Are we incapable of seeing things as they really are?

Imo Reality is a completely subjective term
we all experience our own unique realities/universes
there is no truth,no time
Where Everything is in flux

a reply to: Bluesma

perhaps I am misunderstanding.

Let me see if I can help.

But in this hypothesis, there is neither a teacup, nor a cobra, each of those forms is a perceptual interpretation, not reality.

There is a collection and configuration of physical elements (molecules, atoms, hadrons, leptons, gluons, quarks, strings, loops, whatever) assembled at a point in spacetime. It is there. It exists. It is not an illusion.

It appears in our human-sensory GUI as something we call a teacup. It looks and feels like a teacup. If you strike it, it rings like china, and if you strike it too hard, it breaks like china, and the pieces look and feel like pieces of a teacup.

It is a teacup.

Without the GUI, it would not appear anything like the picture of a teacup you have in your head. It would probably manifest as a booming, buzzing confusion of whatever-it-is. Yet it would still be a teacup.

But wait! Here comes Aunty Acid, tripping nicely. She looks at the teacup and goes 'Eeek! A cobra!'

It isn't the 'majority' that proves her wrong. It's the fact that her 'cobra' is a teacup in reality. She's suffering a perceptual malfunction — a hallucination.

*

I know a lot of you feel that 'the majority' has got it all wrong, that things don't nearly resemble the way they are represented in popular lore. Most of the time, you're talking about behavioural, ethical, political or social issues and the explanatory narratives that accompany them.

I should like to state that I largely agree with you. Yes, most popular beliefs are false. Many commonly-embraced 'truths' (all men are created equal, there is a good God who cares, etc) are obvious lies, though a lot of time and energy is squandered on pretending they aren't. All very discouraging — it's hard not to be cynical about this sometimes.

However, we are not talking about what the majority believes, or wants to be true, in this thread.

We are talking about what really is true. What really does exist. Material reality.

No, it is not assembled by majority vote. It is not created by 'consciousness'. It is there all the time — whatever it is.

The majority of us perceive it the same way because

1. It really exists
   
   
2. We are all members of the same species, and the mechanics of our perceptions work the same way for all of us.

I think the problem (I said this earlier, but in a different way) is that people are getting physical reality mixed up with their ideas about politics, society, spirituality and so on.

Those aren't what this thread is about. This is about how humans perceive the physical world.

a reply to: Serdgiam

In the field? Really? Tell us more!

I can't rule out the possibility that said gap is not static over the evolution of our species.

Well, we have instruments now to model parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that are invisible to us directly, and integrate them into the GUI. We can use transducers and computer programs to do the same for non-EM manifestations.

But while these broaden the capabilities of the interface, they do not assist us to look at reality directly. That is impossible.

The interface can be changed through an individual's life

Sadly, you are right. At the age of 57, the frequency-sensitivity and dynamic range of both my visual and auditory transducers have been severely degraded. I notice a similar, though lesser, degradation in the analytical-chemistry apparatus. The impact sensors still work pretty well; in some areas they have actually become more sensitive.

a reply to: Astyanax

Not again! It is so tiring to have posters here so often turn a philosophical exploration into a political issue!
"Underneath your ponderings on the meaning (or lack of it) in life, I know you are really making an argument for gun control".

I am not thinking or motivated by political issues. I really don't give a flying frick about gun control, abortion, gay marriage, or even alien disclosure by the government.... I enjoy the exercise of stretching my mind.

You invited, in your OP, philosophical exploration - I am sorry if that frustrates you that some of it coming back is not your particular philosophical view, but I am not going to let that hinder me.

I am thinking, those collections of particules might be seen and recognized according to our needs for survival as a species. There was a time when shamans would guide a group to areas for living or healing, and would use various visions to do so.

They might see certain entities that they considered representative of certain concepts.

Things like negative ionization are not normally seen in the air with the eyes, and yet they have effects upon the biology. An interface can be created through generations to indicate to the brain areas of higher negative ionization, for example, because it is supportive of survival and health.

There is something there, in reality, yet to percieve it, symbols emerge for our mind to recognize.

With time (generations), those symbols can change.

In this example, one could consider that where some once saw a nymph, or a fairy, they might eventually see an alien, or a flying saucer. The icons on your desktop may be different than those of your great grandfathers.

I am exploring more the philosophical aspects of reality - and my direction might not parallel yours here. But even in the OP, the author of the article is challenging the assertions of the hypothesis, so it seems admissable for others to propose their own alternative views on the nature of reality and perception.

a reply to: InTheLight

Well the entire group shares the bias there is a spirit guide...
Could also be in interaction with ones own subconscience, half of them are relaxed enough to get in touch, the other half is trying to find sthg exterior and fails?
Spirit guide is just a symbol, who knows for what?

originally posted by: Astyanax

We are all members of the same species, and the mechanics of our perceptions work the same way for all of us.

The "mechanics" may be the same, but that doesn't necessarily entail that they produce the same results for everyone.

-Precisely because it is supportive of our survival to live in groups,

-and groups require different individuals, to handle different areas of the collective movement

-this means they need to be focused on different things than one another, and their desktop will require different icons,for perceiving different phenomena (that might even evolve in generations)


To use my previous example- no group needs everyone to be a shaman who picks up environmental conditions outside the reach of the physical eye. While he/she does that, they need others who are busy focusing on hunting, gathering, constructing shelters, caring for the young and sick, etc.

Even in a more complex society, the roles are just more numerous- you need some who are focused on metal working, wood working, animal husbandry, farming, artistic expression/music, trade and diplomacy....

So the representations that form in peoples perception may vary in accordance with their focus of concern and activity.
Why do I see a bunch of differences between one horse and another in a horseshow, and someone next me says, "they all seem the same, all doing the same", (except maybe their color)?

Are these differences in perception due to hallucination, or simply a developed sensitivity to a specific focus?
I bet on the second one. I also hear there are some that perceive vast differences in rap music. I can't perceive them, but some claim they are there.

a reply to: Bluesma

Not again! It is so tiring to have posters here so often turn a philosophical exploration into a political issue!
"Underneath your ponderings on the meaning (or lack of it) in life, I know you are really making an argument for gun control".

What on earth are you talking about?

I am not thinking or motivated by political issues. I really don't give a flying frick about gun control, abortion, gay marriage, or even alien disclosure by the government.... I enjoy the exercise of stretching my mind.

How on earth did you interpret my post as political?

I am exploring more the philosophical aspects of reality - and my direction might not parallel yours here. But even in the OP, the author of the article is challenging the assertions of the hypothesis, so it seems admissable for others to propose their own alternative views on the nature of reality and perception.

Propose away. But please explain what exactly you think I just said, and why it bothers you so much.

a reply to: Bluesma

The "mechanics" may be the same, but that doesn't necessarily entail that they produce the same results for everyone.

Irrelevant. If I could see through your eyes I might see what I perceive as green where you see blue. But it won't matter, because the label we both use for what is being perceived is 'blue'.

The point is that it is neither intrinsically neither green nor blue. Intrinsically, it's a certain wavelength of light, which causes a rhodopsin reaction of a certain amplitude in the cells of your retina, which sends a certain electric current to your brain, which calls that electric current 'blue'.

Now what exactly are you trying to say, again? Please keep it short, or at least comprehensible.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
I think it would be fun to try to explore how large this gap might be, between the interface and 'reality.'

Maybe the 'gap' is assumed.
Is there a gap between the seer and the seen?
Is there a gap between the tv screen and what appears on it?

It is a story that there is a gap - it is a story that there is a separate thing seeing a separate thing. Is there really anything other than what there is? Is 'what is' made of two things (a seer and the seen) or is 'seeing' simply happening?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Bluesma
What on earth are you talking about?

Something you said repeatedly, here is one quote:

I think the problem (I said this earlier, but in a different way) is that people are getting physical reality mixed up with their ideas about politics, society, spirituality and so on.

Though peoples perception of physical reality have an influence upon their ideas on politics, society, spirituality, that does not indicate that every analysation and expression about their perception of reality is coming from their ideas on politics, society, spirituality.

Though examples can be pulled from those areas to make illustrational aids - just like you did with the metaphor of a computer. Should I object - "you are getting your ideas about computers mixed up with the philosophical theories on perceptual reality. Computer engineering is NOT the subject here." ?

How on earth did you interpret my post as political?

I didn't. I understood that you felt others were confusing the topic with political issues, and I answered that it is not the case for me.
(I also indicated that this is a commonly repeated accusation here these days, and I find it unreasonable)

Propose away. But please explain what exactly you think I just said, and why it bothers you so much.

Done. (though "bothering me so much" is not accurate a description of what I feel, but that is irrelevant. )

a reply to: Itisnowagain

No there is an obvious gap. I'm no teacup.
Interaction with a "dead" clump of material is different from interacting with a living clump of material.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Itisnowagain

No there is an obvious gap. I'm no teacup.
Interaction with a "dead" clump of material is different from interacting with a living clump of material.

If you are not a teacup - what are you?

a reply to: Peeple
If you shut your eyes you may notice that there does not appear to be any boundary between you are what is happening.
Seeing a body you might believe that you are contained within a body - that the skin is where you end and the 'rest' is 'outside'.
But it is a magic trick - an illusion.

You are not a particular.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I know you like the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, but in this thread the topic is how things might be different from how we perceive them.
Let's stay with my skin, it is what keeps my flesh safe and without it i would be a lot more vulnerable.
You probably think it is an illusion, but you can't argue that it serves a purpose, right?

originally posted by: Astyanax
I should like to state that I largely agree with you. Yes, most popular beliefs are false. Many commonly-embraced 'truths' (all men are created equal, there is a good God who cares, etc) are obvious lies, though a lot of time and energy is squandered on pretending they aren't. All very discouraging — it's hard not to be cynical about this sometimes.

However, we are not talking about what the majority believes, or wants to be true, in this thread.

We are talking about what really is true. What really does exist. Material reality.

oh my dear friend. You think material reality exists as in is real and all other is false and imaginary? what is the difference between waking state and dreaming? This is supposedly an easy question. But what if I told you that people can meet in dream just as in reality and they all remember it? What would you say then about the difference? You probably don't believe it, right? Now what would you say if I told you that this can be achieved by everybody! Such individual must only put in right effort to work on his mind to achieve awareness in other states of existence.

We - living beings, have three states while alive. Waking, dreaming and deep sleep. You can train your mind to be aware in all of those states, what is real then?!
This was said by all the mystic who achieved Turya conciousness. And this can be experienced by ALL individuals, but unfortunately we are bound by to many external things to realize that what really matters is within.

Spiritualist, sages, mystics, yogis,... in the past were not bound by god or any other entities. So you can drop your cynical approach about it - it is only a block! They explained that while gods are real and they can do many things, you should not concern with them, but rather you should be working on yourself! No external thing can really help you, only you can help yourself! This is main teaching in Buddhism, Taoism, Zen or other introverted based teachings.
They are working all their life on their mind and questioning everything about it. This is not a religion such as Christianity but is a philosophical teaching. How to unlock your full potential and find peace with meditation and inner understanding based on your own experiences and not blind faith as in Christianity or Islam.

I don't understand people such as you, who are very intelligent and curious about the truth and absolute reality, why are you not exploring ALL options?! Many think they are, but are totally forgetting their own mind while exploring, which is what this is all about - your mind. And within your mind there are many different states of understanding absolute reality. Our waking state is just one side of MANY. This is all documented and available on the net. But because of our confused understanding of "religions" we think there is no practical value in any of them and that all are the same.

To anyone who is relay curious about absolute reality, I can say only one word.

Meditate!

after meditating for a while you will get wired experience and than start to learn about absolute reality, which is the ultimate goal of every spiritualist.

Let me say one more thing. Sexual orgasm is one of most blissful things all healthy individual can experience. But this is true only for materialists who thinks that body and mind is everything! By mediation you can get to a bliss which is unimaginably more awesome than any orgasm! If you get to this stage, than all doubts will be cleared and you will know for sure that there is a lot more to our reality than you think you know in waking state!

more info about our different states, bliss and understanding from a spiritual prospective:
www.meditationexpert.com...
www.meditationexpert.com...

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Itisnowagain

I know you like the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, but in this thread the topic is how things might be different from how we perceive them.

It is not that things are interconnected - there is just what is happening -'happening' is not made of things. Seeing is happening, computer is happening, skin is happening. What appears is happening - but it is not happening to someone - that would make two- and that is the 'seaming gap'.

Let's stay with my skin, it is what keeps my flesh safe and without it i would be a lot more vulnerable.
You probably think it is an illusion, but you can't argue that it serves a purpose, right?

The belief is that it is 'your' skin - you believe that you are inside the skin - that there is something inside and that there is an outside.
This belief that you are a thing means that you believe that one day you will no longer be - that it is possible for you not to exist - you will then feel unsafe and feel the need to protect yourself - you feel vulnerable - there is dis ease.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

No. For something to happen there has to be an object and an action. Mostly an action executed by an active object. So two objects and one action is what is happening.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Bluesma

The "mechanics" may be the same, but that doesn't necessarily entail that they produce the same results for everyone.

Irrelevant. If I could see through your eyes I might see what I perceive as green where you see blue. But it won't matter, because the label we both use for what is being perceived is 'blue'.

The point is that it is neither intrinsically neither green nor blue. Intrinsically, it's a certain wavelength of light, which causes a rhodopsin reaction of a certain amplitude in the cells of your retina, which sends a certain electric current to your brain, which calls that electric current 'blue'.

An artist and someone who is not an artist look at the same object. The non-artist may see only one color, the artist sees six different colors in it. The artist has become more sensitive to subtilities within that color.

Does that mean the varying wave lengths are not there?
Does it mean the artist is hallucinating?
Or does it mean the brain of the non-artist has no way to represent and distinguish between the variations of what is before them?

I propose the third choice- that minds can develop abilities to perceive more or less than one another, depending upon their experiences and development of focus.


The perceptions may change according to environmental conditions- an insect that is in an environment in which the male to female ratio is out of balance or there is over population, may develop a perceptual "mistake" in not distinguishing between a female and a bottle cap, causing it to mount the bottlecap, stay until death or at the very least not reproduce.
Thus, the "mistake" or glitch in it's perception is not a mistake. It would be a mistake for the beetle (if he could) to use other methods of detection to distinguish and gain a representation for "bottle cap". That would be contrary to the survival of the species.

So it might be for humans- if you see something, or if you don't, there might be a very good reason in the larger schema of things, or for you individually.

Now what exactly are you trying to say, again? Please keep it short, or at least comprehensible.

I see no reason to make an effort to adhere to your demands for my style, method or length of expression. I am not especially concerned with you understanding, much less agreeing, with my point of view at the moment.
If you don't understand, perhaps there is good reason for that- I cannot judge.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Itisnowagain

No. For something to happen there has to be an object and an action. Mostly an action executed by an active object. So two objects and one action is what is happening.

That is the misconception. Words separate an action into two but where does the first action stop and the second action start?

Let's just say the 'big bang' was the first action - it is still moving - what splits the action into two? Thought, concepts, ideas, words - that is all - naming is the origin of all particular things.

The mind cannot see.
Preconceptions of how the world is are overlaid on top of what is actually appearing as vision.
I would say that an artist tries to capture life - a snap shot of aliveness, although aliveness is constantly appearing different the artist tries to capture, to grasp the ungraspable.