Objective Reality: We Can't Know It

[gibran2]

I define my conscious subjective perceptions, thoughts, and feelings collectively to be my “subjective experiences”.

I am certain that my subjective experiences exist.

Since my subjective experiences exist, they must have a source.

I define the source of my subjective experiences to be “actual objective reality” or “objective reality”.

Since my subjective experiences exist and they have a source, and the source is objective reality, objective reality exists.

The nature of objective reality must be such that it causes my subjective experiences.

Objective reality is the cause, and subjective experience is the effect.

I define “potential objective reality” to be something that can cause subjective experiences identical to my own.

Any potential objective reality may possibly be the actual objective reality.

There are infinitely many potential objective realities.

There is no way to determine which potential objective reality is actual objective reality.

The nature of actual objective reality cannot be known.

 

[MagikVenom]

I agree to all the premises in your post reality is your experience it is your thoughts and interpretation at the moment. Who has the right to tell you what you currently feel and are experience are not valid. I say no one has the right to dismiss individual experience as invalid. For one thing a persons internal thoughts are private so who knows what they interpret as reality any way.

But if we venture into the realm of mental illness a Dr can easily see that a schizophrenics thoughts and interpretations of reality are delusions and could not possible be real. There is no question here I hope. And these symptoms are caused by chemical imbalances and changes in brain chemistry. Maybe some here will say they are enlightened in there insanity and the little green men they see flying around there kitchen are real.

Altering brain chemistry caused insanity and the inability to function normally when a mental illness is present.

Psychoactive drugs like DMT do the same thing but they are going to allow us to evolve into alien hybrids and move to futuristic new worlds in 2012 and even leave out body's and become pure conciseness. LOL

There are many things we do no understand. Time will tell the clock ticks on

Alter the Brain and make claims about what is and is not real is ridiculous we dont even understand our brain let alone aliens and hyperspace. So maybe none of it is real and none of us exist. LOL

Peace out

 

[antrocles]

posted this in the other thread that was going down this path....figured i'd post it up here too. great, through-provoking piece by Dr. Deepak Chopra....simply awesome bit of contemplation and absolutely worth every minute spent reading it. i have not been able to consider 'reality' the same way since i first read this. many blessings to the original nexian who first posted this up!!

http://www.think-aboutit.com/Spiritual/what_is_the_true_nature_of_reali.htm

L&G!!

 

[MindInfoRreality]

nice

 

[kyrolima]

Problem is, where is the bridge between subjective and objective. You can NOT declare the wall between those two.
The funny thing is, if you notice something completely different than before, it changes its meaning to you and therefore expands your reality.
The whole subjective/objective thing disappears there.

Hope you can grasp what i mean

 

[gibran2]

But if we venture into the realm of mental illness a Dr can easily see that a schizophrenics thoughts and interpretations of reality are delusions and could not possible be real. There is no question here I hope. And these symptoms are caused by chemical imbalances and changes in brain chemistry. Maybe some here will say they are enlightened in there insanity and the little green men they see flying around there kitchen are real.

I don’t know enough about schizophrenia to make any comments about it, but how can we be sure that “visions” anyone sees under any conditions are real? You are suggesting that if someone sees little green men flying around their kitchen, then the little green men aren’t real. I’m suggesting that the kitchen might not even be real!

It’s true that experiences/visions facilitated by DMT are the result of chemicals interacting with the brain and each other. But what do you think consensus reality is? It is the result of chemicals interacting with the brain and each other.

I don’t claim to know what is ultimately real. But like everyone else, I believe that certain experiences are real, and others are not. And as long as no one is claiming to know the nature of objective reality, I will not argue.

Just for fun, let’s say there’s a race of “eternal immaterial beings”, and when these beings get “sick”, they have vivid hallucinations. They hallucinate that they are finite material beings called “humans”, and the hallucination lasts for the duration of their sickness – the duration of the human’s life. Now, I don’t believe this, but this example of a “potential objective reality” is consistent with your (or my, or anyone’s) subjective experiences. As I have shown in my first post, there is no way for you to show that this particular potential reality isn’t actual objective reality. So here we are, discussing what’s real, what’s a hallucination and what isn’t, when it’s possible that everything is a hallucination. As you say, time will tell.

posted this in the other thread that was going down this path....figured i'd post it up here too. great, through-provoking piece by Dr. Deepak Chopra....simply awesome bit of contemplation and absolutely worth every minute spent reading it. i have not been able to consider 'reality' the same way since i first read this. many blessings to the original nexian who first posted this up!!

Thanks for that. The entire article was excellent, and I’d like to quote it all, but here are some lines I especially like:

So what's the real nature of the world? What's it really like? We can't trust the senses. They give us a very distorted view. They break up that wholeness into a small fragment and we call it reality. We happen to agree about it. We even call it "objective reality" and we have a whole methodology that we call "science" to explore that . If you really understand what science is, then science at least until now has not been a method for exploring the truth. Science has been a method for exploring our current map of what we think the truth is. And the map is not the territory. The territory that we explore is really an extension of the map we have. If we don't have the complete map then we will not explore the territory that is not within the framework of that map.

Sir John Eckles who won the Nobel prize in physiology and medicine several years ago made the statement, "I want you to understand that there are no colors in the real world. That there are no textures in the real world. There are no fragrances in the real world. There is no beauty, there is no ugliness. Nothing of the sort. Out there is a chaos of energy soup and energy fields. Literally. We take that and somewhere inside ourselves we create a world. Somewhere inside ourselves it all happens."

 

[burnt]

Objective scientific analysis is a way to understand aspects of objective reality. Why can't people accept that? It works its accurate even more accurate then our subjective experiences. This can be proven.

We didn't know radio waves existed until we analyzed things like light and magnetism objectively and with experimentation. No one can serious deny that the electromagnetic spectrum is any less real then your own body.

Subjective experience might be the real illusion. Chew on that for bit eh. Your brain actively creates that illusion to keep you alive to fuck and spread your genes around. Thats the real truth I think.

ps. Deeprok Chopra is clueless about reality IMO. I can't stand that guy hes so full of it. He's good as using words in a seemingly scientific smart sounding way but really hes just repeating the same mindless drivel hindu's buddhists and acid heads have been repeating for hundreds of years.

 

[Saidin]

There are infinitely many potential objective realities.

There is no way to determine which potential objective reality is actual objective reality.

The nature of actual objective reality cannot be known.

Therefore the only reality is subjective.

 

[gibran2]

Objective scientific analysis is a way to understand aspects of objective reality. Why can't people accept that? It works its accurate even more accurate then our subjective experiences. This can be proven.

Scientific analysis is subjective. Every aspect of it is: making observations requires our senses, and sensing is a subjective phenomenon; thinking about observations requires conscious mental cogitation, which is subjective. Everything we see, hear, feel, taste, smell, think, remember, imagine, compute, is subjective. We cannot escape the subjective nature of our existence.

For illustration, let’s entertain the idea in my previous post that what we call objective reality is the hallucination of an “eternal immaterial being”. This “possible objective reality” is fully consistent with your subjective experiences, including your understanding of science and the physical world. In this example, scientific analysis (or more precisely, your subjective understanding of scientific analysis) is part of the hallucination! Science describes aspects of the hallucination – it says nothing about the objective fact that your subjective experiences are the result of an objective immaterial being having a subjective experience, namely a hallucination.

Scientific analysis is NOT a way to understand aspects of objective reality. It is a way to explain relationships and predictable patterns in our subjective experiences. We may posit that there is a particular kind of objective reality that produces our subjective experiences, but as I’ve already shown, there is an infinite number of “possible objective realities” that can produce subjective experiences identical to our own.

We didn't know radio waves existed until we analyzed things like light and magnetism objectively and with experimentation. No one can serious deny that the electromagnetic spectrum is any less real then your own body.

I for one don’t deny this. I agree 100% that electromagnetic radiation is as real as my own body. And you already know what I’m going to say next: the question is, “How real is my own body?”

Subjective experience might be the real illusion. Chew on that for bit eh. Your brain actively creates that illusion to keep you alive to fuck and spread your genes around. Thats the real truth I think.

This is an interesting idea. I’d be interested to see you develop it further. My initial question is “Who or what is experiencing the illusion?” This seems similar to (maybe even the same as) the philosophical idea of “epiphenomenalism”.

 

[Saidin]

We didn't know radio waves existed until we analyzed things like light and magnetism objectively and with experimentation. No one can serious deny that the electromagnetic spectrum is any less real then your own body.

We are part of that electromagnetic spectrum. We are just a cohesion of organizied wavelengths, and are therefore on the most basic scale indistinguishable from everything in the universe. As the quote said (by a nobel prize winning "scientist" so it should have the ultimate "value")) we are nothing more than a chaos of energy.

Subjective experience might be the real illusion. Chew on that for bit eh. Your brain actively creates that illusion to keep you alive to fuck and spread your genes around. Thats the real truth I think.

So you are saying we are not actually individuals at all, but more like one giant organism that thinks it is individuated into parts in order to propogate itself and grow?

ps. Deeprok Chopra is clueless about reality IMO. I can't stand that guy hes so full of it. He's good as using words in a seemingly scientific smart sounding way but really hes just repeating the same mindless drivel hindu's buddhists and acid heads have been repeating for hundreds of years.

Hindus and Buddhists have been contemplating and delving into the nature of reality, repeating their findings through rigid guidelines and practices for THOUSANDS of years. Did you even read the article that was posted?

 

[burnt]

I can't stand Chopra I've read his other stuff and I've seen lectures by him. I've also seen people debunk him extensively. Its a waste of time dealing with people like him.

For people who keep claiming that you can't tell the difference between whats real and whats not because its all subjective you are wrong. We can tell the difference. We can tell that certain people who are mentally ill are delusional or hallucinating. They themselves can sometimes realize it too and many of them suffer deeply because of it. If you've ever seen schizophrenic behavior you would see what I mean. This stuff is well known.

What do you think optical illusions are? There tricks to your subjective experience. But we KNOW that they are tricks because you can draw them. You can use one sense to trick another sense.

If my body is a hallucination then there is no point in having the term hallucination. These words define different things. My body is as real as it gets. If there is something beyond that then sure fine go find it. Until then you have no argument.

 

[Saidin]

For people who keep claiming that you can't tell the difference between whats real and whats not because its all subjective you are wrong. We can tell the difference. We can tell that certain people who are mentally ill are delusional or hallucinating. They themselves can sometimes realize it too and many of them suffer deeply because of it. If you've ever seen schizophrenic behavior you would see what I mean. This stuff is well known.

Until then you have no argument.

Claiming absolute certainty about something you cannot possibly know is the height of hubris.

Thing is you don't understand the argument. There is no differnce since everything is experienced subjectively. The universe is a chaotic soup of energy in probabilityy fields, that doesn't exist in any real sense until there is something to observe it.

How is what you experience any more or less real than someone who is "mentally ill" or even someone who is not? One can easily argue as well that we are all metally ill to one degree or another. So where do we slice the pie and denote to ourself which are the truly crazy ones?

What's real for you is no different than what is real for me, and where our subjective reality fields intersect, we have agreement about what we are experiencing individually.

If my body is a hallucination then there is no point in having the term hallucination. These words define different things. My body is as real as it gets. If there is something beyond that then sure fine go find it. Until then you have no argument.

LOL! I don't know if you realize it, but you just stated that there is nothing of any substance beyond your own body ie: nothing truly exists outside of your own personal consciousness. No one is saying you are not real, just saying you are only real to yourself at any given moment in time.

 

[gibran2]

For people who keep claiming that you can't tell the difference between whats real and whats not because its all subjective you are wrong. We can tell the difference. We can tell that certain people who are mentally ill are delusional or hallucinating. They themselves can sometimes realize it too and many of them suffer deeply because of it. If you've ever seen schizophrenic behavior you would see what I mean. This stuff is well known.

I have never suggested that all hallucinations must be real. Clearly, there are many subjective experiences that don’t seem to be real. There is a continuum of subjective experience ranging from the obviously imaginary to the absolutely real. Where to draw lines of separation is not always easy, but sometimes it is.

What do you think optical illusions are? There tricks to your subjective experience. But we KNOW that they are tricks because you can draw them. You can use one sense to trick another sense.

Isn’t this what I’ve been saying all along? Our subjective experiences don’t necessarily reflect objective reality. Haven’t you been arguing the exact opposite point?

If we can show that under certain particular controlled circumstances our subjective experiences clearly don’t reveal objective reality, then how can you be so sure that your everyday subjective experiences are revealing actual objective reality?

If my body is a hallucination then there is no point in having the term hallucination. These words define different things. My body is as real as it gets. If there is something beyond that then sure fine go find it. Until then you have no argument.

So now you’re suggesting that it’s reasonable for someone experiencing a lifelong persistent hallucination to consider the hallucination to be “as real as it gets”? I thought you’ve been arguing the exact opposite view.

I have all along stated that we cannot know the nature of objective reality, and you suggest that if we can’t describe objective reality then we “have no argument”. In effect, you’re suggesting that if something can’t be proven or found to exist, then it doesn’t exist. This is absolutely false, and I’ll give a simple example:

Somewhere in/on the earth there exists the largest natural diamond (on earth). Regardless of how many diamonds you dig up, and regardless of how large some of them may be, you can never prove that the largest diamond discovered is the largest diamond on earth. You cannot be certain that any diamond you ever find is the largest diamond, and you certainly can’t prove it. So, according to your logic, there is no largest diamond. If you can’t find it and can’t prove that any you’ve found are the largest, then there is no such thing. Do you see the absurdity of this logic?

 

[polytrip]

Maybe everything is a dream. But if that would be so, till now it has not realy been possible to step outside of this dream and every speculation about whether it's a dream we're in or whether it's real, is also part of the dream and constructed according to the logic within the dream.

Therefore we can speak of 3 levels of reality

1-the level of everything that's fantasy and definately not real within the context of the dream. For instance if you have a dream within the dream.
2-the level of reality of the dream.
3-objective reality wich exists only outside the dreamworld and can't be seen directly.

Objective reality exists, but all we objectively can know about it is that the nature of it's totality leads to our subjective experience of it so that it must somehow be connected to our dreamreality and that this connection means that within the perspective of our dreamreality, the objective reality must have property's that are linked with properties of the dreamreality so that it must be of a material kind.

What i mean is that it is impossible to step out of the dream perspective so that as long as we're dreaming, the objective reality cannot be seen as anything else to us, than as a reality that has physical properties of at least some kind: it is logically equivalent to an axiom like 1+1=2, since all our thoughts can only exist within this realm.

Therefore burnt is right in that it doesn't make any sense, as long as we're dreaming (and we don't actually know that we're dreaming) to pretend that this dreamt-up reality is unreal, since the dream is as real to us as real can be:it makes no sense jumping of a bridge if you don't want your life to end because you think there might be another reality you can pass into or because you think you might be able to fly....you may lose everything.

Burnts opponents are right as well because it is only plausible that objective reality has a certain appearance and not factual.

Within the framework we have, there can be certainty on some things. The paradox is that the higher the level of certainty you want, the stricter you got to keep that certainty contained in it's contextual space.
But it's a glass that's half-full, not half-empty, since half-empty is nonsense: there is something in it and not nothing and you cannot have half-nothing either.

 

[burnt]

I have been trying to argue that we have these subjective experiences known as our life. This isn't necessarily an accurate picture of the world its our brains approximation. Objective scientific analysis has proven to be the way to study the world in a way that our 5 sense cannot do alone. Its not "objective" versus "subjective" its a way of knowing. Objective analysis within a subjective brain is an excellent way to solve problems and learn more about the objective world. Its the most accurate way of knowing. We know this because it works and we have found out things that have real effects on us even if we don't directly perceive them.

I have never suggested that all hallucinations must be real. Clearly, there are many subjective experiences that don’t seem to be real. There is a continuum of subjective experience ranging from the obviously imaginary to the absolutely real. Where to draw lines of separation is not always easy, but sometimes it is.

I largely agree.

Isn’t this what I’ve been saying all along? Our subjective experiences don’t necessarily reflect objective reality. Haven’t you been arguing the exact opposite point?

I agree with this. Our brains illusion of subjective experience is an approximation. Its an approximation which evolved to maximize survival. When I see yellow I'm just seeing photons with different frequencies then blue. But the only way we can know about those photons and wavelengths of light is with objective analysis. Science!

If we can show that under certain particular controlled circumstances our subjective experiences clearly don’t reveal objective reality, then how can you be so sure that your everyday subjective experiences are revealing actual objective reality?

This is easy. You can answer it with objective analysis. If you have a paranoid schizophrenic man who thinks that the devil is a giant red man living in his neighbors house who is taunting him its easy to tell hes delusional. Its simple go to the neighbors house and you will see the devil is not there and the neighbor is not a red man.

When I see the color blue its totally different. I am and everyone else who sees blue is seeing light with a certain frequency. We know that this hits our retina and gets interpreted as our brain as blue light.

Real and unreal doesn't have to be so obscure.

So now you’re suggesting that it’s reasonable for someone experiencing a lifelong persistent hallucination to consider the hallucination to be “as real as it gets”? I thought you’ve been arguing the exact opposite view.

No. There are people who are delusional their entire life.

I have all along stated that we cannot know the nature of objective reality, and you suggest that if we can’t describe objective reality then we “have no argument”. In effect, you’re suggesting that if something can’t be proven or found to exist, then it doesn’t exist. This is absolutely false, and I’ll give a simple example:

Somewhere in/on the earth there exists the largest natural diamond (on earth). Regardless of how many diamonds you dig up, and regardless of how large some of them may be, you can never prove that the largest diamond discovered is the largest diamond on earth. You cannot be certain that any diamond you ever find is the largest diamond, and you certainly can’t prove it. So, according to your logic, there is no largest diamond. If you can’t find it and can’t prove that any you’ve found are the largest, then there is no such thing. Do you see the absurdity of this logic?

I think you completely misunderstand my argument. What can't be proven or found to exist that I am saying doesn't exist? I am saying objective reality exists thats all. People are claiming all we know exists is subjective experience and I think thats bullshit.

 

[burnt]

Claiming absolute certainty about something you cannot possibly know is the height of hubris.

I am not claiming absolute certainty. I am just accusing people of being wrong because I think they are wrong. Its debate not hubris.

Thing is you don't understand the argument. There is no differnce since everything is experienced subjectively. The universe is a chaotic soup of energy in probabilityy fields, that doesn't exist in any real sense until there is something to observe it.

As usual you reveal you don't understand anything about modern physics and fall into the trap of bullshitters like Deepak Chopra. This is such a stupid argument I am not going to get into anymore. We had like 50 threads on it and you still make the same baseless claims about quantum mechanics which you clearly don't understand.

How is what you experience any more or less real than someone who is "mentally ill" or even someone who is not? One can easily argue as well that we are all metally ill to one degree or another. So where do we slice the pie and denote to ourself which are the truly crazy ones?

What's real for you is no different than what is real for me, and where our subjective reality fields intersect, we have agreement about what we are experiencing individually.

It makes no difference if you believe in the moon or not. Its still there. No one agrees in their subconscious connection with each other that the moon is real and thats what makes it real. Thats total bullshit.

LOL! I don't know if you realize it, but you just stated that there is nothing of any substance beyond your own body ie: nothing truly exists outside of your own personal consciousness. No one is saying you are not real, just saying you are only real to yourself at any given moment in time.

As usual you take one of my statements and use is as blanketting criticism. I was just using the body as an example. A tree is as real as it gets then. Go dance around that with your meanginless arguments for a while.

 

[gibran2]

But the only way we can know about those photons and wavelengths of light is with objective analysis. Science!

We’re clearly using the word “objective” in two different ways (I think you may be using it in both ways). You seem to be defining it (when you refer to objective analysis) as “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.”
I’m defining it as (and when you refer to objective reality you seem to be defining it as) “something existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality”.

I am saying objective reality exists thats all. People are claiming all we know exists is subjective experience and I think thats bullshit.

I’m not making that claim. In fact, we’re in perfect agreement. Objective reality exists. We know it exists because we know that subjective experience exists.
But as I claimed in my first post, the nature of objective reality cannot be known.

(Ughh... I've got to stop. You're wearing me down! :? )

 

[MagikVenom]

Here is very sad story. This sweet wonderful little girl who is normal as any child. This vid does not give the full story I could not find the full video.

She is schizophrenic her symptoms started at a early age and became worse at first just imaginary friends later she had to be institutionalized at age 7 I because her imaginary friends had told here to kill her brother, mother , and father.

This caused the mother and father to get separate apartments. They would take turns with the children and the poor girls parents locked the bedroom door at night in fear of a sweet little 6 year old girl who admits she loves here family. But she also has a desire to kill them.

So yes this little girl is mentally ill or possessed by evil spirits or all her friends are real and she has been sent by Aliens to take care of business. Or everything she thinks and says is real and she is the Overlord of the upcoming revolution.

I wish I had the answer to help her and her family and there ill child's interpretation of subjective reality.

This little girl has altered brain chemistry that caused these abnormal behaviors and perceptions neuroscience can not yet explain these things. Nor can the DMT experience be explained by science.

Its all back to the same question is the brain conciseness. Well no one knows for sure.

So for me to assume anything is real when its comes to esoteric or scientific matters that have no way to be proven should be considered unknown.

The religious implications that are accepted here blindly are a far cry for a valid hypothesis that are the seeds of real knowledge.

Half of the esoteric explanations I see lately are incomprehensible dribble that actually mean nothing and are insults to the English language.

"The scaffolding of hyperspace" explain that tidbit.......LOL

Ok enough for me see you in a couple weeks maybe.

Best wishes to ALL
Peace




Young schizophrenic at her mind's mercy

 

[polytrip]

Maybe everything is a dream. But if that would be so, till now it has not realy been possible to step outside of this dream and every speculation about whether it's a dream we're in or whether it's real, is also part of the dream and constructed according to the logic within the dream.

Therefore we can speak of 3 levels of reality

1-the level of everything that's fantasy and definately not real within the context of the dream. For instance if you have a dream within the dream.
2-the level of reality of the dream.
3-objective reality wich exists only outside the dreamworld and can't be seen directly.

Objective reality exists, but all we objectively can know about it is that the nature of it's totality leads to our subjective experience of it so that it must somehow be connected to our dreamreality and that this connection means that within the perspective of our dreamreality, the objective reality must have property's that are linked with properties of the dreamreality so that it must be of a material kind.

What i mean is that it is impossible to step out of the dream perspective so that as long as we're dreaming, the objective reality cannot be seen as anything else to us, than as a reality that has physical properties of at least some kind: it is logically equivalent to an axiom like 1+1=2, since all our thoughts can only exist within this realm.

Therefore burnt is right in that it doesn't make any sense, as long as we're dreaming (and we don't actually know that we're dreaming) to pretend that this dreamt-up reality is unreal, since the dream is as real to us as real can be:it makes no sense jumping of a bridge if you don't want your life to end because you think there might be another reality you can pass into or because you think you might be able to fly....you may lose everything.

Burnts opponents are right as well because it is only plausible that objective reality has a certain appearance and not factual.

Within the framework we have, there can be certainty on some things. The paradox is that the higher the level of certainty you want, the stricter you got to keep that certainty contained in it's contextual space.
But it's a glass that's half-full, not half-empty, since half-empty is nonsense: there is something in it and not nothing and you cannot have half-nothing either.

What i meant here, and this could actualy be an answer to resque us out of the self-repeating debate that sucks us in like a muddy stinking swamp, is that burnt is partly right: we can only make sense of objective reality with the logic and vocabulary of our subjective world and therefore in the subjective realm you have to treat it like it does make sense that way. Simply because within that realm it can be proven and the fact that the scope of the proof is limited to the realm only, can never be an objection because all our judgemental powers to verify such statements are also limited to the same realm.

The scope of the argument and the scope of the meaning of the word 'true', in other words, coincide.

Leaving plenty of space for all kind of assumptions and speculations on what lies outside of the scope of the parameters that define our reality.

 

[Saidin]

As usual you reveal you don't understand anything about modern physics and fall into the trap of bullshitters like Deepak Chopra. This is such a stupid argument I am not going to get into anymore. We had like 50 threads on it and you still make the same baseless claims about quantum mechanics which you clearly don't understand.

I admit I am no physicist, but because I have availed myself to the resources available to me, and though my research have come to adhere to a school of thought that you don't agree with I therefore am a bullshitter? We have had this argument a number of times, and obviously your arguments have been unconvincing as you have failed to prove to me your own point of view.

You think I don't understand...I think you cannot understand or percieve, choose to ignore or not acknowledge some of the findings and implications of quantum theory. Claims made by people much smarter, learned and capable than I.

I understand your perspective, I just feel it to be incomplete.