Ideas of Reality

Topic suggested by: http://EvC Forum: Treatment of the Bible as a historical text

---

Ideas

An Overview of the New Physics[/i],The Philosophy of PragmatismThe mind is such that it deals only with ideas. It is not possible for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. Therefore it is not correct to think that the mind actually can ponder reality. All that the mind can ponder is its ideas about reality. (Whether or not that is the way reality actually is, is a metaphysical issue.) Therefore, whether or not something is true is not a matter of how closely it corresponds to the absolute truth, but of how consistent it is with our experience. [/qs] The mind can only deal with ideas. For it to deal with an idea it must first either (a) be presented with the idea from an outside source, (b) deduce the idea from observation of the (individual's) perceived reality, or (c) combine previous ideas (including the ideas of observations) into a new idea.(a) Is the essence of education.
(b) Is the essence of rational thought.
(c) Is the essence of creating theories.For any of these ideas to be perceived by an individual as true, they must be consistent with the experiences of that individual. But each experience is recalled as an idea of what occurred, so the experiences of an individual are the sum total of all the previous ideas of that individual. The individual combines all previous ideas into a reality map against which new ideas are tested.Where there is a conflict between two ideas, then either one or the other or both must be incorrect (or incomplete) and it is time for a new idea. The new idea can either be a test to see which old idea is correct (or more complete), or it can be a new way of structuring the old ideas so that the conflict is resolved.Because it is impossible for the sum total of all [experiences / ideas] of one person to match the sum total of all [experiences / ideas] of another person, it follows that perceived truth for one person is necessarily different from perceived truth for another person.Where there is a conflict between two perceived truths, then either one or the other or both must be incorrect (or incomplete) and it is time for a new idea. The new idea can either be a test to see which perceived truth is correct (or more complete), or it can be a new way of structuring the old ideas so that the conflict is resolved.

---

Reality

How then can we measure reality when there are differing subjective experiences?The key to me is to look for nonsense quotients: what [experiences \ views \ observations] must be declared nonsense for the subjective reality to be consistent and how does the total nonsense load compare to the total experience load? The higher the nonsense quotient the less likely the subjective experience measures an objective (actual) reality.Thus for someone to believe that the genesis of life as detailed in the (which one?) [bible \ torah \ vedas \ etc] is actual objective reality, they have to dismiss not only all the other [hundreds of contradictory] creation myths but several whole branches of science as nonsense, from physics to astronomy to biology to genetics to evolution to geology ... etcetera: a very high nonsense quotient compared to a person who accepts the science views and has to dismiss only one more [of hundreds of contradictory] creation myths as nonsense.Now at one basic level all our perceptions of reality are subjective experiences and there are no objective experiences of reality. This becomes obvious when you look at witnesses to an accident that recall different things happening, yet each is sure of what they saw.At one level we are all hypnotized to see sub-atomic particles agglomerations as physical objects like a glass and water when in reality they are 99% empty voids.At one level we are all working on an individual puzzle, trying to fit pieces into our picture of what the puzzle looks like.At one level we are all working on making reality fit our idea of realityThe only rational guides to the objective reality is the concurrence of many subjective realities and the wary measure of the nonsense quotients.

---

Enjoy ... Let the games begin?This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 20:12 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I agree with what you are saying RAZD. The basis of scientific study is to try to quantify our objective realities or hypothetical assertions to real life (ie: nature) and thus mold the two into a closed loop of information.In essence what we are really doing is mixing conscious with material.However, like you say, there is - what should be - an obvious problem. Who's objective reality is right? IS there a right and wrong when it comes to a person's view of what's real or their conscience?I think reality is real and unified, however, like a scene at a car crash, everyone's realities seem to differ. I think what we need is a perfect brain, one unscathed by moments of fear and will not comprimise with a faulty perception of events.

thanks M4TWe can aspire to evolving the perfect brain ... ?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I don't think so.....the perfect brain thing. You could try breeding out flaws, but then all the fun would be gone. That wonderful thing called mystery would go - can't think of why I'd want it gone.
It is better to try and evolve the perfect way of dealing with one another. A standard of behavior all peoples might accept as a uniform code of conduct. Universally mandatory, it would be taught from birth. It will never happen.

I'll be brief but please contemplate what I say because it's something to think about:How honest would a governing system be with what they program into us at birth?Answer: Read Brave New World by Auldous Huxley.You can't trust a government body with that; they will only use it to create human cattle.

Well, this topic is very close to my personal interest but it surprises me a bit as it seems off the mainstream of this site.Razd, have you read any of UG Krishnamurti? His books are available on the web for free. He claims to be living something along the lines of your idea.The Near Eastern religions seem to be so centered around language, the word, and all. I find much more wisdom in the Tao, Lao Tzu making it clear that reality is beyond language and is thus nameless, that the "Tao" is not it's name but since he is talking he has to call it something. It seems sad the west lacks this philosophical tradition.
So much of killing over the centuries down to the present in Iraq and Palastine stems from literalist trying to interpret the Word of God.
Korzybski said it so well, "The map is not the territory" well, unless you are a fundamentalist and then the territory is just where you kill those who disagree with you about the divine true map that you have been given by God.Good topic, thanks!lfen

The west also takes the self, the ego, for granted as real and enduring for a while if not for eternity. Looking out on the world the debates are largly between those who believe the old myths are literally true and those who take the more recent scientific approach. The scientific approach is beginning to redefine the self. I refer here to the very excellent books by Antonio Damasio.Attributed to the Buddha and fundamental to Buddhist teaching is that there is no permanent self(soul). The self is an idea, and the idea that it is permanent is false. The human organism is a very complex set of functions that includes this abstract language creating our concept of "reality"Science thus far studies matter/energy, apace/time, and information.
Living cells are complex structures built from recognized simpler atoms and molecules. Life is clearly part of the universe of matter, energy,and information and though more complex than inanimate processes is not discontinuous with the them.Consciousness not life is for me the great mystery. Scienctist can't quantify it so mathematics is not a tool to be used yet. Damasio and others are trying to account for consciousness as an emergent quality of neuronal complexity. That is a neccesary line of inquiry. The eastern position makes greater sense to me and that is that consciousness is a fundamental, and perhaps the fundamental property of the universe. The quantum physicist Schroedinger wrote, "consciousnous is a singular for which there exists no plural". I am not talking here of the contents of consciousness, such as knowledge or experience which are clearly multiplicities. But what is it that knows, that is aware? Or as Maharshi Ramana would put it, "Who is aware of all this language and sensory input?" What is here that is aware of the idea that all this sensory data and knowledge is a self, and what if anything remains when that notion drops away and the functioning of the organism is all that remains?lfen

Could you provide a link to what you think would be a good starting point?Sounds interesting, thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and is conciousness a quantum or continuous {function / emergent quality} of neuronal complexity? Does adding one neuron to a borderline non-conscious organism suddenly give it the "I think" epiphany?certainly other animals have displayed levels of consciousness as good as human children, unlocked as we find ways to communicate (sign-language and {other} apes). pet owners swear they communicate with their pets. awareness of impending death and attack by predators is also an observable phenom, as is the awareness of others of opposite sex at appropriate times. conversely is it possible for a human to live without being self-aware? do we assume that this is a complex function only "higher" organisms are capable of when it could be a much simpler mechanism?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

are you not being programmed? By the government....actually first and last. Parents teaching their children, are programmed by parents teaching their children, and round again, who were programmed by their government. You cannot escape it. It's what makes you a citizen. All things inside of you are also outside of you, and all things outside of you are also inside of you.
We are talking about a code of behavior toward our fellowman that transcends - without giving up the requirements of good citizenship. Not robots, but people of good will, good intentions actually carried out.
Thanks for your thoughts.

This page links to all his books:IIS 8.5 Detailed Error - 500.19 - Internal Server ErrorJust to give you a taste I'll put this little quote in from that webpage:" My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody."This guy is totally at peace with what is. Talk about going with the flow! It's gonna happen anyway, so he puts his blessings on it.lfen

Hi RAZD,you asked, "conversely is it possible for a human to live without being self-aware?"Well, there are people with brain damage or disease who live like that as a consequence of losing brain function, but I don't think that is what you are asking. Antonio Damasio's books include discussion along those lines.Two further sources if you haven't read them. This first book is wild but brilliant theorizing and a tour de force by Julian Jaynes:The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the BiCameral Mind.I just googled on Jaynes to check the title. Looks like some interesting sites out there I'll have to check out. Anyway, the books is brilliant and full of insights but I don't see how it's provable. Nevertheless its worth the read because of the scope and depth of his insights.The other book is by Bernadette Roberts and is called:
The Experience of No Self.This is a small book and one in which she does a good job of conveying that which can't be conveyed. She is a contemporary living in the US.
And as a result of her contemplation she reached the stage where the self dropped away. Her Catholic training in a convent was not sufficient to explain her experience to her. She finally found in a statement attributed to the Buddha confirmation of her experience. She did not become a Buddhist, but remains a Catholic. Zen of course is a sect or school of Buddhism and the core of Buddhism is Gautama Siddhartha's Awakening. Roberts does a great job of using western language and concepts to talk about her awakening experience.Roberts and Krishnamurti may be closer to your question about living without self awareness. Since you have Zen in your name I suspect you are interested in non duality. If there is a self there is not-self or other. Roberts is writing about what happens when the self disappears and All That Is is the subject there no longer being an object. Her experiences are very Buddhist but she remains Christian.I found both of these books in my local library.lfen

That would be wonderful, but I don't think that'll happen until Heaven and Earth pass away and you know the rest. I've always had the 'problem' of questioning what I was talked, so I'd say not really. Looking back, some things my parents have told me are absolute balogna and frankly, wrong. Same thing with our government. Just because I respect and love someone/something doesn't mean they can't be wrong. Because they can, and are a lot.I'm not just boasting or anything, by the way. I speak for more than just myself here;I think my generation in particular is host to a lot more people that question everything they're told down to the last word, and that's a wonderful sign.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

thanks. bookmarked for later reading.