Do we share the same 'ability' to experience reality?

[Creative Fossil]

See we are in agreement except for this 'word'.

I am saying that it is ILLOGICAL to define someone as mentally fit or unfit based on a reaction to an event that has not yet occurred.

you are saying
If the fear and response turns out to be well founded then the fear and the response is rational.
If it the antipated threat does not appear you are saying the fear and response is irrational.
BUT the event is entirely unpredictable. Should a person be declared mad based on the unpredicatability of future events that do not go in their favour?



NOTE: Insurance companys depend on paranoia for a living.

Example:
Man A has a house for 50years, he's never been burgled . He insures his property against theft. He continues to never be burgled, is he paranoid?

Man B has never been burgled in 50yrs, so he decides not to insure against theft. His action is logical yes? In his 60th year of owning property he is burgled. Is he a fool for not being 'paranoid'?

I think paranoia is simply conservatism and precaution and wariness and excess is indicative of other health problems, but paranoia itself is a survival trait in humans as well as animals.

 

[Oli]

See we are in agreement except for this 'word'.

The definition or application of the word, at least.

I am saying that it is ILLOGICAL to define someone as mentally fit or unfit based on a reaction to an event that has not yet occurred.

But paranoids are declared mentally unfit because they have totally groundless fears and reactions.

you are saying
If the fear and response turns out to be well founded then the fear and the response is rational.
If it the antipated threat does not appear you are saying the fear and response is irrational.

No no no. I'm saying if the POSSIBLE threat is real then the response is rational. It COULD be a lion, so it's better to treat it as such until proven otherwise - it's a survival trait.
But jumping away at the sound of a breaking twig because it could be a, say, fifty-foot green carnivorous unicorn, is irrational. And that is paranoia - reacting to unreal threats.

BUT the event is entirely unpredictable. Should a person be declared mad based on the unpredicatability of future events that do not go in their favour?

The appearance of a genuine threat or not is unpredictable - rabbit or lion. But survival lies in assuming the worst.
Paranoids fear the carnivorous unicorns and start at twigs breaking in case that's the threat. That's what's irrational.

NOTE: Insurance companys depend on paranoia for a living.

In part, but the thraet of accident, burglary etc etc IS real. So it's not actually paranoia.

Example:
Man A has a house for 50years, he's never been burgled . He insures his property against theft. He continues to never be burgled, is he paranoid?

Better safe than sorry. If he wishes not to insure his property and does get burgled is that stupidity? Not hedging his bets?

Man B has never been burgled in 50yrs, so he decides not to insure against theft. His action is logical yes? In his 60th year of owning property he is burgled. Is he a fool for not being 'paranoid'?

You pays your money (or not) and takes your chances.

I think paranoia is simply conservatism and precaution and wariness and excess is indicative of other health problems, but paranoia itself is a survival trait in humans as well as animals.

No, paranoia as defined, (I keep coming back to this), is an over-development of the survival trait. It's glitched.

 

[Creative Fossil]

I think you are talking about paranoid schitzophrenia, re the fear of giant green unicorns.

Paranoia is applied to fear of real things, such as car danger, theft, violence etc.

I for example consider myself a 'paranoid' person, more paranoid than most people I know. But all my fears are of real things, BUT the likelihood of those fears manifesting is still unlikely.

Example: I bought myself a survival kit incase we have a terrorist attack and I need some survival stuff! Now in London, that would be reasonable as they have had a few terrorist attacks, but where I live it is NOT likely. So I see my kit purchase as being a tad over cautious and thus a tad paranoid BUT still I'd rather have my kit!

It has already come in useful for other 'real' things I did not anticipate.

As interesting as this is (and it is) what has it got to do with my thread?
Ermmmmmmmm...our ability to experience reality.

OK new example: Birds experience of reality is such that they can navigate in ways we do not understand. Imagine a human claiming to be able to do the same thing. We'd say they were mad and start looking for 'devices'.

 

[Oli]

I think you are talking about paranoid schitzophrenia, re the fear of giant green unicorns.

No: paranoia itself is a clinical term:

# Suspicion of others that is not based on fact.
www.alz.org/Resources/Glossary.asp

# an irrational fear, suspicion, or distrust of others.
www.nationaltcc.org/tcc/

Paranoia is not always accompanied by schizophrenia, although I think the reverse is true.

Paranoia is applied to fear of real things, such as car danger, theft, violence etc.

Nope.

I for example consider myself a 'paranoid' person, more paranoid than most people I know. But all my fears are of real things, BUT the likelihood of those fears manifesting is still unlikely.

Overly-cautious maybe, but not paranoid.

Example: I bought myself a survival kit incase we have a terrorist attack and I need some survival stuff! Now in London, that would be reasonable as they have had a few terrorist attacks, but where I live it is NOT likely. So I see my kit purchase as being a tad over cautious and thus a tad paranoid BUT still I'd rather have my kit!

But it's real possibility these days.

It has already come in useful for other 'real' things I did not anticipate.

Then it's money well spent.

 

[Creative Fossil]

So I'll stop calling myself paranoid then!

meanwhile, back to my edit under last post.
"OK new example: Birds experience of reality is such that they can navigate in ways we do not understand. Imagine a human claiming to be able to do the same thing. "

Animals experience reality differently to us and have seemingly magical 'senses'. We don't regard them as magical though, just unexplainable. Why are not humans allowed a small does of these 'magical' abilities. Perhaps the human psyche tries to reason these abilties hence the magical explanations- voices from the dead etc. BUT really their ability is something else, something similar to what certain animals seem to possess?

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

In Biological terms

Do we share the same 'ability' to experience reality?

I retract my earlier answer. Yes, we all have the *potential* ability to experience reality equally. As reality is only mind. Reality, according to the thread, "Paradox of Nothingness", follows the rules of logic. It also gives error the same way logic would.

What Mr. Satyr means (correct me if I'm wrong) with the term "weakness" and "strength" is but a person's degree of compromisability. That is, how easily one's mind or body breaks under pressure versus how much it withstands. This concept is shared by most people. But if there is only determinism, why the angst filled hate? Other characteristics of humans and objects are measured according to this same principle of degrees.

We all agree that humans have differing amounts of ability, skill, natural talent for certain things (or all things for that matter).

Some are born musically gifted for example, they display great ability very early on and need very little tuition, compared for example to the likes of me, who cannot pick out tunes and needs very rigid guidance to play even the most basic melody.

Others while naturally musically gifted may not be able to follow rigid learning , will never be able to read music and get no further than picking out tunes naturally.

This is just an example of variety of ability (not a great one) to get me to my following discussion:

Is our ability to experience the same reality identical?

Yes, because it follows logic and our minds are logic manifest. I'm kind of struggling to recant the material from that thread I read (I wonder how it fares as a theory amongst other theories.)

How realistic is it that our ability in this area is identical with no variation?

Given the great variety of all other abilities.


I will explain why I am asking this question shortly.

It amazes me how easily people become attached to threads and the ideas of others on an anonymous forum. Intellectualization is a sign of weakness (a word that I feel ambivalence towards) when it is used for personal gain.