The Nature Of Reality

[EggBeast]

QUOTE (uglyducklingforever @ Apr 20 2008, 09:56 PM)"Shit happened, here we are, live with it."
It's true. No point in "wasting" your life just because you "might" be living in a "false" world. There are an infinite number of possibilities which explain what "reality" is, yet also explains our personal experiences as we see them. The way I see it, you should make the most of what you think you have. Even if it ends up being a ploy, at least you didn't take the far greater risk of wasting your life away for no reason whatsoever.


QUOTE (monsta666 @ Apr 20 2008, 06:37 PM)I disagree with you here. I believe what is right and wrong is largely determined by the norms of society. We can commit "wrong" acts if we want but it is society that deems what is wrong and right. Such things stems from societies views on ethics. If society had no ethics then there would be no right and wrong, at least in the moral sense of the word.
I'd have to disagree yet again. I'd have to argue, and I have modern psychology to back me up on this, that *some* people base their morals off of the norms of society, *some* people base right and wrong off of personal conviction of the world with society's norms just being a subset of that. *Some* people base right and wrong solely off of whether or not they'll get punished for it (children, mostly, and a few [*cough* messed up! *cough*] adults).

Take, for example, a gay couple getting (or at least trying to get married) in an area where such rights are forbidden. Society would see it as wrong. Me (along with a heckuva lotta other people) would have no problem with it. Hence, a relative form of "right" and "wrong". I wouldn't dare base my morals off the norms of society. That can be a very, very dangerous road. (augh! group-think is death!)


QUOTE (monsta666 @ Apr 20 2008, 06:37 PM)This was a response to outl-w_monsum's statement that IF we knew everything we would realise how ignorant we are hence what is the point in learning. At least that was the point I think they were trying to make (it could be yet another misunderstanding).
Hence the phrase, "ignorance is bliss". Take Professor Duckling's Matrix example for example, remember that traitorous dude who wanted nothing more than to have his memories wiped, get voiped back into the matrix as a rich movie-star, and go on as if nothing had happened? Why wouldn't he want that? You can't be distraught by something you are completely unaware of (and I mean COMPLETELY unaware).

...and, reverting back to personal opinion here, I've got to add that ignorance is truly the one thing I hate in this world. Why? I ask myself the same question and have a lot of trouble coming up with a definitive answer. I guess you can just chock it up to personal preference, but I'll say that ignorance does far more harm than can be justified by the individuals "bliss" of being unaware of the "truth". (I'm sorry, I've just got to put "truth" in quotes on this thread. "truth" is just too dang vague in this context).


QUOTE (uglyducklingforever @ Apr 20 2008, 09:56 PM)Another note. It seems like every time I see Monsta666, I picture a hobbling old man, for some reason, you seem like an old man to me. Are you an old man, sir?

Seriously, I don't know what's up with that.
wha? Unless monsta' is a liar, he's only a year older than me, and, seeing some of your postages, I'm only a few years older than you. I don't think that exactly justifies the phrase "hobbling old man", unless of course you consider yourself to be quite the decrepit old man yourself.

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE The only reason we define things as real is if we can touch them, see them, all that materialistic crap we live and love.

Well... No.
Love is real.
The roots of x²+1=0 are real (They're imaginary numbers, but they exists nevertheless). We can also go into Pythagore and wonder what is the nature of numbers.
The USA as a nation (and not as some square yards of land) are probably real.
So you see, there's some 'real' things we can't touch.

So you need a more restrictive definition of 'real' for your opinion.

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (uglyducklingforever @ Apr 21 2008, 04:56 AM)Another note. It seems like every time I see Monsta666, I picture a hobbling old man, for some reason, you seem like an old man to me. Are you an old man, sir?
It must be the number 666 giving you bad images! I am no old man (unless you consider 21 old). I will admit my age has been a debatable issue, but often because I look younger than I am. I always need to take some ID out if I want to be served in bar (you need to be 18 in the UK). It is a pleasant change to be mistaken for being older than I am!


QUOTE Okay. Normally, I would show some restraint before barging in on a resonable arguement. But, seeing as... well, the point is, I am.

The difference between an argument and a debate is that in a debate people criticise others opinions. In an argument people criticise each other (I will include criticism of a person's English). No one has been called an idiot (yet), so we are still debating!


QUOTE I'd have to disagree yet again. I'd have to argue, and I have modern psychology to back me up on this, that *some* people base their morals off of the norms of society, *some* people base right and wrong off of personal conviction of the world with society's norms just being a subset of that. *Some* people base right and wrong solely off of whether or not they'll get punished for it (children, mostly, and a few [*cough* messed up! *cough*] adults).

Perhaps the bias stems from the fact I did sociology (admittedly at a lower level than you). Like you said most people use societies norms as a yard stick for their own morals. However that fact alone shows that peoples' morals are influenced by their external environment. Yes there are certain matters we disagree with but I feel the concept of right and wrong would not exist if society did not have ethics. This is good and a bad thing. On the one hand we have discrimination (what you said), but on the other we have decent norms (murder and rape are unacceptable, incest). In early societies when norms were not firmly established there was no right and wrong, and everything went.

Even taking the case the of the punished child they are being influenced by an external source. Would the child even know what is right and wrong is if they were never punished? It is because of the punishment they learnt what is right and wrong. Then again I am no psychologist so what do I know. It purely my opinion.


QUOTE ...and, reverting back to personal opinion here, I've got to add that ignorance is truly the one thing I hate in this world. Why? I ask myself the same question and have a lot of trouble coming up with a definitive answer. I guess you can just chock it up to personal preference, but I'll say that ignorance does far more harm than can be justified by the individuals "bliss" of being unaware of the "truth". (I'm sorry, I've just got to put "truth" in quotes on this thread. "truth" is just too dang vague in this context).

I generally agree with you I can never advocate ignorance. There is one notable exception, I will prefer to remain ignorant if this knowledge infringes on ones privacy. Then again what is private is another debate altogether.

 

[HyeVltg3]

Reality...eh? (yea, I'm Canadian )

If this topic is based on personal opinion then here I go...


The definition of Reality to me is based on the fact that it moves forward without the need of my influence. Reality is what I see before me and a place where I exist as a person for others to notice.[the One for you]

(Enough of the cheesy-ness)

So far I've figured out that reality is not what your mind thinks up, and that your thoughts have no influence on how reality shows itself to me.[the One for me]

A long time ago I saw this Documentary on the DISC channel (Discovery Channel), which depict the laws of Reality and how it can be momentarily changed and bent to your will but just having you think happy thoughts and by doing that, happy thinks will mostly likely happen to you. Does anyone follow enough to believe this?

To me I just see it as a way to tell you that, by focusing on only the happy things in what you see, happy things will be all that you remember later on(you wont be remembering the bad times = happy feelings).

.....^Was what I wanted to say..but by seeing the first post and the actual purpose of the thread.....

I've always believed that reality was whatever you made it to be.
and then after watching the matrix(was on IFC a fews weeks back. hehe) it really dawned on me that this could all be just a huge computer simulation, which stirs up suicidal thoughts about what it would be like after...wards? (but lol no worries music's helped subdue the "thoughts"..and plus it would suck to be a battery in the afterlife).

Some questions to start up el'discussion up again cause it looks like it sort of died:

Anyone believe that in reality we are all just hairless bodies in forever-incubators? and that death is actually just a period in time where we are needed as a power supply to power the robots our ancient ancestors created before our time.

Could brainwaves be used to make and change the reality around us, in the future if some sort of device was invented? Do you think mere thoughts have enough power to create objects and bring them into the reality all of us see?

Is that really air you're breathing?

(not to get too much into the Matrix)

Just wondering...does the thought of wishing to "wake-up" ever cross your mind?


and to get more personal(as in me not you).

To me I've always believe that the nature of reality is born from our own five senses, like don't you think the blind see a completely different reality than the ones with sight? wouldn't they're morals also change after having lost eye-sight?

Isn't reality seen differently for people higher up the "Chance-of-Survival" chart? again different morals.

In the end(lol I should have just said so in the start..>) Moral is actually the Nature of Reality (IMO). it bends the way we see politics as being supportive or harmful. it bends the way the next-generation will be played out. it pretty much controls individual reality.

this brings up two versions of reality...doesn't it? One for you and One for me. and both are freely changeable ...by mere thoughts...lol

 

[EggBeast]

I've gotten a new vague, general philosophy of life over the past year. Before, I used to believe that with enough focus, brain-power, hard-work, and determination, we could get over any personal, human limitations we might have. I still think that this is largely true, but now my focus has changed in that regard.

I thought that, not only was it possible to overcome any human conditions we had, but that we should actually strive to do that. Lately though, I have come to accept my human limitations, and rather that fight against them, to work with them. I was born human, and therefore I have the needs and wants of a human. Sure, I have a fair deal of control over those things, but at my core, I am, not only who I am, but also what I am.

Of course, you don't always have to give in to instinct. The crazy thing about modern society is that we have largely been able to do away with instinct, and rely instead on careful deliberation, complex social interaction... or complete stupidity.

We can do things that our subconscious tells us not to, and we do those things ALL the time!

Anyways, my point is that if we always act out of careful deliberation, social interaction... or whatever, you're not doing anything to actually make you happy. At best, you're putting yourself in a position where you might be happier in the future. If you want to feel good about life, you've got to let yourself be human, at least once in a while.

I'd just hate to get caught up in something completely unrelated to worthwhile living, something entirely dreamed up by society, like money, like filing business reports, like maintaining image. Bah, sometimes it just pisses me off, what some people decide is important.

...which, getting back to the point of this thread, is what I make of reality!

Reality really is what you make of it. It's the human condition, baby!

To be completely honest though, I have no idea which mindset is the better one to have... I'm just hoping this new mindset of mine lets me be a bit happier about life. I know that, at the very least, it's made me more open and honest with others. So... yeah.

 

[sayonara solitia]

reality is everything that exist within our world - whether it is physical or not

 

[Gustav1976]

from what I have read most philosphers think that reality is somewhat fluid as it defined by the belief of the person experiencing it. So even if you and I are seeing the same thing at the same time because we both experience it differently then our realities are slightly different.
Another thing to consider is the concept of mass hallucination as a catalyst for the understanding of the nature of reality

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE (Gustav1976 @ Nov 12 2009, 07:01 AM) from what I have read most philosphers think that reality is somewhat fluid as it defined by the belief of the person experiencing it. So even if you and I are seeing the same thing at the same time because we both experience it differently then our realities are slightly different.
Well, I think that most people believe there is only one actual version of reality. But yes, we are all of course limited by human perception. We can only see what our eyes are designed to see, and we can only look at it in the way our brains were taught to.

That's why we can come up with so many different versions of reality, because, in the end, we can't tell the difference between any of these and the actual truth, because from our limited perception, the two are exactly the same.


QUOTE Another thing to consider is the concept of mass hallucination as a catalyst for the understanding of the nature of reality

Didn't they try that out sometime in the 60's / 70's? That sounds a bit familiar.

 

[franzoir]

If your a constructivist you believe there is no such thing as reality. In actuality, reality is just a conglomeration of human perception. Reality can shift as your perception does. You may percieve your father to be your parent but his boss percieves his identity as an employee and so forth.

But this is banal stuff. Where it really matters is concepts of politics, class, race, gender,religion, nation, stereotypes etc. From the society/environment your spawned from you have already been crafted and molded to think a certain way about certain isssues. What constructivist advocate is that through a process of questioning everything you've ever known, you can discover your own true reality. Rather then going through a primordialist route and accepting the story you have been told.

Eitherway, much of what we know is socially constructed. Some people are happy to go with it, some people need to find purpose and meaning. The only one truth is that you shall die.

 

[gdpetti]

QUOTE The only one truth is that you shall die.

As per the the proceeding pages, this 'death' factor is what is being 'debated'. The nature of reality is subjective until one evolves their perception to the objective universal point of view. It is said all the creation is a classroom in self-consciousness. We are the individual cells of 'God' or the 'Divine Cosmic Mind' or whatever you choose to call it, to define it etc. As to 'debate' anything requires a consensus on the terms we use etc. Every game needs a field, equipment, and a set of rules. This is said to be the basis of our 'reality', configured through our DNA as our consensus reality. Thought takes form for the benefit of 'God, the Creator', which is what we are, as God utilizes Itself to do so, so what else could we be than a subset of the whole? Given this, researchers discover that the universe is constantly expanding like some great game based in Gestalt formation.

The creation is the creator and vice versa. So we are 'God', though only an extremely small part of this whole. This applies within ourselves as well as the whole. We 'awaken' to discover the greater part of ourselves within - subconscious - which in gestalt fashion expands to include all other parts as well. Some parts choose to align and unify while the other half choose not to. Choice or free will is the primary law of creation, if you are aware/conscious enough to know so.. thus knowledge is the key to 'the nature of reality'.

The more we learn, the more our DNA starts realigning and preparing to turn back on... either when we reach some exultant spiritual state or until this 'realm border' or 4d delineation point passes over us. Those that pass on, vibrate on through this 'Looking Glass' to the next classroom, so that we no longer see them... think the end of 'Celestine Prophecy', which again is based in DNA alignment towards the path and classroom of our choosing.. negative or positive polarity.. some refer to it as the forces of darkness/AntiChrist/STS(service to self) or the forces of light/Christ/STO(service to others).

You can see where the solipism comes into play among the STS or selfish side of the game, based in EM as the south or north poles of physicality, which is where our 'reality' is experienced using what little is left of our senses, due to 4dSTS manipulation of our gene pool. These are the 'machines' or 'beasts' so often referred to in film, anime or literature... the infamous 666 etc... or VISA in ancient tongues.

So we 'awaken' and learn to 'choose' through discernment and the discipline of our self/ego/personality... we learn to harness the energy within for our own awakening like Neo and not let the 'dark side' or the 'machines' steal it from us like batteries. Using the biblical analogy, we are sheep until we learn to become shepherds for our own souls. Simple, yet infinitely complex simultaneously, as Lain discovered in her journey along the Net into mass consciousness.

It is said that the 'fun' part is seeing how much you can access, as All are One, but reconnecting to one's subconscious isn't the easiest thing to do, as we have entered the hardest classroom in the cycle of creation, the nexus point from which it turns and where balance between the forces are maintained so that the 'game' goes on in gestalt fashion.

That's what I learned in school so far.

 

[gdpetti]

PS... 'death' depends upon one's position in this classroom. Half is just getting here and the other half are expected to graduate and leave... though very, very, very few ever do... 'if it was easy, anyone could do it.'

What dies is the body, and then concept of self if one is in the first half, the second half goes on to do what is called the life review and make plans for more lessons from which surely they will triumph the next time.... time being like space and where, when one chooses to be to learn these lessons. Those that do graduate more through time like we move through space, they vibrate from one point to the next, all based in consciousness.

Even Harry Potter touched on many of these classic analogies, but then Jo Rowling was a classics major and knew the path of the Holy Grail... at least to some extent, though it seems not esoterically perhaps, but then the same is found in so much anime isn't it?