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

[GMT]

and for the record, the double slit experiement does not prove anything about the quantum state of anything, it measures the pattern many objects make on a screen after their travels, that is all. the act of measuring their path alters the possible paths that they can take over the whole of their journey, as when something reacts with something else it is altered in some way. it is popular to believe that something must be observed to collapse its quantum state, but a quantum state does not exist, it is merely a concept to draw a prediction from a puzzle. Many god botherers use this misconception to claim a proof of an external observer, but that is not a valid arguement as what they are relying upon is a fallacy to begin with.

 

[southflorida]

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.

...this is true about the present moment from my perspective, that
present, past, and future are distinctions. The thing that the
present moment points to is what is Absolute, just like Infinity,
and Nothingness, they are simply Consciousness that just "is."

...it is a shame that this can't be explained well with words, and can
only be experienced individually, but since we are distinct, but not
separated, in a way...we are all experiencing this anyway

...and it's just that language is a tool that is not right for the job
of talking about things that are Absolute and in themselves include
Everything that there "is."

...interesting about this psilocybin and DMT...have you ever tried it?

 

[southflorida]

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?

and for the record, the double slit experiement does not prove anything about the quantum state of anything, it measures the pattern many objects make on a screen after their travels, that is all. the act of measuring their path alters the possible paths that they can take over the whole of their journey, as when something reacts with something else it is altered in some way. it is popular to believe that something must be observed to collapse its quantum state, but a quantum state does not exist, it is merely a concept to draw a prediction from a puzzle. Many god botherers use this misconception to claim a proof of an external observer, but that is not a valid arguement as what they are relying upon is a fallacy to begin with.

Of course that is true about language, and the giraffe and elephant
being different. The thing is, many things that we experience when
contemplating the nature of who we are, are not easy to describe
if they are in the domain of consciousness and not the self-mind.

...taking into account that from the time that we were born, we
were quite "heavily" programmed by society/culture, it is important
to make a distinction between this programming, and your own
personal experiences and your own personal distinctions.

...the things I have experienced are difficult to describe with words,
and they seem absurd to me when I think about it, but still I want
to share this information, because I am hoping that someone else
has experienced something similar.

...the part with the "distinctions" I became aware when I was 14,
and this was 26 years ago, but for many years I didn't grasp how
important this realization was.

...because it doesn't matter who or what creates these distinctions,
it is obvious that everything we perceive is a distinction. If something
wasn't distinct or different from what is around it, we would not be
able to perceive it.

...and as far as quantum physics, I don't really get into that, because
for me it is hearsay, I never personally seen any of those things, and
probably never will. Personal experience is tough enough to figure out,
believing what others say, without personally experiencing it, is not
a good approach for trying to grasp the true nature of reality.

 

[southflorida]

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.

...this is a very good distinction

...and I would like to add to this, that the experiences that we can experience,
can be in domains where no words can describe them, even if a definition is
agreed on. For example, absolute consciousness/being...is undescribable, and
no matter how much I tried to describe what I experienced and the insights
that I had, they still sounds like crazy BS, and even though English is not my
first language, still, even if it was, I couldn't describe it any better, I just would
probably use more or different words in an attempt to describe what I experienced.

 

[statusquo]

@GMT: I didn't state that we don't need language to construct a definition. In fact I said the exact opposite. I said that a dictionary definition is too imprecise to use in a philosophical argument regarding epistemology or metaphysics. We need to clarify the exact definition and meaning of a word or concept when using it and a dictionary definition does not suffice. Also, definitions are often merely what the authors settled on exactly because there wasn't a 'universally' accepted definition. Again, you can go look up "person" in the dictionary and get a definition but unless it is 100% inline with whatever definition you have when arguing, you need to clarify; I'll submit there is a chance that the dictionary definition and the one agreed upon are/would be the same but philosophical arguments of epistemology usually deal with words/concepts that are abstract and subject to different interpretations. For instance if I am arguing for how 4d time solves the problem of personal identity, it will be necessary for me and the opposition to agree on a definition of person. Or when I want to argue that a virus is a living thing we need to give a definition for what it means to be alive.

Also the dictionary focuses on practical definitions aimed at simplifying exchange of information between peoples. Epistomology and defining what something really is focuses on the true nature.

 

[GMT]

since metaphysics is the discussion of that which does not exist, the definitions you wish to use for any of it is irrelevant, as its all bollocks anyway.

 

[statusquo]

Where did you get the idea that metaphysics deals with that which does not exist? To facilitate communication in regards to a casual conversation I will include a definition =P:
met·a·phys·ics: The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space

Edit: and I am too lazy to go back and re read all of our ranting but I might have meant wheeler's delayed choice experiment when I said double-slit. That being said I think that the quantum reality/spacetime continuum we existence in is all predetermined so there is no quantum state of probability/infinity of all options at our plane of existence but in a more fundamental sense. I guess this could be construed to say/hinting towards the idea of infinite existences/universes for all possibilities. I am a hard fatalist and think that we have no control as "agents" and everything is already predetermined and subject to no will other than the most basic laws of the universe (fractals, shit like that).

@South: Indeed. The brew, the smoke and the fungus. All in varying dosages. IMO (and I have no desire to promote irresponsibility) people who are properly educated and prepared are the ones that should embark on these voyages. The type of voyages I am referring to are what Terrence Mckenna (ethnobotanist/pharmacologist and anthroplogist PHD from Berkeley) calls 'heroic doses'. To truly experience ego loss requires a potent experience; for many this means a high dose for others they can achieve this through other natural methods like yoga and deep meditation.

In regards to language, I agree that it has a very difficult time with abstract concepts like that. I do however hope/think that we will reach a point where we are able to internally increase our brains RAM/processing capabilities, allowing for faster computation of data and the ability to think about more than one thing at a time, implying some kind of internally implanted external mechanical piece of technology. If this does happen, maybe we can all be linked wirelessly into some kind of global unitary/telepathic consciousness that would spawn the dawn of a new era for mankind.

 

[GMT]

again , trace the route source of the word. meta, beyond, outside the realm of.
metaphysics deals with concepts such as : how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, what colour underwear does god prefer, does rudolf leave footprints in the snow?

 

[statusquo]

Indeed, outside the realm of physics, not reality. Also the questions you pose are certainly not metaphysical questions or philosophical questions. The metaphysical questions would be the ones we would need to answer before the ones you listed like: are there angels/god and where did they come from? What are there purpose? Notice the first and most primary part of the definition: The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things. None of the above questions you posted deal with the first principles of things.

 

[GMT]

lol, well then I guess thats another usage of a word that you are making up, as it certainly isnt the one thats used in philosophy in the english speaking world. Have you ever studied philosophy formaly? if so in what country? and at what level?

And anything that is not physical, is outside of existence. if you doubt that, search for an example.

 

[statusquo]

Well being an eliminative materialist, I will agree with you that anything that is not physical is outside of existence. I will also submit defeat in regards to metaphysics dealing with things outside of reality. That being said metaphysics still pertains to things that are directly related to reality and not everyone agrees that only the physical constitutes reality. However your questions still aren't metaphysical in nature and metaphysics is still vital for the progression of science; science and philosophy are getting closer and closer to merging, especially as our technology advances, and mutually rely on each other for their advancements.

In regards to my studies...yes I have studied formally. Both in highschool and in college. In college I have minored with a focus on ethics but have taken classes that deal with epistemology/metaphysics. A few examples: Philosophy of Human Nature, Introduction to Ethics, Philosophy of Time, Morality of war and peace and Intro to logic and deductive reasoning, and a handful of various 100 level intro classes that talk about the basic E/M ideas and arguments. Also, being a political science major, many of the political authors we read are philosophers. especially when it comes to political theory. In addition to my formal studies, since highschool, I have read a lot on my own time and have also done my best to incorporate science from all different fields (from both my formal and informal education + experience) into my philosophical thoughts/opinions/arguments. Although I do not take formal college courses in many of the sciences, I do a lot of my own reading and watch/read lectures from MIT online/other college free online stuff and have a subscription to Nature magazine and try to keep up to date in the fields of biology, astrophysics/astrobiology, physiological psychology and a few other fields - all of which I have taken formal classes in. Also I live with my dad who is a doctor and is constantly bombarding me with tidbits of knowledge ^_^

Edit: edited some stuff in the second paragraph and forgot to answer your question in regards to what country. Unfortunately and shamefully (haha jk, somewhat...) the U.S. That being said most of my opinions/arguments are founded upon of my own thinking based on things I have actually learned, as opposed to many of my peers who just accept arguments without any critical thought or slightest shred of authority to offer an argument on the subject. Although I seem to upset many people, being that arguing has a negative connotation and people don;t like it when their beliefs/assumptions come into question or when people are reminded how wrong they are, I am very open minded and am willing to hear out both sides. I have certainly changed many of my fundamental beliefs regarding E/M in the last few years in the light more knowledge.

 

[southflorida]

When I started this thread, I had in mind to discuss things that have
to do with the nature of a human being and the reality we perceive.

And while obviously I believe 100% that objective reality is what it is,
in other words, pain is pain, hot is hot, a tree is a tree, etc., and
all these "things" actually exist...what I tried to point to, and maybe
not very successfully...is that...that is not all there is.

...and the primary thing that I tried to point out is that "distinctions,"
the actual differences between everything are what create the world
that we perceive...the objective world, and the subjective world,
since we are still making distinctions inside of our minds.

...and that without being a "distinction" a thing can't exist, and this
includes things that we perceive externally and internally.

...basically my personal experinces have made me experience these
two insights...distinction...and what I call the present moment/here
and now...and to me it seems these are some of the main elements
that are behind the true nature of what we are experiencing.

 

[GMT]

oh dont get me wrong, i know the questions I posed were nonsense questions, I used them as an example of a nonsense subject area. I'll maintain an open mind about there being questions that relate to that which is not real yet also relate to reality as I can't think of any off the top of my head, but accept that doesnt rule out the possability. However I dissagree that the questions werent metaphysical, as they dealt with questions about that which exists as an ontological reality exclusively. Undermining ontological realities as a pure excercise in thought can be usefull in establishing the nature of, and methods of aquiring knowledge of, reality qua reality.
I dont know what E/M stands for.
cool so it sounds like you should have a fairly decent grounding, that allows for a decent discussion of the topic if the need should arrise. Especially the ability to distinguish inductive from deductive logic.

 

[statusquo]

I can give a quick and short example of metaphysical questions relating to reality - what is the nature of the universe and the first cause? These are questions that can and/or will be solved by science and deal directly with reality.

I agree that the questions (and I know they were purposefully intended to be silly; don't worry you weren't judged )dealt with that which exists as an ontological reality exclusively but they don't meet the criteria of dealing with the first principles of things or abstract concepts. These are questions of science after we prove/accept the existence of angels/god and rudolph. Unless you have a way to convince me that they do we should just agree to disagree in regards to that specific point E/M just stands for epistemology/metaphysics since I got tired of typing it out so many times haha,

 

[GMT]

While dealing with first principles may be a common theme in courses on metaphysics, the term itself, if you trace the route of the term, does not actually make that a requirement for a topic of discussion to fall within the definition of metaphysics. for instance, the question of whether it is necessary for a creator to be omnipotent in order to create the universe, could be considered a first principle, and may therefore fall within that definition, however considering whether omnipotence is a requirement for a being to be considered a god does not. Yet both would fall within the realm of metaphysics. Though personally, and I may well be wrong on this, I wouldn't consider the topic of the big bang et al, to be metaphysical in nature, as it would fall within the remit of pure physics. The nature of the universe is a question that is open to interpretation, and I'm not good with those, I kind of need solid questions to even consider them as real questions.

 

[VerdantGreen]

i havent voted in the poll because nothing is really black and white like that.

But really it doesnt matter, because the reality we have been dealt is the only one we have, we feel pain, pleasure, happiness, sadness etc and it is real in the sense that it is what we experience - even if we look at it through the veil of our subjectivity. If it is some illusion or similar then it is still the sum total of our experience of this life and therefore it is reality as we know it. i see no advantage in trying to cleverly argue it doesnt exist in some way because that isnt going to make it go away - this is not a film, this is life - its what we have and it's pretty amazing.

to say that something doesnt exist unless we can distinguish it from something else implies that nothing existed until there was intelligence great enough to be able to distinguish - so what was going on before intelligent life evolved? - yeah you are going to try an tell me nothing! but i dont buy it.

its all interesting in a philosophical sense - but imo as soon as you start to genuinely think that our life experience is not 'real' then that way madness lies.

maybe time for you to take a break from the weed? ....

VG

 

[southflorida]

i havent voted in the poll because nothing is really black and white like that.

But really it doesnt matter, because the reality we have been dealt is the only one we have, we feel pain, pleasure, happiness, sadness etc and it is real in the sense that it is what we experience - even if we look at it through the veil of our subjectivity. If it is some illusion or similar then it is still the sum total of our experience of this life and therefore it is reality as we know it. i see no advantage in trying to cleverly argue it doesnt exist in some way because that isnt going to make it go away - this is not a film, this is life - its what we have and it's pretty amazing.

to say that something doesnt exist unless we can distinguish it from something else implies that nothing existed until there was intelligence great enough to be able to distinguish - so what was going on before intelligent life evolved? - yeah you are going to try an tell me nothing! but i dont buy it.

its all interesting in a philosophical sense - but imo as soon as you start to genuinely think that our life experience is not 'real' then that way madness lies.

maybe time for you to take a break from the weed? ....

VG

VG...nice of you to pop in into this thread...always a pleasure.

...by the way, everything is really black and white, because these
are distinctions, and different shades of grey are distinctions too,
in fact every shade of grey is a different distinction

...reality is real, but the topic of this thread is "what is the true
nature of this reality?" Basically, the major question is, what was
there before the first two distinctions?

And even though you don't buy it, because you can't buy it, not
because you don't want to -- because it is not something the
human mind can buy! Mine doesn't buy it either, but I am looking
from the perspective of NOT-KNOWING, because in the end, how
do we know that we know something?

We might "think" "believe" be "convinced" that we know something,
but these don't point toward HOW do we know what something IS.

...and it is not madness that lies there...it is freedom...madness is
when you are convinced that you know something and you don't
actually know it.

VG, I'm sure you are aware of that the majority of our views are based
on the culture/society we live in, and this is a major filter through which
we see everything. Since one of the truisms in our society is that
knowledge is power...not-knowing is considered to be a weakness!

...but is it? From my perspective it is not, and is much more powerful
and honest than the state of "knowing."

...not-knowing is our natural state and our true nature, which is by the
way...the state you were born in, or at least I hope that is the way
you were born, and not with the majority of the "knowledge" and
the "distinctions" that are there now

...I just think that a sincere inquiry of our own into the domain that I'm
calling the true nature of our existence, or what is our true nature,
is a worthy path to walk...since it might lead to the absolute truth.

...and this is what truly interests me, and truly excites me the most! But,
I'm not preaching or calling anyone with me, just writing about my personal
experiences and my personal perspective on this matter.

...either way, always a pleasure to see you in my threads, as I already
have said, and I look forward to your future posts about this topic
since it is an interesting thing to throw back and forth, at least from
my perspective. We got nothing but time till we die anyway, might
as well once in a while contemplate about "what we really are"

...or at least it can't hurt

 

[VerdantGreen]

thanks sf, i agree that its interesting to discuss - i just worry for the sanity of anyone who is convinced that reality is some kind of fantastical construct that has 'nothing' beyond it.

VG

 

[GMT]

lol that description fits both SFs view and my own, which are opposing points of view.

 

[shawkmon]

heroic doses lol, i went thru a terrance mckenna phase, he makes ya think , i wish he was still with us, someone else needs to stand up like he did and take the reins !