Tweet
Originally posted by Kontrolz
View Post
In order for something to be perceived there must be a "perceiver". In order for that perceiver to exist though there must be another perceiver perceiving it.
It will continue in that loop to infinity. Unless you use the liar paradox's self-reference to say, I exist because I perceive myself, but that is a known logical paradox.
Using that logic to me it is obvious that the only reality you can ever really "know" is the one inside your head. If that is true then there is no difference between truly believing something and something "actually existing". So if you truly believed you could fly, then you would. Even IF there was an objective reality, in your head you'd be flying and it would be as real as anything you've ever experienced (although you might look insane to someone else assuming there is an objective reality).
The basic laws that we have discovered about reality make any sort of artifical reality impossible, since we all abide by them. For one: time. The fact that you perceive time negates the assumption that you are not the product of some objective reality - because then you couldn't perceive - since the world that hypothetically exists is a product of your own mind, there is nothing to discover. There would be no need for "life", for what you are doing right now. You would be... God. You would have no actions because you would have no needs, because needs are the result of perceiving your body. I think that more than anything, time is what connects us to reality. Because time is a necessary requirement, and also a product of, an objective and uniform reality. And since all matter abides by time and is shaped by time, including human consciousness, I like to conclude that it is also a true link to a concrete reality, a direct bond, as opposed to whatever window of reality that each individual consciousness cooks up.
In this light, reconsider your infinite loop argument. Awareness of one's self, awareness of awareness itself can indeed prove a concrete reality - because in order to become aware, there had to be action, there had to be perception. Action and perception imply existence - because action is the changing of one state to another state, and perception is information about or awareness of a state. You can not change from a nothing to a something, from a non-existence to an existence. With non-existence comes non-time... and with change, comes time. Nothing can be two states or instances of the same thing at one time. To be so would be irrational, thus negating concepts of purpose, space, time... it would negate concepts, it would negate negating. It would negate, therefore, things like purpose, decision, and action - which obviously exist. Here the argument begins to loop, because you have to begin justifying existence with itself, as you said. But the wheel stops with death. Because even though someone ceases to exist, their bodies do not. When their powers of perception ceases to exist, reality does not. You can argue that the reason reality didn't stop was that he was merely a figure, constructed for your reality - but then why wouldn't you know everything that person did? Be aware of every second of his existence? Be aware of his every second of non-existence? Not stopping there, why don't you know... everything that is and was? There is no emotion, action, thought, or perception of time in non-existence... so even if your version of reality WAS a lie, it implies that some being (in the loosest meaning of the word i can muster) was purposefully deceiving us. Deception is a purely human experience, purely the product of our thoughts. We see non-human things as deceptive, but the deceptive things themselves are not aware of it.
We begin to doubt reality because we can't imagine existence before perception. We can't grasp or know what came before us, and what will come after us, and that gives us doubt about the concreteness of our views. Yet that should be the proof, in of itself: the fact that we can not physically, or mentally, perceive "non-existence". Because, quite frankly, it doesn't exist. To know the isn't of something is to know the something. To even begin to grasp non-existence, a frame of reference - ie existence - would be necessary. This is where the logic begins spinning infinitely into itself. It's easy to bend. But consider: To prove that there is no reality, one must use logic. Logic built on reasoning, and rationing. Therefore, to prove non-existence, one can only draw awareness of that concept from his frame of reference, which is existence. The only reason the concept of non-existence is possible is because we, as people, discovered it only after existing. After being the operative, implying and based on, time. You can postulate and throw around rhetorical questions and logically sound explanations, but the fact of the matter is: at one time you were not aware of the concepts of "nothing", or even "something". And I'll be damned if a single person ever's first conscious thought was that he or she didn't exist. Each one of us were confident in reality whether we knew it or not, and it was only after examining and identifying the sum of our perceptions, and labelling them as "reality", that we could then try to imagine the opposite. It was only after we confirmed the existence of things that we could question them.
So then reality is real, existence exists. Who is to say we're all on the same plane of reality? No one. We aren't. Everyone will perceive reality differently. Why? Because of physics. Biology. Science. The circumstances of our objective environment, the rules, the preconditions for our being. Time itself. Reason, logic. The thousands of infinite concepts that human beings can never, ever grasp. We all think within the limits that is the human mind... but things outside of the human mind also obey these rules. Things without sentience, self-awareness, or thought, still function according to some supreme, objective set of rules, outlined by existence. They have no personal preference. With no perception, there is but one version of reality. If humans didn't (physically) exist - as they didn't millions of years ago - the world would still be quite real (at this point i assume that existence exists). It is because of this singular, objective, rational, existence that perception was even possible, because it is shared. I might indeed perceive things differently, in fact being autistic pretty much guarantees I don't see the reality that, say, my brother sees. But I am aware of that difference, I am aware of subjectivity, as is he. Subjectivity, then, becomes itself an objective standard. Constants. Though each one of us may be different, we all got here the same way: sexual reproduction. We can perceive the hell out of sexual reproduction, we can question it for all eternity, but it won't change the fact that every one of us was born because of it. It's an objective standard of reality, a rule, a law of physics and biology. We question reality because we can think, but thinking itself is an objective part of reality. Thus, that thinking leads to subjective opinions is itself a confirmation of existence - of action, of time, of reason. In other words, subjective perception of reality implies existence and objectivity.
Comment