Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Perception and reality

26 replies to this topic
DreamsLieHere
  • DreamsLieHere

    Pleasure principle

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2007

#1

Posted 26 October 2008 - 10:54 AM


"Perception is reality"- a phrase I saw in a friend's MSN nick.

And it got me thinking- is our perception a reality or is our reality just a perception?

Or do they mean the same thing, just that they're written backwards?

If our perception is reality, then what if someone's perception of something different?

Let's take a red Washington apple and observe it.

To us, it appears red because we recognize red pigments. Our eyes possess the biological capacity to view and identify the colour that an apple "is". Now, most of us are able to do that, but what if I told you there were people who see apples as say, green?

Or see musical notes as colours, or vice versa?

Let us assume that their condition (synesthesia) is true and that they geniunely are able to do such things, so their notion of 'reality' is obviously not the same as ours.

Now, how about reality being just our perception?

What if reality is not real or does not exist?

After all, our sensorial experiences exist because of well, our senses. What if we lived in vacuums- unable to feel, hear, taste, smell or see? What if reality is just one black box out there and this world is just a mass of intelligently fused semi-perceptible ideas and feelings and energies that the masses are able to interpret as such due to their biological functions?

Is it right to dismiss that which we cannot comprehend?

Do we even exist?

We have attributed our existence to a certain physical and mental capability to comprehend its non-viability of non-existence. But does it really mean we do exist?

But wait- what IS existence? What are memories? Biology attributes memories to neurological impulses that are stored in certain areas in the brain. This information can be graphic or otherwise.

For patients with amnesia, their minds are a tabula rasa- a blank state, wiped clean.

My, how fragile our memories can be. How volatile they are.

What ARE we? Are we the same person we are 9 years ago?

We probably looked like crap 9 years ago (unless you're like, 9 years old, whereby you'd be awesomely cute), and our body sheds and makes new cells all the time.

We grow up (or sideways haha) and we get older. Our features get altered, yet our persona is the same.

Or not. We could have behavioural changes, attitude changes, so many changes.

But we are the same person we are when we were born. We are still our names, yet we are not.

What are we?

Hayden
  • Hayden

    Dear diary, I wish you were a taco.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Feb 2006

#2

Posted 26 October 2008 - 10:58 AM

We are beings of thought based in physical life forms in a universe that is constantly changing. Everything is relative.

Also, try the Debates and Discussions forum if you want intelligent discussion.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#3

Posted 26 October 2008 - 11:09 AM Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy, 26 October 2008 - 11:35 AM.

Perception is not reality at all.

I suggest a set of three courses from Landmark Education Corporation, myself.

They get to the heart of such ontological conversation rather quickly and they coach you until you get it.....but that is just from my own experience.

Perception belongs to another place altogether and has to do with Interpretation.

Then there is another place in between the two that strongly affects/effects you and your Area of Interpretation called the of World of Agreement which is still separate from the said placement of your Interpretation although connected to it in some ways.

The methods are very specific and considered owned by Landmark Education Corpeoration so, I can not say much more about it here.

You should check them out IMO, they have several locations all over the planet and their coaches are the best trained on the planet in such matters, a class costs relative to what it should and varies from area to area, in the states the cost for each of the basic three classes is about the same as a college course of equivalent level. They do not advertise and the only way you ever hear about them is if someone tells you and this thread was just enough for me to mention them to you like this in passing.

This is all very ontological and ontology is the name of the course for conversation you are embarking on, regardless of where you have it. Ontology may have its beginnings as a philosophy, as many sciences do, yet it is indeed advanced to the level of a science, now.

Regards, HGF

Spelling Edit.

Suction Testicle Man
  • Suction Testicle Man

    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2002
  • None

#4

Posted 26 October 2008 - 11:13 AM

Moved to D&D.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#5

Posted 26 October 2008 - 11:16 AM

Thanks for the move Suction Testicle Man. icon14.gif

This thread will fare far better, here.

DreamsLieHere
  • DreamsLieHere

    Pleasure principle

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2007

#6

Posted 26 October 2008 - 11:16 AM

Thanks man.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#7

Posted 26 October 2008 - 11:42 AM

Your questions seem important yet your subtittle communicates some frustration in regards to this topic area.

Have you found anywhere else for such intense conversation or is the GTAForums your only current location?

DreamsLieHere
  • DreamsLieHere

    Pleasure principle

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2007

#8

Posted 26 October 2008 - 11:47 AM

Just wanted to see your views/opinions about this.

DaSanAnThug
  • DaSanAnThug

    860

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Jun 2008

#9

Posted 26 October 2008 - 11:49 AM Edited by DaSanAnThug, 26 October 2008 - 11:52 AM.

QUOTE (DreamsLieHere @ Oct 26 2008, 10:54)
Are we the same person we are 9 years ago?

i had a topic (still have, it just died) about that same thing.

here.

quote didnt work so i´ll just copy/paste this:

"then i had an idea. what if the human mind is the memory. what we go thrue in life change us.
those events make us who we are. if someone experiences something traumatic.. they´ll go crazy.
because that event changed them. now they are a different person than what they were before the trauma.
so therefore we change all the time. you are not the same person as you were when you started reading this
topic. but the change is so little that no one would notice. if you go thrue a traumatic event you become a way
different person. different enough to see the difference."

"im just correcting my older post..
memories dont make the person. they make the personality.
when we are born our personality is a blank. and our memories will
change that personality."


there you go.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#10

Posted 26 October 2008 - 11:54 AM Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy, 26 October 2008 - 11:56 AM.

QUOTE (DreamsLieHere @ Oct 26 2008, 06:47)
Just wanted to see your views/opinions about this.

Well, you are in the right section now and this section does not put up with the tom foolery of the other which is a guess at the implacation of your subtittle.

What we are is related to many things from which we spawn and what we become and are has to do with many things including the choices we make during our periods of transformation.

I prefer to think of us as the continuation of possiblity yet even with that I can not disregard the places I come from, starting with humanity. (God is not discussed in ontology lest we fall into the ontological aurguement.)

Jack_Knife
  • Jack_Knife

    we usually take all niggas garments

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2001

#11

Posted 26 October 2008 - 11:56 AM

The stoners thread is in General Chat, you seem to have missed it good sir.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#12

Posted 26 October 2008 - 12:00 PM Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy, 26 October 2008 - 12:02 PM.

QUOTE (Jack_Knife @ Oct 26 2008, 06:56)
The stoners thread is in General Chat, you seem to have missed it good sir.

So, to question your existence while looking for validation and the paths previously travelled on such inquirery requires the use of artificial stimulation in your opinion?

Master of Pain.
  • Master of Pain.

    Somewhere I Belong

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2008

#13

Posted 26 October 2008 - 07:38 PM

These questions have been posed since man was first cognizant enough to utter them, and the study of them has formed the foundations of some of mankind's loftiest intellectual ambitions. Modern philosophy, psychology, biology, and many other fields attempt at answers to these. If he wants to truly understand them, he should go seriously study what has already been written but the learned minds of history rather than ask in this forum here.

The great minds of history have read what has been said before them and posed their own questions, which in turn have been read and responded to by great minds that followed. Their words are written down and studied by people today who want to advance human thought in these directions. That's where the real work is being done on these questions, and asking them, in earnest, here, is simply a waste of time.

Jack_Knife
  • Jack_Knife

    we usually take all niggas garments

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2001

#14

Posted 27 October 2008 - 12:35 AM

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Oct 26 2008, 22:00)
QUOTE (Jack_Knife @ Oct 26 2008, 06:56)
The stoners thread is in General Chat, you seem to have missed it good sir.

So, to question your existence while looking for validation and the paths previously travelled on such inquirery requires the use of artificial stimulation in your opinion?

All I'm saying is, it's possible to discuss this kind of thing without going all, "But what if like, reality doesn't even exist, man!"

Also, essentially it doesn't matter at all. I'll let you in on the secret to life: enjoy yourself. That's it. If talking about this kind of stuff is what you enjoy the most, then by all means continue.

Vercetti21
  • Vercetti21

    V21

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2007

#15

Posted 02 November 2008 - 05:47 AM

I've always had an ongoing debate with myself about this. Sometimes I wonder about colors - red, to me, could be green to someone else. Or maybe somebody sees the world like a negative filter, but it's reality to them because it's all they've ever known. Two people could be seeing an apple at once and both call it red, but one person could be seeing it in black and the other in purple.

But of course, no one would ever know if this phenomenon was true because we only have our own perception of reality to judge.

hellfire500
  • hellfire500

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2008

#16

Posted 02 November 2008 - 10:05 AM

listen what Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche has to say about this (this speech has more to do with morality and spiritual perception, not physical)


MorlockGod
  • MorlockGod

    Creator

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2007

#17

Posted 03 December 2008 - 08:31 PM

I love these sorts of discussions. It makes me happy that I’ve stumbled upon the “Debates & Discussion” section for the first time, after observing the frantic GTAIV forum for so long. And what better place to discuss the nature of reality than a forum populated by lovers of Virtual Reality. The modern GTA experience is a perfect way to step aside from the limits of our everyday lives and perhaps learn something about our own nature in the process. I would argue that anybody who spends time within a virtual space to just “be” there and experience the perception of it, is looking for something, for answers. Ok, most people wouldn’t put it in those terms and may even sum it up as mindless escapism… but escaping from what? If reality is considered to be something tangible, solid, physical, then at the very least an experience like GTA blurs the definitions.

If we were to use virtual reality as tool to dissect the distinction between a possible true reality and our perception/interpretation of it then we are still left with one very big problem. I suppose you could call it the “What the f*ck are you talking about” barrier.

If we were to roughly say that perception is a filter between what is being thrown at us and what we are catching, then unfortunately this Thread is screwed. By talking about this subject we are throwing our ideas at each other through that very barrier. So even if one of us were to work out the meaning of life itself then who is to say that anybody else would correctly interpret what they were desperately trying to tell us.

“GTA has taught me the true nature of reality”
“Oh yeah, what is it then”
“Consider a fractal hierarchy of tri-polar energy nodes”
“What’s that supposed to mean?!”
“Ah the question is the answer my young disciple”
“Oh f*ck off, nob-head!”
“No seriously, think about… no, no, don’t walk away”

The discussion of these ideas is definitely very important and healthy, but who is to say we are all talking about the same thing. The more fragile and complex the ball becomes, the more difficult it is to throw it to someone without it getting mangled along the way. But let’s not even get started about “emotion and perspective”… because if you are reading this thread then there is a good chance that you have already felt the frustration of having grand and lofty ideas that nobody else seems to appreciate.

Ah perception – it’s an illusive bugger isn’t it.

Stefan.
  • Stefan.

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2006

#18

Posted 04 December 2008 - 06:26 AM

The way I see it, I think every person has the same perceptions, however we all see things differently. For example, say two people are looking at a red apple. Both of them will call it red, however one person might see it is as "blue", and the other as "green". If that makes sense at all. tounge2.gif

Struff Bunstridge
  • Struff Bunstridge

    ...loading...

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2007

#19

Posted 04 December 2008 - 09:31 AM

I understand the hypothetical argument as it applies to perceptions, but I don't understand the idea that one person might see an apple as a different colour to someone else. Colour is perceived as a result of reflection of light, isn't it? How's it possible that two people's eyes can receive the same light waves but interpret them as completely different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Or have I missed the point entirely?

Stefan.
  • Stefan.

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2006

#20

Posted 04 December 2008 - 09:54 AM

QUOTE (Struff Bunstridge @ Dec 4 2008, 20:31)
I understand the hypothetical argument as it applies to perceptions, but I don't understand the idea that one person might see an apple as a different colour to someone else. Colour is perceived as a result of reflection of light, isn't it? How's it possible that two people's eyes can receive the same light waves but interpret them as completely different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Or have I missed the point entirely?

Isn't it true that we have light filters at the back of our eyes? Isn't it possible that those filters might be of different colours for every person? What I'm saying is that if the light is reflecting onto the different filters, then what each of us see will be different... wouldn't it?

I could be, and probably am, wrong.

Struff Bunstridge
  • Struff Bunstridge

    ...loading...

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2007

#21

Posted 04 December 2008 - 11:00 AM

To my understanding, that's a little like saying that you and I would see different versions of the same programme because our TVs were made by different manufacturers. It's not the receiving equipment that defines what's being looking at, it's the initial output.

Stefan.
  • Stefan.

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2006

#22

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:47 AM

QUOTE (Struff Bunstridge @ Dec 4 2008, 22:00)
To my understanding, that's a little like saying that you and I would see different versions of the same programme because our TVs were made by different manufacturers. It's not the receiving equipment that defines what's being looking at, it's the initial output.

Touche. I knew I was wrong. icon14.gif

However, would the output be the same for everyone, yet the input different?

Struff Bunstridge
  • Struff Bunstridge

    ...loading...

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2007

#23

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:42 AM

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Light is reflected by objects towards our eyes; the structure of the object dictates which parts of the elctromagnetic spectrum are manipulated and processed by us. There's no way an object would be able to manipulate light in different ways for different people. I think the main premise of the last few posts has been the possibility that people might be able to manipulate it in different ways, whether consciously or unconsciously, but given the structure of the eye and the way it works, I'm not sure if that would ever be feasible.

Has this gotten too literal? I think this thread started out with a bit more philosophy and a bit less physics tounge.gif

Stefan.
  • Stefan.

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2006

#24

Posted 06 December 2008 - 06:30 AM

What I was trying to say is a television would emit the same rays from the electromagnetic spectrum, however our eyes (having different pigments at the back of the retina) would see different colours because the input is different. Am I making sense now? tounge.gif

Wanted Assailant
  • Wanted Assailant

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2007

#25

Posted 06 December 2008 - 06:35 AM

I agree with Hypatia's and Plato's take on reality on some note; the realm inside our mind is the highest reality of all and everything you see outside are just objectifications and materials, such as nature or our modern technology.

reptilexcq
  • reptilexcq

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2003

#26

Posted 07 December 2008 - 10:06 AM Edited by reptilexcq, 07 December 2008 - 10:09 AM.

You don't have to use the apple color red and green as an example, to me every individual on this planet already have their own perception of reality. That's why everyone is unique and has their own life...no one's life is the same. For example, everyone can view a girl walking down the street as how pretty she is or not and the degree of prettiness is different for each individual based on all the knowledge they have gained up to that point in their life with their five senses. And they continue to use this knowledge to form their own reality.

I don't agree when you say that you're the same person now as when you're born. I think as individual you change and keep growing constantly and your reality is different as more and more knowledge are gained.

But to answer your question...I think perception based on the 5 senses IS in fact reality in THIS physical world. Because i believe there two worlds....the physical world and the spiritual world. So from the spiritual world perspective, reality of the physical world IS in fact a perception, it is NOT real! You're here in the physical world to grow up spiritually....like a temporary place. That's why everyone don't live forever on this planet. The spiritual world IS reality!

hellfire500
  • hellfire500

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2008

#27

Posted 03 January 2009 - 04:56 PM





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users