The question of realness

[james blunt]

Not just testimony. Explain your logic. If you dont like talking about it, make up one thats simular to your understanding of how you know something is real without needing it to be tangible or explained by universal criteria of whats fact)

I woke up inside somebody else's body , but it still feels like its my body because I can see the memories.
I did not know it was me until I realised it was me or was I really him but thought it was me.
I feel the same but think now like me, I can't see any memories of why I would think this way. So logically I am me and not him.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I woke up inside somebody else's body , but it still feels like its my body because I can see the memories.
I did not know it was me until I realised it was me or was I really him but thought it was me.
I feel the same but think now like me, I can't see any memories of why I would think this way. So logically I am me and not him.

Him?

A person? You think its based on feeling or something external?

 

[james blunt]

Him?

A person? You think its based on feeling or something external?

The same person, I am me but before me was him , I have all his memories and feelings , but I am not him.
I do not remember how I got here, something to do with bio mutation transport. I must remember where I came from....I must remember my directive.

 

[sealchan]

This is not a god (abrahamic) specific question but it can incoporate all gods under the spirit-ual sense. I dont know what a deity is, so any god deity (i.e. being) or not (i.e. panthentheism) is fine.

What makes something real?

A lot of us have spiritual and supernatural and whatever-you-want-to-call it experiences that you know for yourself and/or you know for everyone it is true whether we can explain it or not. Unfortunately, no one does, if not at least in their own words.

So, what formula do you consider your experiences real regardless if others believe you or not?

Some experiences are not specific to religion. Say mystics
Some are specific to culture. Say hindu.
Some are specific to whats written. Say jewish
Some are specfic to ones own criteria of truth. (FITB)
Some.....

Whether it all applies or you like to say "not me" just to post is besides the point.

If it is not tangible and you cannot explain it as a source of your psych nor a reflection of external sources (unexplained convincing event? Something that convinced you there is more out there. Whatever)...

It does not matter if it is real or fact to us.

How is it real to you?

Not just testimony. Explain your logic. If you dont like talking about it, make up one thats simular to your understanding of how you know something is real without needing it to be tangible or explained by universal criteria of whats fact)

Realities come in pairs such that the nature of one side reflects the nature of the other in a kind of joined couple of meaning.

Reality is a messy order with a lot of boring repetition on the one hand and exceptions to the rules on the other.

Reality is what you can forget that will sustain you and what you stumble over because you couldn't see it.

Reality is a story told by one person to another that is always the same but never gets old.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Outside of god(s), would you be able to explain the logic behind the coinsedences that they are real to you (right?)? What makes them real if the rest of us see it false? Your criteria of realness.

The coincidences are real enough that anyone who knew of them would at least think/say “Wow. That really is lucky.”
It is along the lines of rolling a die and getting a 6. Then the next roll is a 6. And the next two in a row are 6s. Anyone can see it, and they could readily understand that the statistical odds of it happening are slim.
So, “lucky”, not “Divine”.
My criteria for declaring it intervention by an omniscient and omnipotent entity is a far sight steeper than that. But I am humbly thankful for my good fortune. Thankful to whom or to what.....

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The coincidences are real enough that anyone who knew of them would at least think/say “Wow. That really is lucky.”
It is along the lines of rolling a die and getting a 6. Then the next roll is a 6. And the next two in a row are 6s. Anyone can see it, and they could readily understand that the statistical odds of it happening are slim.
So, “lucky”, not “Divine”.
My criteria for declaring it intervention by an omniscient and omnipotent entity is a far sight steeper than that. But I am humbly thankful for my good fortune. Thankful to whom or to what.....

Outside of the entity stuff, do you put value to the coincidences or impact you somehow?

Doesnt need to be supernatural aliens and turning into Xmen.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Realities come in pairs such that the nature of one side reflects the nature of the other in a kind of joined couple of meaning.

Reality is a messy order with a lot of boring repetition on the one hand and exceptions to the rules on the other.

Reality is what you can forget that will sustain you and what you stumble over because you couldn't see it.

Reality is a story told by one person to another that is always the same but never gets old.

Have you experiences thats logical to you even though you cant explain it in terms and concepts familar to other people?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The same person, I am me but before me was him , I have all his memories and feelings , but I am not him.
I do not remember how I got here, something to do with bio mutation transport. I must remember where I came from....I must remember my directive.

interesting. You'd have to explain the logic behind it. Its like telling me jesus rose from the grave or Athena actually walked the earth because the romans built the pantheon cathedral dedicated to her and the gods and goddesses to worship.

 

[David T]

This is not a god (abrahamic) specific question but it can incoporate all gods under the spirit-ual sense. I dont know what a deity is, so any god deity (i.e. being) or not (i.e. panthentheism) is fine.

What makes something real?

A lot of us have spiritual and supernatural and whatever-you-want-to-call it experiences that you know for yourself and/or you know for everyone it is true whether we can explain it or not. Unfortunately, no one does, if not at least in their own words.

So, what formula do you consider your experiences real regardless if others believe you or not?

Some experiences are not specific to religion. Say mystics
Some are specific to culture. Say hindu.
Some are specific to whats written. Say jewish
Some are specfic to ones own criteria of truth. (FITB)
Some.....

Whether it all applies or you like to say "not me" just to post is besides the point.

If it is not tangible and you cannot explain it as a source of your psych nor a reflection of external sources (unexplained convincing event? Something that convinced you there is more out there. Whatever)...

It does not matter if it is real or fact to us.

How is it real to you?

Not just testimony. Explain your logic. If you dont like talking about it, make up one thats simular to your understanding of how you know something is real without needing it to be tangible or explained by universal criteria of whats fact)

Experience..... It's not a thought an
OK onto experience.
.
Experience is, for me, the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person’s ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming in me.

Neither the Bible nor the prophets - neither Freud nor research - neither the revelations of God nor man - can take precedence over my own direct experience …

My experience is not authoritative because it is infallible. It is the basis of authority because it can always be checked in new primary ways. In this way its frequent error or fallibility is always open to correction.“ carl rogers
I think this is something realized and not explaining.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Experience..... It's not a thought an
OK onto experience.
.
Experience is, for me, the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person’s ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming in me.

Neither the Bible nor the prophets - neither Freud nor research - neither the revelations of God nor man - can take precedence over my own direct experience …

My experience is not authoritative because it is infallible. It is the basis of authority because it can always be checked in new primary ways. In this way its frequent error or fallibility is always open to correction.“ carl rogers
I think this is something realized and not explaining.

Ima press on a bit. How do you validate your experiences to yourself?

By what criteria do you use to identify experiences from pseudo ones or does it make a difference since it affects you the same regardless the nature of the source?

 

[james blunt]

interesting. You'd have to explain the logic behind it. Its like telling me jesus rose from the grave or Athena actually walked the earth because the romans built the pantheon cathedral dedicated to her and the gods and goddesses to worship.

I came to .......enough said , I must stay quiet.

 

[nPeace]

This is not a god (abrahamic) specific question but it can incoporate all gods under the spirit-ual sense. I dont know what a deity is, so any god deity (i.e. being) or not (i.e. panthentheism) is fine.

What makes something real?

A lot of us have spiritual and supernatural and whatever-you-want-to-call it experiences that you know for yourself and/or you know for everyone it is true whether we can explain it or not. Unfortunately, no one does, if not at least in their own words.

So, what formula do you consider your experiences real regardless if others believe you or not?

Some experiences are not specific to religion. Say mystics
Some are specific to culture. Say hindu.
Some are specific to whats written. Say jewish
Some are specfic to ones own criteria of truth. (FITB)
Some.....

Whether it all applies or you like to say "not me" just to post is besides the point.

If it is not tangible and you cannot explain it as a source of your psych nor a reflection of external sources (unexplained convincing event? Something that convinced you there is more out there. Whatever)...

It does not matter if it is real or fact to us.

How is it real to you?

Not just testimony. Explain your logic. If you dont like talking about it, make up one thats simular to your understanding of how you know something is real without needing it to be tangible or explained by universal criteria of whats fact)

For me something is real when it is shown to be consistent with what fits reality, or what is. Hard to explain, so an illustration is fitting.

Say someone felt heat, when they put their hand in a particular space. The closer they moved toward that space, the more intense the heat. So they run a small test. They throw paper into the general area, and the paper was singed, or even disintegrated.
I conclude that whatever is there is real - it exists, even though I can't visibly detect it.
It's like, with the force of gravity, magnetism, etc.

So for me, it comes down to having to use our senses to determine what is real.
Another example...
If someone told me something a million times, and each time it check out, I trust that the knowledge that person has given, of the particular is real, so even though it was not known to me, before I knew... it was real - if that makes sense.

 

[David T]

How do I know when

interesting. You'd have to explain the logic behind it. Its like telling me jesus rose from the grave or Athena actually walked the earth because the romans built the pantheon cathedral dedicated to her and the gods and goddesses to worship.

I am chiming in here instead of my question over there about the question over there.

How do I. Know?I would ask how do they not know?

 

[David T]

Ima press on a bit. How do you validate your experiences to yourself?

By what criteria do you use to identify experiences from pseudo ones or does it make a difference since it affects you the same regardless the nature of the source?

Like eating an orange, I eat the orange I taste it I know.. Now. I could describe It and you could read what I wrote and you might believe you know by what I wrote what an orange tastes like. But it's impossible to convey the experience in writing and that experience to read is absolutely not literally, eating the orange it's simply my experience conveyed. .i think this is all important in order to remotely understand the Bible. And university won't get you there.


There are no pseudo experiences but there is confusion. I experience a shadow, that eventually turns into a a mental plot that causes me to pay £$25000 for a bunker and I move into it. That is a series of thoughts disconnected from the simple act to breath pause ask are the trees concerned? No they are not, exhale, laugh and keep walking.
Culture conspires towards confusion.II wonder how people even. Work!!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Like eating an orange, I eat the orange I taste it I know.. Now. I could describe It and you could read what I wrote and you might believe you know by what I wrote what an orange tastes like. But it's impossible to convey the experience in writing and that experience to read is absolutely not literally, eating the orange it's simply my experience conveyed. .i think this is all important in order to remotely understand the Bible. And university won't get you there.


There are no pseudo experiences but there is confusion. I experience a shadow, that eventually turns into a a mental plot that causes me to pay £$25000 for a bunker and I move into it. That is a series of thoughts disconnected from the simple act to breath pause ask are the trees concerned? No they are not, exhale, laugh and keep walking.
Culture conspires towards confusion.II wonder how people even. Work!!

Pseudo experiences are like those who have hypocondrac conditions. The nature of their experience is false (no illness) even though the illusions of the affects feel like real experiences. They are the same real and fake, externally. Psychologically, they are not.

Knowing what an orange tastes like and say that it tastes good is your interpretation based on the reaction of your sense of taste. If your brain thought a fake orange was real, that pseudo experience would trigger the same senses.

Here is something interesting on that note

How can you tell your experiences are real even if others say otherwise?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Question with a question?

How do I know when

I am chiming in here instead of my question over there about the question over there.

How do I. Know?I would ask how do they not know?

 

[David T]

Pseudo experiences are like those who have hypocondrac conditions. The nature of their experience is false (no illness) even though the illusions of the affects feel like real experiences. They are the same real and fake, externally. Psychologically, they are not.

Knowing what an orange tastes like and say that it tastes good is your interpretation based on the reaction of your sense of taste. If your brain thought a fake orange was real, that pseudo experience would trigger the same senses.

Here is something interesting on that note

How can you tell your experiences are real even if others say otherwise?

Oh yea for sure we all are constantly fooled.
I go back to the orange I eat the orange. Someone creates an fake orange I still eat regardless. The real or not real orange has nothing to do with the the act to eat. And suddenly we are into an old old discussion in Christianity. So this is ground heavily trodden in Christianity. What is it?


So if we are simply treading old old ground in new clothing is that a simple reactive behavioralism believing to be something else? Like a crow caws at a movement. It has meaning only to the crow and other crows.
Since this discussion is about 2,000 years old. What is the discussion inside Christianity we are having?

 

[David T]

Question with a question?

Always. Questions are far more interesting anyway.since some times assumptions are made without questioning them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Always. Questions are far more interesting anyway.since some times assumptions are made without questioning them.

Doesnt lend for a good talk, now does it?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

This is not a god (abrahamic) specific question but it can incoporate all gods under the spirit-ual sense. I dont know what a deity is, so any god deity (i.e. being) or not (i.e. panthentheism) is fine.

What makes something real?

A lot of us have spiritual and supernatural and whatever-you-want-to-call it experiences that you know for yourself and/or you know for everyone it is true whether we can explain it or not. Unfortunately, no one does, if not at least in their own words.

So, what formula do you consider your experiences real regardless if others believe you or not?

Some experiences are not specific to religion. Say mystics
Some are specific to culture. Say hindu.
Some are specific to whats written. Say jewish
Some are specfic to ones own criteria of truth. (FITB)
Some.....

Whether it all applies or you like to say "not me" just to post is besides the point.

If it is not tangible and you cannot explain it as a source of your psych nor a reflection of external sources (unexplained convincing event? Something that convinced you there is more out there. Whatever)...

It does not matter if it is real or fact to us.

How is it real to you?

Not just testimony. Explain your logic. If you dont like talking about it, make up one thats simular to your understanding of how you know something is real without needing it to be tangible or explained by universal criteria of whats fact)

What makes a mystical/metaphysical deity real are the emotions and the psychological effect it has, and that which from that, a person molds their life around.