Nothing Exists

[The Sum of Awe]

The Title is misleading, I believe it's possible for something to exist, it's likely for me, but I think it is illogical for me to believe it is logical.

My point at first was, this reality, what you see now, what you see outside, is not real, just a hallucination made by our subjective perspective, thought, etc.

I call this world we live in a Substitute Reality. The real world, the objective world that we cannot see without becoming nonexistent (dead), I label the Absolute Reality.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I thought she meant by nothing exists outside of our mind is "There is nothing but thought" Which I do agree is possible and also just as likely as something existing which we don't see (an absolute reality), but it is really not unlikely at all that there is only the substitute reality.

 

[Willamena]

The Title is misleading, I believe it's possible for something to exist, it's likely for me, but I think it is illogical for me to believe it is logical.

My point at first was, this reality, what you see now, what you see outside, is not real, just a hallucination made by our subjective perspective, thought, etc.

I call this world we live in a Substitute Reality. The real world, the objective world that we cannot see without becoming nonexistent (dead), I label the Absolute Reality.

That's a popular dualistic approach: this 'Subsitute Reality' world composed of thought, and another objectively real world.

Your 'Absolute Realty' is what a fellow called Kant named the noumenon.


Edit: My bad, it was Kant.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That's a popular dualistic approach: this 'Subsitute Reality' world composed of thought, and another objectively real world.

Your 'Absolute Realty' is what a fellow called Kant named the noumenon.


Edit: My bad, it was Kant.

Okay then, I'll start calling it the Noumenon, because that is what I meant...

 

[Orias]

The Title is misleading, I believe it's possible for something to exist, it's likely for me, but I think it is illogical for me to believe it is logical.

Well believe dictates logic no matter how much people try and define and corner it. So whatever floats your boat

My point at first was, this reality, what you see now, what you see outside, is not real, just a hallucination made by our subjective perspective, thought, etc.

Ah, but perception isn't subjective, the way in which we experience and perceive is. But I can agree with this statement to an extent.

I call this world we live in a Substitute Reality. The real world, the objective world that we cannot see without becoming nonexistent (dead), I label the Absolute Reality.

Well, everyone substitutes their own reality with what they want it to be.

I thought she meant by nothing exists outside of our mind is "There is nothing but thought" Which I do agree is possible and also just as likely as something existing which we don't see (an absolute reality), but it is really not unlikely at all that there is only the substitute reality.

How about instead of separating realities, you just acknowledge and smile at what already is, before you drive yourself to insanity.

Trust me, I think I can speak for most of us here that have been down that path of trying to distinguish "real" from "real", in the end we just learn to accept that which gratifies, comforts, and preserves us the most.

 

[Willamena]

I thought she meant by nothing exists outside of our mind is "There is nothing but thought" Which I do agree is possible and also just as likely as something existing which we don't see (an absolute reality), but it is really not unlikely at all that there is only the substitute reality.

Reconciling the substitute reality with the absolute reality is a form of "unity".

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well believe dictates logic no matter how much people try and define and corner it. So whatever floats your boat

I have to say believe, there still is no proof of its existence besides observation which is like using the Bible to prove God.

Ah, but perception isn't subjective, the way in which we experience and perceive is. But I can agree with this statement to an extent.

I don't know why I typed perception, must be my slow head.. I meant perspective* My bad.



Well, everyone substitutes their own reality with what they want it to be.

Indeed.

How about instead of separating realities, you just acknowledge and smile at what already is, before you drive yourself to insanity.

Because of the fact we do not see what is.

Trust me, I think I can speak for most of us here that have been down that path of trying to distinguish "real" from "real", in the end we just learn to accept that which gratifies, comforts, and preserves us the most.

We should accept what we experience like children accept the house's existence whilst playing House,

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Reconciling the substitute reality with the absolute reality is a form of "unity".

That is so,

If you believe mixing fiction and fact equates unity

 

[Willamena]

That is so,

If you believe mixing fiction and fact equates unity

Haha.

 

[Orias]

I have to say believe, there still is no proof of its existence besides observation which is like using the Bible to prove God.

Not necessarily, if your talking on terms of ontological, philosophical, and religious terms than sure I can agree, but there is plenty of things that observation has proven. Gravity for instance, or what we call gravity is a known observation and a law of the known physical Universe.

I don't know why I typed perception, must be my slow head.. I meant perspective* My bad.

My statement still stands

Because of the fact we do not see what is.

How do you know?

We should accept what we experience like children accept the house's existence whilst playing House,

People naturally do what gratifies and comforts them, even if what they do is repulsive to others. Part of accepting who we are allows us to deny what we don't like about ourselves. And make sure you are separating quotes instead of typing in the quote box, it makes it more difficult to sort out and organize writing.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not necessarily, if your talking on terms of ontological, philosophical, and religious terms than sure I can agree, but there is plenty of things that observation has proven. Gravity for instance, or what we call gravity is a known observation and a law of the known physical Universe.

But we do not know Gravity exists JUST from observation, there is no way of proving it does exist beside observation, but observation has to be proven to be right also.

[youtube]OA3WGf9pX0A[/youtube]
The Matrix "Whats Real"? - YouTube

My statement still stands

Perspective is subjective. Do you think everybody reads this forum in the same way you read it? Some people may find it boring, wont understand a word of it. Others may find it interesting but do not, etc.

How do you know?

As I used "see" I'll use sight for example.

Sight is subjective because colours are, the light spectrum is determined by the eyesight you have, which varies in species.

Another point is that eyes are very blurry, glasses are not, we think it is clear because we're used to seeing things this way, but in fact, our eyesight is not correct 100%.

People naturally do what gratifies and comforts them, even if what they do is repulsive to others. Part of accepting who we are allows us to deny what we don't like about ourselves. And make sure you are separating quotes instead of typing in the quote box, it makes it more difficult to sort out and organize writing.

Sorry about the quote box thing.

I'm not saying we shouldn't like our perspective or the way we view things. I'm simply saying it is not the objective way of what it really is. It looks different to some, is that not proof enough what we see is not correct?

 

[idav]

As I used "see" I'll use sight for example.

Sight is subjective because colours are, the light spectrum is determined by the eyesight you have, which varies in species.

Another point is that eyes are very blurry, glasses are not, we think it is clear because we're used to seeing things this way, but in fact, our eyesight is not correct 100%.

We invented binoculars so we could see like Eagles. It doesn't mean what we see is wrong just different limitations. We realize we have different limitations so we invent things to fix it or improve it. Eyes are a tool to detect light frequencies just as ears are tools in detecting sound waves. Doesn't matter if you cant see or hear every frequency, it doesn't make it wrong or inaccurate. They are just tools for perceiving the world. I am certain there are more things we can be perceiving and more frequencies to detect. Sure I'd like to be able to sense electric fields like some animals but I work with what I have besides I could probably buy something at radio shack for the electric field thing.

Electroreception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Sum of Awe]

We invented binoculars so we could see like Eagles. It doesn't mean what we see is wrong just different limitations. We realize we have different limitations so we invent things to fix it or improve it. Eyes are a tool to detect light frequencies just as ears are tools in detecting sound waves. Doesn't matter if you cant see or hear every frequency, it doesn't make it wrong or inaccurate. They are just tools for perceiving the world. I am certain there are more things we can be perceiving and more frequencies to detect. Sure I'd like to be able to sense electric fields like some animals but I work with what I have besides I could probably buy something at radio shack for the electric field thing.

Electroreception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It isn't fully wrong or innacurate, but is somewhat, and that's what I'm saying.

There is a hypotheses (could be a theory I haven't looked into it lately) that says the sight is just an interpretation of what your other senses are having.

 

[idav]

It isn't fully wrong or innacurate, but is somewhat, and that's what I'm saying.

There is a hypotheses (could be a theory I haven't looked into it lately) that says the sight is just an interpretation of what your other senses are having.

Sight and color are an interpretation based on the way our brains are built. If we saw in hypercolor it wouldn't change what are seeing as real. It is merely a measurement of reality from a certain angle just like feeling an object would be yet a different measurement. There are blind folk who can see with hearing cues like bats and they are good at "seeing" an object by touch which for them is one of the best ways of getting a representation. With the various perceptions we have at our disposal with machines we can get very detailed description of objects but how much detail is enough for something to be objectively real.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Sight and color are an interpretation based on the way our brains are built.

:clap WINNER!

If we saw in hypercolor it wouldn't change what are seeing as real. It is merely a measurement of reality from a certain angle just like feeling an object would be yet a different measurement. There are blind folk who can see with hearing cues like bats and they are good at "seeing" an object by touch which for them is one of the best ways of getting a representation. With the various perceptions we have at our disposal with machines we can get very detailed description of objects but how much detail is enough for something to be objectively real.

There may or may not be something objectively real, we need evidence that there is something objectively real, than I will accept. But reaching that evidence is impossible because observation, in my opinion, does not make it real.

 

[idav]

There may or may not be something objectively real, we need evidence that there is something objectively real, than I will accept. But reaching that evidence is impossible because observation, in my opinion, does not make it real.

Then no amount of sensory perception will ever be enough. What could possibly count as evidence under those conditions? A signed affidavit from god himself perhaps, lol?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Then no amount of sensory perception will ever be enough. What could possibly count as evidence under those conditions? A signed affidavit from god himself perhaps, lol?

Nothing can count as evidence in that case.

 

[idav]

Nothing can count as evidence in that case.

Ok so why do we need evidence again?

 

[idav]

It just comes down to whether you accept reality or not. We only get a piece of it but if it is not the realest reality then there isn't much we can do about getting evidence for it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It just comes down to whether you accept reality or not. We only get a piece of it but if it is not the realest reality then there isn't much we can do about getting evidence for it.

Either if my lack of belief in any existence is correct or not, this reality we perceive is obviously fake with too much subjectivity, not just moral subjectivity either...