A pragmatic approach: What is "real", and when is it actually useful to ask this?

[endlessness]

awesome discussion, and very well said, entropy! I have also been trying to express a pragmatic world view whenever such discussions arise. For those interested, I highly suggest William James' essay on pragmatism, it exposes what is being discussed here in some very interesting ways (though not specifically about hyperspace of course ).


I have for long stopped to question if its real or not, because in the end, it doesnt matter for me. Sure it seems very real, and its a very powerful changing experience, but when I come back I still have to cook my food and take the trash out and try to be good to those around me and so on, focusing on making the best out of the 'reality' im in most of the time... Calling hyperspace 'real' or 'unreal' wont solve anything for me.

If I considered hyperspace to be 100% real, I might go in to the experience affraid that bad entities might hurt me and whatever, and I personally dont find that to be of benefit. Also what if some entity told you to kill someone in your normal life (not that I ever heard of this happening but, who knows) ? Believing it 100% is very dangerous imo. At the same time, saying its 100% unreal might mean I give less value to whatever happens there and possibly missing out on important lessons, emptying the experience's worth and mistery. In any case both those absolute definitions will beg more questions than answers.

By going with an open view, I can just 'let go' and dont need to identify with things I see, I just experience and come back and try to put whatever lessons I may have had to practice, use it to reinforce my ideas of being ever healthier, use the 'shock' of being in another state of consciousness to help me have more appreciation to life, to remember how misterious and beyond definitions existence is.

btw, just a note on solipsism, sort of similar to when I made the question 'what if some entity told you to kill someone?'.. Also a huge problem with solipsism and anyways those that take the stance 'everything is subjective', is that it gives no basis for relationship with the world. If all is subjective, then is it just as valid to cut a woman's clitoris than to respect her? I mean, if its all subjective, who's to say its a bad thing to murder some random person on the street? Or to start war with another country? Or whatever... ? Solipsism/absolute relativism opens up the door to this senseless crazyness, it justifies any action. So the criteria for existence and personal philosophy must go beyond this, without falling in the other extreme of boxing up and labelling things and telling with absolute certainty what is and what isnt

 

[Aegle]

I think to try and box your own personal experiences into real or not real isn't very constructive. We all create our own realities within our own lives stemming from our consciousness. Perspective is subjective to each individual, its far more positive to look within the experience and to try and gain knowledge through what you are experiencing than to try and neatly label your experience in a box of real or not real. Everything that we experience in our lives are projections and manifestations from within our own minds and consciousness so the question whether our experiences are real or not real is irrelevant, from my perspective. Everything is nothing and nothing is everything...


Much Peace and Happiness

 

[Crystalito]

For me ,its not what one "believes in" , its what those beliefs are translated to in the everyday world.This is quite of a personal matter so it cannot be discussed generaly but only in the context of a specific person: given a set of beliefs that are shared by 1000 people ,how would each of those people incorporate it in their lives? Some have even killed in the name of a person that preached love . Others might believe in really far out ideas but still be very functional and well adjusted to everyday life.So, its not so much the belief, its more or less the person.

The golden rule, for those that wish to be able to operate in society as it is -and its not going to change dramatically any time soon-, for those who dont plan on escaping to a deserted island ,a cave or a mountain any time soon is "Whatever you believe, just dont loose it man!".

Apart from that feel free to entertain philosophical concept and wild hypothesis. The whole "loose it" clause may be a bit open to interpretation but...try to think when would you say that a person close to you "has lost it"? What behaviours would worry you as far as his/her mental stability goes? Here i am not beind dismissive of far out ideas or eccentric behaviour but is there a point where you could label that a person has "lost touch with reality" with negative connotations?

 

[burnt]

burnt contradictorily wrote:
Violence is an action. Love and hate are emotions. They happen to use regardless of what we believes. Although our beliefs can lead to more or less of any particular emotion

I used the example of “hate” from your prior statement, but to be more clear:
Providing food for the hungry is an action, marching in a civil rights protest is an action, organizing a labor union is an action, providing medical treatment for the sick and injured is an action, building homes for the homeless is an action. I could go on, but the point is that beliefs can lead people to do good in the world.

Maybe I wasn't being clear. Either way I think we are saying the same thing about beliefs. They can lead to action whether good or bad.

burnt angrily wrote:
People should be criticized and questioned when their beliefs are dangerous or nonsensical. If no one criticized others and their beliefs the world would be a much shittier place. I am used to being criticized and having others criticise me and thats fine I think it helps us learn. Being mean for no reason is not what I am advocating. Rather reason in the face of absurdity.

As you should know, people seldom change their beliefs in response to criticism of them. In fact, many people become defensive and irrationally cling to their beliefs when attacked. If criticism is as effective as you seem to think it is, wouldn’t your beliefs have changed by now?

:d Dude I am not angry at all. Don't take my tone that way if you heard me speaking I wouldn't be yelling at you I am just discussing. I might use words that sound strong but I don't mean it in a negative way.

Anyway my beliefs have changed many times because I've remained open to evidence throughout my life. I was a catholic at one point :shock: I believed in spiritual concepts at one point :shock: . Eventually I realized science was the most fun way for me to discover the truth about issues in my life and I have never looked back.

Anyway just wanted to let you know I'm not mad at you or criticizing you. So lets get back on topic.

 

[burnt]

Fiashy good to see you back.

The last few posts I see Burnt and gibran2 arguing the relative merits of these non-material beliefs which I think strikes close to the heart of the issue in a way. The thread was started with a view towards pragmatically exploring these beliefs. So the question is, does affording a view that hyperspace is literally real, benefit the believer and society (in other words does it have functional benefit) or does it harm the believer and society? And the unsatisfactory but nevertheless true answer to that question is that it depends on which individual you are talking about.

I believe overall it would cause harm to society if people were taught that it is literally real. Eventually dmt would turn into another religion/cult and ruin everything good it had going for it. All entheogenic drug use in traditional societies is tied up with rituals and culture. Its also often selective. Not everyone in most tribes uses these substances. Theirs rules about who can and who can't use them etc. Personally I don't like any of that stuff. If ritual makes the experience better thats fine but once it becomes dogma its worthless to me personally to experience.

Finally, someone has gotten to the heart of the matter! I’d also add the converse: “Does affording a view that hyperspace is NOT real, benefit the believer and society (in other words does it have functional benefit) or does it harm the believer and society?”

The answer is the same, and I don’t find it to be unsatisfactory at all.

I think it would benefit society tremendously if mystical experiences, not limited to DMT alone, were shown to be just products/tricks of the mind. This would disprove ALL religion. Personally I feel from surveying the evidence it already disproves all religion to a large extent even though most people don't agree with me or see that.

I think that would be the best thing that could happen to the world right now. Its why I am still interested in these substances. They hold the key to understanding how religion originates which is almost always by people who have mystical experiences.

If I considered hyperspace to be 100% real, I might go in to the experience affraid that bad entities might hurt me and whatever, and I personally dont find that to be of benefit. Also what if some entity told you to kill someone in your normal life (not that I ever heard of this happening but, who knows) ? Believing it 100% is very dangerous imo. At the same time, saying its 100% unreal might mean I give less value to whatever happens there and possibly missing out on important lessons, emptying the experience's worth and mistery. In any case both those absolute definitions will beg more questions than answers.

Good points endlessness. However I don't feel that psychedelic experiences being 100% products of the mind (as all our experiences are) makes it any less worthwhile having or any less mysterious. If anything it makes it more interesting to me. If it really was a portal to another dimension with beings picking apart my brain I wouldn't want to use it anymore. I find that idea invasive and disturbing. Although of course it would be interesting too if that were the case I just don't see how it can be given what we know about how the world works.



I guess my point to summarize is that it does matter whether or not its literally real or not and the consequences of that on society would be major even if it took a few generations to drip into the public consciousness.

*edit I should say that it does matter what aspects of the experience are real and not real. Since its all real in some sense in that its experienced and that your brain is still interacting with the world around it. What I mean is if a god speaks to you is a good really speaking to you. That part. Like when a schizophrenic thinks jesus is telling him to pray 10,000 times a day or burn in hell is jesus really telling him that?

 

[Entropymancer]

I want just as much as anyone to move past "i say the elves aren't real you say they are real" debates. The inability to get past this has often led me to take breaks from the cite as it got too frustrating and turned into a waste of time.

One way to move past the debate is to recognize that you understand the word "real" in a different manner than they do and leave it at that, rather than draw people into a confrontational debate founded on what's basically a semantic impasse.

Put another way, the functional value is the same whether you regard the hyperspace realm as literally real having an existence autonomous of your mind, or whether you regard it as a chemically-induced distortion of perception in your neural circuitry. From a pragmatic perspective, there is no functional benefit to regarding hyperspace as "functionally real" instead of "aesthetically real".

This I think is a mistake. It is exactly because someone regards it as literally real that it has “functional reality” meaning it informs on the person’s behaviors. If you do not regard it as literally real, then it does not have the same impact on belief and therefore on action. It is the same with all religious or spiritual beliefs. The more literal reality you afford to it, the more “functionally real” it becomes.

Yes, you're right. I see that I should have included subjective belief in the initial post, as it has been the basis of much of the productive conversation in the thread. The point I was trying to make in the paragraph you quoted was that the subjective influence of beliefs about the nature of hyperspace do not depend on the belief actually being true (which I realize, upon reflection, is rather different than what I wrote!).

Of course this notion can be expanded to beliefs in general, not just in respect to hyperspace. There are some beliefs about the physical world whose helpfulness is contingent upon the truth of the belief. Like a belief in gravity, for example. Whether or not you believe in gravity, you suffer the consequences of it. But if you do believe in gravity, you're in a position to accurately anticipate the consequences.

But the vast majority of beliefs are of another sort. They are subjectively informative regardless of whether the belief is true. I think it's fair to term these beliefs irrational. I don't mean this derogatorily, but rather descriptively: If the informative capacity of the belief has nothing to do with whether the belief is objectively true, it is necessarily founded on subjective experience rather than clear rationality. Beliefs about the nature of hyperspace fall into this category (whether one believes it is literally real or pure hallucination), as do beliefs about God/gods, the afterlife, etc. As gibran said:

Beliefs don’t require validation. People are free to believe whatever they want. We may not share their beliefs, but as long as their beliefs are harmless, how do their beliefs affect us?

But of course they do affect us, because they inform the actions of believers. And that clause "as long as their beliefs are harmless" is very misleading... unfounded beliefs are often harmful, and the harm can be subtle. Of course there are overt examples: the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Crusades, modern fundamentalist terrorism, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, manifest destiny, racism, sexism, etc.

And of course there are subtler harms. America's overwhelming Christianity essentially excludes atheists from holding major public office. If you aspire to a seat in the senate, admitting that you're an atheist is political suicide. Considering that there are more non-believers in this country than there are african americans, yet african americans can get elected even in the most conservative states, this is nothing short of discrimination... and that discrimination is born out of Christian belief. The notion that God should have a voice in politics is a popular one, as is the notion that without religion there is no basis for morality... and both are very harmful notions. I'll stop here, since I don't want this thread to turn into a religious debate... But if you have any doubt about the capacity of beliefs to perpetuate harm (both obvious and subtle), religion provides ample examples of this.

This is not to deny that beliefs can have positive effects too. Again looking at religion, it provides people with communities of shared belief. It comforts people in troubled times (which I guess could also be harmful to the extent that it can cause people to believe that god will bring the change they need, so they may not strive as fervently for it themselves). It can provide people with ecstatic and transcendental experiences.

But the fact that an irrational belief can have positive effects is meaningless taken by itself... that belief may also have negative consequences, either to society at large or to the one who holds the belief. I think it's very important to be rigorously mindful of the consequences of our irrational beliefs.

The thread was started with a view towards pragmatically exploring these beliefs. So the question is, does affording a view that hyperspace is literally real, benefit the believer and society (in other words does it have functional benefit) or does it harm the believer and society? And the unsatisfactory but nevertheless true answer to that question is that it depends on which individual you are talking about.

Finally, someone has gotten to the heart of the matter! I’d also add the converse: “Does affording a view that hyperspace is NOT real, benefit the believer and society (in other words does it have functional benefit) or does it harm the believer and society?”

Well, obviously this varies on a case by case basis, but I'd like to think about some general trends.

I think that believing the experience is literally real has the capacity for harm. If an entity showed you that terrible things would happen if you don't [blow up some building/kill someone/whatever], believing the reality of the visions could have dangerous consequences. Or for a more concrete example, I know someone who vaporized DMT and through the experience realized that the reptilian conspiracy was real, and all the craziness that goes with that, and wasted a few years caught up in absurd paranoia. Or hypothetically a person might have the "reality" of a 2012 apocalypse revealed to them and spend all their money hoarding food and building a bunker to weather the storm, only for 2012 to come and go just like any other year.

Of course believing the experience is literally real can also have the capacity for benefit. Believing it's literally true can provide greater impetus for implementing the constructive self-improvement that the experience seems to engender. It can foster a deeper spirituality about the experience that can inform a healthy attitude toward life.

Believing 100% that it is not real doesn't seem to have any capacity to be harmful. I just can't think of any way that it could be... But it still has nearly the same capacity for benefit. One can still apply the experience to self-improvement, one can still revel in the transcendental... for some individuals the benefits may not be as intense as if they literally believed in the experience, but I believe that with a healthy attitude, the benefits can be just as profound as if one literally believed in the reality of hyperspace.

But for myself, I really don't feel the question is important... Endlessness put it very well:

I have for long stopped to question if its real or not, because in the end, it doesnt matter for me. Sure it seems very real, and its a very powerful changing experience, but when I come back I still have to cook my food and take the trash out and try to be good to those around me and so on, focusing on making the best out of the 'reality' im in most of the time... Calling hyperspace 'real' or 'unreal' wont solve anything for me.

 

[Entropymancer]

I think to try and box your own personal experiences into real or not real isn't very constructive. We all create our own realities within our own lives stemming from our consciousness. Perspective is subjective to each individual, its far more positive to look within the experience and to try and gain knowledge through what you are experiencing than to try and neatly label your experience in a box of real or not real. Everything that we experience in our lives are projections and manifestations from within our own minds and consciousness so the question whether our experiences are real or not real is irrelevant, from my perspective. Everything is nothing and nothing is everything...

I'm sorry, but that's simply a dangerous notion. Endlessness addressed this in the post directly above yours:

Also a huge problem with solipsism and anyways those that take the stance 'everything is subjective', is that it gives no basis for relationship with the world. If all is subjective, then is it just as valid to cut a woman's clitoris than to respect her? I mean, if its all subjective, who's to say its a bad thing to murder some random person on the street? Or to start war with another country? Or whatever... ? Solipsism/absolute relativism opens up the door to this senseless crazyness, it justifies any action.

Sociopaths who rape and murder are projecting manifestations of their minds and consciousness just as much as a compassionate soul who opens a homeless shelter. So are child molesters. And if you ask the parents of a child who was raped and murdered, I'm pretty sure they'd tell you it does matter whether it was real or not real.

But aside from the grotesque acts that can be justified in terms of this idyllic relativism, how about a practical consideration: If your experience is something that you're projecting, why don't you try changing the gravitational constant by 50%? I'm betting that no matter how hard you try to project this, things are still going to fall at the same rate.

The notion simply isn't functional. The subjective nature of personal experience is an important thing to keep in mind... but it has to be tempered with other practical considerations. In this thread I've tried to construct a practical model for thinking about experience without losing sight of its subjective nature; I'm sure there are other valid approaches that could be developed as well. But left to itself, absolute subjectivism is inconsistent with some aspects of reality (or at least of my subjective reality ) and ethically is a disaster waiting to happen

 

[gibran2]

Some random musings:

Most human action begins as belief, or as you say, our actions are informed by our beliefs. I agree 100% that much of the pain and misery that some people inflict on others is the result of their corrosive beliefs. But to look only at the negative is to ignore all of the good that people do in the world.

Someone may seek to harm others because he believes those “others” are less than human. Yet someone else will treat others with kindness and respect because he believes that all people are equal.

A DMT experience may lead someone to believe that we’re all unknowing servants of reptilian overlords, or a DMT experience may lead someone to believe that we were put here to share our love.

ALL of our experiences shape who we are and consequently may have an effect on how we act. Someone who chooses to believe that DMT-induced visions aren’t real is still experiencing those visions. In other words, a DMT experience has the potential to alter one’s behavior regardless of what he thinks about the reality of the experience. There is potential for behavior to be affected not because of what you believe regarding the reality of visions, but simply because you’ve had a particular kind of experience.

For example, it is generally accepted that watching violence on television leads some children to become more violent. It doesn’t matter if the violence is real or staged. It is the experience of watching the violence that leads to changes in behavior, not the child’s belief that the violence is real vs. imaginary.

So if there’s concern regarding potential negative changes in behavior as a result of DMT use, then don’t use DMT. In such circumstances, choosing to believe that the experiences are products of your mind won’t necessarily insulate you from negative changes in behavior.

Ultimately, the truth is the truth. We can guess, we can speculate. But the truth is true whether we believe it or not. The truth doesn’t need us. Personally, I believe that the “true” nature of reality is incomprehensible to us. Human beings simply don’t have the cognitive capacity to grasp the true nature of things. So we can believe whatever we want, and we can rest assured that we’re probably wrong.

 

[burnt]

One way to move past the debate is to recognize that you understand the word "real" in a different manner than they do and leave it at that, rather than draw people into a confrontational debate founded on what's basically a semantic impasse.

Hah yea I gotta learn to get better at that. I'm trying

 

[Aegle]

I think to try and box your own personal experiences into real or not real isn't very constructive. We all create our own realities within our own lives stemming from our consciousness. Perspective is subjective to each individual, its far more positive to look within the experience and to try and gain knowledge through what you are experiencing than to try and neatly label your experience in a box of real or not real. Everything that we experience in our lives are projections and manifestations from within our own minds and consciousness so the question whether our experiences are real or not real is irrelevant, from my perspective. Everything is nothing and nothing is everything...

I'm sorry, but that's simply a dangerous notion. Endlessness addressed this in the post directly above yours:

Entropymancer

Its just the way that i see things, i have come to my own personal conclusion through my own personal experience of life. Just because what we experience are manifestations and projections from within our own minds and consciousness does not mean that our actions don't create ripples of reaction. Everything that you do or think disperses waves of energy that flow and move through all that which exists including yourself. Creating an action and a reaction ripple affect... Everything that we experience during life is directly related to previous actions and thought... I hope that this can in some small way clear up any misunderstanding that you have with what i said. Please remember that everyone has their own personal truth.


Much Peace and Compassion

 

[Entropymancer]

Some random musings:

Most human action begins as belief, or as you say, our actions are informed by our beliefs. I agree 100% that much of the pain and misery that some people inflict on others is the result of their corrosive beliefs. But to look only at the negative is to ignore all of the good that people do in the world.

Absolutely, I didn't mean to belittle the positive effects that non-rational beliefs can have. Those are certainly important. My intention in placing such an emphasis on the negative effects was to underscore how vitally important it is to be mindful of the ramifications of our beliefs.

Ultimately, the truth is the truth. We can guess, we can speculate. But the truth is true whether we believe it or not. The truth doesn’t need us. Personally, I believe that the “true” nature of reality is incomprehensible to us. Human beings simply don’t have the cognitive capacity to grasp the true nature of things. So we can believe whatever we want, and we can rest assured that we’re probably wrong.

Now that's a notion that I really like. If more people engaged in their non-rational beliefs with the understanding that they're probably wrong, I think the world would be a better place. It's an attitude I do my best to practice with regards to my own non-rational beliefs.

 

[burnt]

As for the examples of irrational belief leading to destructive behavior as in the example of DMT entities suggesting something dangerous or violent needs to be done for whatever reason, I sort of think that some common sense needs to be practiced too. My feeling is that one thing that is well established is that psychedelics do create ideas, visions, concepts, etc… that are NOT REAL. So the question to me is not, “is it all real?” or “is it all unreal?” but instead “what parts of this are real if any?” A good test of reality is how it squares with scientific material reality. Since we have already mentioned gravity, the psychedelically inspired idea that flying is possible, would seem to be contradicted by a lifelong experience of gravity, and so I would be extremely strongly inclined to disbelieve that, no matter how true it seemed at the time.

Yes exactly.

This is why I find it hard to square with material reality this experience of universal connectedness. There is no information we could perceive from distant galaxies. So when people say they feel as if they were the entire cosmos I think its more likely there brain module for creating the separateness feeling temporarily not working. Your not literally feeling galaxies. Thats not possible.

The important part is that this hypothesis is testable its falsifiable. Its in the realm of science.

 

[gibran2]

This is why I find it hard to square with material reality this experience of universal connectedness. There is no information we could perceive from distant galaxies. So when people say they feel as if they were the entire cosmos I think its more likely there brain module for creating the separateness feeling temporarily not working. Your not literally feeling galaxies. Thats not possible.

As of your post above, we have 33 posts in this thread. Many of them concern notions of belief. And here you go once again, stating your beliefs as absolute fact. You object when others state their beliefs as fact, and yet you are routinely guilty of the same offence.

You say, “There is no information we could perceive from distant galaxies.” Is this true? What evidence do we have to support this claim? Quantum entanglement allows for instantaneous information/state transfer regardless of distance, so why is this so absurd? We can see galaxies through telescopes – isn’t the image of a galaxy a kind of information? Your posts would be more credible if you said something like, “I don’t believe that there is information we could perceive from distant galaxies.”

You later say, “Your not literally feeling galaxies. Thats not possible.” How do you know that’s not possible? We can see distant galaxies through a telescope, and seeing is a kind of sensing/feeling, isn’t it? (I happen to agree with your opinion on this one, but I’d never say “That’s not possible” because I don’t know that.)

I recently read that the size of the universe is estimated to be between 10^23 and 10^26 times the size of the observable universe. This is amazing, and with numbers that big, hard to picture. So I did a few calculations and came up with this:

Imagine that some microscopic aliens come to visit the Earth. They land on a single grain of sand, and begin exploring that grain. After a certain period of time they leave, claiming to know and understand the Earth.

The universe is really big. Some physicists believe that physical constants are local phenomena. The observable universe is made up of about 95% dark energy and matter. We don’t know what 95% of the observable universe actually is, and the observable universe is infinitesimally small with respect to the rest of the universe, of which we know absolutely nothing. This is humbling, and it’s one reason I’ll never claim to know anything with absolute certainty.

Some people make wild claims on this site, but most understand the speculative nature of their musings. Adding the word “scientific” or “science” to a wild claim doesn’t make it any more legitimate.


edit:

I just read this post and had to laugh. You say, “There is something wrong with claiming you have the answers to things when you really don't. Many people do this.”

Indeed.

 

[Saidin]

Sociopaths who rape and murder are projecting manifestations of their minds and consciousness just as much as a compassionate soul who opens a homeless shelter. So are child molesters. And if you ask the parents of a child who was raped and murdered, I'm pretty sure they'd tell you it does matter whether it was real or not real.

But aside from the grotesque acts that can be justified in terms of this idyllic relativism, how about a practical consideration: If your experience is something that you're projecting, why don't you try changing the gravitational constant by 50%? I'm betting that no matter how hard you try to project this, things are still going to fall at the same rate.

The notion simply isn't functional. The subjective nature of personal experience is an important thing to keep in mind... but it has to be tempered with other practical considerations. In this thread I've tried to construct a practical model for thinking about experience without losing sight of its subjective nature; I'm sure there are other valid approaches that could be developed as well. But left to itself, absolute subjectivism is inconsistent with some aspects of reality (or at least of my subjective reality ) and ethically is a disaster waiting to happen

From a purely relativist perspective there is no difference between the projected manifestations of consciousness. They are creating that reality for themselves. Why do any acts need to be justified? How does what happens to others affect the individual in any way other than what is relavant for their own personal experience?

You are making the mistake of incorporating socially and culturally contrived value judgements upon this perspective, which you cannot do as they are incompatible. In the act of judging you take your own world view and impose it upon another...attempting to objectify their subjective experience. There are no right or wrong actions, no good or bad.

There are certain laws by which consciousness can function, we call these the laws of nature and is self evident because we are here experiencing. For consciousness to manifest physically requires precise parameters, the kind which we find in our Goldilocks universe. The purpose of that consciousness is to learn and grow, to go from the simple to the complex. For us at our current level of awareness, we cannot change the force of gravity. But who is to say that it is impossible? We may one day have an awareness of the processes of reality to completely ingnore gravity all together. I sure wouldn't mind being able to fly! :lol:

The notion isn't functional from certain perspectives...from others it makes perfect sense...it's all relative

 

[endlessness]

Sociopaths who rape and murder are projecting manifestations of their minds and consciousness just as much as a compassionate soul who opens a homeless shelter. So are child molesters. And if you ask the parents of a child who was raped and murdered, I'm pretty sure they'd tell you it does matter whether it was real or not real.

But aside from the grotesque acts that can be justified in terms of this idyllic relativism, how about a practical consideration: If your experience is something that you're projecting, why don't you try changing the gravitational constant by 50%? I'm betting that no matter how hard you try to project this, things are still going to fall at the same rate.

The notion simply isn't functional. The subjective nature of personal experience is an important thing to keep in mind... but it has to be tempered with other practical considerations. In this thread I've tried to construct a practical model for thinking about experience without losing sight of its subjective nature; I'm sure there are other valid approaches that could be developed as well. But left to itself, absolute subjectivism is inconsistent with some aspects of reality (or at least of my subjective reality ) and ethically is a disaster waiting to happen

From a purely relativist perspective there is no difference between the projected manifestations of consciousness. They are creating that reality for themselves. Why do any acts need to be justified? How does what happens to others affect the individual in any way other than what is relavant for their own personal experience?

You are making the mistake of incorporating socially and culturally contrived value judgements upon this perspective, which you cannot do as they are incompatible. In the act of judging you take your own world view and impose it upon another...attempting to objectify their subjective experience. There are no right or wrong actions, no good or bad.

There are certain laws by which consciousness can function, we call these the laws of nature and is self evident because we are here experiencing. For consciousness to manifest physically requires precise parameters, the kind which we find in our Goldilocks universe. The purpose of that consciousness is to learn and grow, to go from the simple to the complex. For us at our current level of awareness, we cannot change the force of gravity. But who is to say that it is impossible? We may one day have an awareness of the processes of reality to completely ingnore gravity all together. I sure wouldn't mind being able to fly! :lol:

The notion isn't functional from certain perspectives...from others it makes perfect sense...it's all relative

so you dont care if someone rapes a child or murders someone, as opposed to people being respectful to each other, its just the same, all relative ?

if you do think there is a distinction, how do you explain this difference in terms of your relativistic world view?

 

[Saidin]

so you dont care if someone rapes a child or murders someone, as opposed to people being respectful to each other, its just the same, all relative?

I have compassion for the victims and for the perpetrator, but I do not judge their actions. Each percieves the world though the filter of their perceptions, based on countless vairables...how can I possibly assume what another is experiencing and place value on that?

Being respectful to eachother is the way I choose to experience life (it certainly has its advantages), but it does not mean that that is the only, or the correct perspective. Rules and laws regarding behavior is a social construct and only have bearing in social contexts. This in turn offers individuals relativistic choices for future experiences.

 

[burnt]

As of your post above, we have 33 posts in this thread. Many of them concern notions of belief. And here you go once again, stating your beliefs as absolute fact. You object when others state their beliefs as fact, and yet you are routinely guilty of the same offence.

I am not going to doctor up all my words as say "probably" or "maybe" after everything. It will make all my paragraphs twice the size. Everything I claim is often based on observations, experiments, or facts. When its not I try to point out that I am speculating.

There is no speculation required to say that you don't "feel" other galaxies when your tripping. There is a much simpler explanation that doesn't involve violating known laws of physics.

You say, “There is no information we could perceive from distant galaxies.” Is this true? What evidence do we have to support this claim? Quantum entanglement allows for instantaneous information/state transfer regardless of distance, so why is this so absurd? We can see galaxies through telescopes – isn’t the image of a galaxy a kind of information? Your posts would be more credible if you said something like, “I don’t believe that there is information we could perceive from distant galaxies.”

First of all not all quantum systems are entangled. Its a specific phenomenon that happens under certain kinds of conditions.

Second we see light from galaxies that is millions of years old. I meant you instantly can't feel the entire cosmos because physically that makes no sense. If someone thinks its possible go ahead theorize prove it. But as of yet there is no explanation and given current laws of physics (speed of light) thats not possible in our known visible part of the universe.



Your accusing me of being hippocritical where I don't think its warranted. I am just restricting arguments by showing how they appear to violate known laws about the universe. Sayin that "well we don't know everything" is not an even kind of reasoning. Its a step down kind of reasoning. When you have evidence and you base conclusions on that evidence its more likely then explanations that 1- have no evidenve 2- violate laws of physics.

Its kind of like when people say they made a perpetual energy machine. Well you can instantly know they are liars because the known laws of physics would be violated. Its kind of like that.

 

[gibran2]

I am not going to doctor up all my words as say "probably" or "maybe" after everything. It will make all my paragraphs twice the size. Everything I claim is often based on observations, experiments, or facts. When its not I try to point out that I am speculating.

I’m not going to waste anyone’s time (especially my own) cutting and pasting the numerous speculative statements that you’ve stated as fact. All I ask is that you hold yourself to the same high standards that you demand of others.

Your accusing me of being hippocritical where I don't think its warranted. I am just restricting arguments by showing how they appear to violate known laws about the universe. Sayin that "well we don't know everything" is not an even kind of reasoning. Its a step down kind of reasoning. When you have evidence and you base conclusions on that evidence its more likely then explanations that 1- have no evidenve 2- violate laws of physics.

Here are some excellent NOVA episodes that show not only how much we’ve learned, but how little we know: NOVA: Hunting the Edge of Space
The most striking thing that physicists/cosmologists have discovered is that the universe is comprised of 95% dark energy and dark matter. And they freely admit that they don’t know what dark energy/matter is. For example, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Explain that one! No current laws of physics can.

The known laws of the universe cannot explain what dark matter/energy is. Therefore, it is a fact that the current known “laws” don’t tell us about 95% of physical existence. So how can you – how can anyone – say what is “likely” when physicists acknowledge that many fundamental laws may have to be rewritten as we learn more about that mysterious 95% of the universe?

But I do agree with you on one point: Just because we don’t know anything about 95% of the universe doesn’t mean that anything goes and that anything is possible. But we’re already learning that more things are possible than current physical laws allow.

 

[burnt]

^^Cool I see what you mean. Overall though I will try to be more clear when I post. Sometimes I gloss over details. I am fully aware of my own ignorance.



I don't think the laws of physics will need to be rewritten because of dark matter. All the current laws of physics which describe ordinary matter / energy can be derived from very simple conservation principles. If you are interested in this check out Noethers Theorem and symmetry principles and their implications. Oh I have some nice papers I'll attach about these topics.

Anyway there are very coherent ideas about what dark matter may be. There are particles that can theoretically exist which just don't interact with matter via electromagnetic radiation. Also dark matter is predicted in some theories about the universe history as far as I know. Basically all I am saying is that its not appropriate to say because we don't know what dark matter is yet that the laws of physics will need to be rewritten to accomodate it. The laws of physics already do that the problem is we need direct experimental evidence for its existence and then characterize it.

Also dark energy although he didn't call it that was thought up by Einstein. He called it the called cosmological constant which he himself rejected but now its back in favor. It pushes the universe apart. Its also hypothetical but it explains why the universe is expanding at a faster rate. Again the laws of physics accomodate it they won't need to be rewritten because o fit. It also helps explain inflation I think too.

 

[ismokecrystals]

I just came accross this on Reddit.com

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_1_rodriguez.pdf

It talks about how to obtain objective proof of the DMT reality.

A Methodology for Studying Various Interpretations of the
N,N-dimethyltryptamine-Induced Alternate Reality
Center for Evolution, Complexity, and Cognition, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Computer Science Department, University of California at Santa Cruz
e-mail: mrodrig2@vub.ac.be

http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/--okram