Subjective Reality
 

Reality: subjective or tangible?

Discuss.

Subjective .... but that's just my take on it. YMMV!:p

Quite simple really.

Reality is objective, it exists regardless of our interpretation of its existence.

A good classical example is the definition of sound. Sound requires three things.

1) source, or emitter
2) medium, through which to travel
3) receiver

The old saw about a tree falling in the forrest states that there is no sound.

If we aren't there when a tree falls it still creates the kinetic energy that is transmitted through the air. The only thing lacking is the receiver. Thusly, no sound, but we know that those waves are created because we've been there enough to know that all that is lacking is the receiver.

Edit: typo

OK, but:

- if said tree falls, a receiver 10 feet away will hear it differently to a receiver 1000 feet away - to the latter there may well appear to be no sound because of the dilution, therefore:

- how can reality be objective when it can only be defined by a subjective receiver?

Everyone read Plato's cave, think for 10 minutes and come back to the table.

You agree then, that 'we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same level as the things we perceive'.

Plato's cave suggests we see but a shadow of what actually exists. But is a physical entity (so-called 'reality') creating the shadow - or is the shadow just as tangible? Is the cause of the shadow any more 'real' than the shadow itself. Maybe perception is reality and substance has nothing to do with it.

The first part of each question then could be:

This is a yes/no question. As in yes there is sound or yes there is no sound, per my example.

or

This is a qualitative question in that there is a scale starting at none and scaled upward, per your example.

Reality is objective. However, man can only PERCIEVE that reality as best as he knows how. I think the point Plato was making in "The Cave" is that we need to understand that what we think reality is may not be what reality ACTUALLY is. This is where the human race has run into trouble since the dawn of human history. We each think our own individual perception of reality is the only true one. We do not allow for the fact that someone may have more of the facts than we do, or that different cultures will impose a different way of seeing and understanding upon their members. Imagine a genius who lived in Europe in the middle ages before the invention of the telescope. He might go out every night and stare at the stars, but for all his study and intelligence, his PERCEPTION would be that the universe revolves around the earth. Not only is that how it appears, it is also what the Catholic Church taught, and to go against the church was to have one's soul damned to eternal hell. That the church damned people to hell was a reality. Hell itself was a shared perception by Europeans of the middle ages (and by some people today). Since everyone led their lives by these shared perceptions, the perceptions became the reality which shaped their lives. Meanwhile, physical reality went right on existing, undeterred by anyone's delusions about it.

I believe that an objective reality exists. I believe that most people perceive the objective reality well enough for practical purposes.

I believe that objective reality exists whether or not there is a human mind to perceive it. The tree in the forest thing doesn't interest me at all.

I believe this sort of question is interesting when you're in college, but, in truth, is largely useless. What in your life would change if you knew the answer either way?

I believe I'll go get a snack now.

Actually, unless the forest is completely deserted, there will be SOMETHING there to recieve the sound; a bird, an ant....

Therefore, if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no human around to hear it (the question implies that a human is the hearer), it will still make a sound, even if only because the sound waves exist independently of someone hearing them.

;)

Sidhe

Also, the waves that it produces resonate further and may cause a butterfly to flap its wings differently which causes ... which causes ... which causes a tornado in Illinois.

There is only one reality and as many perceptions of reality as there are people to percieve it (or as troubleshooter says, "recievers". Reality would exist even if there were nobody to percieve it. And because there is only one reality, there is also only one truth which no one person can know all of because no single person can see everything and because our perception of reality is tainted by our attitudes, past experiences, gender, etc.

I like to use this example. Let's say 5 people went to a concert and all sat in different areas. One up close to the stage, One further back on the left, one on the right, One in the balcony, and one right in the center. Each saw the concert differently and might have noticed things the others didn't. For instance the person up close noticed the color of the pick the guitar player was using, but could not see the video screen above the crowd.

Even though all parties percieved something different, there was only one concert It wasn't as one person in the audience saw a different band on the stage (unless their perception was seriously impaired due to drug use, insanity, etc)


Reality is reality regardless of whether or not anyone is around to percieve it. There is no MY reality or YOUR reality. There is only reality.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter Sound does not require a receiver in order to exist and I was under the impression that the old saw (which I thought was originally composed by a Zen Master) did not state that the tree made no sound but simply asked the question as to whether or not it did.

Besides, by defining a sound as depending on the receiver kind of contradicts your initial assertion that reality is independent of the observer or at least it seems as though it does.

Originally posted by jaguar All Plato's cave says to me is that what we see is but an aspect of reality. It does not make the case that we all see the shadows differently (subjectively) but that what we see is not "all there is to it." I understand that Plato felt that way (objective realist) but that kind of thinking (absolutism if not objectivism) is pretty black and blue since 1905 or so.

*shudders*

Damn chilly in here...

Ah that's it! Radar and I concurred on something!

But surely reality is what we percieve, and if we percieve different things....

Yes, exactly the point I was trying to make in my earlier post (I, too, get scared when I find myself in agreement with Radar). The question of reality versus perception, unfortunately or not, is not one best left to college sophmores who have all had a few brews. We base our actions as a people, as a culture, as a country, as a government on what we percieve reality to be. Seldom do decision makers, whether individuals or governments, admit that their actions are based on a percieved truth which may be flawed, rather than on the actual REAL truth.

My whole point was that there is sound, but the scientific, the subjective, definition of sound requires all three items.

That is why I said the definition of sound, not the actuality of sound.

Plato's allegory also covers the trauma of gaining knowledge that is so different from what we "know". To me, it's a warning against hiding behind dogma and ideology too much.

So, is there a difference between reality and truth? To me, truth is more dependent on perception than reality is, because two different perceptions of a single instance of "reality" can be equally true.

To mangle Radar's example: ask the concertgoers "Who played?". One will say "the person with the brown hair" while another will say "the person in the green shirt". Both are true, but there is only one reality.

:blunt:

Objective reality exists, and subjective reality exists, and the connection between them can only be guessed at.

But which one is reality reality and which one is just, well, reality?

Objective reality exists independent of our belief or acceptance of it. Subjective reality is how we choose to perceive objective reality.

Sidhe

Perceptions are not reality. To claim they are is like claiming a painting of a cat is a cat. Our perceptions are limited while reality is everything. We can only see the limited amount that will fit in our own little window. And our windows are tinted different colors to fit our own notion of how things should be.

That's a very limited subset of the truth. The truth and reality (not our perception of reality) are inseparable. Reality consists of everything that is. And truth encompasses not only that, but the reasons behind it.

Example:

Reality: Bob and Jane walk into a store and Jane asks Bob, "What do you think of this yellow t-shirt and holds it up". Bob shouts back, "That's it! I want a divorce!!!"

Truth: Bob and Jane are married, the shirt Jane is holding up belonged to Bob's mother. Jane threw it out with many of Bob's other sentimental belongings to the thrift store and knew it would hurt him if she held it up. Jane did this because she found out about Bob's affair with his secretary. Bob thought he could get away with it.....

i read something once that opined that humans can percieve about 6 or 7 percent of actual reality. Insane people see 8 or 9 pct. At first this made me think that reality is subjective. reality is as I percieve it, and you are all just participants in my reality. As I am in yours.

but.....on some base level, a thing is or it is not. reality....real reality...is unshakeable, and immutable. as radar said, perception of reality is what matters, but no one really sees the REAL reality.

ah, but how do YOU know that? Perhaps someone actually does have the ability to see the "Real Reality," but the rest of us would never understand this because our own perceptions are so flawed.

simple....again, as radar mentioned, everyone's perception is colored by their life experience. everyone has life experience, so everyone's perception of reality is subjective.

sorry to quote radar twice in one thread, but i find myself in agreement with his pov.

signed,
radar jr

Ok, how many people do I have to piss off and annoy before people start quoting and agreeing with me?

You chintzy bastards...

Edit: misspelling

6

Ok, I know I'm gonna get it for this one, but here goes...

The human brain percieves and reacts to everything as if it were real, whether it is or not. If you hallucinate, your brain does not recognize the difference between "true" reality and the "subjective" reality of the hallucination.

Not that that clears anything up, but I just thought I'd throw it in there, anyway....

Sidhe

Dammit!

Any recommendations on how I should go about it?

I mean I can't posssibly piss off anybody with brains, so who should I single out?

People create their own realities. What is reality for one, is not reality for another. Reality is really just opinion. We all create our own little worlds containing comfort zones that we can hide in when the need arises. When people discover that their "reality" is similar to another's then relationships start, or if someone sees that your comfort zones are more comfortable than their own, they naturally want to gravitate towards you. Hence friendships, hence religions.

When the act of the tree falling is measured and recorded scientifically, we know that in the future all similar events will occur within known boundaries. We do not have to witness every tree falling in every forest, to know that sound will result.

I think that is one of the themes of the Lovecraft books. Actually, strike that - reverse it. His theme was that seeing more reality was what drove people insane.

"""""quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lumberjim
i read something once that opined that humans can percieve about 6 or 7 percent of actual reality. Insane people see 8 or 9 pct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that is one of the themes of the Lovecraft books. Actually, strike that - reverse it. His theme was that seeing more reality was what drove people insane. """"




Imagine how I feel. :3eye:

There is an important reality here that has been overlooked... :rolleyes:

If reality exists independent of perception, then none of us know what we're talking about! We are merely reflecting our inaccurate and fundamentally subjective opinions, which mean NOTHING. If what we think equates to nothing, how can our thoughts determine an objective reality? The assumption that reality is tangible is a human assumption and is therefore a misrepresentation in itself. Ultimately this means the question was a waste of time because none of us will ever be able to answer it.

I'm going to go and drink what I think is water but may well be cheese.

ah yes. and thus we have the first 200 chapters of kant (at least it reads like 200 chapters …)

There is the thing-in-itself, the noumena, which exists apart from our perception of it. Then there is the phenomena, the thing-as-we-perceive, which is the perception in our mind, which applies our rational categories to it (cause and effect, movement through time, essential properties, etc.)

The rational mind can only make logically demonstrable statements about the phenomena, the thing-as-we-perceive, or about pure reason ideas. Reason cannot make any claims on the noumena, the thing-in-itself. It cannot export its findings and claims regarding the phenomena and say with certainty that they attach to the noumena.

This is the critique of pure reason – it can only deal with the perception of the thing. Therefore, we can only operate as solely rational beings within the world of the phenomena, not the world of the noumena.

Kant makes the argument, however, that there is correlation between the two worlds – and I’ll make it when I get a minute.

-sm

noumena. I like that word.

There are certain schools of metaphysical thought - Buddhism is the one that I am the most familiar with - that believe it is possible for a person to actually see reality. The Buddhist's call this state "enlightenment" and believe there are enlightened beings. One of the premises of Buddhist philosophy is that the "self" as most people experience it is a delusion. There is only the greater "Self" or consciousness of which we are all a part. By letting go of one's small self, one also lets go of the self's life experiences and "sees clearly with eyes unclouded by longing."

Buddhists teach that in order to reach that level, you must completely let go of the "self". Which essentially means to remove all of the tint on the glass of your window of perception.

But the size of your window to look at reality is still limited. It is impossible for anyone (including the "enlightened") to see all of reality though if there truly were enlightened people, they would see actual reality but the amount of reality they could see would still be limited to the size of their window of perception.

But in the end there is only one reality and that reality is independent of perception. Imagine you are at a peep show with those windows that open and close. You can only see what is within the view of your window. And while there are windows all around the show inside giving different angles, the view in the window is not what is happening in the showroom anymore than a painting of a puppy is a puppy.

The glass in our booth is tinted, and our window opens and closes for a short time (in this case for as long as our money lasts) because our life is limited in length. So even if our perception (window) were not tinted, we still couldn't see things from all angles, and we'd still miss the parts of the show before and after our window was opened.

I like that, mar, but once a person reaches enlightenment, don;t they then move to the next phase of existence in a different reality altogether?

that might have been what i was thinking about, monkey, but it was a long time ago.

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid isle of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

H.P Lovecraft, Call fo Cthulhu

Well, in the realm of Buddhism, I am the smallest grasshopper, but this is what I understand: A person who attains enlightenment remains in this world, in this existance. There's a Buddhist saying, "Before enlightenment you chop the wood and carry the water. AFTER enlightenment, you chop the wood and carry the water." An enlightened being remains right here with the rest of us, s/he is simply now AWAKE, as the Buddha put it. To be enlightened would be to see both the percieved realty and the actual realty, knowing the difference and not feeling disturbed at it because one has let go of all attachments to ego or a particular set of beliefs.

Some branches of Buddhism teach that those who attain true enlightenment are not required to endure the continual cycle of being born again into this life and the suffering which life brings. Instead, the enlightened being has the option of going to heaven (nirvana) after s/he dies which would be the next phase of existance, I suppose.

However, Buddhist belief has it that many enlightened beings take what is called the Bodisattva Vow, where they make a sacred pledge to return to this life in order to help all other beings attain perfect enlightenment. A Bodisattva vows to keep coming back until even the lowest house fly, even me, even Radar attains perfect enlightenment and all suffering is then at end. Those Bodisattva's got their work cut out for them!;)

Are there any living bodisattva's? are there any that have acheived enlightenment alive today? is the dali lama enlightened?

Buddhist's believe that there are. In theory it could be possible for even you or I to attain enlightenment through serious Buddhist practice and under the guidance of an enlightened teacher. I have met a Buddhist monk who was SOMETHING, enlightened, whatever. He did not run around claiming enlightenment or acting like he was better than everybody, nor was he on drugs or something. He was extremely spiritual, extremely devout, and he radiated the most incredible PRESENCE. I am a skeptic by nature and dislike organized religion of any sort. But there was something about that Buddhist monk that I have never seen in another person. He emanated complete tranquility and the greatest compassion. Was that enlightenment? I don't know, but I would love to attain his outlook, I can tell you that.

As for the Dali Lama, many Buddhist's believe that he is enlightened. Perhaps he is, I don't know enough to form an opinion one way or the other.