|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 20, 2010 13:59:20 GMT
As was pointed out earlier, in the mention that there delusions and such, objective reality and subjective reality are mutually exclusive. Which one wins over time?
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 20, 2010 18:06:30 GMT
Since time and space are relative, both and neither. What you should be asking what is the common link? What I have been suggesting is that consciousness is the only link between seen and unseen, and how that consciousness percieves the events depicts that reality. I could say "humans dont exist" you would argue this point im sure that we are solid and real etc... I could then say at some point Earth will die and life with it and at this time no knowledge of human life will exist and at that time this is that reality. We force ourselves to see in real time (here and now) because we cant fathom the truths of our existence outside of real life. Likewise being able to grasp someone elses reality conflicting with yours would be beyond your grasp of understanding, but the truths of one perspective to the other would be equal
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 21, 2010 0:41:20 GMT
So we are not using the same definition of reality then? Humans often fathom the truths of the universe and our place in it. The progress in our corpus of knowledge is evidence of that. I am pretty certain that I could at least come to understand another's view of reality when it is discussed, and sometimes clarified.
For my own information if you would be so kind, what is your definition of objective reality?
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 21, 2010 12:31:12 GMT
Ive allready stated my perception IS my reality. Its individual, whats real for me is for me alone. To further explain this Ill use an example: Most of my life I have either been writing or drawing pictures. In both writing and drawing I would have to view a real event in unreal scenarios, like a prehistoric flying lizard stalking its prey on a mountain top. There are many other realities I have created, and the only reason I remember them is because its a memory like any other. I acted out and filled in scenarios and those events and reactions are as real to me as what I ate for breakfast that morning. To me the actions and reactions were of real people and situations, and how they would deal with that. The reason I can retain whole realities as a thought is because I remember the situations and outcome like real life. Did those events happen to anyone else? no. Is it real? ofcourse.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 21, 2010 14:03:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 21, 2010 15:02:56 GMT
trying to attach file
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 21, 2010 15:03:56 GMT
lets see if this works Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 21, 2010 15:05:19 GMT
OK first you have to download the dgraphic to your computer.
The when posting you should see an attachment button at the top. choose the file and remember to say something in the post.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 21, 2010 17:45:19 GMT
I tried that with the original photo file but it said my file was too large. But thank you very much for getting it for me, HAHA @ Turtle... perhaps the first predator turtle in the evolutionary chain?
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 22, 2010 21:02:20 GMT
Perception is not reality. Imagination doesn't make the planets move nor does it make things real.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 23, 2010 12:20:48 GMT
Yes imagination had no role in that construction HAHA.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 24, 2010 3:49:47 GMT
With all due respect to your art, which appears to be very good judging by the sample you have provided the forum, I would ask that you think or believe that piece of art into my living room. I won't think or believe about gravity in your living room. Then we can discuss objective reality. It is measurable and if you are able to respond on this forum thank a scientist.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 24, 2010 11:41:46 GMT
With all due respect you wouldnt have a living room without imagination. Objective reality requires a subject, if there is no subject the object is meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 24, 2010 11:45:21 GMT
Now lets say suddenly my picture did come to life, who would live longer. One that had thought about its predatory habbits, or the one who said he wasnt real? Lets say it is just a mountain lion, the thoughts of surviving a predatory animal would still come into play (just this one isnt flying). I do apreciate the compliment though, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 24, 2010 14:15:10 GMT
Objective reality would exist, even if we don't see/perceive it? Reality does not require one's permission.
I am absolutely certain that your drawing is not going to come to life. Very certain. That has been my point, the lack of reality (not imagination or wishful thinking).
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 25, 2010 12:35:14 GMT
Your thoughts are imaginary by your description. They could very easily come to your house and attack you. Wishfull thinking does have its course, infact its pushed for in trauma patients. I never said my drawing would kill you if I wanted it too, I did say the thought that brought it to life for me serve a purpose in reality. Knowing an animals habbits is what will keep you alive in a forest, and im surrounded (luckily no bears). Natives who have animal spirit guides use this, you could mimic a hawks head movements with a sparatic focus to notice prey movement and a low brow to reduce sun glare. Infact I had to use this last night when I was driving and hit a sunspot. What do ya know... it probably saved my life Your objective reality exists because a subject was presented. You can say it is what it is, but science cannot prove that completely. Your reasoning is flawed in this respect because it needs support from an incomplete understanding. An object is nothing untill its defined, we define our objects through subject and the subject is placed due to simularities. They have proven that microscopic particles will act differently when in motion and being focused on. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618#
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 25, 2010 16:43:56 GMT
We are back to man being god.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 26, 2010 12:39:06 GMT
I think subjective and objective in us work with eachother as our mental growth. Im not sure how you got "we are God" out of that. Science has shown the possibility of unlimited alternate dimensions 1/10 of an inch apart from eachother, and we just walk around through them all day unknowingly. Can it say what exists in those dimensions? No. Can it say it doesnt exist? No, but the subject is real in finding that answer/object.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 26, 2010 14:19:03 GMT
I'll tell you what. You are right. Something is real because you believe it. Look up the word "subjective." It refers to something in the mind not in the world. Biased and having no need of being based in reality.
There are lots of possibilities.
Points. "Can it say it doesnt exist?" Like proving a negative right, no it can't do that, nor should it be asked to. I assume you mean science when you say "it." Science is not a thing or a person.
I am not sure what your first sentence means.
I get the point that man is god because man clearly has absolute control over reality and if he were to just wish hard enough something in his mind would suddenly pop into being. Okay cool, you are right. Perception is reality. That is how you perceive it right?
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 26, 2010 16:02:39 GMT
I think your catching on to what I have noticed My first sentance was meaning first we aquire a subject when dealing with objects. For example look at early inventing, someone looked at a rock or a piece of wood long enough to create something helpfull. The object is the mass and the subject defines (to us) the potential of that mass. Also thanks to Nosameerf for the avatar I could use in comparison to my "number man". Attachments:
|
|