How real is 'reality'?

[Will Bouwman]

Getting three people from different continents into a pub would take some effort. More tricky is getting Paul Feyerabend to walk in, as he's a bit dead. The real challenge though, is getting Mr Can to be affable.

Nicely articulated!

We just need a time machine and transporters... OR to see the Universe as it really is, perhaps. I won't close that door.

You might not be able to. There are some very serious thinkers, Sean Carroll, David Deutsche and Max Tegmark being examples, who are convinced of many worlds. Hugh Everett III, who came up with the idea apparently:
"...firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: his consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_s ... mmortality
A bit far out, but it's a funny old world.
Incidentally, Hugh's son Mark Everett (I, to my knowledge) is in the band Eels, whose debut album Beautiful Freak was released, cor blimey 30 years ago. Lead track: Novocaine for the soul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-_sIZlHoM

[Lacewing]

We just need a time machine and transporters... OR to see the Universe as it really is, perhaps. I won't close that door.

You might not be able to.

Why does that excite me?! I guess because somewhere along the way, I determined it was valuable to flow with the current at least as often as clinging to rocks. Clinging to rocks for too long seems to bash me about and causes me to swallow a lot of water. Whereas riding the flow is an exhilarating, seemingly limitless adventure! There's no reason (for me) to think that such an incredible cosmic flow suddenly ceases with this world.

There are some very serious thinkers, Sean Carroll, David Deutsche and Max Tegmark being examples, who are convinced of many worlds. Hugh Everett III, who came up with the idea apparently:
"...firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: his consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death"

Although I haven't explored the 'many worlds theory', the concept seems reasonable and likely to me. I've wondered how conscious we might be able to be of wafting between worlds/frequencies? Solidity seems like an illusion for our forms to believe in and interact with. That's what makes this game/reality possible... and, even, thrilling.

But what if a higher/broader level of awareness could 'step out' of the illusion of limitation and solidity, and function/experience with or without these forms, here or across worlds? Interesting!

Thanks!

[Walker]

Is the concept of 'reality' actually meaningless and simply a tool for claiming to definitively know?

Ol’Jiddu quickly gets to the crux.

“The root meaning of the word reality is thing or things. And to go into the question of what is reality, one must understand what thought is. Because our society, our religions, our so-called revelations are essentially the product of thought. It is not my opinion or my judgement, but it is a fact.” – Jiddu Krishnamurti, jnani

https://kfoundation.org/krishnamurti-fr ... actuality/

After that, Krishnamurti starts a chain of reasoning that includes this provocative thought ...

Choice is the very denial of freedom. You choose when you are not clear, when there is no direct perception, and so you choose out of confusion, and so there is no freedom in choice – psychologically, that is. I can choose between this cloth and that cloth, and so on; but psychologically we think we are free when we have the capacity to choose. And we are saying that choice is born out of confusion, out of the structure of thought, and therefore it is not free.

[Walker]

(continued)

Jiddu Krishnamurti, the jnani, also makes the case in that link that thoughts are things, and things are the root of what real means.

Imagine my thrill
If you will
Not with Blueberry Hill, but
To read that same conclusion derived from:

Only the physical exists ... and thoughts exist.

The only question is, can humans with their capacity, and with the corruption of what capacity we have, apprehend all of the physical? We have the five senses but we also have ... the mind sense. Common knowledge says that the mind sense is underdeveloped in most folks, which is rather arrogant and hubristic of common sense, but not if backed up by more than Flowers for Algernon.

The mind sense is how humans with the capacity manage to apprehend dark matter and energy ... but is that proof enough of existence for those with the undeveloped capacity for such apprehension?

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense proof to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

This brings into question, if humans can only perceive within the bounds of their limitations, can humans perceive the physicality of all the things that comprise reality? If so, the human capacity is and always has been the arbiter of reality, but has capacity been fully realized? After all, human barriers are often overcome, even in eating contests.

Or, is there actually a hidden dark matter and energy that comprises the most of reality; is that apprehension accurate and proved by the mind sense that can't be understood in the same way by everyone, in which case reality would also encompass the unknown ... and then other than as a thought, the unknown is beyond thought.

[Lacewing]

...

You quoted Jiddu Krishnamurti...

If I may shorten his statement a little (to make a point)...

"You choose when...\... there is no direct perception."

"We think we are free when we have the capacity to choose.../..." (but) "choice is born out of confusion, out of the structure of thought, and therefore it is not free"... (or true).

Walker, if this rings of any truth for you (as it does for me), why do you constantly pit 'sides' against each other in political discussions?

This is what I meant about your representation of varying positions/perspectives. Where is your 'center'? You're all over the map. Do you have some sort of multiple-personality disorder? Which Walker is speaking of Krishnamurti... and which Walker is a Trump supporter?

Would you agree: Direct perception is observation; it's not about stories (thoughts).

If you agree, why are you so captivated and addicted to stories? And even more compelling, why do you continually insist they are true? Can't you observe without falling into them?

[Walker]

Lacy, the contradictions you perceive are due to your lack of understanding, and if you don't understand by now, thousands of more postings won't lift the veil, they will only make it more opaque with preconceptions. Plus, there's no time for that. You have to forge ahead with your confusion, making your choices.

Acknowledged, you perceive contradictions in your understanding. You've made that point, often. How you reconcile them with more than expressed confusion, and all the confusion that comes from that, is how you likely approach life.

Maybe it's you who should explain yourself.

[Walker]

Lacy:

If you're asking what I think ...
I think you missed the point,
That I wrote.

Here is that point, upon which you should focus.
That's what I think.

Drumroll ... for the point:

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense proof to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

*

My interest is with that point ... for you to consider, and respond to.

The rest is all ancillary, to that point, and likely addresses the key questions that will arise for you, in considering that point.

[Walker]

Flowers for Algernon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpstUx7lmjw

A great story about potential, and change, but only if you look to the principle and not the faults of the story.

Pay attention.

[Lacewing]

...

Ah, you're fu<king nuts... as observed.

Thanks.

[Walker]

It's your thread.

That obligates you to answer, since it's a philosophy forum.

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense proof to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

[Lacewing]

It's your thread.

That obligates you to answer, since it's a philosophy forum.

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense proof to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

I am not obligated to do anything.

[Will Bouwman]

We just need a time machine and transporters... OR to see the Universe as it really is, perhaps. I won't close that door.

You might not be able to.

Why does that excite me?! I guess because somewhere along the way, I determined it was valuable to flow with the current at least as often as clinging to rocks. Clinging to rocks for too long seems to bash me about and causes me to swallow a lot of water.

Philosophy, in my view, is story telling. I think most people create a context to make sense of the big questions: why are we here, what should we do about it, is there someone we should thank? In some cases the contortions people will perform to protect their beliefs are impressive, but ultimately, it's like listening to only one kind of music. At its worst, I'm not sure whether people hang on for dear life because they are fanatics, or they become fanatics because they cannot let go. Chicken and egg, I suppose, but less harmless.

Whereas riding the flow is an exhilarating, seemingly limitless adventure!

Yeah, some poor souls are missing out on the beautiful views and wild rides downstream.

There's no reason (for me) to think that such an incredible cosmic flow suddenly ceases with this world.

It's just one of many possibilities.

There are some very serious thinkers, Sean Carroll, David Deutsche and Max Tegmark being examples, who are convinced of many worlds. Hugh Everett III, who came up with the idea apparently:
"...firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: his consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death"

Although I haven't explored the 'many worlds theory', the concept seems reasonable and likely to me.

You're in some very good company.

I've wondered how conscious we might be able to be of wafting between worlds/frequencies? Solidity seems like an illusion for our forms to believe in and interact with. That's what makes this game/reality possible... and, even, thrilling.

The thing with ideas is that you can take them to different places. Maybe kaleidoscopic ideas have no evolutionary advantage. If you look at the courting habits of other species, there are artists, architects, singers and dancers. There is no philosopher bird. Maybe evolution has protected other species from crazy ideas. Maybe we're doomed because it hasn't worked on us. Yet.

But what if a higher/broader level of awareness could 'step out' of the illusion of limitation and solidity, and function/experience with or without these forms, here or across worlds? Interesting!

On a lighter note, if evolution just favours the bodies suited to ecological niches and to hell with fancy ideas, perhaps, as some people believe, the consciousness that is the source of all experience is only liberated once it is freed from a body. Panpsychism is fun.

Thanks!

And thanks to you.

[Walker]

It's your thread.

That obligates you to answer, since it's a philosophy forum.

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense proof to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

I am not obligated to do anything.

Uh oh.

Not only shirking the responsibilities that come with freedom ...

But disrespecting the obligations that come with enjoying a venue dedicated to philosophy in action, i.e., reality, which can only exist right now, and now, and now ...

Shame on you. Shame, Lacewing.



Go on now. Meet the obligation of hosting a thread. Answer the question, like Charlie Gordon did, which you know if seizing the thought opportunities provided by technology.

[Walker]

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense, proof to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

(I added a comma, for clarity).

[Will Bouwman]

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense, proof to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

Proof of what?

(I added a comma, for clarity).

Needs a bit more than a comma.