• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

lets list disproofs, or proofs, that there is a objective reality

There is an objective reality.. you exist in it. But only a few people have ever really seen it. We do not see reality, we interpret it. God help us if we saw what was really there..

How do you jump to the bold assumption that few people, or any people at all have ever seen "objective reality"? The way I understand it to be is that no one has or can experience objective reality, because once it is perceived it becomes subjective.
 
Because you don't perceive that reality through your sense's, which is why it was not objective in the first place. Only when you perceive it directly.. any other way and it will be modulated.
 
chica_o_vieja.jpg

Tangents tangents - when people look at the picture do they always see the same image first, I always see the young one & have to look for a while before the hag flips into view, what if anything does this tell us?
 
Direct perception is instant knowledge like - telepathy maybe - reception of thought or feeling not processed throught the 5 physical senses - IMO/IME

Ok I get what you are saying, but I'd say direct objective perception could occur with the 5 or any number of other possible senses so long as the entity perceiving a) has mind [this excludes machines] and b) is somehow able suspend judgement and conclusive thoughts resulting from what is perceived. A state of pure observation, absent of all preference or opinion.

I also do not subscribe to the idea that perception necessarily involves any sort of knowledge. Seeing a television does not require that I know it is a television. Though I may be misconstruing the first part of your post here.
 
Last edited:
Ok I get what you are saying, but I'd say direct objective perception could occur with the 5 or any number of other possible senses so long as the entity perceiving a) has mind [this excludes machines] and b) is somehow able suspend judgement and conclusive thoughts resulting from what is perceived. A state of pure observation, absent of all preference or opinion.

I also do not subscribe to the idea that perception necessarily involves any sort of knowledge. Seeing a television does not require that I know it is a television. Though I may be misconstruing the first part of your post here.

This is why you need to go beyond the Mind to experience direct perception. Secondly, the senses are limited.. this is basic science, we see a limited colour range for example. But back to the Mind again, it is also easy to demonstrate just how many tricks it can pull on the Observer.. the most obvious one being that the image coming into our eyes is upside down and gets inverted by the Mind. A state of pure observation is required.. no easy task!
 
Chinup: I'm going to look up the Turing test and edit this post later. I think it will help to clarify what I mean by "mind" and my reference to the "5 and all other possible senses".

By mind I am merely referring to a self-aware consciousness. I think that the 5 senses allow us to interpret (make subjective) qualities that simultaneously exist on an objective plane which we are not privy to due to our inability to perceive without bias. In this context our bias is our senses and personal mental attributes. In elaborating this I realize where I had misconstrued my point earlier. **Correction: direct objective perception cannot occur through the five sense, therefore direct perception must precede the senses. Preceding the senses does not rule out the condition of mind I have proposed though. Note: the mind I am proposing would also be some sort of apersonal mind. I also realize that being a self-aware consciousness and being apersonal might seem to conflict...maybe it does, feedback is welcomed.


As to your last question Chinup, I minced words (and I appreciate your meticulous dialog). What I should have said is, "The way I understand it to be is that no one has or can experience objective reality, because in the process of interpretation (from each individual's unique perspective) our experience is made subjective."
 
I'd also like to clarify for anyone reading this that we are not so much debating whether it is actually possible to directly perceive objective reality, but rather, if it were possible what would the necessary features of the objective observer be.
 
so, care to have another go?

yeah but i find it hard to find where we agree and disagree so im not really sure how to express my view to make things clearer

"working in the rationalist paradigm? how can you both do this and reject it? "
my view is that 1 is made out of +1 and -1 if you divide it in two and that makes + the opposite of - at the same time as its complimentary
so if im "working in the rationalist paradigm" and then "to be taken way beyond their point of relevance" its because i see reality as making a full circle on itself (continuum) so i do not "reject it", from my point of view im completing the circle
so if you turn right you come back left, if you go west you come back east
if you push rationalism to infinity you come back with something irrational
imo time is curved and so is space and so is logic
so if you push it too far in one direction you come back where you started, but it aint because it doesnt make sense and it doesnt have to be seen as a paradox
its more of a symbiosis where a straight line from the inside is a circle from the outside
so to me reality is relative to its observer, so that brings the idea of a dream but its a dream where there can be real people out there affected by the same objective reality as you are until you turn left and they dont, so you could talk about parallel reality from there but what about perpendicular reality where those parallel universe branch back
and how many angles does reality have ? it as all angle possible depending on the observer
its like that pic i posted where you could see a young or a old lady except that instead of 2 option you have all options
so when someone say that the lady is old he would be contradicting those who say that she is young but the thing is that even tho they are looking at the same picture they arent looking at it from the same perspective
but in this case im making a analogy about visual perspective for the sake of pushing it further, that if it can work that way with our eyes than why couldnt it work that way with our minds ? because the only way we can think of this reality as real is with our own minds, and our minds does get tricked up every night believing that those dreams are real so i think that whats in front of us, this reality, this objective reality that is made up of all or collective subjective reality could be made up in a multidimensional way that makes contradictory stuff complimentary
like if time is curved and space is curved you can make 2 curve into a full circle or a spacetime continuum
if objective reality is curved and subjective reality is curved then reality could be a circle too

so you where talking about someone praying instead of getting medical help and asking if they would die
well its like quantum suicide where from their perspective they might not die even tho in your perspective they do
maybe no one ever really die, they do die in your reality but they dont in their own reality
and those 2 reality works in conjunction, they both are part of your reality except that your mind limits you to your own perspective where there is only 1 option at a time so you cant see the old lady and the young one at the same time

western philosophy started with stuff like the idea that you cant swim in the same river twice, personalty ive being more influenced by taoism where they would say that everything change and that never change
its the same idea expressed differently but the western world saw it as a paradox, as a problem to solve because they saw it as a contradiction while the Chinese saw it as a completion where they deduce that reality is made up of opposites that are complimentary
and that was the end, they built from there while the western tradition was trying to figure out a way to solve the problem or build models that could avoid the problem
imo modern science see reality from one angle and it seems to go forward and move along a straight line and our culture is based around that line so if you ask where are we going exactly people will say we are moving forward !
but where the fuck that is ? is it in the future ?
we have being obsess with stuff for so long, we buy stuff with money and we say time is money ! but we never have enough time
so can we buy time, no we exchange our time to get money to buy stuff,
stuff = space
we care about space more than time, we exchange time for space, which in sexual terms means territory, we exchange quality for quantity simply because we have lost balance
and imo thats because of our model of reality
we built a flawed model
if you look at the usual x,y,z axis representing space there is time missing in there and those lines dont branch back into each other they go to infinity instead but what is infinity if not the same thing as zero and how could 0 be the center uniting 3 lines if 0 is nothing, those lines should break if it really would be a zero
if you put together +1 and -1 you get 0 the same way you would if that value is infinity
so +1 isnt 1 and -1 isnt 1, one is both side so its like a circle around 0 and so is infinity but we draw straight lines instead of circles
but if you do draw circles around 0 then zero is indeed 0, it aint there connecting those lines, no lines goes directly trough it
but then that means that when you go somewhere you do so using a curve that from your perspective will look like a straight line but the earth isnt flat
and time isnt flat, and reality isnt flat imo but we think of it in term of flat lines when we use logic, and thats great unless you push logic too far, and if we talk about reality we either talk about our own subjective reality which can be a straight line starting at your navel as your 0 point but if we talk about reality as a whole including both the subjective and collective then we have to draw a line that is huge and it will curve if you dont exclude those little inconvenient details such as those "crazy" people who thinks they are a bird and such or the notion that this could all be a dream and that we really dont know for sure outside of what we believe is happening, but then we talk about faith and that aint a very logical thing to do right ?
logic isnt suppose to come from faith, but then you have faith in logic because it works, but you dont have logic in logic or logic in faith
faith comes from the heart but so is the blood in your brain
and you are there because your parents had sex
we evolved a brain for the sake of having better chance at survival
your brain and the software on it is there to make us see things a certain way to obtain certain result that are self serving, thats the nature of the game
we think a certain way because of the result we get from it
faith is about believing that if you repeat the same thing twice youll get the same result, but then thats also the basis for the scientific method
but with science you dismiss the bias of your heart, but your heart is there to move around your genital so it doesnt mater if you put aside your heart for a while if as a whole we get better chance of survival using our brain
but then humans are not in surviving mode anymore, we have enough, we need quality instead of quantity, less brain more heart, less logic more faith
because in the end its about the system as a whole, its about balance
its about balancing objective reality with subjective reality
balancing science with religion
balancing others with ourself
balancing our mind with our body
balancing how we see reality with how we dont see it
balancing the future with the present
balancing time with space
because it aint a paradox in the sense that its flawed, reality to me seems to be a paradox in the sense that its "alive" because it self generate itself by balancing itself nonstop but while not moving or even being there at all
its one thing and its opposite and thats contradictory as much as it aint and that aint circular logic but it is...but if you think that kind of nonsense for a while it gives your mind a mindfuck that chance your situation, instead of knowing reality, instead of understanding reality you start experiencing reality
like if one side of a coin is yellow and the other side is blue if you flip that coin fast enough youll see it green
but again thats just a visual metaphor but at what speed is reality moving ? what if people arent simply seeing green or yellow or blue but they where experiencing a different reality in conjunction with your own reality with and without contradicting it ?


anyway, hopefully this aint too much of a mess and hopefully it was of any help in regards to what i think you were asking
 
Top