What Is Reality?

[(Q)]

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.

It is very doubtful that the universe was placed here for us. In all likelyhood there are many other species of life throughout the universe, perhaps some that have been in existence a lot longer than us.

We are but a speck of dust with no significance whatsoever.

Think of mold growing on an orange - that's life on Earth.

 

[Master Vigil]

It is true, we are but a grain of sand within the ocean. However, remove one grain and the ocean will never be the same. Everything is important, no one thing more than the other. Not equal, no, but necessary. Reality will continue to exist, but within it exists many changes. The only thing constant is change.

 

[(Q)]

However, remove one grain and the ocean will never be the same.

Come now, do you honestly believe that anything will change by simply removing the Earth from the Universe?

What changes a beach by removing a grain of sand?

 

[Master Vigil]

If one grain is removed, or if the earth is removed, how can you say that the ocean or the universe does not change? For a part of it is now missing. It may not seem to be any different, but in fact it has changed. Everything is always changing, nothing stays the same.

 

[Runt]

Without human perception, nothing is happening.

I understand what you're saying, but first I have to simply disagree--I think without human perception things are still happening, but there is simply nobody around to perceive it--and second, I have to turn your statement on its head--Rather than “without human perception, nothing is happening”, I would say that nothing happening within human perception is really happening... but plenty of stuff is happening outside of human perception. What is happening? Things are just...there. They behave according to their separate natures, existing as they are able to exist.

If nothing were happening without human perception... well, then humans could not have come into being in the first place. We would have had to spring from nothingness... and no matter what religion (or non-religion) one is a part of, I think everyone pretty much believes that we came from SOMETHING, whether it be mud shaped by God or apes. And before human existence things WERE happening... the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe, formation of planets and suns, arrangement of atoms into atmosphere, water, and life, and evolution of life until you eventually got human beings with their own unique PERCEPTION of Reality...which is itself an illusion.

However, in a way I can also agree with you, if I reinterpret your comment. I think without human beings nothing within human perception is really happening... everything just IS.

You’re confusing reality with perception.

No, I'm not. I just accidentally made it sound confusing... which tends to happen when I try to write quickly. I used the lowercase word "reality" to describe what we BELIEVE to be Reality but which is really only our PERCEPTION of Reality, and the uppercase word "Reality" to describe the "way things are" without perception filtering and distorting it... the nature of the universe without anybody or anything sensing it in any way.

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.

The answer is not so simple, because who is really capable of perceiving Reality as it really is? Not only would you have to be unencumbered by mere sensory perception, but you would literally have to know EVERYTHING to have a complete understanding of Reality. At best all we have is limited knowledge and limited perception (for example, can you see ultraviolet light? Then you cannot even PERCIEVE the totality of Reality, let alone know Reality) and at worst complete and total illusion.

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

I would suggest than ANYTHING with its own perception is incorrect. The difference is between PERCEPTION of Reality and Reality itself. All perception is illusion... it is based entirely upon that which our unique physiology and psychology is able to grasp about reality. It is confined to our ability to rationalize it and does not include anything in Reality that we are NOT able to rationalize. Our perception of Reality might be far less limited, as I've suggested before, if our senses were more acute or if we had even greater mental capacities... but I think it would still be limited and therefore incorrect.

But that does not negate the fact that the tree fell.

Nor does it negate the fact that the sound waves existed. Only the sound didn't exist... because sound is simply our brain's attempt to translate the sound waves we can sense into something that we can understand.

Come now, do you honestly believe that anything will change by simply removing the Earth from the Universe?

Hmm, lets brainstorm. What changes would occur if Earth suddenly just... disappeared?:

*All life on the planet would simultaneously cease to exist.

*Any potential for life on the planet would lose any chance to exist.

*The moon's orbit would change because instead of orbiting the Earth as the Earth orbits the sun, it would now simply orbit the sun, or somehow start orbiting another planet

*The very laws of nature would be disrupted, because energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from form to form... if the Earth suddenly just disappeared, that would undermine what we presently believe to be one of the most fundamental principles of physics

*If the Earth were destroyed rather than simply disappearing (just for fun, we'll say it blew up) then the first three still hold true, and in addition the following would change:

*Matter where the Earth used to be would be significantly more spread out and would continue to outward infinitely

*The movement of particles outwards from where the Earth USED to be would find new locations--asteroid belts, other planets, the sun itself--which would subtly change the composition of those planets, even if the change were so slight it seemed insignificant.

*An explosion great enough to blow up the Earth would undoubtedly affect other planets directly… an explosion blowing up Earth in its entirety might blow up a fourth of Venus, for instance. Then you would have so consider what effect such a drastic change to Venus would have in the things that it directly relates to.

I think, Q, that the point you were trying to make is that it wouldn't MATTER to the Universe if the Earth suddenly disappeared... but I think this is untrue. If one atom were to suddenly disappear the Universe might not be changed enough for individual inhabitants to notice, but it would still be changed. And the absence of an atom would change a molecule, which would change a cell, which would change an organism, which would change a world… which would ultimately change the nature of the entire Universe.

I hate to use so overused a statement, but it really is true: Everything is relative. Try to think beyond hierarchical arrangements. Microcosms and macrocosms are still very interrelated. "Importance" is a human invention.

 

[Lightkeeper]

There may be no sound without ears to hear it. If there is no life, nothing matters.

 

[Master Vigil]

Matter matters, even if there is no life to perceive the matter. If every living organism in the universe suddenly ceased to exist, would the rest do so as well, no of course not. It would not be manipulated an used for anothers purpose, it would simply exist as it is and as it should.

 

[Runt]

There may be no sound without ears to hear it.

Of course there would be no SOUND... sound is merely our perception (aka an illusion) of something that exists in Reality. The thing the sound represents, however, DOES exist in Reality. The vibrations which we call "sound waves" and which we sense as "sound" exist, even if the existence of sound itself (our translation of sound waves and not sound waves themselves and therefore not “real”) is dependent upon our ability to hear it.

Again, perception vs Reality.

If there is no life, nothing matters.

I disagree. If there is no life, nothing that matters to LIFE matters. However, events that affect to a molecule, a planet, or the Universe itself matter... just not to us.

You are basing everything from a human-as-important point of view... try to see that we are not the only things in the Universe... we are no more important than a rock or a star... we just think we are. Teenagers typically have this egocentric outlook... until someone tells us for the fifth or seventh or hundredth time that "the world doesn't revolve around you!" and we finally realize that it is true.

I think the problem with humanity is that we place to much emphasis on our own importance. I think we have a place in the Universe, but it is just that... a place. Not a pedestal. And I think that if we ceased to exist our absence would change the nature of Reality... but not by any means destroy it.

 

[Master Vigil]

Very good runt, very good.

 

[(Q)]

I used the lowercase word "reality" to describe what we BELIEVE to be Reality but which is really only our PERCEPTION of Reality, and the uppercase word "Reality" to describe the "way things are" without perception filtering and distorting it...

They are one and the same. You’re version invites more than one reality and that is not the case. When one perceives reality for what it is – that is the one reality – upper or lower case.

So, I would have to ask you, what reality are you viewing?

The answer is not so simple, because who is really capable of perceiving Reality as it really is?

Anyone with the mental capacity to do so.

Not only would you have to be unencumbered by mere sensory perception

Our senses have evolved in order for us to perceive reality for what it is, not create some version of reality.

but you would literally have to know EVERYTHING to have a complete understanding of Reality.

To understand, yes – to perceive, no.

At best all we have is limited knowledge and limited perception (for example, can you see ultraviolet light?

Yes, with an instrument that enhances perception. We know ultraviolet light exists and we can detect it. In fact, we can detect all the frequencies of the spectrum. That is reality.

All perception is illusion... it is based entirely upon that which our unique physiology and psychology is able to grasp about reality.

I don’t get that – why would we be living an illusion? Our physiology has evolved in order for us to correctly perceive reality. The only illusions are the one we make up when we decide we want reality to be that which we want to be.

If reality is an illusion, then the illusion is a perfect copy of reality and you are once again redefining terms. So, what’s the difference?

as I've suggested before, if our senses were more acute or if we had even greater mental capacities...

That’s why we have tools, instruments, computers, etc.

Nor does it negate the fact that the sound waves existed. Only the sound didn't exist... because sound is simply our brain's attempt to translate the sound waves we can sense into something that we can understand.

You’re putting the cart before the horse. Sound waves most certainly do exist. Our ears evolved in order to perceive sound correctly. Sound did not come about because we have ears – it’s the other way round.

What changes would occur if Earth suddenly just... disappeared?:

Thank you for that wonderful list although some of them are not correct but I won’t go into making those corrections at this time.

I think, Q, that the point you were trying to make is that it wouldn't MATTER to the Universe if the Earth suddenly disappeared... but I think this is untrue.

Massive amounts of matter and energy get changed in the universe every day and very little happen to the rest of the universe aside from what is taking place locally. Billions of stars get compacted to nothingness in black holes; virtual particles pop in and out of existence (creating matter) all the time.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Matter matters, even if there is no life to perceive the matter. If every living organism in the universe suddenly ceased to exist, would the rest do so as well, no of course not. It would not be manipulated an used for anothers purpose, it would simply exist as it is and as it should.

I disagree. Only humans care what matters.

 

[Master Vigil]

Humans care what matters, but that doesn't necessarily mean nothing else matters, we are the only ones that care. And even with that I disagree, for animals care if they are hurt, and plants have thorns to protect themselves from destruction. Humans are not the greatest things in the universe, we are not the only things that matter.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Humans care what matters, but that doesn't necessarily mean nothing else matters, we are the only ones that care. And even with that I disagree, for animals care if they are hurt, and plants have thorns to protect themselves from destruction. Humans are not the greatest things in the universe, we are not the only things that matter.

When I talked about no life in the Universe I meant NO life, that means animals, trees, insects, etc. There is no purpose to the universe without life. We will probably have to agree to disagree.

 

[Runt]

Q-- Your responses are almost too funny to even comment upon. However....

They are one and the same. You’re version invites more than one reality and that is not the case. When one perceives reality for what it is – that is the one reality – upper or lower case.

They are not one and the same. The difference is between the illusion of reality vs reality as it truly is.

So, I would have to ask you, what reality are you viewing?

I am viewing "reality", the brain's translation of the way things really are, rather than "Reality", which simply IS the way things really are without inaccurate and limited perception leaving parts of the picture out and changing others. As are you.

The answer is not so simple, because who is really capable of perceiving Reality as it really is?

Anyone with the mental capacity to do so.

Wrong. Anyone with the mental capacity to perceive reality would understand that the very perception of reality is an illusion, created either by the mind's act of assigning incorrect values to elements within reality (like your insistence that the macrocosm is more "important" than the microcosm), or by simply blinding people to the nature of these elements within reality through translation that we assume to be a correct and complete picture of reality (a leaf only appears green... it is not...instead, certain wavelengths on the color spectrum are being absorbed while others are being reflected, and the eyes can sense these wavelengths and the brain can alert us to their presense by registering them as "color" in our minds... but it is not color, but a wavelength, that you are sensing... a wavelength that translates in your mind as color but exists outside of your mind as a wavelength. And yet, even knowing this, you are unable to percieve reality in its totality because you CANNOT stop seeing that color green, even if you know that green really doesn't exist except in your mind.)

Our senses have evolved in order for us to perceive reality for what it is, not create some version of reality.

Wrong. Our senses have evolved in order for us to perceive reality, but don't allow us to percieve it as it truly is. We are only able to perceive it in ways that allow us to survive in reality.

Yes, with an instrument that enhances perception. We know ultraviolet light exists and we can detect it. In fact, we can detect all the frequencies of the spectrum. That is reality.

Wrong. A blind man cannot claim to have complete perception because he knows that sight exists, and you cannot claim to know the truth about reality simply because you have instruments that tell you that things within reality exist. The blind man's inability to see, regardless of whether or not he knows that it is possible to view the world with a fifth sense that he does not posess, makes his personal understanding of reality an illusion, for to his sight it appears that there are no physical elements before him when there really are. Your (and, indeed, my) inablity to sense parts of reality, regardless of whether or not you can use instruments to prove that there are things beyond that which your five senses can detect, still makes YOUR personal understanding of reality an illusion, for your senses make it seem as if certain elements of reality do not exist when in truth they do, and you simply cannot sense them.

Technology allows you to know that something exists, but doesn't allow that something to be part of your personal perception, and therefore your perception of reality is incorrect. You can use your instruments to try to describe and explore reality, and it may give you a small understanding, but even that is limited. We are very technologically advanced, but science does not yet know everything there is to know about the universe (and, in my opinion, probably never will), and therefore even the UNDERSTANDING of reality is limited. New things will probably be discovered by future scientists that will even render some of our present understanding about reality incorrect, while our perception of reality will remain limited and inaccurate despite our understanding. Unless we evolve, but even then there will STILL be limitations and translations rather than a view of the real thing.

I don’t get that – why would we be living an illusion?

We're not living an illusion so much as living according to one. The values we assign to reality (such as the insistence that the life of a human is more valuable than that of a dog because a human is smarter than a dog, or that the change in a molecular structure is unimportant because it does not affect the universe in any truly visible way) CAN cause us to live ACCORDING to an illusion. Just think of people who work to make the colors of their clothing match when color itself is an illusion...

Our physiology has evolved in order for us to correctly perceive reality.

As I have said before and I find myself having to say again, if this is true, then why can't you SEE ultraviolet light? Your instruments only allow you to KNOW that it exists; it does not allow you, yourself, to experience ultraviolet light, to incorprate it into your daily life (I don't see you choosing a pair of pants that don't clash with your ultraviolot shirt, for example). You might wear sunscreen because you know it exists and don't want UV radiation to harm your skin, but you are unable to physically see light in the UV end of the spectrum, and therefore, your perception of Reality (whether lowercase or uppercase) is limited, and you are unable to see anything but an illlusion or incomplete picture of Reality.

Sound waves most certainly do exist. Our ears evolved in order to perceive sound correctly. Sound did not come about because we have ears – it’s the other way round.

Again, I said that sound WAVES do exist... but sound only exists within our mind. SOUND came about because of ears... sound WAVES existed prior to ears.

Massive amounts of matter and energy get changed in the universe every day and very little happen to the rest of the universe aside from what is taking place locally.

And locally, there is a change. Why do you assign more value to the macrocosm than the microcosm. It is only important because, with our limited perception, we view things that are "bigger" as having greater value. A small change only affects a small portion of the universe, but it is still a change and it still has an effect.

Billions of stars get compacted to nothingness in black holes

Thereby changing the nature of the universe... the universe as it once was is changed because there are billions of stars missing that were once present. Those black holes wield an influence on matter immediatly surrounding them and a smaller and smaller influence as you move further away... but they still influence the universe as a whole. Maybe not much... but again, that is assigning value and value is an illusion.

virtual particles pop in and out of existence (creating matter) all the time.

Need I go on?

 

[Master Vigil]

But again lightkeeper, there are many purposes in the universe. Not just for the living. So even if no life existed, the universe would still be there, all the planets, all the stars, everything. Who are we to say that it has no purpose?

 

[Lightkeeper]

But again lightkeeper, there are many purposes in the universe. Not just for the living. So even if no life existed, the universe would still be there, all the planets, all the stars, everything. Who are we to say that it has no purpose?

Name the purposes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Runt said:

a leaf only appears green... it is not...instead, certain wavelengths on the color spectrum are being absorbed while others are being reflected, and the eyes can sense these wavelengths and the brain can alert us to their presense by registering them as "color" in our minds... but it is not color, but a wavelength, that you are sensing... a wavelength that translates in your mind as color but exists outside of your mind as a wavelength

Here, you have basically said that what we experience (color) is an illusion, and that the "reality" is wavelengths of light.

Then, Runt said:

YOUR personal understanding of reality an illusion, for your senses make it seem as if certain elements of reality do not exist when in truth they do, and you simply cannot sense them.

Here, you are suggesting the opposite: that the "reality" is some sort of experience/sense of ultra-violet light that we do not have, not the knowledge of wavelengths of ultra-violet light. This contradicts your previous characterization of reality.

I'm leaning towards agreeing with Q on this one. Conceptualizing different wavelengths of light, and the experience of different colors are just two ways to perceive colors--neither way is more 'real' than the other.

I would argue that although perception can be misinterpreted, it's 'reality' need never be called into question. For example, a dream may be interpreted to have actually happened outside the mind, when in fact the dream only took place inside the mind. The dream itself, however, was 'real' because it was made up of a bunch of nuerons firing in the brain--the dream was made of matter and energy, which are definitely 'real'.

 

[(Q)]

Your responses are almost too funny to even comment upon.

Well, I’m glad to have entertained you, but I never really considered logic and reason to be that funny.

The difference is between the illusion of reality vs reality as it truly is.

And what’s not funny about that statement? You’ve essentially created two realities for yourself. So, what is the difference between your illusion of reality and reality?

I am viewing "reality", the brain's translation of the way things really are, rather than "Reality", which simply IS the way things really are without inaccurate and limited perception leaving parts of the picture out and changing others.

It gets funnier. So, you are saying that the brain does not accurately portray reality? You’ll have to explain the differences. What parts are being left out? What is being changed?

And yet, even knowing this, you are unable to percieve reality in its totality because you CANNOT stop seeing that color green, even if you know that green really doesn't exist except in your mind

The mind perceives reality correctly if the leaf only reflects green light. What other colors are you expecting to see? What would you like to see?

We are only able to perceive it in ways that allow us to survive in reality.

That is some serious nonsense, but I’ll give you ample room to explain that one.

YOUR personal understanding of reality an illusion, for your senses make it seem as if certain elements of reality do not exist when in truth they do, and you simply cannot sense them.

So, what exists in reality that we can’t detect to exist? Please explain.

Technology allows you to know that something exists, but doesn't allow that something to be part of your personal perception, and therefore your perception of reality is incorrect.

More serious nonsense – please explain.

New things will probably be discovered by future scientists that will even render some of our present understanding about reality incorrect, while our perception of reality will remain limited and inaccurate despite our understanding.

That is pure fallacious speculation.

We're not living an illusion so much as living according to one. The values we assign to reality…

That has nothing to do with the state of reality and does not support your argument.

but you are unable to physically see light in the UV end of the spectrum, and therefore, your perception of Reality (whether lowercase or uppercase) is limited, and you are unable to see anything but an illlusion or incomplete picture of Reality.

That is another fallacious argument. Simply because I cannot ‘see’ something with my eyes does not make reality an illusion.

Sorry, but your argument does not hold any water simply because you cannot accept reality for what it is. If the brain creates an illusion of reality, then there are equal amounts of realities as there are people in the world, and that of course is nonsense.

As always, you continue to confuse and create definitions of terms.

Perceive – to become aware through the senses.

Reality - The state of the world as it really is rather than, as you might want it to be.

To perceive reality is to become aware of it through the senses.

Need I go on?

No, don’t bother. You have yet to grasp the importance of the English language and the ability to fundamentally communicate. I can’t talk to you if you don’t know the meanings of words.

 

[Master Vigil]

The earths purpose is to revolve around the sun, the moon revolves around the earth. A black holes' purpose is to compact matter, etc... Where life lives is no less important than the life itself. Nor is it any less real.

 

[Lightkeeper]

The earths purpose is to revolve around the sun, the moon revolves around the earth. A black holes' purpose is to compact matter, etc... Where life lives is no less important than the life itself. Nor is it any less real.

The Earth is caught up in a gravitational pull and revolves around the sun because of that. That wouldn't be a purpose.