we take 3D, convert it to 2D and then our mind has to convert it back. Most people don't see themselves other then when they look in the mirror and for most people that's a very small part of our day. The rest of it is seeing the world from that first person perspective we work with which doesn't allow us to see us in our entirety. So we fill in the blanks with what we think of ourselves. If we think well of ourselves we probably see ourselves idealistically, like maybe we think we are not as fat or as skinny as we are. If we think poorly of ourselves we tend to see ourselves more critically as either fatter or skinnier then we are.

It has nothing at all to do with percieving concepts rather then what is really there.

okay HK...I'll take your word for it.

 

[southflorida]

Nothing that exists in nature can be supernatural.

Delve deeper. You're on the right track.

BS...will read and respond to it tomorrow. In the posts I made
in this thread I explain how consciousness creates reality, and this
is my perspective from personal experience, and not from hearsay!

 

[HempKat]

okay HK...I'll take your word for it.

You don't have to take just my word on it, lots of people have expressed the exact same views and these things have been tested and proven. So it's not just my word.

Although I'm sure you're not being sincere and have no intentions of taking my word but rather are trying to make it seem that this is one individual's opinion and therefore dismissable. Even if just in your own mind because that's the distinction your self mind has placed on it to protect your self mind's perception of reality.

 

[Drugcheese]

Everything you see is relative to you, and everything that exists for you to see is relative to reality.

 

[Marijuanasaur]

if the expanding universe theory is correct...
then infinite is relative to the speed at which the universe is expanding in comparison to the speed at which the subject of time(infinity)is traveling in any direction?

We actually don't know if the universe is infinite. People speculate this that and the other, but it turns out we can only observe a 14billion lightyear long expanse of universe. Whats at the edge? well, we don't know. Any light coming from beyond that distance hasn't had enough time to reach us, so its typically assumed by astrophysicists that theres just more of the same.

 

[BagseedSamurai]

BS...will read and respond to it tomorrow. In the posts I made
in this thread I explain how consciousness creates reality, and this
is my perspective from personal experience, and not from hearsay!

I don't disagree about that.

 

[statusquo]

@basspirate: "just as there is the universe, galaxies, star systems, planets, continents, cities, neighborhoods, homes, families, individuals, organs, cells and infinitely on down (and larger from the beginning). humans are just another part of the cyclical nature of the universe. i think that within each of us at an unfathomably small level there are the vast wonders of the universe that we observe; inside you there very well be worlds full of conscious entities contemplating the same shit."

Exactly! Units of existence go infinitely in both directions. There is no fundamental particle. There is no "edge" of the universe where spacetime/existence are not present on the other side. I also like to look at all natural systems as "living". We have cells that smaller units that carry out functions (and even cells have smaller units etc etc) just like the planet earth has smaller units that do the same, and our solar system that has smaller units that do the same and galaxies that do the same and galaxy clusters and so on. Humans are just another cog in the wheel of what is "nature". We should respect and appreciate the chance to tag along and observe as this beautiful machine unfolds.

@Southflorida: "the illusion of past/future is the primary cause of all suffering and
strugle for our false-self that is attached to these two illusory
phychological concepts. Once a human being becomes truly
aware that there is only the Present Moment, the Here and Now,
the majority/or even all of the suffering/struggle ends!"
I agree with part of this in that the concept of past and future is *one* of the primary reasons for suffering (other things such as attachment, I believe qualify). However that being said, you adopt a presentist view of time which is inherently illogical and contradictory. Not only the present exists, in fact all of time exists simultaneously and the distinctions of past, present and future are merely distinctions on the human level.

Also it seems like it was hinted at in other posts, but I agree that one has to experience consciousness without distinctions; i.e. ego loss. High doses of psilocybin and DMT (a phosphorilated version of psilocybin) can induce these types of state where the ego is loss and the individual undergoing the experience is left with pure existence and "isness". No distinctions, just being. The practical applications for both of the above substances are so myriad and profound in nature it's a shame there isn't more research being done.

 

[GMT]

He's confusing distinction with perception. Illusion is sensory distortion. Perception is sensory information. Perception is our own, individual view of reality. When distinction changes, perception changes.

The senses dont need to be distorted in order to for an illusion to exist, the senses can accurately convey what is received by them without the illusion being destroyed. The mind processes the sensory information in the way that it normally would when receiving that stimuli, however the original cause of the stimuli is different than it would appear to be.
Perception is the interpretation of sensory information, not the information itself.
Conception is the view we hold.

http://dictionary.reference.com

 

[statusquo]

yeah DMT is one drug I really want to try. I have heard some marvellous stories about it and wish to experience it myself. I have heard it is very useful if one wishes to perceive deeper into the nature of Reality. apparently it can also cure heroin addiction after one dose..or two or three depending on the method used to consume. The levels of DMT are greatly depleted in the modern western person leading to depression and a lack of the old 'sparkle' that makes life joyfull. hmm....this is just stuff I've read peoples...I have yet to try it out but intend to...

Does anyone know how to get DMT if you live in Australia?

how would you create your reality if you did not know how to talk?, how to think using learned words/symbols? reality would still be there albeit in a different form...fascinating stuff

If one has basic chemistry knowledge and can follow guides, one can buy legal plants that contain DMT and extract it. One would also need basic lab equipment all easily obtainable online, legally, and relatively cheaply. DMT is all over in biology. So many plants and animals contain DMT. Anyways bouncing bear botanicals is a good site for buying legal herbs. Syrian Rue has a fair amount of DMT and is a common go to.

If one does not have the ability/desire to do a chemical extraction, he can do a brew (known as ayahuasca) of water + Syrian Rue + Banisteriopsis caapi (a vine found in central/southern america that is also legal and cheap). The vine is necessary because we cannot absorb DMT orally without MAOIs (monoamine oxidase inhibitors), which the vine contains. It should be noted however, for the type of experiences you describe and are looking for, orally ingested DMT has a much lower peak and longer duration and is very similar to a psilocybin trip (as i stated earlier the two chemicals are very similar). Smoked DMT is much more potent catapulting you into "isness"/alternate planes and the peak only lasts 10-20 minutes.

In regards to the last part of your post - as I brought up earlier - our form of consciousness is absolutely dependent on our unique form of language. Without this language our distinctions would be gone and our brains wouldn't be able to process all he input sensory data and we would be existing in a state of "isness" and acting off instinct without an ego. Basically, we would be animals - this is not mean to be derogatory or to suggest humans are more superior. DMT/psilocybin strip down the ego and take us back to a more primal state of existence.
Note: I do not encourage the illegal process/manufacturing of legal herbs into illegal chemicals. This is merely a general overview and not intended to promote or suggest breaking of the law.

We actually don't know if the universe is infinite. People speculate this that and the other, but it turns out we can only observe a 14billion lightyear long expanse of universe. Whats at the edge? well, we don't know. Any light coming from beyond that distance hasn't had enough time to reach us, so its typically assumed by astrophysicists that theres just more of the same.

If the universe were expanding at a constant rate, then this alleged edge of the universe would be ~14 billion light years away - a light year is a measure of distance, not time, and is the total distance light travels in a year - or however much time has passed since the initial point - big bang. However, since the expansion is increasing, the "edge" is much farther than 14 billion light years, the real edge is much farther, ~96 billion light years IIRC. The farthest we can see now, ~14 billion light years, is only like 30% (just an approximation to illustrate my point) of the total distance from our position on earth to the edge of the universe. So even if one adopts the traditional view of there being "nothing" outside the "edge" of our universe, what is past the 14 billion light years we can see is the same shit we see before. The nothingness would be past that 96 billion light year edge, not the 14 billion year one.

Edit: @GMT using dictionary definitions, especially from non-philosopically oriented works like websters etc, doesn't apply in regards to challenging South's/my belief about the sameness of infinity/nothing. Yes the dictionary definitions are different but that doesn't mean their inherent properties and what they are at a fundamental level aren't the same.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The senses dont need to be distorted in order to for an illusion to exist, the senses can accurately convey what is received by them without the illusion being destroyed. The mind processes the sensory information in the way that it normally would when receiving that stimuli, however the original cause of the stimuli is different than it would appear to be.
Perception is the interpretation of sensory information, not the information itself.
Conception is the view we hold.

http://dictionary.reference.com

In philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science, perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information. The word "perception" comes from the Latin words perceptio, percipio, and means "receiving, collecting, action of taking possession, apprehension with the mind or senses."[1]
Perception is one of the oldest fields in psychology. The oldest quantitative law in psychology is the Weber-Fechner law, which quantifies the relationship between the intensity of physical stimuli and their perceptual effects. The study of perception gave rise to the Gestalt school of psychology, with its emphasis on holistic approach.
What one perceives is a result of interplays between past experiences, including one’s culture, and the interpretation of the perceived.

 

[statusquo]

All this talk about perception being the illusion (which I'm glad many of you agree on) and the reality/information that's processed to create an illusory reality despite the original reality/information being real, is slightly confusing and requires clarification IMO.

I certainly agree that if a tree falls and there is nobody around to hear it that that tree still fell. However, in my earlier posts, when I say an observer I don't mean every single person needs to do the observing themselves for the creation of an objective reality. Also, although I do believe humans do not experience objective reality, it still exists. What I DO mean is that there needs to be some observer or reality doesn't exist. Take the tree example. If there wasn't a single observer of that event in any regard - whether that be visual or auditory etc etc - then we wouldn't have an objective reality. For simplicity, if a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, as long as there is something observing it, it did happen and there is an objective reality. However, until something observes that event, it is merely nothing and infinity simultaneously...A quantum state of no/all possibilities as shown in the double slit experiment (the mere act of measuring/observing plays a role in what happens in so called "reality"). Now people might try and argue what about before there was life? I have a few responses to this. First of all what if there are other biological organisms observing that we aren't even aware of (this could even include ETs)? Another response is that, given my 4d view of all time existing simultaneously, there could be an ET many billions of light years away viewing Earth in it's early stages before life was even around. This would result in an observer even from early Earth's perspective since there is an observer in the future and that future exists even though we are fettered to the present. I wrote a paper on combining the philosophical issues of personal identity (how an we preserve the identity of things since there certainly isn't a physical connection), time (4d) and biocentrism (observation is necessary for reality). If anyone doesn't think I am just a fool spouting nonsense and is curious, PM me and I can send it to you.

 

[GMT]

when you want to understand the english language, a dictionary is essential. You can make up your own language if you like, but dont then try to call it english, as it isnt.

Disco, yes, the process of attaining, as I said, not the point of view that has already been concieved. I too have studied psychology, and philosophy on a formal basis. Please dont try to tell me that the english language doesnt mean the same thing within those fields, it does.

 

[statusquo]

A dictionary definition has no place in an epistemological argument or when using a concept in a metaphysical argument...the whole point of epistemology (knowledge) is to clarify what something is and define it. What is a human, what is a "living thing:", what is perception, what is reality. Dictionary definitions are merely convenient very broad and incomplete definitions for day to day conversing. For the purposes of a detailed argument we need to clearly define what we mean when we say a word/use a concept and we shouldn't just rely on the dictionary definition. All that aside, a dictionary isn't even an objective measurement because all dictionaries are different and have different definitions of words.

 

[southflorida]

You don't have to take just my word on it, lots of people have expressed the exact same views and these things have been tested and proven. So it's not just my word.

Although I'm sure you're not being sincere and have no intentions of taking my word but rather are trying to make it seem that this is one individual's opinion and therefore dismissable. Even if just in your own mind because that's the distinction your self mind has placed on it to protect your self mind's perception of reality.

I'm taking your word for it, because what you wrote made sense, and
this is not something I ever contemplated much about. Video and
audio have never been interesting to me, except for watching and
listening to them, of course, I never thought deeply about why,
I look and sound different, and after you explained, I figured I'll
take your word for it. Next time I have a chance I will observe and
see if that is what happens, and will let you know.

 

[southflorida]

We actually don't know if the universe is infinite. People speculate this that and the other, but it turns out we can only observe a 14billion lightyear long expanse of universe. Whats at the edge? well, we don't know. Any light coming from beyond that distance hasn't had enough time to reach us, so its typically assumed by astrophysicists that theres just more of the same.

this is VERY true...that we don't know with our mind...but we
can experience the truth personally without the mind.

 

[southflorida]

I don't disagree about that.

of course, I wrote that to let you know that what I'm writing about
is from my experiences, and this is why it might sound crazy, but
I'm doing my best using words to describe what I experienced, and
it isn't very easy...and not working out too well...to be honest

 

[GMT]

it is impossible to construct any arguement without language. when you use language inaccurately, you make your arguement into nonsense. elephants and girraffes are different animals, can we say look at that long necked elephant over there and turn a girraffe into an elephant for the sake of the sentence?