Philosophies On Consciousness/Reality

[Jerome Scuggs]

My argument: our reality is shaped by the conditions of our environment through processes of evolution.

yeah, i think i said the same thing, roughly

soren kierkegaard's 'leap of faith' was sort of what seperates my view and kontrolz'. because even if you could prove that we night not exist, that justifies nihilism, and as awesome as the coen brothers made nihilists look awesome, it's sort of self-destructive. and we haven't really evolved to be a self-destructive race, so ... ok bong hit just kicked in so i'm actually too high to discuss philosophy, jesus christ i'm confused but what i was even trying to say

[Fluffz]

Different people percieve the same reality differently

care to objective proof this spectacular thesis so i understand it in my according to you subjective existance? wait, you cant. you talk about quantum realms and spacetime but on the other hand can not proof to me you even exist, why should i care for anything you say? that leaves your argument to be a subjective statement of someone i have no proof exists.

[RednaZ]

Will somebody put this ^ guy out of his misery already

[Mythrandir]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the hyper-relativistic, nihilistic, minimalistic perspective, which was the starting point of Descartes' philosophy. Who, by the way, used a weak excuse to ascertain external reality: God is good, so he will not lie through our senses. I think we can establish that there is no 100% guarantee, logically, that external reality is not an illusion. Even the sense of perception can be part of the illusion. My issue with this perspective is that it both encompasses everything and teaches us absolutely nothing. Job done, you just figured out the meaning of life. You can call me a pragmatist, but there is simply no merit in using this model when there is a lot more to say about this subject. It's like explaining phenomena with religion based arguments: 'Goddidit, so let's stop thinking about it'.

Even if external reality is factually an illusion, it is helpful to assume external reality, as it will help you make sense of your perceptions. This is at the basis of science, which assumes external reality and continuously tests the laws according to which this external reality behaves.

In short: the minimalistic position is most likely not wrong, but it is also entirely devoid of content.

[Doc Flabby]

i started reading this thread but my brain decided to BSOD

[MetalHeadz]

Basically, I've thought of ourselves as tiny itty-bitty "things". What we call atoms (talking about size), could just be us compared to something else out "there". What we percieve as "outerspace" could just be .. space.. Now imagine that we're so small we can't even see an object that we could be right next to that's so huge we don't see it. So far we've only discovered so little of what outerspace could behold. God (lol?) only knows that we're just some odd parallel dimension shifting back and forth.

What you're touching on, slightly off topic, is that the perception of 'scale' is completely relative to the comparative size of your familiar surroundings.

[MetalHeadz]

care to objective proof this spectacular thesis so i understand it in my according to you subjective existance? wait, you cant. you talk about quantum realms and spacetime but on the other hand can not proof to me you even exist, why should i care for anything you say? that leaves your argument to be a subjective statement of someone i have no proof exists.

Ok.

What we 'see' is common throughout human kind. What we 'percieve' is where the difference lies.

Person A see's a black person.
Person B see's a potential murderer.

The optical information is the same but the brains interpretation gives a different reality.

I was sorta taking the debate somewhere else because philosophy for me is mind numbingly boring. I've already established (for myself atleast) that what we experience very largely is 'real' but that reality is only a superficial reflection of what can actually be experienced.

[SEAL]

[X] Blue pill
[ ] Red pill

[Fluffz]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the hyper-relativistic, nihilistic, minimalistic perspective, which was the starting point of Descartes' philosophy. Who, by the way, used a weak excuse to ascertain external reality: God is good, so he will not lie through our senses. I think we can establish that there is no 100% guarantee, logically, that external reality is not an illusion. Even the sense of perception can be part of the illusion.

One thing, Descartes did doubt his senses, he used a more objective way to describe existance. He choose the word think/experience very carefully and its meaning is so much diffenent from see, hear or feel because you can not doubt your own doubt, just try it if you disagree.

this thought itself should be objective, no matter how you see, hear or feel and no matter of whatever form of existance you have. Philosophy itself is another objective view people in this thread are trying to proof does not exist.

what does it matter if your eyes and your brain register another person when a new thought is mentioned, as long as you can be sure the thought is real and existing? i say the only reality we will ever know exists is the one outside our head and perception.

[MetalHeadz]

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.

Nice paragraph, 100% agreed with. Are you familiar with Richard Dawkins work, specifically his 'Middle Earth' theory?

[Mythrandir]

One thing, Descartes did doubt his senses, he used a more objective way to describe existance. He choose the word think/experience very carefully and its meaning is so much diffenent from see, hear or feel because you can not doubt your own doubt, just try it if you disagree.

Yes he did doubt his senses a priori, but I'm pretty sure that he pulled the religion card in order to get to the next step of his line of reasoning.

this thought itself should be objective, no matter how you see, hear or feel and no matter of whatever form of existance you have. Philosophy itself is another objective view people in this thread are trying to proof does not exist.

what does it matter if your eyes and your brain register another person when a new thought is mentioned, as long as you can be sure the thought is real and existing? i say the only reality we will ever know exists is the one outside our head and perception.

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow what you are trying to convey, or where you disagree with me.

[MetalHeadz]

Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am.

This statement has been misinterpreted several times so let's have a go at explaining it. It's a comment on human consciousness, in my opinion, not some sorta evidence for existence. 'I think therefore I have the capacity to conceptualise myself in time'. Not 'I think therefore I must exist'. Human consciousness, as oppose to primitive 'unconsciousness', is far more advanced - it's the only reason you've even doubted you exist. An animal doesn't question it's existence because it cannot understand that it exists in the first place.

To say that we don't exist is a contradictory by it's very nature because in order to say that you don't exist, you must have to actually exist. What you imply is that something can be nothing - when infact something is always something (exc. singularity). Even if life was an illusion, it would still be a substantiated illusion.

[Fluffz]

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow what you are trying to convey, or where you disagree with me.

i just like to hear me talk.

oh and metal, your racist black person "proof" ignoring i have to tell you there is no contradiction in not existing. think of matrix, which is popular and i lack the english words to describe it any better. if everything including our cognito(whatever u think it means) are predefined we might not exist. A Person in a book can thing, i can make a computer display everyting i want. think more complex and you have reality, someone could argue.

[MetalHeadz]

i just like to hear me talk.

oh and metal, your racist black person "proof" ignoring i have to tell you there is no contradiction in not existing. think of matrix, which is popular and i lack the english words to describe it any better. if everything including our cognito(whatever u think it means) are predefined we might not exist. A Person in a book can thing, i can make a computer display everyting i want. think more complex and you have reality, someone could argue.

I rest my case.

[Cops]

What do you guys think is real?

I personally think that it is impossible for an objective view of reality to exist. In order for something to exist it must be perceived. 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).

I know some of you guys have to of formed your own deep opinions/philosophy on this subject. So what do you guys think is real?

I believe I am concious, I percieve people to be concious. I can prove my existance and the existance of others through touch, smell, taste, laughter, and many other things that make me feel connected to this world and others. But again i percieve this, I believe this much like someone believes in a higherpower, ultimately whether reality is real or I believe it to be real it does not make much of a difference. Is what I see and believe to be real make it any less real than if it were all in my head? I think not.