Is there an absolute reality?

OK OK I know. some of you are thinking, "Great now seagypsy has gone all stupid on us."

Bear (Bare, whichever works better for you) with me and humor me. I have no idea if I put this thread in the right forum so feel free, mods, to move it where you feel it is most appropriate.

Our human brains are capable of playing all sorts of tricks on us. They are also our only means of perceiving reality. Since it is apparent even here on sciforums that perceptions of reality vary greatly, at times, from one individual to the next. Is there any way to be sure of an absolute reality. Sorry for going to Hollywood but as in the Matrix, yes I know I'm risking silly here, humanity is deluded into believing it is living in a false reality simply by manipulating the perceptions of the people.

Don't get me wrong, I am not in the belief that aliens have us under mind control or any nonsense like that. I'm just wondering how we can be sure that there even IS an absolute reality to perceive. Is it possible that the reason that one person cannot grasp what another one says is because their brain simply interprets something to them that is different than the other person's brain does. Is it possible that reality is determined by the one perceiving it? Is it possible that we all exist in our own separate bubbles of reality? I have heard of Multiverses but have no idea what that means exactly or if it is considered a concept worth consideration among respected scientists. But if it is, is there a possibility that we each exist within our own universe and our reality does not exist outside of that universe. Ok, even I think that sounded crazy but I don't know how to word it so that it doesn't sound crazy. So humor me. I get these passing thoughts in my head and until i find a way to satisfy the questions they won't get out of my head.

I am guessing this will be entirely subjective so feel free to give any thoughts on it, and please folks, do try to be nice to each other. And no need to call me a nutjob, my answer to that will be, 'DUH!'

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To date, all evidence has supported a reality existing independently of any particular person's perception and that reality is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. There has been no evidence that has contradicted this. Hope that helps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well you may not really exist, nor may I, but someone somewhere, if not myself, perceived that you passed that information on to me and I have accepted similar logic to accept that there is no evidence for the existence of a god. So I don't see why I shouldn't consider it good enough to accept that there is no evidence of alternate realities. Wow, I didn't think I'd get a good answer so fast.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It sounds like you might be slipping down a solipsist slope. Here is a thought that might help you out of it. If you inject yourself with anesthetic, you can cause your consciousness to cease for a short period of time. In other words, you can use reality to turn your mind off for a period of time... and that period will occur consistently, persistently, and non-contradictorally.

 

Well if nothing else, I at least learned a new word. The one in bold, i had assumed at first that it was a really bad typo and you were intending to say i was slipping down a sloppiest slope. I think it gave Neverfly a chuckle as he confirmed it was a real word and so I looked it up. It does not seem like a slope I want to be slipping sloppily down. And by the definition of the term in wiki it contradicts the type of mentality I try to be supportive of. And that would be a logical one.

Ok so your suggestion that I sedate myself heavily. That confirms my own existence and the existence of the chemical I inject. If the chemical can exist outside of my mind then other things must also be able to exist outside of my mind. Unless the chemical does not actually exist, I merely imagined it to explain how I turned myself off. Sheesh, I'm doing it again. If I were going to imagine how I turn myself off I would not choose to do it with a needle. Needles suck. I would imagine I can turn myself off simply saying "suspend activity for 5 minutes". I wouldn't want to just say "off" because that would not allow my brain to reactivate to turn itself back on. So ok yeah, back on sane track. the chemical Must exist and if it must and can then so must other things.

I hate my imagination sometimes.

 

Looking back at it, I did have some typos in there (I fixed them); however, solipsist was the intended word :3. And yes you got the point of the thought experiment.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN6XPoMD7hk

 

This one feels more like me right now...[video=youtube_share;9CqbO_5FKRc]http://youtu.be/9CqbO_5FKRc[/video]

 

I thought you were already fully sure on this matter, and that you know absolute reality.

 

I am pretty damned sure of the reality that I perceive. I was questioning the possibility of alternate realities and if there are, what are the limits to my own. Or is the reality I experience the one and only reality that we all experience, however our brains are all wired differently so we all perceive the same reality differently.

I am as certain as any human being can be that there is no god and that the reality I perceive does actually exist. But it is always healthy to question oneself from time to time and consider other possibilities. Regardless of how absurd they may seem to us. I don't see much of that willingness to consider on sciforums but its quite possible others simply don't do it publicly as I have here.

 

You shouldn't take the bait, sg. It's not like she's actually going to discuss the matter with you.

 

I take the stance that it does not matter, the pain and pleasure feel real enough. I work within the rules of this reality be it a false reality or not in order to minimize suffering and optimize pleasure.

 

Steven Pinker’s paper, “How the Mind Negotiates Reality” was good.

"Space, time, causality....We can’t think without them, yet we can’t make sense of them. Though we can never directly know the world, it’s not as if one could know the world without some kind of mind, and the minds we are stuck with harmonize with the world well enough for science to be possible."

 

Another good argument is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_a_hand

 

@ Cheezle,
What if that hand was perceived differently by everyone.
To conform to my beliefs; I must subscribe to alternative theories about reality. I could be swayed, but as for now this is where I stand.

- We all view reality differently much like computer monitors in a game world. I believe we share information about the world on a psychic server. I further believe history can be altered to affect the present, as I cannot see any other way for law of attraction to exist (if you believe). Time must be only an illusion based on probabilities and reality is only what we witness at the moment. So I would argue against an absolute reality, and would say the closest thing to such a place would be in a place where many people are gathered and all creating something similar such as a sports win, american Idol, or the Eiffel Tower.
- I believe suggestion is more important to our psyche than most could understand, and can make objects vanish or appear in our realities, and matter can vary depending on beliefs.

I understand we all have our own beliefs and that mine is not popular and is almost religious in nature, but I feel I have seen more Empirical Evidence of Telepathy and Law of Attraction than most here. It is important to understand that the outcome of empirical research is never proof. Support it, reject it, or do neither.

I would only be open to entertain theories that would explain what I know I have seen, and therefore cannot support absolute reality.

I know this is an unpopular view on sciforums but I also believe many here have had little experience with telepathy and other conditions I would require in a hypothesis.

 

Hi there, yes is my answer, and it is a monumental struggle to get in touch with it and maintain that connection. I was just wondering today what will happen to all the countries that have grown their populations to basically misery levels, huge populations whose big hopes of the individuals were raising children and getting an afterlife. The best afterlife anyone will be able to look forward to, besides the figurative one of leaving behind accomplishments like scientific breakthroughs, will be from lifespan limits having been raised by a factor of two or so, a hope basically dashed by the huge population on the planet already.

 

I suppose you have empirical evidence to support your claim?

Do you know all human beings and what they are able to see or not see?

Do you see yourself as an exemplary, representative human being, whereby all those people who claim to believe in God, are somehow sub-standard, non-representative human beings?

 

This is a subjective thread. Relax. I KNOW how my brain has perceived and interpreted reality to be. I am limited by my perceptions just like anyone else is. That is why I said I am as certain as any human CAN be. Your reality may vary.

 

Uh.

Philosophers have been pondering these things for millennia ...

 

There is no God.

Get over it, already.

In order to account for the supposed mythical God Being- one must try to come up with a massive conspiracy theory to explain why, not only is this God absent but also, contradicted by physical nature. Evolution Theory does more than just remove the necessity of a God/Creator, it demonstrates the notion of a creator as absolutely absurd.

To believe in a God/Creator, while aware of BBT and Evolution Theory, one would need to convince themselves of absurdities of magnificent proportions that would likely indicate extreme insanity.

It's very basic, Wynn.

So if you want empirical evidence that there is No God;
Here ya go:
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://www.genomicsnetwork.ac.uk/me...ynthetic Biology and Intelletual Property.pdf
http://classes.biology.ucsd.edu/bggn231.FA07/2.R2.pdf
To heavy? Let's try Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology
Smithsonian on Human Development:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
Still too much for ya?
Let's try grade school level:
http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence

The pounding of the chest whenever you think you've got an atheist backed into a corner because one cannot prove a negative is getting annoying.
Fact is, there is so much overwhelming evidence that there is no divine creator, no soul, spirit, ghosts or an other fanciful thing that a person would have to be either ignorant or very, very deluded if not ignorant in order to actually believe in such a glaring absurdity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html

This looks like you grabbed onto a misinterpretation of the post and ran with it naked and slathered in peanut butter.

Philosophers are as impressive as goat shavers.