Are any of our perceptions real

Are we consciously aware of what we perceive as real personally I think not. We can consciously know that there is a given term for that reality or a certain principle of nature which allows a thing to identify itself as is. Humans though are the only creatures in this world which can identify themselves as individual seperate in consciousness from the rest of reality that we perceive. This is where we are allowed to create concepts of the things we perceive in space-time and then digestion of material perceptions in our minds is facilitated by our reason because our own perceptions are not enough for us to realize thing as it is and be able to freely accept it as part of self we must all have the ability to some range to reason freely what we perceive to exist. This does not change our own notions of self because upon this basis our ability to think because interchangable and merely unintelligent. Intelligence and rationalization is merely just a break down or human conscious effort to unite the material they perceive as existing as an element of being as an actuality of being. If this is so then the intellect can only in certain reach certain levels especially if the biological make up or the genetic disposition of person has any defects. Defects of the biological cause the consciousness to rely on its own perceptions as a rationalization for existence and the pre tense of these figures of existence to be at one with the lack of reasoning ability presented in the individual. This is to say essentially that at the human's most basic core of knowledge the ability to perceive is a self conscious effort in reflection of how each individual feels about his relationship with the object this is where the birth of our emotions are presented to us as being real. Our perceptions allow us to know that a thing exist even in it most obscure form the intellect can only be able to a certain degree depending on the ability of the individual to self consciously break down their individual relation with the objects present. So essentially intellect can only be and will never be anything more than a measurement of the human conscious while perception puts into one explanation what the human intellect would take centuries of arduous mental efforts to explain. Essentially we cannot prove through consciousness through a distinction of the material we perceive to understand other than that it attracts us because we consciously exist within its sphere. If our perceptions are false all our identifications of a thing cannot be consciously be broken down into understandings of those things we perceive as in a dialectic. There has to be an absolute order to our reason for us to exercise it in its limited way. It must take a limited material for our intellect and consciousness to perceive the thingness as it exist but for it to exist as an actual being it must first have an essential cause to it that only exist in the thing exist as a movement for the consciousness of our perceptions. So essentially in our conscious all of our perceptions work upon false knowledge that our brain transmits to our consciousness and that our distinctions in space-time are mere illusions and can only exist. It takes the consciousness of the thing absolute and pure with our rationalization of them to make our perceptions real. This reality cannot be explained it can only be known as existing as both object and subject.

Are we perceiving or projecting? Do you think that we consciously create what we perceive as real? Intellect would be subject to perspective right?

How are you defining real? Are you seeing our material projection as a reflection of conscious material? How do you define intellect? Would it be the knowledge of the projection of material? Does our conscious project through our mind.

Like if i took a light and shown it through a row of pictures on a projector, would that be what i see? Would our conscious be that light, and our mind be the projector?

Originally posted by onequestion
Are we perceiving or projecting? Do you think that we consciously create what we perceive as real? Intellect would be subject to perspective right?

How are you defining real? Are you seeing our material projection as a reflection of conscious material? How do you define intellect? Would it be the knowledge of the projection of material? Does our conscious project through our mind.

Like if i took a light and shown it through a row of pictures on a projector, would that be what i see? Would our conscious be that light, and our mind be the projector?

Yes I believe to a certain extent that is through self that we consciously perceive what was exist as is real. It is though not in so far as we are consciously aware of our own existence that our perceptions of things change the thing we consciously perceive itself. Real is everything that cannot be defined by the mind but does not cease to exist as part of the consciousness of reality. Yes our material projection is understood through our conscious understanding of self and how the object relates to it as part of that which we perceive. I define intellect as the means of our consciousness to break down what we consciously perceive as existing in relation to the self perception and the object we perceive. It tries to break down what our limited understandings of our perception as it relates to self. The main core of the intellect is from the projection of the object and its interchangability with our own perceptions as being a thing that exist or not. So essentially it is because the thing exist that we are able to consciously intellectualize it. Though for us to make this function we must be consciously aware of self. The mind is the projection of our perceptions of the light going through the rows of a projector because it essentially seperates self from object being observed. That it is essentially the perception and the consciousness of its own existence as it relates to self projects its knowledge upon ourselves and this is where the consciousness is able to then project this pure knowledge of thingness upon itself as existing. The sky is blue because we do not consciously perceive it to nor because we know it to be blue but because the blueness of sky is an essential interchangeable identity we associate with itself as. Our own selves are projections of this identity of sky which our conscious cannot purely perceive as being true but only in so far that blue is an objectivity that is seperate from our conscious efforts to understand our perception of the thing being blue as existing. It is blue because it is not blue but must essentially exist as blue because the subject of sky is interchangable regardless of whether the sky is blue or not.

reply to post by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010


I like your description of intellect.

Are you saying that our awareness of self relates to our awareness of the understanding of the color blue(taken within context)?

So we are aware of blue, we become conscious of it in relation to ourselves...

So in essence we create a intellectual understanding of the color blue related to the sky as a way of creating understanding of our self?

I think?

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." Marcus Aurelius

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010

 

I like your description of intellect.

Are you saying that our awareness of self relates to our awareness of the understanding of the color blue(taken within context)?

So we are aware of blue, we become conscious of it in relation to ourselves...

So in essence we create a intellectual understanding of the color blue related to the sky as a way of creating understanding of our self?

I think?

Yes that is exactly it in its simplest form Hume and Kant deal with this issue greatly and to various extents. Mainly it is to try to define the difference in meaning and communication. The sky itself is a meaning of its own blueness its being itself brings upon its own conscious understanding of blueness which perceive through our own self perception to be part of the sky. The sky is blue when essentially it does not matter whether we can consciously break down intellectually whether blue exist its term as a communication we humans make through language is interchangeable to the essence of the sky which upon the consciousness of a blue part of the sky can be realistically perceived.

reply to post by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010


Honestly, my head wants to explode when i interpret your writings. But on the positive side. It really does help me interpret my own philosophies a little better understanding it from a more intellectual approach.

Haha! Look forward to more.

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010

 

Honestly, my head wants to explode when i interpret your writings. But on the positive side. It really does help me interpret my own philosophies a little better understanding it from a more intellectual approach.

Haha! Look forward to more.

How does it. I really want to stay away from getting into academia and becoming an amatuer Philosopher. I want to start writing my own books for goodness sake I am only 19 I have alot to work on. I need people like you to help me go down the right path.

reply to post by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010


You are already on the right path! lol. Just keep posting your through and ideas. That is exactly what i do. I also encourage argument it seems to help.

I want to write a book to. Mybe we can co-author. Or assist each other in this same way.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by onequestion]

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010

 

You are already on the right path! lol. Just keep posting your through and ideas. That is exactly what i do. I also encourage argument it seems to help.

I want to write a book to. Mybe we can co-author. Or assist each other in this same way.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by onequestion]

sounds awesome I want to write about an ideal taking based on the Nietszche argument of beyond good and evil into the ideas of Heidegger Time and Being. I can even go for a little Hegel

reply to post by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010

i have to look up some of these guys you are talking about. most of what i use as my philosophies i have pretty much developed from experience. i have listened to a little robert anton wilson, a little eckhart tolle, and some quantum physics. but that is about it. everything i gain through meditation and or it just dawns on me sort of.

Reality is a value judgment.

Usually based on the persistence &/or consistency of experience/perception,
Which is itself dependent on memory impressionism.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by slank]