Our Sense of Reality

[cdowis]

In my old age, I am having some very strange ideas.  This is a follow-up on my "Do Atoms have intelligence"  These are not new to myself, but have been expressed by others.

We are incapable of directly experiencing reality.  Perhaps an allegory will help -- we live on the desktop of a computer.  Each appearance of reality is an icon which gives us access to the underlying reality.  It may point to an application.  The closest we get to reality is when it points to a data folder.  This has particular application to the spiritual realm where it exists in reality, but there are rather interesting portals/ applications which give us access to that realm.

So far I have identified three icons -- data folders, applications and portals.

Anyway, I do not have the source for this idea,but I'm sure someone will find it.

 

Edited April 25, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs  

[cdowis]

Two hours??  Got suggestions on where to listen?

Edited April 25, 2016 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

In my old age, I am having some very strange ideas.  This is a follow-up on my "Do Atoms have intelligence"  These are not new to myself, but have been expressed by others.

We are incapable of directly experiencing reality.  Perhaps an allegory will help -- we live on the desktop of a computer.  Each appearance of reality is an icon which gives us access to the underlying reality.  It may point to an application.  The closest we get to reality is when it points to a data folder.  This has particular application to the spiritual realm where it exists in reality, but there are rather interesting portals/ applications which give us access to that realm.

So far I have identified three icons -- data folders, applications and portals.

Anyway, I do not have the source for this idea,but I'm sure someone will find it.

 

You may be thinking of an article found in Quanta Magazine in April 2016 by Amanda Gefter,  called, "

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality

The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.

 

"There’s a metaphor that’s only been available to us in the past 30 or 40 years, and that’s the desktop interface. Suppose there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not. But those are the only things that can be asserted about anything on the desktop — it has color, position and shape. Those are the only categories available to you, and yet none of them are true about the file itself or anything in the computer. They couldn’t possibly be true. That’s an interesting thing. You could not form a true description of the innards of the computer if your entire view of reality was confined to the desktop. And yet the desktop is useful. That blue rectangular icon guides my behavior, and it hides a complex reality that I don’t need to know. That’s the key idea. Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviors. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. And that’s pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be. If you had to spend all that time figuring it out, the tiger would eat you."

[cdowis]

Yep, that's precisely the one.  I thought it was very provocative.

I remember a day dream I had, where we were on a railroad train, moving at a steady speed ahead on the tracks.  You cannot see outside the train where we were traveling, and our only reality was was going on in that contained space on the train.  I imagined that our reality was an illusion compared to what was going on outside of our view.

I also remember a cartoon which showed two ants walking around on the kitchen floor.  The caption said, "Ant scientists survey the universe."

I think of Dawkins and his assertion that we know how the universe was created, and there was no need for an intelligent creator.  

Edited April 25, 2016 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

14 hours ago, cdowis said:

Yep, that's precisely the one.  I thought it was very provocative.

I remember a day dream I had, where we were on a railroad train, moving at a steady speed ahead on the tracks.  You cannot see outside the train where we were traveling, and our only reality was was going on in that contained space on the train.  I imagined that our reality was an illusion compared to what was going on outside of our view.

I also remember a cartoon which showed two ants walking around on the kitchen floor.  The caption said, "Ant scientists survey the universe."

I think of Dawkins and his assertion that we know how the universe was created, and there was no need for an intelligent creator.  

Is reality merely a majority vote that changes when 51% decide on a new reality? Or do we form groups that find common points of reality that we all can agree upon? Or 7 billion individual realities with a number of points in common? Is there a reality that exists external to our  perceptions of our own reality? Or does reality change as soon as we try to define it?

And please don't say all of the above without providing some concepts or "proofs".

[The Nehor]

Is this the "Stoners Only" thread?

[cdowis]

OK, interesting questions.

Is gravity based on majority vote?  Or changes within various groups?  So, reality is based on natural laws, and we suffer the results or consequences of our decisions in regard to reality.

I see reality as static, and not affected by  our perception.  (Although I have not completely made up my mind on that -- if nobody is looking at the moon, does it still exist in reality?  but that is a rabbit hole I'm not going to address.)

Synesthesia is where certain individuals perceive sounds as colours or shapes, or numbers as colours.  (wiki)  But very little research has been done, and perhaps this points us to something important in our understanding of reality.   This issue directly involves our neurological functions.

Anyway, I have opened the door, and let's see what the cat drags in.

Edited April 26, 2016 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

On 4/25/2016 at 7:29 AM, cdowis said:

In my old age, I am having some very strange ideas.  This is a follow-up on my "Do Atoms have intelligence"  These are not new to myself, but have been expressed by others.

We are incapable of directly experiencing reality.  Perhaps an allegory will help -- we live on the desktop of a computer.  Each appearance of reality is an icon which gives us access to the underlying reality.  It may point to an application.  The closest we get to reality is when it points to a data folder.  This has particular application to the spiritual realm where it exists in reality, but there are rather interesting portals/ applications which give us access to that realm.

So far I have identified three icons -- data folders, applications and portals.

Anyway, I do not have the source for this idea,but I'm sure someone will find it.

 

The philosophy that says- "We only have access to appearances, so what?" is called "Pragmatism".

I know a little about that.  It works very well.

[mfbukowski]

Anti realism.

Yummy!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

And then we have the Rorty quote:

Quote

 

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

Ah yes, I knew  I saw that somewhere

This view is particularly useful for religious people because it admits that "reality" is beyond our perception and so is God, therefore, God could exist, beyond our perception, only accessible through spiritual means.

Edited April 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Is this the "Stoners Only" thread?

No only for those who have not seen God I guess.

That of course leaves you out since you believe his reality is objective, ie: observable, so you must believe you have seen him.

If on the other hand if you believe we can only see his effects, and feel him by the spirit, perhaps it is for you after all.

Edited April 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No only for those who have not seen God I guess.

That of course leaves you out since you believe his reality is objective, ie: observable, so you must believe you have seen him.

If on the other hand if you believe we can only see his effects, and feel him by the spirit, perhaps it is for you after all.

I prefer to do both.

[cdowis]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Anti realism.

Yummy!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

And then we have the Rorty quote:

Ah yes, I knew  I saw that somewhere

This view is particularly useful for religious people because it admits that "reality" is beyond our perception and so is God, therefore, God could exist, beyond our perception, only accessible through spiritual means.

Reminds me of what a friend said in a philosophy class -->>

"I don't know which is the greater miracle, for a stone to speak or a philosopher to be silent."

[cdowis]

Reality consists of three things:    natural laws, intelligence and stuff (matter).  
Creation is where Intelligence organizes matter using natural laws.  

When speaking of natural laws, does that mean both physical and spiritual laws?    Well, yes because both faith and priesthood are necessary for the creation process.  Creation is the core concept of reality, how things were organized.

Edited April 26, 2016 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

Reminds me of what a friend said in a philosophy class -->>

"I don't know which is the greater miracle, for a stone to speak or a philosopher to be silent."

Subtle but I get your drift.

Toodles.

[oats]

We are only granted a limited suite of sensors in our mortal bodies. We can only take in a small portion of what is out there. We use technology to sense the things we cannot sense without aid and then we translate that information into a 'language' we can understand. Our understanding and interpretation of what is happening is subject to inaccurate translation just like language. 

 

Our ability to experience, to see, and to understand things as they are is limited until we can see or experience directly, or with some kind of perfect assistance. Our own ingenuity, symbols, and models can only get us so far.

[mfbukowski]

 

Quote

Our ability to experience, to see, and to understand things as they are is limited until we can see or experience directly, or with some kind of perfect assistance. Our own ingenuity, symbols, and models can only get us so far.

 

 

Logically, the question arises as to what this "perfect assistance" could be, and if it is just knocks the problem back one level without solving it.  "Well, with perfect assistance, we COULD  see things as they are"- but on the other hand, you are seeing them as the hypothetical "perfect assistance" sees them- which still makes one wonder if that means "as they are", which leads to an infinite regress.

On the other hand, on this forum, I know you mean the spirit and/or God. That is fine with me.

But I personally want to believe that God- and WE- to some degree create "things" out of matter unorganized and it is through intelligence that things are organized.  Many scriptures point that way, regarding intelligence, light and truth.

So with that idea in mind, we assist God in mentally organizing his universe for him by making sense of the chaos presented to our senses.

"Things as they really are" are precisely what we- and most importantly God- organize them to be in our co-creative process through intelligence, light and truth.  It permeates the universe because it CREATES the universe though the intelligence, light and truth of God- with us as godling assistants. 

Yep, I guess you just can't get philosophers to shut up even when they want to.

Edited April 27, 2016 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

So with that idea in mind, we assist God in mentally organizing his universe for him by making sense of the chaos presented to our senses.

If this world is the best we can do with making sense of the chaos then we should really stop.

[bcuzbcuz]

13 hours ago, oats said:

We are only granted a limited suite of sensors in our mortal bodies. We can only take in a small portion of what is out there. We use technology to sense the things we cannot sense without aid and then we translate that information into a 'language' we can understand. Our understanding and interpretation of what is happening is subject to inaccurate translation just like language. 

 

Our ability to experience, to see, and to understand things as they are is limited until we can see or experience directly, or with some kind of perfect assistance. Our own ingenuity, symbols, and models can only get us so far.

You and others refer to our senses. Please clarify which of the 18 senses you are referring to. 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You and others refer to our senses. Please clarify which of the 18 senses you are referring to. 

He can speak for himself

Pick whatever you want.  The point is that none of them see the world "as it is"because they are all limited.

What color are gamma rays or radio waves?  Is the color "red" an illusion generated by your eyes and brains and is the reality of red a certain wavelength on the electro magnetic spectrum?  What is "reality" the color or the wave/particle?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

Quote

The electromagnetic spectrum extends from below the low frequencies used for modern radiocommunication to gamma radiation at the short-wavelength (high-frequency) end, thereby covering wavelengths from thousands of kilometers down to a fraction of the size of an atom. Visible light lies toward the shorter end, with wavelengths from 400 to 700 nanometres. The limit for long wavelengths is the size of the universe itself, while it is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of thePlanck length.[5] Until the middle of the 20th century it was believed by most physicists that this spectrum was infinite and continuous.

So is what we call "red" real or constructed by our brains?

What can we know that is NOT constructed by our brains?   If we know it- where is the knowledge- out there or in our minds?See my siggy

Quote

 

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

I cannot even imagine a way to refute this point of view- that is why I accept it.

It would be like trying to refute "A=A" it is so obvious.  You can only know what is in your mind and how you perceive the world.  You cannot possibly know anything outside your perceptions.

Edited April 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[bcuzbcuz]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

He can speak for himself

Pick whatever you want.  The point is that none of them see the world "as it is"because they are all limited.

What color are gamma rays or radio waves?  Is the color "red" an illusion generated by your eyes and brains and is the reality of red a certain wavelength on the electro magnetic spectrum?  What is "reality" the color or the wave/particle?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

So is what we call "red" real or constructed by our brains?

What can we know that is NOT constructed by our brains?   If we know it- where is the knowledge- out there or in our minds?See my siggy

I cannot even imagine a way to refute this point of view- that is why I accept it.

It would be like trying to refute "A=A" it is so obvious.  You can only know what is in your mind and how you perceive the world.  You cannot possibly know anything outside your perceptions.

What are commonly shared perceptions? Agreed that "red" is just a word to describe what we think is a shared perception of certain wavelengths. Colour blind do not share that perception. 

A good number of scientists had a shared perception that they could send a space probe to the planet Pluto. They could all agree on its location and what was needed for that satellite probe, sent from earth, to reach that planet after a journey of nine years. I've downloaded the pictures that this supposed probe has taken of this supposed planet. Are you stating that all of this, the rocketry, the propulsion, the construction, the viewable results are merely "constructs" of our brains? That all this shared preception is just one step short of delusion? 

[Ahab]

On 4/25/2016 at 7:29 AM, cdowis said:

In my old age, I am having some very strange ideas.  This is a follow-up on my "Do Atoms have intelligence"  These are not new to myself, but have been expressed by others.

We are incapable of directly experiencing reality.  Perhaps an allegory will help -- we live on the desktop of a computer.  Each appearance of reality is an icon which gives us access to the underlying reality.  It may point to an application.  The closest we get to reality is when it points to a data folder.  This has particular application to the spiritual realm where it exists in reality, but there are rather interesting portals/ applications which give us access to that realm.

So far I have identified three icons -- data folders, applications and portals.

Anyway, I do not have the source for this idea,but I'm sure someone will find it.

 

I'm reminded of Mel Brook's depiction of Camelot as a "silly place".

True, in some people's minds they are not experiencing reality. 

But that doesn't mean we can't. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

What are commonly shared perceptions? Agreed that "red" is just a word to describe what we think is a shared perception of certain wavelengths. Colour blind do not share that perception. 

A good number of scientists had a shared perception that they could send a space probe to the planet Pluto. They could all agree on its location and what was needed for that satellite probe, sent from earth, to reach that planet after a journey of nine years. I've downloaded the pictures that this supposed probe has taken of this supposed planet. Are you stating that all of this, the rocketry, the propulsion, the construction, the viewable results are merely "constructs" of our brains? That all this shared preception is just one step short of delusion? 

I never said anything about interpersonal agreement on perceptions.  

We communicate these through language, though ambiguously.

The process of sending a space probe to Pluto is not a "perception", it is a linguistically created plan, essentially a construction of reality upon which we can all agree works to achieve the objective.  It might have not worked, but through experiment and trial from the first space shots through that final mission, a plan was put together through a process of social construction, which would have been impossible without language, including math.

Do you understand the Rorty quote in my siggy?  That essentially says it all, better tha nI am capable of saying it.   I will quote it yet again and give it to you in big letters to make it easier to not ignore.

Quote

 

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

If you do not comprehend the meaning of those words, I will be glad to help.

Sending a probe to Pluto was essentially the culmination of volumes and volumes of sentences, all shown to be "true" because of shared perceptions of their results.

"Yep, we tweaked the whatsis gizmo, and the rocket flew instead of blowing up"  At that point, the plan with the tweaked whatsis gizmo proved itself to be a "true" sentence, or series of sentences, as verified by everyone on the pad sharing the perception that the rocket flew instead of blowing up.

I do not understand why that is hard to understand.

Of course it is not a delusion.

Read the quote.

It is an effect of a cause which does not include mental states.  A delusion is an effect of a cause which is purely a mental state.

Can you understand that?

On the other hand, a delusion is not a sentence and cannot be true or false until it is expressed.  The truth of sentences is a property of sentences and not of the world.

That is because we cannot "SEE" "reality as it is"- we have only our perceptions.

To say that truth is a property of the world means that we could get outside our perceptions to verify what the world is INDEPENDENT of our perceptions.

That is impossible

Edited April 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Stroopwafel]

On 2016-04-25 at 10:29 AM, cdowis said:

In my old age, I am having some very strange ideas.  This is a follow-up on my "Do Atoms have intelligence"  These are not new to myself, but have been expressed by others.

We are incapable of directly experiencing reality.  Perhaps an allegory will help -- we live on the desktop of a computer.  Each appearance of reality is an icon which gives us access to the underlying reality.  It may point to an application.  The closest we get to reality is when it points to a data folder.  This has particular application to the spiritual realm where it exists in reality, but there are rather interesting portals/ applications which give us access to that realm.

So far I have identified three icons -- data folders, applications and portals.

Anyway, I do not have the source for this idea,but I'm sure someone will find it.

 

You should seriously dig Immanuel Kant's Critic of Pure Reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

Edited April 29, 2016 by Stroopwafel
To add a link

[Stroopwafel]

The quote you provided in the op is from this (very interesting) article I believe: The Case Against Reality.

Compare this quote from the article (the bolded part):

"So while neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality. In short, all roads lead back to the observer. And that’s where you can find Hoffman—straddling the boundaries, attempting a mathematical model of the observer, trying to get at the reality behind the illusion."

To what Kant has to say about his project, what people generally refered to as "Kant's Copernican Revolution":

"Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects. But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in failure. We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge. This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be possible to have knowledge of objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being given. We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary hypothesis. Failing of satisfactory progress in explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. A similar experiment can be tried in metaphysics, as regards the intuition of objects."