Experience and Reality

[rojse]

The obvious first question would be: how would you go about defining reality? Is it what we feel, touch, taste? Is it a group consensus of what is there? Or is it something other than this?

Having answered that, how do we know that what we experience is reality, that it is real? How do we know that reality even exists in some form or other?

 

[sandandfoam]

Reality is, for the most part, subjective.

 

[rojse]

Reality is, for the most, part subjective.

So, you decide what reality is?

 

[katiafish]

Part subjective?!?! :areyoucra

 

[sandandfoam]

So, you decide what reality is?

I think the processes are mainly unconscious, but yes.
I think the Schachter-Singer Theory of Emotion for example points towards this conclusion.

 

[sandandfoam]

Part subjective?!?! :areyoucra

Typo fixed

 

[Onkara]

Reality is a continious flux and change (for me). It is exactly as you say in your orgional post, it is sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing. All of which are changing contiously...

 

[rojse]

Reality is a continious flux and change (for me). It is exactly as you say in your orgional post, it is sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing. All of which are changing contiously...

But how do you know that what you taste/see/touch/smell/hear exists outside of your head?

 

[Aquitaine]

Hello.

To me, "reality" is almost entirely subjective. If I could give it the best description I can think of, it would be a combination of sensory "manipulations".

Dunno if that helps, LOL!

 

[Onkara]

But how do you know that what you taste/see/touch/smell/hear exists outside of your head?

Good point. For me there is no seperation. My head is experienced as is that which happens around it.


Call me a non-dualist if it helps to understand my answer. (The label does not change how reality is for me)

 

[MSizer]

Yes, but while I don't know what's actually being experienced by you when you witness "red" or "sour", most people have the ability to point it out when they see or taste it, and others concur. Therefore, while we can't know what's in each other's heads, there's no denying that epistimology is valid at least to a reasonable degree.

 

[Aquitaine]

I'm curios to know just how much (if any) are our sensory experiences subjective. I mean, I know our opinions are, but what about what we actually feel?

I personally believe that we do feel something, but perhaps we're subjective to what we're feeling, or to what degree perhaps?

Like two people eat the same soup, one goes "Ewww, too sour!" The other goes "Mmmmmm......soup".

They're both experiencing the same thing, but is it our personalities, or our sensory organs that "tell" us whether the soup is just right, or too sour?

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm curios to know just how much (if any) are our sensory experiences subjective. I mean, I know our opinions are, but what about what we actually feel?

I personally believe that we do feel something, but perhaps we're subjective to what we're feeling, or to what degree perhaps?

Like two people eat the same soup, one goes "Ewww, too sour!" The other goes "Mmmmmm......soup".

They're both experiencing the same thing, but is it our personalities, or our sensory organs that "tell" us whether the soup is just right, or too sour?

Have a look at Schachter Singer

 

[Onkara]

Yes, but while I don't know what's actually being experienced by you when you witness "red" or "sour", most people have the ability to point it out when they see or taste it, and others concur. Therefore, while we can't know what's in each other's heads, there's no denying that epistimology is valid at least to a reasonable degree.

Interesting.

Why not just say that it is the diversity which is experienced. Does it matter if for one person the apple tastes sweet and for another it tates sour? In context to the OP I would answer that it is this constant change and diversity which best describes reality.

 

[MSizer]

They're both experiencing the same thing, but is it our personalities, or our sensory organs that "tell" us whether the soup is just right, or too sour?

No, I don't think they are experiencing the same thing, becuase neurology is part of it. You can't think of only eyes responsible for seeing. The sight module of the brain, mostly the visual cortex at the back, is the biggest contributor to our ability to see. The eye is nothing more than a lens essentially, which allows data to enter your body so that your brain can create your experience of "seeing". That's why delusional people see and hear things which are not representative of the real outside world.

Also, there is a phenomenon called synaesthesia, whereby people mix up senses. So for example, one who has synaesthesia may hear a certain tone, say A 440Hz, and when they do, they also have vivid visualizations of perhaps the color orange. It's because our senses are not dictated mostly by sensory neurons, but by higher order neurons in our brains, which don't all act exactly the same way from person to person.

 

[Aquitaine]

No, I don't think they are experiencing the same thing, becuase neurology is part of it. You can't think of only eyes responsible for seeing. The sight module of the brain, mostly the visual cortex at the back, is the biggest contributor to our ability to see. The eye is nothing more than a lens essentially, which allows data to enter your body so that your brain can create your experience of "seeing". That's why delusional people see and hear things which are not representative of the real outside world.

Also, there is a phenomenon called synaesthesia, whereby people mix up senses. So for example, one who has synaesthesia may hear a certain tone, say A 440Hz, and when they do, they also have vivid visualizations of perhaps the color orange. It's because our senses are not dictated mostly by sensory neurons, but by higher order neurons in our brains, which don't all act exactly the same way from person to person.

So, you're saying the data we recieve from our senses is mostly subjective?

I usually think this, but part of me still believes there's some objectivity in what data we recieve.

What about you?

 

[rojse]

Hello.

To me, "reality" is almost entirely subjective. If I could give it the best description I can think of, it would be a combination of sensory "manipulations".

Dunno if that helps, LOL!

To go with a popular SF action movie, how do you know that you don't live in the Matrix?

The Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions do not exist, BTW.

 

[rojse]

Yes, but while I don't know what's actually being experienced by you when you witness "red" or "sour", most people have the ability to point it out when they see or taste it, and others concur. Therefore, while we can't know what's in each other's heads, there's no denying that epistimology is valid at least to a reasonable degree.

But we do not know if my experience of something is identical to yours. How do I know what you identify as red is not what I would perceive as green? Perhaps you have spent your life learning that red is what I believe is green, and neither of us would know it.

 

[katiafish]

Maya is not an illusion, it is a delusion that the appearance in the mind is the thing-in-itself..

The difference between the noumenon and a phenomenon...

 

[sandandfoam]

The eye is nothing more than a lens essentially, which allows data to enter your body so that your brain can create your experience of "seeing".

I don't think it's as black and white as you present it
Why do you discount the processing that takes place in the eye?
What about those who argue that the eye should be considered part of the brain?