Reality vs Perception

This forum is for discussing philosophy. Academic, non-academic and new.
Discuss existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
For questioning, critical discussion, rational argument and systematic presentation.
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:57 pm

Reality vs Perception

Post by admin » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:52 am

Can we say that perception is a part of reality?

We are a part of reality and we perceive so perception is a part of reality.

I have frequently heard it contended that the truth isn't so easily defined, that every individual has his own particular view of reality. The suggestion is that in light of the fact that each of us sees the world through our own particular eyes, reality itself is distinct to each one of us.

The suggestion is that in light of the fact that each of us sees the world through our own particular eyes, reality itself changes from individual to individual.

While it's a fact that everybody sees reality in an unexpected way, reality does not care about our observations. Reality does not change to adjust to our perspectives; the truth is what it is. The truth is reality. The truth will be truth.

Reality, be that as it may, isn't generally a known, which is the place that an impression of reality comes in. While the truth is a settled factor in the condition of life, each view of the truth is a variable.

There is no competition between reality and perception, only between each individuals perception.

Each of us is a part of reality and so is our perception.

Serendipper
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:00 am

Re: Reality vs Perception

Post by Serendipper » Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:34 am

admin wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:52 am
Can we say that perception is a part of reality?
Yes of course.

The outside world exists inside your head, but your head exists in the outside world.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Psychology

In biology, the unitary approach makes it explicit why no organism can be thought of without an environment. An organism as a skin bag is no functioning system; it may be such only together with the relevant environmental parts. The same applies to neurophysiology or “cognitive” brain research: without the rest of the world the nervous system is not a system at all; neither is the agent of the behavior a part of the body, such as the brain.

Therefore your mind isn't in your head; your head is in your mind.

That doesn't mean your head is an illusion existing only in your mind, but that the whole universe is a system of which your mind is a part of and in which your head exists.
I have frequently heard it contended that the truth isn't so easily defined,

"Truth" is a property of a concept. <--- The truth of that statement is a property of it. A statement is a concept that conveys a concept and has the property of a concept where "property" and "conveyance" are also concepts.

So a statement is a concept that concepts a concept and has the concept of a concept (which reminds me of the smurfs :) )
that every individual has his own particular view of reality. The suggestion is that in light of the fact that each of us sees the world through our own particular eyes, reality itself is distinct to each one of us.
Yes, each organism calls into existence its own reality.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear the noise, does it make a sound? The pressure waves exist, but sound requires ears and a brain.
While it's a fact that everybody sees reality in an unexpected way, reality does not care about our observations.

I'm not sure. We cannot observe reality without also changing reality and that is one reason we will never observe the pinpoint essence of reality. There really is no distinction between you and everything else.
Reality does not change to adjust to our perspectives;
You can't be kicked around by reality because there is no one there to be kicked around. Or alternatively, there is nothing to kick you around because you are all of it. Either way works. There is no distinction between you and your environment; it is all one system.
the truth is what it is. The truth is reality. The truth will be truth.
Truth is a property of a concept, but what is true? What is good, bad, right, wrong, real, unreal? It's subjective because a subject needs and object and truth is a property of the system of a knower and the known. We can't have a knower without a known or a known without a knower. What exists in your reality may not exist in mine. I'm cold; are you?

Other links:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333975
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333976
https://philpapers.org/rec/JARTTO-2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10885546
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26539155
Serendipity - the occurrence of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way; life; learning.

User avatar
encode_decode
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Reality vs Perception

Post by encode_decode » Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:34 pm

It is going to take me some time to sift through your reply. I do however offer the following about truth:

First we should consider what truth actually is: I prefer one of the usual meanings—that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. But this meaning presents it's own two problems and they are >> 1. What is fact? and 2. What is reality? The fact part is easy given that it is synonymous with truth but reality is not so. How do we define real given that there appears to be more than one version of it?

Affecting and being affected . . .

Reality then has an external appearance that is projected internally and modified to become a mental interpretation of what is real. This involves known facts, beliefs, evidence and other imaginings and perceptions - forgive my redundancy.

Truth then becomes hard to nail down to an exactness that we all seem to wish for and hence we spend time in disagreement trying to sort through it. It is evident to me that belief and truth hold great meaning to an individual.
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

Serendipper
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:00 am

Re: Reality vs Perception

Post by Serendipper » Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:31 am

encode_decode wrote:
Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:34 pm
What is reality? The fact part is easy given that it is synonymous with truth but reality is not so. How do we define real given that there appears to be more than one version of it?
Reality is you. I realize that difficult to comprehend as I've been struggling with it for about a year now, but it's getting clearer. It takes time to grow in the right direction because, after all, that's what learning is... a process of growing new neural connections (as well as hacking away the old ones).

There cannot be a differentiation between what you consider you and what you consider the universe. There has to be an underlying reality that engenders you, but you interpret and influence the reality as well, so it's an infinite regression of reality creating you and you creating reality and so on because, essentially, you cannot look at yourself. You can look at aspects of yourself, but not at the core, so you can never really answer your question. It will always be as a camera looking at its own monitor.

Imagine a cloud of dust that forms a part of itself into an eye and then it takes a look at itself and, try as it might, it cannot look at it's own eye. So it can see outward, but not inward.

You grew out of this universe like an apple grew out of a tree and so you are a part of it and you are the "eye" of the universe which is looking at itself. You are the focus of the universe's conscious attention. Evolution is the universe's way of getting better and better at being more and more conscious in an effort to learn more and more about itself, but it can never succeed in its goal.

Reality is you and you are the intertwined system of the source of your origination and the object of your observation which are codependent on each other in order to exist. Subjects and objects cannot exist independently. You are the nondual combination of the duality of subject/object and that is reality.
Serendipity - the occurrence of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way; life; learning.

User avatar
encode_decode
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Reality vs Perception

Post by encode_decode » Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:30 am

Serendipper wrote:Subjects and objects cannot exist independently. You are the nondual combination of the duality of subject/object and that is reality.
This is an interesting pair of statements that you have made. I will assume that you are aware of the amount of people out there willing to argue with what you are saying. I dont want to argue it because I can see where you are coming from - reminds me a little of The Genius Realms actually and something that David Quinn said to me.

There is a lot to be said about the nondual nature of reality and how it relates to the most fundamental substance of existence, namely unnamed 8-)
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

Serendipper
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:00 am

Re: Reality vs Perception

Post by Serendipper » Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:42 am

encode_decode wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:30 am
Serendipper wrote:Subjects and objects cannot exist independently. You are the nondual combination of the duality of subject/object and that is reality.
This is an interesting pair of statements that you have made. I will assume that you are aware of the amount of people out there willing to argue with what you are saying. I dont want to argue it because I can see where you are coming from - reminds me a little of The Genius Realms actually and something that David Quinn said to me.
Haha yes, I'm actually arguing it right now http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 8&start=25

A lot of what I've said over there I could copy n paste over here... if I could find it again in that infinite sea of words :p I've never talked to David. I keep missing him. I was there in 2016, then left, then you and David entered right after, then left, then I came back lol.

I'm not married to my position and if anyone can tell me what's wrong with it, that would be super, but I'm fairly sure the point to everything is to have an impossible problem to eternally gnaw on.

It's a 2000 yr old idea that's taken me a year just to get this far, so I can imagine how lots of people would offhandedly reject it as ridiculous, and that fact is enlightening in itself. When someone says something you don't understand, do you assume they are stupid or you are stupid? That's the pickle in which I found myself and I simply couldn't call it. Most folks, without a doubt, guard their egos consistent with Dunning-Kruger observations and it's why I have such a hard time with ILP. It's not that people are smart/stupid, but more dogmatic/open-minded. Have you read What is genius?
the amount of people out there willing to argue
Consider the bell curve. That's why these things shouldn't be put to a vote and I'm glad this software doesn't have that ego-pandering "like", "up/downvote" "kudos" crap. This is a nice forum; I like it! Good job! Now, for the love of god, don't change anything :lol:
There is a lot to be said about the nondual nature of reality and how it relates to the most fundamental substance of existence, namely unnamed
On and off is the fundamental vibratory nature of reality. Hide and seek. Existence is not absolute, it's relational. You cannot step outside of reality and point to it saying "there it is!" Reality is both objective and subjective.

Now I know James takes the objective point of view that reality is just a bunch of rocks, but if that is so, then how did we get here? Well because when the conditions are right, the particles coalesce and life magically appears via some obscure function of complexity. So then isn't that a way of saying the rocks are alive? That life is a property of the universe???

I was sitting in a treestand a couple months ago and it just dawned on me like Newton's apple that trees eat rocks. That's the missing link between the apparent non-life and life. Where there are rocks, watchout, because the rocks are eventually going to come alive!

We can go back further: Where there are stars, there will eventually be rocks. Where there is gas, there will be stars. Where there are atoms, there will be gas clouds and where there are fundamental particles, there will be atoms and where there is an energy field, there will be wavicles that pop in and out of existence in opposite pairs. All that is saying that life is an inevitable consequence and therefore life is a property of what there is and so the whole thing is alive, depending how you *choose* to define life.

Is a star alive? It's born, it eats, it burps and farts and has personality and raises a family of planets that follow it around like ducklings, then finally, it dies and is recycled back into the mix to be reborn into something else. One can say it's dead and lifeless if they want to put it down, but I think that choice says something about the person which is unfortunate.
Serendipity - the occurrence of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way; life; learning.

User avatar
encode_decode
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Reality vs Perception

Post by encode_decode » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:24 am

I have thought about all this a bit more and the following is what I have come up with - keep in mind that I have attempted things in such a way as to hopefully give a (even if somewhat blurry) picture of how I approach "things".
Serendipper wrote:Reality is you. I realize that difficult to comprehend as I've been struggling with it for about a year now, but it's getting clearer.
If reality is me then what does that make you?
Serendipper wrote:It takes time to grow in the right direction because, after all, that's what learning is... a process of growing new neural connections (as well as hacking away the old ones).
I have asked the question many times: what is the right direction? How do we know with certainty what the right direction is? After all there are many directions one could follow that claim to be right, each with their beloved disciples.
Serendipper wrote:There cannot be a differentiation between what you consider you and what you consider the universe. There has to be an underlying reality that engenders you, but you interpret and influence the reality as well, so it's an infinite regression of reality creating you and you creating reality and so on because, essentially, you cannot look at yourself.
Hmm, and yet we have made a distinction between the self and the universe with words.
Serendipper wrote:You can look at aspects of yourself, but not at the core, so you can never really answer your question. It will always be as a camera looking at its own monitor.
This reminds me of something Henri Bergson said in his introduction to metaphysics about the absolute and the only way you can connect with the absolute is via the intuition. Everything else is a discrete snapshot of reality and hence not absolute.
Serendipper wrote:You are the focus of the universe's conscious attention.
Interestingly, this is something that is being considered in the thread of the same name at ILP, albeit with a slight twist.

Starting somewhere around here.
Serendipper wrote:Evolution is the universe's way of getting better and better at being more and more conscious in an effort to learn more and more about itself, but it can never succeed in its goal.
I will leave this alone for the time being as it is closely related to more than two contradicting ideas that I am working with that are very stimulating to think about.
Serendipper wrote:Reality is you and you are the intertwined system of the source of your origination and the object of your observation which are codependent on each other in order to exist. Subjects and objects cannot exist independently. You are the nondual combination of the duality of subject/object and that is reality.
I believe this requires more explanation to avoid pointless debate, possibly with a few more simple examples to illustrate where you are coming from. From the "truth" perspective(ie absolutist) your statement seems to fit well that: Subjects and objects cannot exist independently. I do wonder about the usage of nondual combination which points at a homogeneity - is a homogeneous substance a combination? Of course we are looking at things semantically here.
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

Serendipper
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:00 am

Re: Reality vs Perception

Post by Serendipper » Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:38 am

encode_decode wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:24 am
If reality is me then what does that make you?
I'm glad you asked :)

Menachem Mendel of Kotzk said, "if I am I because you are you and you are you because I am I, then I am not I and you are not you!"

We are the same universe expressing itself and observing itself through different lenses. To save space, here's how I explained it http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic. ... es#p159163

(Let me know if you'd rather I copy n paste or link to large blocks of text as I don't really have a preference.)
Serendipper wrote:It takes time to grow in the right direction because, after all, that's what learning is... a process of growing new neural connections (as well as hacking away the old ones).
I have asked the question many times: what is the right direction? How do we know with certainty what the right direction is? After all there are many directions one could follow that claim to be right, each with their beloved disciples.
There may be a right direction, but we can't presume to know it. Evolution is inherently non-teleological and that is what learning is (evolving). If you knew what you were going to learn before you learned it, then why bother learning what you already know? Life and learning is the nonbiased discovery of what is.

A tree doesn't grow a branch because it knows where light is, but the branches that have found light survive and the ones that didn't, die. Now, a tree has learned, by the same passive discovery, that growing against gravity often leads to finding light, but that isn't to say it's teleological necessarily, but is evidence of the accomplishment of previous passive discovery that has been ingrained into what is known as a plant. The observed regularity of gravity has been recognized and harnessed as indication that light may be found in a certain direction. We can do the same with discovery as we home-in on what we call truth.

But to presume what is morally right leads to becoming a monster per Nietzsche's "Beware when fighting monsters that you don't become a monster" and Lao Tzu's "The goodie goodies are the thieves of virtue."

I addressed the value of formlessness today at the bottom of this post http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 50#p159185

I think it's worth pointing-out that embracing a philosophy of formlessness is contrary to the philosophy of formlessness.

"All things in moderation, including moderation."
"The purpose of having an open mind is to close it on something solid."
"Keep your mind sufficiently open and people will throw a lot of rubbish inside."


So there is no "right way" as it's a muddling-along. Water is formless, but conforms to any container. So it's less about being formless and more about being diametrically responsive and opposite to your dancing partner so that the two become one.

That's expressed in the elements: fire, water, wind, wood, earth, etc where water extinguishes fire, fire burns wood, earth dams water, and so on.

And that takes us back to my saying there is no such thing as an advantage without an accompanying disadvantage because if you become formless, I can build a dam to contain you. So the advantage is to be formless as in not having any one style, but also knowing when a certain style is necessary.
Serendipper wrote:There cannot be a differentiation between what you consider you and what you consider the universe. There has to be an underlying reality that engenders you, but you interpret and influence the reality as well, so it's an infinite regression of reality creating you and you creating reality and so on because, essentially, you cannot look at yourself.
Hmm, and yet we have made a distinction between the self and the universe with words.
The distinction is arbitrary. The distinction between the natural and the artificial is an artificial distinction. The distinction exists if you define it to exist, but not otherwise.
Serendipper wrote:You can look at aspects of yourself, but not at the core, so you can never really answer your question. It will always be as a camera looking at its own monitor.
This reminds me of something Henri Bergson said in his introduction to metaphysics about the absolute and the only way you can connect with the absolute is via the intuition. Everything else is a discrete snapshot of reality and hence not absolute.
Intuition is merely previous observation ;) Instinct is the learning you did somewhere between the big bang and now.
Serendipper wrote:You are the focus of the universe's conscious attention.
Interestingly, this is something that is being considered in the thread of the same name at ILP, albeit with a slight twist.

Starting somewhere around here.
Cool I'll check it out.
Serendipper wrote:Reality is you and you are the intertwined system of the source of your origination and the object of your observation which are codependent on each other in order to exist. Subjects and objects cannot exist independently. You are the nondual combination of the duality of subject/object and that is reality.
I believe this requires more explanation to avoid pointless debate, possibly with a few more simple examples to illustrate where you are coming from. From the "truth" perspective(ie absolutist) your statement seems to fit well that: Subjects and objects cannot exist independently. I do wonder about the usage of nondual combination which points at a homogeneity - is a homogeneous substance a combination? Of course we are looking at things semantically here.
What exists is a quantum field of affectance/energy, right? So everything else is a function or artifact of that, right? Therefore nothing is separate or distinct from the quantum field, right? So everything that exists is a manifestation of the one thing that exists and therefore there is really only one thing that exists and that thing is you.

You didn't come into this world from somewhere else like a bird landing on a dead tree. You didn't even come out of this world as if you're somehow a fluke-product of a bunch of junk. You ARE it. Tat Tvam Asi!

There is a lot of profundity in realizing that the entire universe is required to make 1 apple. Isn't that cool?!? 8-)
Serendipity - the occurrence of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way; life; learning.

User avatar
encode_decode
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Reality vs Perception

Post by encode_decode » Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:38 pm

Serendipper wrote:There may be a right direction, but we can't presume to know it.
You are correct. Anyway, I have an idea the rules change to suit a situation.
Serendipper wrote:Evolution is inherently non-teleological and that is what learning is (evolving). If you knew what you were going to learn before you learned it, then why bother learning what you already know? Life and learning is the nonbiased discovery of what is.
Perhaps purpose is something we all find out after the cause of how we came to be what we are. In which case, we should have at least some idea of how we are meant to be for the time being. Evolution is slow and so could be the changing of rules. I agree with the rest of what you are saying here for the most part.
Serendipper wrote:A tree doesn't grow a branch because it knows where light is, but the branches that have found light survive and the ones that didn't, die. Now, a tree has learned, by the same passive discovery, that growing against gravity often leads to finding light, but that isn't to say it's teleological necessarily, but is evidence of the accomplishment of previous passive discovery that has been ingrained into what is known as a plant. The observed regularity of gravity has been recognized and harnessed as indication that light may be found in a certain direction. We can do the same with discovery as we home-in on what we call truth.
I follow your logic here. James once said in a thread on The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Truth is merely the chosen map of the discovered terrain.
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

Serendipper
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:00 am

Re: Reality vs Perception

Post by Serendipper » Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:50 pm

encode_decode wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:38 pm
I follow your logic here. James once said in a thread on The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Truth is merely the chosen map of the discovered terrain.
Yeah I suppose so, but that map could also be a dogma. If a tree acted like some people, it would grow dogmatically into the ground and congratulate itself for steadfastly presuming it had found the sun. This is why I say the hallmark of intelligence is admitting error quickly because anybody can find novel ways of addressing a problem, but not everyone can let go of failing ideas.

The more we become married to our ideas, the harder it is to let go. So don't get married ;)

Be just as proud of your mistakes as your accomplishments because you need them both equally. A tree needs the dead branches because without having exhausted that pathway, it would not have found the branch that led to the light. Many times I have thought about starting a thread showcasing all the times I was wrong... being proud of my humility, as it were lol. It would medicinally balance the pride from being right and provide incentive to admit error.
Serendipity - the occurrence of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way; life; learning.

Post Reply