Philosophies On Consciousness/Reality

[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.

[SEAL]

[X] Blue pill
[ ] Red pill

[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.

[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.

[Doc Flabby]

i started reading this thread but my brain decided to BSOD

[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.

[RednaZ]

Will somebody put this ^ guy out of his misery already

[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.

[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

[DoTheFandango]

shit's gay.

[Xog]

We view atoms, which are mostly open space, collectively that form easy to handle objects. The reality of a chair to us is a solid, medium sized object. However to a microscopic orgasm it is a massive, mobile collection of atoms. If we went smaller, into quantum realms, even the reality of the microscopic organism would break down and time would not exist as we know time to exist as a planet orbiting on a spacetime continuum, affected by special relavity.

I've always thought about stuff like this. I dont really like to talk about my ideas much though, I was always told to shut the fuck up, keep to myself, and do as I'm told as a kid, so I'm not really good at explaining things. I'm a highschool dropout so I was really never taught about these kinds of things yet but I've thought about them as long as I can remember.

I'll try to explain it quickly cuz im tired.

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.

Now I bet everyone think's I'm crazy.

[MetalHeadz]

I fuckin' hate philosophy so much because it's full of pretentious fuckin' pricks trying to find some sort of annoying 'loop hole' in someone elses ridiculously overly thought out statement.

Different people percieve the same reality differently because 'reality' can be warped by human emotion etc etc.

The way humans percieve 'reality', however, is very narrow. We have evolved to be able to view our reality, with regard to light, space and time in a very easy to conceptualise way. We only see about a 1/10th of all light waves. So we already miss out on 9/10ths of what you could call 'possible reality'.

We cannot comprehend what traveling at near the speed of light would be like because the environment we live in does not ask that of our understanding. We are never subjected to the effects of physical forces created at very high speeds and have no comprehension of such forces.

We view atoms, which are mostly open space, collectively that form easy to handle objects. The reality of a chair to us is a solid, medium sized object. However to a microscopic orgasm it is a massive, mobile collection of atoms. If we went smaller, into quantum realms, even the reality of the microscopic organism would break down and time would not exist as we know time to exist as beings on a planet orbiting on a 4 dimensional spacetime continuum, affected by special relativity.

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

[Galleleo]

Guru, get back online and playing.

[genocidal]

So in summary whenever I have a college assignment I should come here so other people get give me lots of stuff to put into it?

Going to have a philosophy class this Autumn so its nice to know I can come here for inspiration. :rolleyeso

Don't know if that's the best of ideas.

[GuruMeditation]

So in summary whenever I have a college assignment I should come here so other people get give me lots of stuff to put into it?

Going to have a philosophy class this Autumn so its nice to know I can come here for inspiration. :rolleyeso