Cogito Ergo Sum.

[YmirGF]

Reality is merely the collective of electrical impulses interpretted, by our minds. By that notion, how can we assure whether our senses do define reality, or not? It could all be a facade.

I do not agree with this original premise as it makes us sound like glorified computers. It is a very popular consideration that all we have is our physical senses hardwired into a cognitive process, in physical terms, that is. I disagree. In my demented view of reality the mind is precipitated by consciousness which exists quite independantly from the physical being. Much within the mind IS a reaction to perceived reality, but it my perception that there is far more at play. Deep seated desires, desires to achieve things unthought of before, I believe, trickle outwards from consciousness and are translated by the cognitive process into understandable terms.

Poll choices:

- We could all be dreaming. Reality is relative to our own senses, and as such, may be false.

In many ways, our physical reality IS an illusion, however, it is a very important illusion that we create for ourselves to learn important lessons about ourselves (and thereby others) helping us to relate to our place within the cosmos, our larger identity, of Oneness. But... I could be wrong.

- I exhibit all five sense and more. That is my reality. That is real.

In purely physical terms that may sound like a realistic observation, but I don't think that we should pidgeon-hole ourselves quite so succinctly. My guess is this is the root of out suffering on this small rock.

Sadly, I cannot vote for either, as I believe the premise is skewed and so the results are of little consequence.

 

[Somkid]

I prefer I am therefore I think, I don't have a lot of faith in Descartes and I do use the word "faith" because I have almost no belief in his work but it strikes me as funny so many people know, "I think therefore I am" that have never even studied philosophy, why do you thin that is?

 

[Somkid]

I prefer I am therefore I think, I don't have a lot of faith in Descartes and I do use the word "faith" because I have almost no belief in his work but it strikes me as funny so many people know, "I think therefore I am" that have never even studied philosophy, why do you think that is?

 

[djrez4]

^ The Black Iron Prison illustrated by the Gnostic Saint Phillip K. Dick is the description you gave in your second paragraph. ^

Guess I'll have to go read VARIS, now....

 

[WhiteSeal]

I prefer I am therefore I think, I don't have a lot of faith in Descartes and I do use the word "faith" because I have almost no belief in his work but it strikes me as funny so many people know, "I think therefore I am" that have never even studied philosophy, why do you thin that is?

I agree. I am, therefore i think. The converse isn't always true.
The question of whether or not everything real has only one answer, yes. The reason the answer is yes is because as a society we have accepted that the world the way we perceive it is real. Reality by definition includes everything, perceptible, observable, comprehensible or otherwise.
I suppose the real question is whether or not the way our senses are perceiving reality is right. I don't see how it could be wrong, considering everyone's doing it.
On a tangent, Gnosticism is renowned for thinking about things so much that nothing makes sense anymore.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I agree. I am, therefore i think. The converse isn't always true.

Both are true given the right perspective. If you think, you "are". Is all that "is" thinking?

 

[Somkid]

I agree. I am, therefore i think. The converse isn't always true.
The question of whether or not everything real has only one answer, yes. The reason the answer is yes is because as a society we have accepted that the world the way we perceive it is real. Reality by definition includes everything, perceptible, observable, comprehensible or otherwise.
I suppose the real question is whether or not the way our senses are perceiving reality is right. I don't see how it could be wrong, considering everyone's doing it.
On a tangent, Gnosticism is renowned for thinking about things so much that nothing makes sense anymore.

Yes, I agree there is one "true" truth unfortunately most of us are blinded by the 2 false truths "your truth and my truth" not "the truth".

 

[Fluffy]

Heya Sunstone,

I'm looking at a green chair. My eyes and other senses tell me the chair is solid. Physics tells me the chair is mostly empty space. Hence, my eyes and other senses are not displaying or representing the chair to me but are doing something much more akin to symbolizing it

Do your senses really tell you that the chair is solid? Perhaps it is simply that you understand solid to carry certain connotations that are not supported by your sensory data. In this case you specifically understand solid to connote a lack of emptiness. Which bit of data informs you that this is true of the chair?

You might answer that when you touch the chair, your hand doesn't pass through it. If so then you have decided that this piece of data is telling you something about the property of solidness. However, it is actually telling you about a property of a kind of empty space and you are simply mistaken over which concept is appropriate here.

If this is the case then your senses are representing the chair exactly how it is in reality and not symbolising it at all.

 

[mr.guy]

If this is the case then your senses are representing the chair exactly how it is in reality and not symbolising it at all.

Doesn't isolating an object from within a system require a form of symbolism in itself?

Sensed or not, a "chair" (or "some thing distinct from others") may not be a very real perspective.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya mr. guy,

Doesn't isolating an object from within a system require a form of symbolism in itself?

In the sense in which Sunstone is using the terms "representation" and "symbolism", I don't see why this would be the case.

Sensed or not, a "chair" (or "some thing distinct from others") may not be a very real perspective.

I agree that it may not be. However, I don't agree that we have any reason to prefer this perspective which is what Sunstone is arguing.

 

[Godfather89]

Your eyes see more than what you think... But your eyes are seeing while your brain and mind work together to interpret what you see, the end result is a mere interpretation of the world.

 

[logician]

Reality is only what you interact with, all else is nonexistence from your viewpoint.

 

[Yerda]

Reality is only what you interact with, all else is nonexistence from your viewpoint.

How are you using the term 'interact'? I don't consider that I interact with Ethiopia, but I feel justified in calling it real.

 

[mr.guy]

Heya mr. guy,
In the sense in which Sunstone is using the terms "representation" and "symbolism", I don't see why this would be the case.

I agree that it may not be. However, I don't agree that we have any reason to prefer this perspective which is what Sunstone is arguing.

Fair enough. Reckon i'm just off on a tangent's all.

 

[Willamena]

How are you using the term 'interact'? I don't consider that I interact with Ethiopia, but I feel justified in calling it real.

You know of it; that relationship is an interaction of sorts. You interact with the idea of it.

 

[Yerda]

You know of it; that relationship is an interaction of sorts. You interact with the idea of it.

I know of something therefore I am interacting with it? That seems to render the concept of interaction rather sterile.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Reality is only what you interact with, all else is nonexistence from your viewpoint.

Not a very Taoist point of view.