Reality is That

[Parameter]

If you can't see it, fine. Whatever. I just threw out the caution as a service to others. His inevitable banning will be my vindication.

I can assure you I have no agenda. My purpose here is to contribute to the scientific knowledge of humankind. So far you seem to be the one with the agenda. You either fail to see or choose not to see a good discussion staring back at you. My aim is to foster scientific discussion. That's it. And I hope that with this and my other threads, everyone can see that I am doing a very good job at it and will allow me just one opportunity to do so. I am confident that I will be successful, if not, then ban me.

 

[C C]

I just threw out the caution as a service to others.

Meaning this thread being deleted as well, however large it might become by then. Neither a common nor a rare sight in this sub-forum over the last two months. ("Nas", "Rude Rabbit", etc.) If the newcomer is legit, the topic will still be around a week later to reply to, for those who fret over tossing a couple of pennies into the fountain.

 

[Parameter]

Meaning this thread being deleted as well, however large it might become by then. Neither a common nor a rare sight in this sub-forum over the last two months. ("Nas", "Rude Rabbit", etc.) If the newcomer is legit, the topic will still be around a week later to reply to, for those who fret over tossing a couple of pennies into the fountain.

Thank you for your response. Yes, I am legit.

 

[river]

Someone asked me to come up with a satisfactory definition of reality that is not a redundant tautology. But it is difficult to do that because science has not achieved much success at telling us what reality is exactly. At best science has explained certain laws and rules of reality but it has not told us exactly what reality is. Some people have at best said that all we know reality is that it is real. I would like to present another definition. Reality is That.

Tautology is based on an idea and the repetition thereof

Idea , is the concept , by thought and/or opinion

Both are based on trying to understand the enviroment in which we exist , both on this planet and in the universe

The thing is though reality is not about either nor understanding of it

Reality is the understanding , that without the understanding of it , that we are still in it

 

[Write4U]

And,

Potential is That which may become Reality. A latent Universal excellence.

 

[Write4U]

Humans have an extraordinary ability to recognize, analyze, and utilize potentials. This is what makes us gods, each within his/her own universe. We are able to communicate abstractly by means of the mirror neural network which allows us to share our experiences in reality.....

 

[Parameter]

The two main schools on perception are representational, which says that we only perceive representations of reality, and direct perception, which says we directly perceive reality. I take the former view based on the fact that we can, under the right conditions, perceive things that aren't even really there. If very lifelike perceptions are possible, as in the case of Charles Bonnet syndrome and drugs like DMT, that argues strongly for the case that the reality we think we are directly perceiving is really largely just a representation of such constructed inside our own heads. But then that raises the question as to what if anything are we actually perceiving? And if mere representations, what of reality is being represented in the perception? Every property and qualia would be the mere projection of our inner subjective experience. What then would be left to characterize the reality other than as pure quantitative information--a gray probablistic fog of interpenetrating waves and fields?

Perhaps there is a degree of reality we are only able to perceive and it is the correct view to a particular extent. Appearances or perceptions of matter may be like two lines that connect to reach a point and the further away from that point the less accurate our perception or appearance of reality.

 

[Aqueous Id]

This is what I'm hoping to achieve in regards to this thread. I consider myself a visionary in every sense of the word.

You hope the thread gives you a sense of self-worth?

I have come up with deep thoughts and visions whenever I ponder Philosophical problems.

That would be useful if narcissism yielded answers.

Science stays strictly within the realm of what can be observed in nature.

You mean science stays strictly within reality.

This may be the cause of its inherent limitations.

Anti-science BS may be the only thing presently limiting science.

The scientific enterprise consists of many parts and can stand on its own as an explanation for the "how"

What kind science only answers "how"?

but never the "why" of reality.

Sounds like you never took a science class. Without "why" there would be no science.

This is the reason why it is not a unified field

That's nonsensical gratuitous use of something you think sounds sciency.

but exists in parts each of which is in concordance to what can be observed within nature.

Whatever that means. Nothing really.

Yes. The Hindus have gotten it correct when they established in scriptures about "being" as "That".

Unfortunately the Hindus had no concept of field theory or whatever it is that you think science is lacking.

 

[Parameter]

You hope the thread gives you a sense of self-worth?

No. I hope this thread yields answers.

That would be useful if narcissism yielded answers.

Interesting. So I'm a narcissist?

You mean science stays strictly within reality.

Science is divided into many parts and each part hopes to give an explanation of reality, but reality is not divided. It is one.

Anti-science BS may be the only thing presently limiting science.

Do you have an example of this?

What kind science only answers "how"?

Science is divided into many different fields each of which answers the "how" but not the "why". The latter is left up to Philosophy. I'm hoping to discover a TOE.

Sounds like you never took a science class. Without "why" there would be no science.

If the "why" was answered then we could achieve a TOE.

That's nonsensical gratuitous use of something you think sounds sciency.

Perhaps.

Whatever that means. Nothing really.

I'm doing my best here.

Unfortunately the Hindus had no concept of field theory or whatever it is that you think science is lacking.

The Hindus got it right when they called being "That".

 

[Parameter]

I believe there is a limit to how much we can perceive reality.

 

[Write4U]

I wonder if an analogy of two people observing reality can be drawn with two observers on a foggy day. The further the observers are away from each other, the hazier and undefined the surroundings become for the other, while each observer has a unambiguous experience of their own reality. When we bring the observers closer together, the sharper and more defined the other's reality becomes to the other and communication becomes possible.

 

[Write4U]

Parameter,
We experience only a tiny part of reality. Our systems (bodies) are tuned to very specific wavelengths in the electro-magnetic spectrum. i.e. we cannot see infrared or ultraviolet. Some insects can see those wavelengths. Other animals can hear sonar. Dogs can smell individual molecules.

My question is if we can perceive only those wavelengths which allow for physical existence in reality. Is a rock solid, because we can only experience the total density of the rock, not the space between the rocks atoms.

 

[Magical Realist]

Parameter, get used to being attacked and maligned by the positivists here. They're somewhat like tiny white blood cells in our immune system that cluster together to fight against any foreign threat to the system. One wonders WHY science ever needed such kneejerk defense to begin with though. Will reality crumble for them if science is questioned? I think not. Reality will do just fine whether there is science or not.

 

[Parameter]

Parameter,
We experience only a tiny part of reality. Our systems (bodies) are tuned to very specific wavelengths in the electro-magnetic spectrum. i.e. we cannot see infrared or ultraviolet. Some insects can see those wavelengths. Other animals can hear sonar. Dogs can smell individual molecules.

My question is if we can perceive only those wavelengths which allow for physical existence in reality. Is a rock solid, because we can only experience the total density of the rock, not the space between the rocks atoms.

I think that our levels of awareness of reality permit the extent to which we can perceive reality. For example, if we can smell and even see individual molecules we will have a far greater understanding of what reality is. However, it may not be a case of simply awareness being the key to reality. It might be perception itself and there may be a heightening of the senses or the awareness as opposed to having more senses required to gain access to the true nature of reality.

 

[Parameter]

Parameter, get used to being attacked and maligned by the positivists here. They're somewhat like tiny white blood cells in our immune system that cluster together to fight against any foreign threat to the system. One wonders WHY science ever needed such kneejerk defense to begin with though. Will reality crumble for them if science is questioned? I think not. Reality will do just fine whether there is science or not.

Some people would rather just live in ignorant squalor than to be humble and allow their authority to be questioned. And you just did a fine job at pointing that out about certain members of these forums. Thank you. I hope to hear more from you in the future in regards to other insights.

 

[Write4U]

Parameter,
However, it may not be a case of simply awareness being the key to reality. It might be perception itself and there may be a heightening of the senses or the awareness as opposed to having more senses required to gain access to the true nature of reality.

I agree to the extend of perceiving one's place in the scheme of things. Animals have a keen sense of reality and what behavior will be of most benefit for their survival. Their senses and physical abilities far outstrip our (unaided) abilities.

IMO, the difference is that we have the "special processing" ability to "see into the future" and plan action before the necessity for action arises.

 

[Write4U]

Our advantage is that we have no limitations on our abilities to "enter levels of reality".

Our ability to create "tools" have made us local gods. We now can observe and analyze almost all of reality with the aid of instruments.

We can imitate nature itself from nano scale to mini novas, from cloning to forced evolution, from micro to macro biology. Our power has become of planetary scale and impact. We may well be on the threshold of near immortality (regeneration, cloning, etc.)

Question is, "are we wiser?"
Do we truly understand the responsibility of manipulating reality?

 

[Aqueous Id]

So I'm a narcissist?

Not many folks would enter a discussion by praising their own powers like you did.

Science is divided into many parts and each part hopes to give an explanation of reality, but reality is not divided. It is one.

Some aspects of reality are obviously divisible. It depends on what you mean. Science is divided by specialization. It's still all science and it's still always holding its finger on the pulse of all things real. It just happens to be a million fingers on a million arteries. Failing to do so would be incomplete, inaccurate, illogical and incorrect.

So you have an example of this?

It's a recurring theme.

Science is divided into many different fields each of which answers the "how" but not the "why". The latter is left up to Philosophy. I'm hoping to discover a TOE.

No, all of science asks why all the time about everything. But the pursuit of a TOE only touches a very narrow band of all of scientific endeavor.

If the "why" was answered then we could achieve a TOE.

Only if the "why" applies to that which is very narrow. At present, Maxwell's Equations are the reason TOE has come into the vernacular. And that's just 4 laws of electromagnetics. So, so far only science has asked that "why" and only science has answered it.

The Hindus got it right when they called being "That".

If it doesn't address Maxwell's equations is not a very well considered TOE. Nothing says "being" quite as profoundly (and correctly) as a static field.

 

[Write4U]

This may be of interest in this discussion. David Bohm (physicist) proposed a non-perturbative TOE, which is basically a scientific interpretation of the concept of Brahman.

As Robert Wilkinson notes in his;

The Quantum Brahman
Study in the Relationship Between Quantum Theory and Vedic Cosmology
by Robert E. Wilkinson©

'The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.' Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal

When Bohm's resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality.

http://www.quantumyoga.org/QuantumBrahman.html

 

[Yazata]

I consider myself a visionary in every sense of the word.

Everybody seems to be a visionary except for me.

Science stays strictly within the realm of what can be observed in nature. This may be the cause of its inherent limitations.

I'm inclined to think of it as a matter of epistemological access. Like so much of science, it's basically common-sense: When somebody states a view that we don't already agree with, we are inclined to ask -- How do you know that? The reason that science is naturalistic is because nature is the realm that human beings have objective and relatively non-controversial epistemological access to. Scientific knowledge isn't all dependent on particular people's unique personal experiences.

The scientific enterprise consists of many parts and can stand on its own as an explanation for the "how" but never the "why" of reality.

I'm not sure that I understand the how/why distinction. 'Why' questions usually seem to me to be asking for purposes or intentions. I don't think that those are really the right questions to ask about nature, unless we are inquiring about the actions of cognitive agents.

Yes. The Hindus have gotten it correct when they established in scriptures about "being" as "That".

It sounds all deep and cosmic, but what do they mean by it? What are they actually saying?