what is reality ?

[Lethargic Aptitude]

yes the topic is " what is reality"

and l wanted to mention quantum pyhsics which claims what we perceive as reality may not be a true reality

Well actually anything that happens at a quantum level wouldnt actually change what we perceive as reality. Perceptional reality (as opposed to plain reality) is dependent on what is observably real. Most people cannot in anyway shape or form observe quantum mechanics personally but have rely on those that tell us what everyday things are affected by quantum mechanics. Without special equipment and knowledge quantum mechanics (and most classic physics) is unobservable by the majority of humanity. Now that doesnt deny the real existence of such things it just means that perceptionaly hard to notice.

What we perceive as reality and what is real through out time has been shown to be different in many different cases. Sometimes new knowledge changes our view of reality, but sometimes it changes nothing. So the ultra small workings of the universe for the average person probably isnt going to change the human outlook on reality.

But that isnt to say that what is real isnt important to our existence. We humans once believed all kinds of crazy stuff. But we learned the truth about some of those things and those crazy beliefs slowly faded away. The key here is that we accept what is real at face value. Rejecting what is real because of our limited perception or knowledge doesnt do us any justice.

Myself I believe that reality (not the subjective observation of reality but the true real state of existence) is the only real truth to be after. One could say that I believe in what is real. That is what science is the quest for reality not superstitions nor mere stories. Reality as I have said is what is real. Discoveries in Quantum mechanics doesnt change what is real, it only defines more accurately what is real.

So no I do not hold on to outdated knowledge hoping to preserve such things to the bitter end like how theists do. But I also do not just believe anything that is popular in certain circles. Nor do I just take things on faith. Are there other universes? I dont know and neither does anyone else. AT this point I dont think that it really matters until we gain more knowledge to understand if that is reality. Until then it will reside in the realm of a very educated guess but not actually definitive.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Too bad. Reality is very personal. Indeed, it is inescapably personal.

Hopefully, you have learned something about reality and I have not completely wasted my time trying to teach you.

Yes I did learn that your ego is a inescapably reality. Which is most unfortunate since it got in the way of our discussion.

Its been real dude...

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Which is true, words have no meaning unless humans give them meaning, there is no intrinsic meaning to words.

Yes the action happened, the mechanical moving of molecules, but that is not sound unless there are humans to distinguish them and classify it as sound.

Yea sure words dont matter since they are just words.

Properties of sound (hmm sounds like science to me).


Sound is divided up into three groups: Infrasonic, sonic, and ultrasonic.

Infrasonic 0 - 20 HZ Very low frequencies of sound that the human ear can’t detect, but you may feel the rumbling of the waves through your body.

Sonic 20 - 20 000 HZ Normal range for human ears, although not everyone (especially the elderly) will hear to the extremes of this range.

ultrasonic 20 000 + HZ Beyond normal hearing for humans, although some animals (like dogs) hear part ways into this range. Also used in medicine (e.g. ultrasounds for pregnant women).

Notice that sound isnt defined by what humans can hear?

Sound can also be measured this measurement is called The decibel. Decibels are also not reliant on the human hear. Too high of decibels and sound can actually damage the ear drum resulting in hear loss.


Ears are nothing more than sensitive detectors. So a ear detects something that exists. That something is called sound. Sound is a longitudinal wave. it can be audible to the human ear or not audible to the human ear. Sound that is not audible to the human ear is called inaudible sound.

Inaudible sound makes your argument incorrect by the very nature of the fact that sound isnt defined by human hearing but by the properties of sound. Humans just happen to be capable of hearing a small section of the frequency osculations known as sound waves. v = f λ


Lesson 49: Properties of Sound

Pitch and Frequency

 

[BmanMcfly]

In your opinion you mean.

In the sense that another person could interpret the results and come to a different conclusion... Then ya, in my opinion.

Somehow by citing a dictionary definition of a word it becomes a belief?

I stopped at one example; and we're talking about stated beliefs not internal personal beliefs. You are allowed to play devils advocate or state any position you like...

its not like I couldnt go look for myself from other sources (which I have) so I see no need for you to provide most likely the same googled results.

Yes, but the point is that you COULD have defended an interpretation of the science that most closely reflects your position... Not that it matters, you've made it pretty clear that you are only here to project your stated opinions on the subject and not for discussion on the overall topic from any other perspective.

My only position is that reality is defined as the state of being real. You added all that other stuff about materialism and what not.

Because from your stated position through this (and other threads) is one of material realism, feel free to correct me if that's not your actual intended position you are talking about.

The subject after all is about reality not your personal beliefs about "potential waveform" and other new age crap.

Which misses the point that matter has that dual nature of being both actual particles or waveform potential of that particle depending on how it is observed.

The only thing you could legitimately say about that without contradicting the science is either that you reject that interpretation and the reasoning, or pointing out that the mechanism of the collapse is not understood.

I mean thats fine for you and perhaps other people, but I am not one of those believers so your point is not applicable to me at all. I simply retain the right to reject your beliefs outright. You already presented them about as good as you could, no hard feelings but you didnt make your case, end of story.

It's not like I am representing a religion that's looking for followers, at most I'm pointing out that the science is crossing the threshold into territory typically reserved for discussions of philosophy.

So then I tried to stop exactly what is going on right now between you and I but you didnt listen to me. ANd now you are trying to build my own argument and insist that I take up said argument and engage you with it. Tell me why I would fall for such silliness? Do you think that you are a Jedi Knight or some ****?

If that was your intention, it was handled very badly... But I really don't get wtf you are even doing discussing the topic when you are only willing to discuss one position?? But I do find it funny how sensitive you are being about being pressed to defend the position you've stated...

Seriously, why get into a topic as wide open as "what is reality" if you are only willing to discuss such a narrow aspect of the question as to render the question useless.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

In the sense that another person could interpret the results and come to a different conclusion... Then ya, in my opinion.

I stopped at one example; and we're talking about stated beliefs not internal personal beliefs. You are allowed to play devils advocate or state any position you like...

Yes, but the point is that you COULD have defended an interpretation of the science that most closely reflects your position... Not that it matters, you've made it pretty clear that you are only here to project your stated opinions on the subject and not for discussion on the overall topic from any other perspective.

Because from your stated position through this (and other threads) is one of material realism, feel free to correct me if that's not your actual intended position you are talking about.

I stated my osition already. I stated that reality is what is real hence the word real and the suffix ity. But you have been too busy trying to categorize myself instead of even noticing my real position on reality. ANd there is a difference do I need to explain that for you?

Which misses the point that matter has that dual nature of being both actual particles or waveform potential of that particle depending on how it is observed.

The only thing you could legitimately say about that without contradicting the science is either that you reject that interpretation and the reasoning, or pointing out that the mechanism of the collapse is not understood.

Several posters and myself have pointed out that you misunderstand entirely dont understand that by observer they are not talking about a person. Since you assume that it means "a person observing something" then from there on your are completely ignorant of what you are trying to say.

ANd until you recognize that mistake no one will take you seriously.

It's not like I am representing a religion that's looking for followers, at most I'm pointing out that the science is crossing the threshold into territory typically reserved for discussions of philosophy.

Science isnt at all passing into the idiotic world of religious beliefs.

If that was your intention, it was handled very badly... But I really don't get wtf you are even doing discussing the topic when you are only willing to discuss one position?? But I do find it funny how sensitive you are being about being pressed to defend the position you've stated...

You dont seem to understand written words well. Must be why you have the habit of inventing someone elses argument for them. <-- See that is the type of reaction you will get when you try these lame tactics.

Seriously, why get into a topic as wide open as "what is reality" if you are only willing to discuss such a narrow aspect of the question as to render the question useless.

The problem here is that you are unwilling to accept that the answer to the question [What is reality] doesnt need to be difficult or outlandish. It just needs to be correct.

Reality: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

How things actually exist. You cant be any more simple than that. And that is what reality is not the notions that you keep trying to explain. See I only recognize what is true the rest I dont bother with so why would I bother to discuss your notions? Especially when science does agree with you at all in fact the same studies that you base all this funniness on never actually said what you keep asserting. You either was unable to understand it, repeated what someone else said or made **** up.


ANd please for the love of the great spaghetti monster dont comeback trying accuse me of being emotional. The only person here that is being emotional would be when you keep trying to say out of the blue that I am being emotional. I still cannot figure what in this thread that I would be getting emotional over. Thats why I have been "bwhahahaha"ing every time you try to use that tired tactic. For once could you just honestly have a discussion? You cant force me to accept your claims by using such lame ass tactics. All that it does is make me even less interested in what you have to say.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I stated my osition already. I stated that reality is what is real hence the word real and the suffix ity. But you have been too busy trying to categorize myself instead of even noticing my real position on reality. ANd there is a difference do I need to explain that for you?



Several posters and myself have pointed out that you misunderstand entirely dont understand that by observer they are not talking about a person. Since you assume that it means "a person observing something" then from there on your are completely ignorant of what you are trying to say.

ANd until you recognize that mistake no one will take you seriously.


Science isnt at all passing into the idiotic world of religious beliefs.



You dont seem to understand written words well. Must be why you have the habit of inventing someone elses argument for them. <-- See that is the type of reaction you will get when you try these lame tactics.



The problem here is that you are unwilling to accept that the answer to the question [What is reality] doesnt need to be difficult or outlandish. It just needs to be correct.

Reality: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

How things actually exist. You cant be any more simple than that. And that is what reality is not the notions that you keep trying to explain. See I only recognize what is true the rest I dont bother with so why would I bother to discuss your notions? Especially when science does agree with you at all in fact the same studies that you base all this funniness on never actually said what you keep asserting. You either was unable to understand it, repeated what someone else said or made **** up.


ANd please for the love of the great spaghetti monster dont comeback trying accuse me of being emotional. The only person here that is being emotional would be when you keep trying to say out of the blue that I am being emotional. I still cannot figure what in this thread that I would be getting emotional over. Thats why I have been "bwhahahaha"ing every time you try to use that tired tactic. For once could you just honestly have a discussion? You cant force me to accept your claims by using such lame ass tactics. All that it does is make me even less interested in what you have to say.

Ya, well, reality is alot weirder than the other positions you've stated...

You make the mistake of thinking im saying a conscious observer implies human consciousness... No, the same goes for all life, down to the single cell.

Ya, "bwahahaha he asked me to back up my position so I'll whine and cry about the "tactics" being used against me."

Lol @ "don't accuse me of being whiny".

Another Lol @ the dishonest discussion accusation. I've been pretty straightforward, my position is one of idealism, not of realism, that is where the universe is primarily subjective, but where there is a consistency in objective experience (or weak objectivity). Feel free to point out where I've deviated from that, the rest is really just you being overly sensitive, and I don't mean that to be insulting, at the start, half the quotes of yours was as a compliment to better address points of others where your quotes were better written to act as a sounding board, it's nothing personal till you tried to stifle the discussion rather than ignoring it if you did not want to discuss... Call it a personal annoyance.

 

[RGacky3]

Yea sure words dont matter since they are just words.

Properties of sound (hmm sounds like science to me).


Sound is divided up into three groups: Infrasonic, sonic, and ultrasonic.

Infrasonic 0 - 20 HZ Very low frequencies of sound that the human ear can’t detect, but you may feel the rumbling of the waves through your body.

Sonic 20 - 20 000 HZ Normal range for human ears, although not everyone (especially the elderly) will hear to the extremes of this range.

ultrasonic 20 000 + HZ Beyond normal hearing for humans, although some animals (like dogs) hear part ways into this range. Also used in medicine (e.g. ultrasounds for pregnant women).

Notice that sound isnt defined by what humans can hear?

Sound can also be measured this measurement is called The decibel. Decibels are also not reliant on the human hear. Too high of decibels and sound can actually damage the ear drum resulting in hear loss.


Ears are nothing more than sensitive detectors. So a ear detects something that exists. That something is called sound. Sound is a longitudinal wave. it can be audible to the human ear or not audible to the human ear. Sound that is not audible to the human ear is called inaudible sound.

Inaudible sound makes your argument incorrect by the very nature of the fact that sound isnt defined by human hearing but by the properties of sound. Humans just happen to be capable of hearing a small section of the frequency osculations known as sound waves. v = f λ


Lesson 49: Properties of Sound

Pitch and Frequency

Ok, it's not defined by what we personally can hear, but it's still defined by humans, based around the sense of hearing .... i.e. what makes it "sound" is our catogorization.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Ya, well, reality is alot weirder than the other positions you've stated...

You make the mistake of thinking im saying a conscious observer implies human consciousness... No, the same goes for all life, down to the single cell.

Ya, "bwahahaha he asked me to back up my position so I'll whine and cry about the "tactics" being used against me."

Lol @ "don't accuse me of being whiny".

Another Lol @ the dishonest discussion accusation. I've been pretty straightforward, my position is one of idealism, not of realism, that is where the universe is primarily subjective, but where there is a consistency in objective experience (or weak objectivity). Feel free to point out where I've deviated from that, the rest is really just you being overly sensitive, and I don't mean that to be insulting, at the start, half the quotes of yours was as a compliment to better address points of others where your quotes were better written to act as a sounding board, it's nothing personal till you tried to stifle the discussion rather than ignoring it if you did not want to discuss... Call it a personal annoyance.

-lol Now I am whiny, you seem to have a personal interest in me rather than a true response that has anything to do with my position on reality.


The testable laws of physics at the very least are the only true reality. Fundamentally no matter what we learn from here on out will not change the basic laws of physics. True more knowledge will serve to change our view of those basic laws of physics but it will not change those laws. Reality resides in those basic laws of physics. How you and I feel about those laws are of no concern and are completely meaningless. Even our gained new view through new knowledge is meaningless. If the sun went nova today the reality would not change just because humans were wiped out.


Idealist see reality as a mental construct. Which makes their concept of reality just a opinion. As I just asserted a mental state is meaningless.

But really if you are an idealist then no matter what I say you will still express your own reality and reject physical reality. So really I can not see where this conversation can go from here.

 

[Sig]

Yes I did learn that your ego is a inescapably reality. Which is most unfortunate since it got in the way of our discussion.

Its been real dude...

Actually, my ego is nearly transcendent of reality. I just can't seem to suffer fools lightly, especially fools who lack the grace to admit when they are wrong.

 

[Sig]

Ok, it's not defined by what we personally can hear, but it's still defined by humans, based around the sense of hearing .... i.e. what makes it "sound" is our catogorization.

Actually, "sound," is principally and ultimately a subjective, psychobiological, existential experience. (Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion.) A person who is born deaf with no capacity to experience sound in the familiar sense can study "infrasonic, sonic, and ultrasonic" sound in all its objective, mathematical, and academic glory. However, they will never know the subjective experience of sound as long as they remain so congenitally disabled. Thus, they will never know what sound really is.

Reality is subjectivity. As far as we can assess, objectivity is a particular kind of subjective, psychobiological, cognitive experience to which only the most cerebrally developed Earthlings are privy.

 

[RGacky3]

Actually, "sound," is principally and ultimately a subjective, psychobiological, existential experience. (Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion.) A person who is born deaf with no capacity to experience sound in the familiar sense can study "infrasonic, sonic, and ultrasonic" sound in all its objective, mathematical, and academic glory. However, they will never know the subjective experience of sound as long as they remain so congenitally disabled. Thus, they will never know what sound really is.

Reality is subjectivity. As far as we can assess, objectivity is a particular kind of subjective, psychobiological, cognitive experience to which only the most cerebrally developed Earthlings are privy.

THat's more or less what I was saying, not only is it subjective, but without subjective catagorization the categories don't exist (unless you believe in some platonic forms).

 

[BmanMcfly]

-lol Now I am whiny, you seem to have a personal interest in me rather than a true response that has anything to do with my position on reality.


The testable laws of physics at the very least are the only true reality. Fundamentally no matter what we learn from here on out will not change the basic laws of physics. True more knowledge will serve to change our view of those basic laws of physics but it will not change those laws. Reality resides in those basic laws of physics. How you and I feel about those laws are of no concern and are completely meaningless. Even our gained new view through new knowledge is meaningless. If the sun went nova today the reality would not change just because humans were wiped out.


Idealist see reality as a mental construct. Which makes their concept of reality just a opinion. As I just asserted a mental state is meaningless.

But really if you are an idealist then no matter what I say you will still express your own reality and reject physical reality. So really I can not see where this conversation can go from here.

No, I really truly am indifferent about you, it just happens you wrote better posts in that they were more conducive to a complete response.

Second, reality is not human centric as you seem to think I am implying.

The testable laws of physics include;
- wave-particle duality (matter is both wave and particle)
- superposition (matter can exist in multiple states and positions simultaneously)
- entanglement (matter is related to other matter regardless of distance)
And other "strangeness"

I repeat again; this is all part of reality, and is NOT HUMAN DEPENDENT, and the results are influenced by how they are observed.

Finally, I have never rejected physical reality... What I said was that consciousness / subjective reality is primary where the objective reality is an epiphenomenon of the subjective reality... As opposed to a realism of upward causation (ie atoms make molecules that form cells that makes a brain that produces consciousness).

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

No, I really truly am indifferent about you, it just happens you wrote better posts in that they were more conducive to a complete response.

Second, reality is not human centric as you seem to think I am implying.

The testable laws of physics include;
- wave-particle duality (matter is both wave and particle)
- superposition (matter can exist in multiple states and positions simultaneously)
- entanglement (matter is related to other matter regardless of distance)
And other "strangeness"

I repeat again; this is all part of reality, and is NOT HUMAN DEPENDENT, and the results are influenced by how they are observed.

Finally, I have never rejected physical reality... What I said was that consciousness / subjective reality is primary where the objective reality is an epiphenomenon of the subjective reality... As opposed to a realism of upward causation (ie atoms make molecules that form cells that makes a brain that produces consciousness).

What you are not understanding is that for me to be "more conducive to a complete response" I would have from the beginning (when you responded to my post) would have to address your beliefs about what exactly this conscious observer is. In this thread you pointed out that the conscious observer is neither human or any other living organic thing. I dont really want to talk about your notions of conscious universes and what not.

This is a thread asking what is reality, I find it hard to address the subject of reality will talking to someone about their notions.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Reality is subjectivity. As far as we can assess, objectivity is a particular kind of subjective,

I agree with you up to here, the objective reality is the consistent integration of the subjective reality of every consciousness in the universe.

psychobiological, cognitive experience to which only the most cerebrally developed Earthlings are privy.

This can be shown to be inadequate; even plants have been shown to "share" water, it's known that plants can track the sun, and other feats of consciousness...

Even down to the single celled organism there are experiments that have been done that show levels of "intelligence" far beyond what should be attributable to these organisms without brains...

 

[Sig]

I agree with you up to here, the objective reality is the consistent integration of the subjective reality of every consciousness in the universe.

What does that even mean?

This can be shown to be inadequate; even plants have been shown to "share" water, it's known that plants can track the sun, and other feats of consciousness...

Plants, as well as many higher orders of being, do not possess consciousness. Consciousness is self-awareness of one's own individual being in the world and it requires a considerable amount cerebral brain matter. For example, while you are under anesthesia, a team of doctors can saw open your chest and you will have no conscious experience of the pain impulses associated with such activity. This is because you are unconscious. The brain matter required for your conscious experience of pain has been temporarily shut down. Similarly, if you drop a live lobster into a pot of boiling water, the lobster may twitch and rile about for a time but it has no conscious perception of pain, even though it has been given no anesthesia. This is because the lobster does not possess enough brain matter to be conscious of pain.

Even down to the single celled organism there are experiments that have been done that show levels of "intelligence" far beyond what should be attributable to these organisms without brains..

Your computer can perform all sorts of intelligent activity that far surpass your own capabilities. However, your computer is not conscious. It has no conscious experience of pain even though it will react by disfunctioning if injured. It has no sense of being in the world. It does not even know that it exists.

 

[rhinefire]

The Internal Revenue Service.

 

[BmanMcfly]

What does that even mean?

Since my contention (an I seem to have misinterpreted your previous response) is that the universe is primarily a subjective experience, where objective reality is the illusion, there's the issue that science would not be possible without the illusion maintaining consistency throughout every living things subjective reality in order to better understand our reality.

Plants, as well as many higher orders of being, do not possess consciousness. Consciousness is self-awareness of one's own individual being in the world and it requires a considerable amount cerebral brain matter. For example, while you are under anesthesia, a team of doctors can saw open your chest and you will have no conscious experience of the pain impulses associated with such activity. This is because you are unconscious. The brain matter required for your conscious experience of pain has been temporarily shut down. Similarly, if you drop a live lobster into a pot of boiling water, the lobster may twitch and rile about for a time but it has no conscious perception of pain, even though it has been given no anesthesia. This is because the lobster does not possess enough brain matter to be conscious of pain.

Well, plant life as I said is showing levels of consciousness that goes far beyond what would be expected without any brains... And some levels of awareness can be attributed even to single-celled organisms.

I feel that, while the definition for consciousness you used is accurate, it's still lacking... In the sense that consciousness is equally part of all definitions for consciousness.

Finally, you still maintain consciousness during a surgery, even though your awareness of your body is gone. In other words, unconsciousness = consciousness (minus) awareness.

Your computer can perform all sorts of intelligent activity that far surpass your own capabilities. However, your computer is not conscious. It has no conscious experience of pain even though it will react by disfunctioning if injured. It has no sense of being in the world. It does not even know that it exists.

To now, yes, computers are not really conscious in how we think of them... Beyond the simple awareness of the interaction the computer has with the accessories (mouse movements, keyboard strikes, etc).

The concept of an artificial consciousness is a difficult one to tackle, especially while there is no thorough understanding of what consciousness is...

 

[SBu]

tell what you think about it

perception