Printable View
I've heard many people (in Beyond Dreaming) say something equivalent to "reality is what you perceive it as being". I've also heard the less extreme "the effects of how you perceive reality are as real as that of true reality".
I certainly believe the second statement. Most anyone would. But what about the first statement?
Discuss.
people with delusions and hallucinations perceive a different reality than the supposed "objective" reality. that's their reality. how is that different from anyone else? if you think about it, there are many "you"s; the you that you believe yourself to be, and the you others believe you are. if you know you are not a meth head, but others are convinced you are, in all their realities, you're a meth head. QED, the only reality is the one you perceive. just think of how many mistakes there could be in the world's documented "history." now those mistakes have become a reality, as it is taught world-wide. it doesn't matter what actually has happened (or how objective reality is), it only matters what we believe has happened.
If reality is "what we perceive it to be" then would a rock which is perceived through hallucination have as much of a concrete existence as a rock perceived directly?
I believe in an object truth in reality. It's just our fault in not being able to determine it. I think the objective reality is more real than the human perception because the objective reality had to have been in existence before the human was there to perceive it.
In our minds, yes. If you pick up a rock, it feels real, looks real, and everything about it appears to be real, then it is real to you. Even if someone told you a rock wasn't really there, could you really believe them? How do you know they aren't just fucking with you? I mean, the proof is right in front of you. It has weight, you can feel it, you can taste it, you can hear it bounce off the ground if you throw it, and you can see it. Imagine you are delusional as well and believe everyone in the world is out to make you feel like you're insane when to you, you're not. And even if you weren't delusional, the rock is still there. In the end, that's all that really matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Camouflaged animals do not exist.
Perception =/= reality
If I am hallucinating and perceive an homeless man begging for money on the street when in fact there is nobody there, is that reality? No. It's not real. It's just an image I formed in my mind and couldn't contain there, and let it slip into RL. The concept of that homeless man is in my head, and real as an idea, and an idea is nothing spectacular, only a product of how the brain works.
thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by JussiKala
The fact that several people can construe a single event in several different ways implies that the nature of reality does not dictate how reality is represented in our minds.
The problem is that there isn't always a distinction between perception and reality. No one experiences an objective reality. Therefore, an individual's perception alters that individual's reality. If it didn't, then there wouldn't be such a thing as a "subjective" reality. What you perceive as reality is your reality.
I am not saying there is no objective reality. I am saying that objective reality doesn't matter because the only reality you as an individual are going to experience is your own subjective reality. So to each individual, their perception of reality is their reality.
@Xei:
If you were making a response to me, you didn't think it through very well. You can still hear, touch, taste, and smell a camouflaged animal.
Why would you ever attempt to pick something up when you cannot see it?
The point is that, before you do so, you have no way of sensing the animal. So... apparently, it doesn't exist. Then how can you lay your hand on it in the first place?? Why does reality persist the next day after having gone to sleep? How is it possible that new things enter your experience if, by your definition, they did not exist prior to their entering it?
What you are describing is not actual physical reality, but just the perseption of it by some human being. Here's the problem. While you may refer to that perseption as the reality of that person, it's not. This reality is the same for all of us. Our perseption of it is different. Calling that perseption a reality is flawed used of language IMO for extended discussion on these subjects.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
Is there another way to describe it? I am not saying things don't exist if you don't perceive them, there is still such a thing as object permanence. If something can be observed and therefore perceived, it exists. That's why air, which you cannot see, hear, grab, taste, or smell (normally) still exists. You can prove so by observing it's reaction with other chemicals, spectroscopic analysis, and by the simple fact you can hear anything at all (you can't hear in vacuum). Things beyond perception still exist, but they may as well not because we will never perceive it in any tangible way.
If what you are wanting to do is prove that there is an objective reality, there is no need. Like I said in my other post, I agree that there is and there is no debate about that. My argument is that no one experiences this objective reality, so everyone lives in their own realities. A subjective reality and objective reality are different. If they weren't, there would be no need for distinction. The feelings and associations you have in response to stimuli alter your perception of the supposed objective reality. No one can directly observe this objective reality perfectly without attaching with it emotions, concepts, or mis-perceptions. Therefore, objective reality does not matter in the scheme of things in relation to humans or any other being that we know of for that matter. All that does matter is what we perceive.
1. You can still hear it, smell it or happen to stumble upon touching it by random chance. And unless an animal is camouflaged 100% unable to be perceived by the human eye (which most aren't) they can still be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
2. I have said that I agree that there is an objective reality, I am only asserting that objective reality in the literal sense does not matter because we will never experience it as it truly is.
3. You have mistaken the meaning of my definition because nowhere have I said that things that you do not perceive do not exist. I may not have clarified this until this post, leaving my definition of reality somewhat in the air, but it still illogical for you to have made that assumption based on nothing.
There is you answer, in bold.Quote:
Originally Posted by PR0G4P4RV18
But as an interesting discourse.
People forget that our minds are in reality as well. So if we perceive a rock, there is a rock in reality. It's just that it's the product of our neurons, and the rock is not where we think it is.
Also, none of us experience reality.
So how could we even change it. Where we see a rock (even if everyone says there is one there) there is no rock. It's just energy; higher up, atoms coming together, they form certain chemicals and those chemicals have a certain pigment and malleability. Which we perceive as a rock.