The true nature of reality

[Syntho-sis]

Reality is reality is reality is a goose!

 

Our brains are conglomerations of chain reactions and the scientific method is limited by

 

1. Human nature..

 

2. Human observation...

 

IMO One day we will have artificial intelligence so advanced we won't even have to think about stuff like this.

[npts2020]

So if I hallucinate a giant hole in my chest, or a monster dismembering me, etc., then I'm going to die?

 

I would say that if you can't distinguish it from reality, then yes. I would also say that such a scenario is highly unlikely at best, though.

[mooeypoo]

Reality is reality is reality is a goose!

 

Our brains are conglomerations of chain reactions and the scientific method is limited by

 

1. Human nature..

 

2. Human observation...

Actually, the scientific method is meant to correct for human subjectivity. It's not quite 'limited by it', it's more 'aware of it, hence requesting for specific methodologies to avoid the trap'.

[Chriton]

Lets face, it our reality is only what we need to be real to survive...The single Cell creature that we Evolved from only had to make sense of the energies it needed to survive and mutate to the next level..so, although there might be other realities out there our Reality is only dependant on what we needed to survive and evolve.

There might be other Realities and things we cannot comprehend as we dont need to know that to survive...so, could there be other Realities and Universes that are out of our comprehension?

[pioneer]

If we went to a magic show, and watched an expert magician perform his tricks, we can not depend on our sensory systems alone, to help us define reality. We need to use some logic and common sense. If we see him levitate, our common sense tells us he is in violation of gravity, even if we appear to see that. If the trick is far more subtle than that, we may believe what we think we see, having little useful common sense.

 

If we didn't know it was a trick, but used only our eyes, we could use the scientific method to correlate what we think we see. The magician can perform the trick many times, until what we see appears proven. On the other hand, if what we see does not correspond to our logical common sense, we may doubt what we have proven, even if we think we saw it proven in a meticulous way.

 

As other members of the scientific audience, tell use what they saw from other angles, we add that to what we think we saw, filtered by what we know can and can not be. Eventually, the subjective tricks disguising reality disappear and we can finally see reality.

[foodchain]

If we went to a magic show, and watched an expert magician perform his tricks, we can not depend on our sensory systems alone, to help us define reality. We need to use some logic and common sense. If we see him levitate, our common sense tells us he is in violation of gravity, even if we appear to see that. If the trick is far more subtle than that, we may believe what we think we see, having little useful common sense.

 

If we didn't know it was a trick, but used only our eyes, we could use the scientific method to correlate what we think we see. The magician can perform the trick many times, until what we see appears proven. On the other hand, if what we see does not correspond to our logical common sense, we may doubt what we have proven, even if we think we saw it proven in a meticulous way.

 

As other members of the scientific audience, tell use what they saw from other angles, we add that to what we think we saw, filtered by what we know can and can not be. Eventually, the subjective tricks disguising reality disappear and we can finally see reality.

 

So what you are saying is if people use science then they can see reality?

 

I think that sort of goes outside of this question though, as the way I see it is how can you prove it really. With evolution I accept that a physical process took place, like an earthquake, or volcanic eruption. I think one can safely assume existence to be real, like objectively real for whatever we can say is objectively true. So with that do we place ourselves in some anthropic universe, or one that is not? Going from biological science like ecology I have a hard time accepting the anthropic principle to the point in which it places determinism such as safety from extinction. I surely disagree on any magic that claims some destiny for human existence. Furthermore I cant given issues like global warming accept nature and humanity to be purely subjective, as in cant be understood.

[pioneer]

The human mind contains filters for our reality perception. For example, for many centuries the earth was thought to be flat. Based on the hard data entering the eyes, the earth appeared flat, because the filter of the collective mind manipulated the data we saw; people actually thought they saw flat. If you wore red sun glasses, yellow would look orange. If a group of people wore red sunglasses, we can all independently collect data with that red filter and all agree that those yellow lemons are actually orange. But that is not reality. If someone said yellow, they would appear out of touch with reality even if they were in touch with reality; go figure!

 

Ironically, we can't fully define consciousness, even though consciousness has a direct connection to the filters we use to see reality. It is like saying, we don't know how that observation machine works. Therefore, we really don't know if the machine is in calibration. But to sell, we need to pitch the results are reality due to perfect calibration. That is why even science gets hyped and then changes its mind. Or science can have more than one theory, even if reality can only be one at a time. The machine may be out of calibration in different ways. We can also blur the filter on top of this.

 

The best approach is figure out how the consciousness instrument works so one can make sure it is in calibration before we begin data collection. Once calibrated then the observations of science allows one to improve the filters of the mind, until we can see reality.

[Zolar V]

damn, i wish i was here for the beginning of this thread.

But here is my take on reality since that seems to be the topic of discussion.

 

In my opinion reality is defined as what your mind has created via the recorded stimuli of past events. i view it as though the mind builds A world populated and all by all of our feedback from speech, sight, sound, touch, taste, ideas wrought through reading and communication between people. Thus being said i don't think that you could ever have a defined "norm" or concrete reality as everyone's reality is subjective to his/her stimuli AND the physical formation of the brain itself.

[ecoli]

So what you are saying is if people use science then they can see reality?

 

I think that sort of goes outside of this question though, as the way I see it is how can you prove it really. With evolution I accept that a physical process took place, like an earthquake, or volcanic eruption. I think one can safely assume existence to be real, like objectively real for whatever we can say is objectively true. So with that do we place ourselves in some anthropic universe, or one that is not? Going from biological science like ecology I have a hard time accepting the anthropic principle to the point in which it places determinism such as safety from extinction. I surely disagree on any magic that claims some destiny for human existence. Furthermore I cant given issues like global warming accept nature and humanity to be purely subjective, as in cant be understood.

 

Have you heard of quantum immortality? This seems to hint at the power of an anthropic universe.

 

It's not that the universe is conscious or specially designed for humans, it's just that we cannot observe a universe in which humans (or a human) isn't important.

 

In other words, from the POV of Schrodinger's cat, the cat will never die, because he cannot observe a universe in which he is dead/ does not exist in.

 

The Many Worlds interpretation takes care of the apparent problem of a "conscious universe"

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think a better way of looking at objective reality is that rather than a joint subjective experience, it is something that produces the same result regardless of whether the subject is a person, another person, an instrument or perhaps a rock, depending on the effect in question.

Though this is probably the best we can do, I'm not so sure it's a perfect method either. After all, we could all have a simultaneous hallucination and confuse the subjectivity of mind processing for universal truths.

 

Any type of data processing is essentially this. We don't see EM waves, for example, we see color. But color doesn't really make any physical sense, and it is certainly not an objective quality.

[waitforufo]

All posts in this thread seem quite consistent with modern philosophy. Philosophy that began with Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum”. His “I think, therefore I am” probably would have been better stated “I doubt, therefore I am” since he arrived at his conclusion by proving the one could not doubt away their doubt.

 

A classical philosopher however would consider this all gibberish. Classical philosophy attempted to discover the true nature things, and in particular the true nature of human beings. I think most modern people abandon the concepts of classical philosophy because we find them too restricting. If human beings have a true immutable nature, then we should all attempt to discover that nature and then create an environment in which that nature will thrive.

 

A modern philosopher however would say all that true immutable nature talk is bunk. We are what we believe, and therefore if we all agree, we can thrive in any environment we choose. That sounds much more liberating.

 

Well, unless the classical philosophers are correct. As an example, I had a lemon tree in my back yard when I lived in southern California. It was great. I had fresh lemons year round. Having come to California from the Northwest, I never knew how many uses there were for lemons when lemons were free. Now I live back in the Northwest. I wish I had a lemon tree in my backyard today. Unfortunately it is not in the nature of a lemon tree to live in the Northwest. No matter how hard I believe that lemon trees can live in the Northwest, by belief won’t make it so.

 

Perhaps we human beings are much the same. The only difference is we keep planting ourselves in poor environments and pretending whatever we believe is true.

[Chriton]

All posts in this thread seem quite consistent with modern philosophy. Philosophy that began with Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum”. His “I think, therefore I am” probably would have been better stated “I doubt, therefore I am” since he arrived at his conclusion by proving the one could not doubt away their doubt.

 

A classical philosopher however would consider this all gibberish. Classical philosophy attempted to discover the true nature things, and in particular the true nature of human beings. I think most modern people abandon the concepts of classical philosophy because we find them too restricting. If human beings have a true immutable nature, then we should all attempt to discover that nature and then create an environment in which that nature will thrive.

 

A modern philosopher however would say all that true immutable nature talk is bunk. We are what we believe, and therefore if we all agree, we can thrive in any environment we choose. That sounds much more liberating.

 

Well, unless the classical philosophers are correct. As an example, I had a lemon tree in my back yard when I lived in southern California. It was great. I had fresh lemons year round. Having come to California from the Northwest, I never knew how many uses there were for lemons when lemons were free. Now I live back in the Northwest. I wish I had a lemon tree in my backyard today. Unfortunately it is not in the nature of a lemon tree to live in the Northwest. No matter how hard I believe that lemon trees can live in the Northwest, by belief won’t make it so.

 

Perhaps we human beings are much the same. The only difference is we keep planting ourselves in poor environments and pretending whatever we believe is true.

 

A long winded way of saying "I don't know" and I have no oppinion

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Actually, the scientific method is meant to correct for human subjectivity. It's not quite 'limited by it', it's more 'aware of it, hence requesting for specific methodologies to avoid the trap'.

 

That dose not make sense...we are discussing Reality and you are using obscure words and science to make yourself look clever...that is not contributing to the post..Just give your point of view and stop being a Guru..as you are not.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Chriton, please re-read rule #1 of this forum.

[Chriton]

Chriton, please re-read rule #1 of this forum.

 

Sorry I cant seem to find the rules section..so I dont know what rules I have broken...Please tell me where to look...I was only giving my personal opionion to the posts...Sorry again if I broke the rules...if you made the rules more prominent then I could read them and would comply...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The link "rule #1" in my above post is a link to the rules. They're also visible as an announcement at the top of each forum in this section.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=163&a=16

[Chriton]

Chriton, please re-read rule #1 of this forum.

 

I have now read the rules for posts and I do not think I have broken them...I I have not been anti religeous or in any way critical of anyones point of view..I just gave my personal views on the posts...surely that is what a Forum is...A Forum of Differing poins of view is surely what we want...not just like thinkers.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have now read the rules for posts and I do not think I have broken them...I I have not been anti religeous or in any way critical of anyones point of view..I just gave my personal views on the posts...surely that is what a Forum is...A Forum of Differing poins of view is surely what we want...not just like thinkers.

 

Yes, it's okay to differ in points of view, but I don't like it when you use it to make insults:

 

That dose not make sense...we are discussing Reality and you are using obscure words and science to make yourself look clever...that is not contributing to the post..Just give your point of view and stop being a Guru..as you are not.

 

I'd just like to prevent flame wars before they start.

[ecoli]

That dose not make sense...we are discussing Reality and you are using obscure words and science to make yourself look clever...that is not contributing to the post..Just give your point of view and stop being a Guru..as you are not.

If you don't understand something, I'm sure mooey would be happy to clarify/define herself in a way you can understand it.

[mooeypoo]

That dose not make sense...we are discussing Reality and you are using obscure words and science to make yourself look clever...that is not contributing to the post..Just give your point of view and stop being a Guru..as you are not.

The claim was made about the scientific method, I wasn't the one who raised this issue first, I was only correcting the claim made.

 

Do you think science is unrelated to reality, that I can't use scientific terms to describe it? How would you want me to describe it, then, in a helpful manner?

 

 

And finally, my friend, if "scientific method", "subjectivity" and "methodologies" is what you call "obscure words and science", then you should buy yourself a better dictionary. I'm not a native English speaker and I would not define either of those words as obscure, but since you asked, I added the links for you, I hope it helps.

 

~moo

[Chriton]

The claim was made about the scientific method, I wasn't the one who raised this issue first, I was only correcting the claim made.

 

Do you think science is unrelated to reality, that I can't use scientific terms to describe it? How would you want me to describe it, then, in a helpful manner?

 

 

And finally, my friend, if "scientific method", "subjectivity" and "methodologies" is what you call "obscure words and science", then you should buy yourself a better dictionary. I'm not a native English speaker and I would not define either of those words as obscure, but since you asked, I added the links for you, I hope it helps.

 

~moo

 

Sorry Moo ..not the words, I understand them but the context in which you use them is obscure.

 

Perhaps I am just thick but I did not understand what your point was....XXX

[Severian]

Do you think science is unrelated to reality, that I can't use scientific terms to describe it? How would you want me to describe it, then, in a helpful manner?

 

I think that there are parts of reality that the scientific method don't work for. Indeed, I suspect that humanity will never fully understand our universe.

 

And I don't even mean that on a mystical/religious basis. There are questions that simply can't be answered, such as what is happening quantum mechanically between observations. In fact, it is even true mathematically that we will not be able to prove everything (Gödel's incompleteness theorem).

[mooeypoo]

Sure, Severian, but that doesn't mean science is unrelated to reality, it means that reality might be 'bigger' than science can explain.

 

It's like those "a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square" things.. no?

[ponderer]

Everyone who learns the scientific method and understands how science works understands that for an idea or explanation about reality to be meaningful, it must be testable. It must make predictions that we can verify through experiment.

 

Now, there are unfortunately limits to what is testable. That is, we can verify that a particular hypothesis is true, but we cannot distinguish between it and another hypothesis that makes identical predictions. They are indistinguishable, even if their mechanisms are completely different.

 

To make a fanciful example, I could argue that tiny demons move particles around according to the laws of physics as we know them. Since the demons know the rules, particles obey the same rules -- so there's no way I can verify whether it's demons or some other mechanism that causes particles to obey the rules. (The demons are clearly too small to be detected.)

 

Most scientists dismiss that sort of speculation as meaningless, since an untestable hypothesis is completely unhelpful. But due to our limits on perception, this means we can never actually know which of those indistinguishable hypotheses is right -- we know how the universe behaves, but not why.

 

Is the pursuit of that why, though not enabled by science and not aided by experiment, a worthwhile endeavor?

 

The question "why?" implies sentient decision. "What intention", basically.

 

The question "how?" asks by what method.

 

You cannot say in this circumstance that you know "how" but not "why".

 

It is exceedingly doubtful that the universe is making a sentient decision towards some goal, for every particle that moves.

 

I think, you really mean to say, that you do not know "how", even though you think you do, because you have some math and call things forces, mass, inertia, and such. Without a picture you feel the "how" is incomplete.

 

Is that a fair assessment?

 

If so, join the club.

[universaltheory]

On 02/03/2010 at 9:37 PM, Cap'n Refsmmat said:

Everyone who learns the scientific method and understands how science works understands that for an idea or explanation about reality to be meaningful, it must be testable. It must make predictions that we can verify through experiment.

 

Now, there are unfortunately limits to what is testable. That is, we can verify that a particular hypothesis is true, but we cannot distinguish between it and another hypothesis that makes identical predictions. They are indistinguishable, even if their mechanisms are completely different.

 

To make a fanciful example, I could argue that tiny demons move particles around according to the laws of physics as we know them. Since the demons know the rules, particles obey the same rules -- so there's no way I can verify whether it's demons or some other mechanism that causes particles to obey the rules. (The demons are clearly too small to be detected.)

 

Most scientists dismiss that sort of speculation as meaningless, since an untestable hypothesis is completely unhelpful. But due to our limits on perception, this means we can never actually know which of those indistinguishable hypotheses is right -- we know how the universe behaves, but not why.

 

Is the pursuit of that why, though not enabled by science and not aided by experiment, a worthwhile endeavor?

We don't know why? That is why we expect paradigm shift! But given an answer we can know whether is is true or otherwise. And if we can verify our knowledge of a claim, then we can prove it and assume " why" through verifications

Of course the Occam's razor is one of the fundamental tenents of the philosophy of science which is still surviving the challenges of evidences tilldate not just for epistemic purposes but also for practical purposes! We need effective and efficient feedback mechanism through which information signals can be processed accurately in form of subjectively or objectively recognisable reality

No more no less

Edited July 9, 2018 by universaltheory

[coffeesippin]

"... we know how the universe behaves, but not why.   ........     Is the pursuit of that why, though not enabled by science and not aided by experiment, a worthwhile endeavor?"

It's a worthwhile endeavor to pursue curiosity.    Also .. some people believe the universe has it's own mind .. that it IS its own mind .. If we knew, for instance, that the universe punishes those who harm it, we would not blame all our misfortune on bad luck, but also on the universe recognizing the harm we do it, and we would attempt not to harm it.

I should add in case someone asks me why I'm commenting on a topic opened a decade ago, I answer because it's not a closed topic, and it's an interesting topic.