What Is Reality? (experience, verse)

[Lightkeeper]

Originally Posted by true blood

Reality=Form + Matter (Aristotle) kinda philosophical definition.

Reality is what actually exists, as indicated by the signs of existence that appear in the human consciousness and designated by human terminology
If one has a tiny glimpse of reality, the way it really is, and attempts to put it into words; The result will seem bizarre to most people and very few will take it seriously.

It seems to me that all interpretation is human and therefore subjective. I was reading a book last night that reminds us that science deals with probabilities and everything in the Universe is uncertain. Quantum Mechanics is about uncertainty. We perceive the universe with uncertainty. Some think that the universe will never be completely understood. How can one determine true reality with probability and uncertainty?

[(Q)]

Here are some Einstein quotes on reality.

Yes, Einsteins quotes are very nice and he has a million of them. But lets not forget it was Einstein who was the first person to accurately describe reality with mathematics and postulates that to this day hold true.

How can one determine true reality with probability and uncertainty?

Why worry about it - on a macro-scale we don’t deal with probabilities and uncertainties.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

But what if a person was born with 1 eye. Does that make him less than a human? Or maybe hes just on the edge of reality and normalcy. What then characterizes reality and certainty.

But even if a few people are born with 1 eye, it doesn't change the truth we have discovered. It remains true that humans usually have 2 eyes.

They are all guesses. Of course good guesses, but still guesses. There is not difference in the true reality, but how we come to know that reality differs.

I think the important thing here is that even if they are guesses, they are still good guesses. Just because it is difficult to be 100% accurate in describing reality doesn't mean that we have to give up reasoning altogether (in which case we can expect virtually 0% accuracy).

[Master Vigil]

Now you say that humans usually have 2 eyes, but then that destroys the truth within your first statement. And yes I do believe we should never give up our reasonings, but that still shows that even tests are guesses.

[Runt]

I think that "reality" as humans percieve it is different than Reality. What we view to be "reality" seems to me to be a very limited and sometimes scrambled image of Reality.

To try to explain my views in a very...simplistic way:

First, our most fundamental understanding of Reality comes from our five senses. The information that our senses collect is handed over to our intellect (which analyzes it, draws conclusions, stores data away for later) and our subconscious/unconsicious mind (which translates the part of Reality we are able to sense into symbols and stores it away in that form).

It is easiest to understand how limited our perception may be by imagining reality if we took away some of our most basic senses. Imagine what reality would seem like without a sense of smell, eyesight, sense of touch, hearing, or a sense of taste. It would be very different.

Now imagine some of the senses other creatures have that we do not. What would our reality be like if we could see ultraviolet light as bees can? What if our hearing and sense of smell were more acute, like that of a dog? What if we could hear and make sounds way below the range of human hearing like giraffes can, or hear sounds above our range, like dogs? Think of the world from a bat's point of view, or a snake's. Their realities are just as valid as ours is, and in many ways are both more and less limited... and all very different.

Which reality is the right one? None... they all depend on what the senses can detect of Reality, but none are able to sense Reality in its completeness.

Now think... we have an idea of the senses of other creatures because, in many cases, they are very similar to our own. We can hear, just not in the same way as a giraffe, bat, or dog can. We can smell, just not like a dog or a snake. We can see, just not the way a bee can. But what if there are simply things out there that we CANNOT sense... and neither can any other creatures on this planet... because we simply have no means of sensing it? Not only would we not have this sense ourselves, but we would not even know that it exists, and without the ability to detect things with this sense, would would also not even know if they exist, or understand their full nature.

I admit that this is highly doubtful... surely if these things exist they could affect us in some way... the lack of understanding would be a handicap that evolutionarily we would have eventually overcome... but what if they do exist? What if they simply do NOT affect us, and therefore we are unable to detect them? If so, if they DO exist, then that is part of reality that we are unable to percieve, unable even to simply comprehend.

[Lightkeeper]

I still think without life to perceive the Universe, there is no reality. Reality is a human term. We feel the need to label everything. Maybe reality is nothingness.

[Runt]

Lightkeeper--

I both agree and disagree with you. I guess it depends on how I chose to interpret your statement. On one hand, the only "reality" we can percieve is the one that our nature as sentient (or in the case of other creatures, non-sentient) lifeforms allows us to percieve. Without us to percieve it, that perception of Reality ceases to exist. But the Reality itself? I don't think Reality is dependent at all upon how we percieve it. I think it exists whether or not we do. I think a mindless rock is much more "in tune" with Reality than we living creatures are, because it does not have a mind or senses with which to percieve Reality, and in percieving, blind itself to the reality of Reality. That rock just is... just like Reality.

Reality, in my opinion, is the true nature of the universe. Reality is the way things are, regardless of how we percieve them. It is the nature of a rock without an ant's perception of the rock's insurmountable height or a human's analysis of the rock's mineral makeup to define it. That Reality, in my opinion, can only truly exist when you ignore human perception and the perception of all other living organisms--because our perception of Reality is not REALITY, and therefore cannot be used to define Reality. Our verson of "reality" is just an illusion of Reality, and we can never know the true nature of the universe.

Then again... I suspect this is a very Taoist approach to the question... Comments?

[Lightkeeper]

There was a discussion like on another forum and one poster said he hadn't had a talk like this since his pot smoking days. :smile:

Without human perception, nothing is happening. Remember the old tree falling in the woods question. Without life, nothing matters. The bottom line is we are a very important part of the Universe. We have no meaning without it and it has no meaning without us. Reality may just be our acceptance of our importance and place in the Universe.

[(Q)]

Which reality is the right one? None... they all depend on what the senses can detect of Reality, but none are able to sense Reality in its completeness.

You’re confusing reality with perception. There is but one reality – what differs is our perception of that one reality. We could not interact with bats and giraffes if they occupied a separate reality.

Your question should be, “whose perception of reality is correct?”

And the answer is simple; the correct perception is the one that perceives reality for what it is as opposed to what they want it to be.

And so far the only perceptions known to have been incorrect are human.

[Master Vigil]

The tree falls, and makes sound waves, not until it reaches an ear does it make a sound. For the sound is a perception of the sound waves. But that does not negate the fact that the tree fell.