What Is Reality?

[(Q)]

The earths purpose is to revolve around the sun, the moon revolves around the earth.

Cause and effect need not necessarily require purpose.

 

[Master Vigil]

But if it wasn't its sole purpose, it would not be doing it, and for such a long time. It is its sole existence, of course it can change. However being that the cause and effect makes it so and does not make it any other way, that would be its purpose. Why does something so simple as the earth revolving around the sun not be important enough to be a purpose? This is why humans are so egocentric, we think only our puproses are what matter. Yeah, we can kill off deer because they are growing in numbers and are coming into our towns. However we forget that we are extremely overpopulated and are moving into their territory, not visa versa. But that doesn't matter to humans, all we care about is ourselves.

 

[Lightkeeper]

My ear is stuck to my body. It's purpose is not to hang there.

The reality is, what matters most to all animals is preservation of life. Deer are generally transported back to the wilds.

 

[Runt]

If the purpose of the universe is to serve life, then what is the purpose of life? Perhaps instead of the universe being here to serve life, life is here to serve the universe, to give meaning to it.

 

[Runt]

Q--

As far as I can tell, you believe that perception of reality and the nature of reality are the same, that what you perceive to be reality IS reality.

However, you also believe in evolution: that evolution has, in a sense, gradually provided humanity with the means to possess this complete perception of reality. We have developed sensory capabilities that show us the true nature of reality, and mental capabilities that allow us to use reason to understand the nature of the parts of reality that exist outside of our sensory perception.

Therefore, with this combination of sensory and mental evolutionary developments, humans without any physical or mental deficiencies are able to view reality as it truly is.

I see several holes in this argument. First, it assumes one of two things: That every human has mental and sensory capacities to an equal degree, or that differences in mental and sensory capacities from one person to another are irrelevant.

A. The first has been proven untrue many times. Some humans are mentally retarded and simply do not have the reasoning abilities of others. IQ tests have proven that some people simply have greater intellectual potential than others do. Some have sensory limitation such as color blindness, bad eyesight or bad hearing.

B. The second, while admitting that there are different levels of mental and sensory capabilities, assumes that the perception of each individual is equally correct. Therefore, a blind man’s inability to

So the assumption should be that A and B are both incorrect.

Meaning that the degree to which an individual is able to perceive the nature of reality is directly related to the degree to which they have been born with certain mental and sensory capacities. Meaning that one with greater mental and sensory capacities has a greater perception of reality than one with lesser mental and sensory capacities.

Therefore, ignoring that I believe that perception of any kind is an inaccurate portrayal of reality, I can still only agree with you partway on this. You believe, as I said earlier, that human perception of reality is an accurate portrayal of reality because our combination of mental and sensory capacities gives us a complete understanding of reality. I, however, looking at the fact that within humanity there are differing capacities and therefore differing degrees of accurate perception, can only give you this: that humans are capable of having a relatively accurate perception of reality, but by no means can lay claim to a complete perception of reality.

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.

I was going to just ignore all your rude comments and write-offs and simply start anew, but this one was so goddamn patronizing that I have to respond.

A statement such as this can only come off as nonsense to you if you are unable to understand it (though how you cannot understand when it was written in simple English is beyond me), so I will elaborate, in the simplest possible terms, for you.

Certain sensory capacities, such as sight and hearing, evolved because they allow us to better perceive our world, and therefore better survive within it. We did not, however, evolve sensory capacities that are not necessary to preserving our existence. For example, for a human there would probably have been little evolutionary advantage in being able to see ultraviolet light. Therefore, despite the fact that the ability to see ultraviolet light would probably give us a more complete perception of reality, we never developed such a capability because it did not provide us with any higher chances of survival.

Now explain how that is “some serious nonsense”.

 

[Master Vigil]

Understand that one thing can have many purposes. And no, it is one of your heads purposes to hold the ear. What matters most to all animals, yes, but remember that animals are not the only things in the universe either. And no, deer are hunted because of the fact that people thing they are overpopulated, but it is us who are overpopulated. And I don't see the deer run over by cars being put back into the wild, or the ones on the walls of hunters.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I was going to just ignore all your rude comments and write-offs and simply start anew, but this one was so goddamn patronizing that I have to respond.

Do not be too hasty to judge, Runt, after all:

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

 

[(Q)]

So the assumption should be that A and B are both incorrect.

If you had read my posts you’d know I already mentioned those issues.

Meaning that the degree to which an individual is able to perceive the nature of reality is directly related to the degree to which they have been born with certain mental and sensory capacities. Meaning that one with greater mental and sensory capacities has a greater perception of reality than one with lesser mental and sensory capacities.

I don’t follow that line of reasoning – you’ll have to provide some examples and clarify what mental and sensory attributes you refer.

You believe, as I said earlier, that human perception of reality is an accurate portrayal of reality because our combination of mental and sensory capacities gives us a complete understanding of reality.

I didn’t say it gave us an understanding of reality, I simply stated reality can be accurately perceived for what it is.

that humans are capable of having a relatively accurate perception of reality, but by no means can lay claim to a complete perception of reality.

There is nothing about reality we cannot perceive. If something is not perceived, it most likely does not exist or merely requires a tool, like an electron microscope for example.

Therefore, despite the fact that the ability to see ultraviolet light would probably give us a more complete perception of reality, we never developed such a capability because it did not provide us with any higher chances of survival.

Bees can see ultraviolet light yet that talent does not in any way provide lower or higher chances of survival for the bee. Ultraviolet light is very harmful to humans so why can’t we see it – if we could, it would increase our chances for survival, nes’t pas?

 

[Runt]

Do not be too hasty to judge, Runt

*Cough* Point taken.

*~*

Curly Q--

You're not by any chance a Star Trek fan, are you?

Anyway... I think it is time we paused for a moment. Especially me. Having thought about this, I realize that without first establishing common definitions for some fundamental terms, without first clarifying our basic individual arguments and from there moving on, we cannot do anything more than agree to disagree. I also think we are addressing too many issues at once, and readdressing old issues too often rather than moving forward with our arguments.

I know that I’m not entirely positive what exactly your stance on this issue is, and I know you do not know what my basic stance is because gradually I have been changing it while I continue to argue with you about a couple of old and no longer entirely relevant premises.

My bad.

Therefore, I am going to ask a series of questions that we can both answer so we can try to reach some common ground before we continue.

I think with this kind of basis we will be able to have a debate that actually goes somewhere.

So... 2 questions, to start basic. I'll let you answer, then I will answer them myself, and then we can argue some more.

What is your personal definition of reality?

What is your personal definition of perception?

 

[Alaric]

See if this makes sense, Runt:

If everything in the Universe is connected, that is, everything influences everything else (gravity, etc), then there is no reason to assume that there is something that cannot be perceived. That would only be the case if there was something outside of the Universe that had no effect whatsoever on the Universe, giving us no way to know it, feel it, or measure it; and consequently, no reason to even speculate on its existence. Furthermore, you can't argue that there is something that humans cannot perceive, but some other entity in the Universe (that we humans can perceive) can perceive, because then we could perceive it through the medium of that entity that can perceive it. If something has any effect on anything in the universe, then we will eventually be able to perceive it with the right tools. If it has no effect, then it is nonexistent to us, and totally irrelevant.

You also talk about 'real' reality and 'reality as we perceive it'. Remember not to confuse meaning and purpose with these things. There are objective connections between things, which we try to understand with the tools available, and we take what works until new information is available. But whatever we perceive must necessarily be 'right' - it's just those connections we make, the conclusions we draw, that there can be all sorts of problems with. If you see an event, you use the knowledge you have to describe it. You have learnt in your own way using your human mind to separate certain objects, to make distinctions like 'living' and 'inanimate', 'natural', 'man-made' and so on. So when you see a cat get run over, that's just your way of describing the actual event that you saw. It did happen - that is, your brain did receive that exact stimulus when it was in that state to give you than perception. What you choose to do with it is something else - you are in direct contact with reality, it's just your understanding of it, the connections you make given your limited apparatus of perception and exposure to reality, that makes it hard to draw conclusions. Whether the cat's death was a dream, an illusion, 'reality', or whatever, that's just how you label that perception.

 

[Runt]

Alaric--

I understand where you are coming from. However, it is important to define terms first. American Heritage College Dictionary defines "to perceive" as "to become aware of directly through any of the senses especially sight or hearing" and "to achieve understanding of, to apprehend." Those definitions makes it quite clear that for humans to perceive something we must not only be able to sense its existence, but understand it as well. We obviously do not understand everything about reality because we still ask questions and scientific discoveries are still being made. Therefore there are things that are still outside of our perception. I was not arguing, however, that they will remain FOREVER outside of our perception; they MAY, but they also may not. I am just saying that right now we do not have a complete perception of reality, and because it is incomplete, some of our beliefs about reality may also be incorrect.

If something has any effect on anything in the universe, then we will eventually be able to perceive it with the right tools.

Yes, eventually. Again, my point is not that we will NEVER have complete perception of reality, but that we don't have it RIGHT NOW.

you can't argue that there is something that humans cannot perceive, but some other entity in the Universe (that we humans can perceive) can perceive, because then we could perceive it through the medium of that entity that can perceive it

I agree. When we meet these aliens (and I'm not mocking you... I believe there may be species out there who see more than we do) our perception will be be expanded because whatever they know about reality we will then also eventually know about. However, until we meet these aliens and perceive what they are perceiving, whatever part of reality that they perceive and we DO NOT will remain outside of our perception.

So when you see a cat get run over, that's just your way of describing the actual event that you saw. It did happen - that is, your brain did receive that exact stimulus when it was in that state to give you than perception.

Yes, but it is more complex than that.

The reality: The driver was a man who was listening to really loud bagpipe music. He didn't even see the poor gray tabby.

My perception of the reality: The driver was a woman who was listening to really loud irish music. She didn't even see the poor black cat.

My perception of reality CAN be different than reality.

Our interpretation of sensory stimuli can be incomplete or outright incorrect. I thought the driver was a woman, but it was actually a man. I thought the music was Irish and in reality it was Scottish. The driver didn't even perceive the cat walking through the road though in REALITY that cat was there. The driver could have been drunk--that alters perception. The car could have been red but if I was colorblind I would not perceive that. The cat could have had kittens but neither of us would know that unless it occured to us to go look or if someone else told us. Etc etc etc.

 

[(Q)]

Little Runt

You're not by any chance a Star Trek fan, are you?

No, why do you ask?

What is your personal definition of reality?

What is your personal definition of perception?

I’ve already stated these elsewhere on this thread – have you been paying attention?

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

Perception is becoming aware of something via the senses.

Those definitions makes it quite clear that for humans to perceive something we must not only be able to sense its existence, but understand it as well.

No, it says to “achieve understanding,” which is somewhat different and allows us the advantage of being in the process of understanding.

We obviously do not understand everything about reality because we still ask questions and scientific discoveries are still being made

That doesn’t mean those things never existed and were not part of reality.

Therefore there are things that are still outside of our perception

Again, you’re confusing terms – If something exists, we can perceive it. If we can’t perceive, it most likely does not exist.

The term “outside of our perception” is an oxymoron.

I am just saying that right now we do not have a complete perception of reality, and because it is incomplete, some of our beliefs about reality may also be incorrect.

No, we have a complete perception of reality, but may not have a complete understanding of reality. “Beliefs about reality” is an ambiguous phrase because it relies on what people see of reality and what they want to see of reality. The former is a belief based on observations and evidence while the latter is… who knows?

You can perceive the computer monitor in front of you, yet you probably have no understanding of how it works, unless you’re a computer geek. Does the fact that you don’t understand how it works provide you a lesser perception of that monitor or simply a lesser understanding? If one person, ten people, a thousand, one million people came into your room and perceived the same monitor, is there any reason why anyone of them might perceive the monitor any different from you or each other, aside from bad eyesight or mental issues?

 

[Runt]

Curly Q,

You're not by any chance a Star Trek fan, are you?

No, why do you ask?

Supposedly there is some character in Star Trek whose name is pronounced "Q". I am not sure, however that it is spelled the way you spelled your name. I was just wondering, because your name is kind of odd and I was curious about why you chose it. Is it "Q" for question, perhaps? That seems like it would make sense...

Anyway...

I’ve already stated these elsewhere on this thread – have you been paying attention?

Of course. I just want it all in one convenient place rather than scattered all over the thread.

Those definitions makes it quite clear that for humans to perceive something we must not only be able to sense its existence, but understand it as well.

No, it says to “achieve understanding,” which is somewhat different and allows us the advantage of being in the process of understanding.

I disagree. If the definition of "to perceive" = "to achieve understanding", then if you make that statement negative you end up with this: "to NOT perceive" = "to NOT achieve understanding". Or, simplified, "unable to achieve understanding" = "unable to perceive".

We obviously do not understand everything about reality because we still ask questions and scientific discoveries are still being made

That doesn’t mean those things never existed and were not part of reality.

Of course not. I'm not arguing about the existence of these things... merely their existence within our perception. Do you understand? There could be a fly on a glass in your kitchen. We both KNOW that that fly on the glass is reality and that the fly exists. However, until you see that fly and know it is on your glass, it is not in your PERCEPTION of reality. The fly exists. But at the moment you are not perceiving its existence. Perception of reality vs reality itself.

Again, you’re confusing terms – If something exists, we can perceive it. If we can’t perceive, it most likely does not exist.

Yes, if something exists, we CAN perceive it. That doesn't mean we DO perceive it. We may not be able to perceive it at that exact moment because spacially it might be someplace where we cannot sense what is occuring unless we go there or set up tools to observe there. Science may not yet have discovered it, and even though we are CAPIBLE of perceiving it, we CANNOT perceive it until we know about it and can actually say "Oh look, there it is!" Something is not in your perception until you turn your attention to it, until you notice it.

Does the fact that you don’t understand how it works provide you a lesser perception of that monitor or simply a lesser understanding?

If I use your definition which differentiates between perception and understanding, then I would say yes, I can perceive it. If I use mine (and the dictionary's) which says understanding is PART of perception, I would say that NO, I do not perceive the reality of that monitor because seeing it is not enough... I also have to understand it.

 

[Runt]

Wow, I think those may have been the shortest responses I've ever given. You should all be proud of me!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

After reading this thread, I honestly think there may not be a disagreement so much as a miscommunication.

Runt seems to be making the point that not all of reality is perceived by the individual, though all of reality can be. I agree.

Q seems to be making the point that everything we perceive is reality, and all reality can be perceived. I agree.

Perhaps we all agree and didn't even perceive this reality...though with special tools such as posts by yours truly, it is perceivable.

 

[Alaric]

I think we mostly agree, Runt... about that cat-squashing example, you could see it from the perspective of different degrees of knowledge; like of some kid from the darkest parts of the Amazon witnessing the scene, you witnessing it, and some NSA spook with a fantastic general knowledge and who had been intimately monitoring all activity within the area of the accident for some time via hidden mikes and cameras. All would see the same scene, but the NSA guy would be able to give the most comprehensive description, given that he knew very well the music the driver was playing, and even the colour of the cat, before the accident. You saw them only fleetingly, so you don't recall it in the same way, also because you aren't adept and distinguishing Scottish from Irish music. And the Amazonian kid would not give a very accurate description at all, given that he'd never seen a car, or a cat, or heard such music before. So it's the connections we make and conclusions we draw that are flawed, and that the knowledge we currently possess is used to understand things we see. In a way, when all three are asked to describe the scene, you might make the most mistakes, because you fill in the gaps in your memory with what you think should be there, while the Amazonian kid would only describe his view of what he actually saw - it just wouldn't be as rich in information.

The important thing is that whatever we see is in fact reality, it's just distorted and twisted by the way our minds work, and we can take that into account. We have to be aware that additional information will change our perception. And that's what many religious people don't realise - they see divine purpose in things because they don't understand them.

 

[Runt]

Alaric-- Yes, I agree with everything you stated. I think our sensory perception of reality is probably relatively accurate despite being somewhat incomplete due to the lack of sensory perfection. However, I think it is during the second half of perception, when we INTERPRET that incomplete sensory information, that we get a potentially warped overall perception of reality.

Mr_Spinkles-- Yes, you are right; the problem Q and I have been having is mostly in miscommunication, as you suggested. Q and I are trying to argue whether human perception can accurately portray reality… but we have different definitions of “to perceive” and therefore without even knowing it we’ve never been arguing about the same issue.

It all comes down to that definition. For me, “perception” is not only sensory but psychological as well: my definition of perception includes understanding.

For Q, “perception” is only sensory and does not include understanding.

Therefore, when I was arguing earlier in this thread that human perception was inaccurate, Q was unable to agree because the part of perception that I thought was inaccurate (understanding) was not even a part of Q’s own definition of perception.

Mr_Spinkles, you uncovered the second half of the problem as well, where miscommunication has REALLY screwed Q and I up. I was arguing that an individual does not perceive reality in its completeness but is capible of doing so with the right factors involved. Q was arguing that everything we perceive is reality and all reality can eventually be perceived. The problem again came down to the definition of “to perceive”. If I use Q’s definition I can mostly agree. If I use my own I cannot agree. Q cannot agree with me using his (her?) own definition of “to perceive”, but I’m willing to bet CAN if my definition is used instead.

I suspect we still have things we disagree about, but until we decide on a common definition of “to perceive”, I don’t think we can truly discuss them and get anywhere.

I was reading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" last night, and it shed some important light on the problem we have with establishing a definition. (Have you ever noticed that when you're thinking about something the subject suddenly starts popping up everywhere--on tv, conversations, in your reading--to aid you in clarifying your thoughts or solving your problems?) It went deeply into a description of two major worldviews that the author called “classical understanding” and “romantic understanding” (I have no clue why he used those terms: "classical" and "romantic", but that is what he called them.) Classical vs Romantic understanding is basically the world as scientists understand it vs the world as we see it; the world of underlying form vs the world of immediate appearance.

I think that might be the problem we have. Q’s definition of “to perceive” shows a romantic worldview: “perception shows the immediate appearance of reality.” Mine reflects a classical worldview: “perception shows the underlying form of reality.”

The book, however, does not really cover which view is correct. (Too bad... that would have been an easy solution, if a lame one--letting a random book solve all our problems). Therefore, I think we need to figure that out ourselves, first, before we can proceed to coming up with ONE definition and discussing from there.

 

[Fra.Morelia]

Reality, in my opinion, equals perception. They are not two distinct things. Just as sound is what our ears hear (wavelengths) so matter is what our nerves feel . All a solid is is a bundle of atoms too dense to put your hand thru. All a liquid is is a bundle of atoms not dense enough to stop the atoms of your hand from passing thru.
Quantum physics has much to say on the issue, and has pretty conculsively proven that the act of observation changes the outcome. When an electron is shot out into a vacuum, the test equipment that observes it deflects it's path, even though it is in function much like the human eye. Read the basics of quantm physics, dodge the math (it certainly isn't my apptitude) if you like, and it will shift your view of things a great deal, I'd wager.
Without something to experience creation, all it would be is a dance of atoms, and however elegant, without definition and without understanding. It's would just be tiny particles moving based on density. Whilst this is as'real' as anything, it is hardly a reality, in fact it sounds much more akin to a limbo.

 

[keevelish]

If every one's reality is true, then that is an absolute truth. I believe that there is only one reality and that everyone's made- up ones are wrong. Therefore mine is real.

 

[Master Vigil]

If you believe yours to be true, I also believe mine to be true. Who is right? We both are. For there is a difference between reality and perception. There is one reality, but each of us have a different perception of that reality.