From: Jason Joel Thompson (jasonjthompson@home.com)
Date: Fri Sep 01 2000 - 13:20:01 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com>
> Jason Joel Thompson wrote,
> > Then you are creating a set which only has value if there is such a
thing as
> > "not"real. But by your own definition, no such things exist (i.e.:
Reality
> > = All things)
>
> Yes, reality = all real things (and all real non-things).
> Note that reality does not equal all unreal things.
> Unreality = all unreal things (and all unreal non-things).
> The definition remains valid and accurate.
It's not valid if "unreal" is a null set. It holds no meaning.
Do you believe that there are unreal things?
If so, please elucidate.
>
> > I'm suggesting a different way of looking at things entirely. I accept
the
> > concept of reality as a working model, but I do not have absolute belief
in
> > an external reality. Not yet anyway. We do not currently have the
ability
> > to perceive reality directly.
>
> What do you mean "we"?
> Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Ah... I see the nature of our disagreement. You believe that you are able
to perceive reality directly?
So, when you look at a pen, you believe that you are directly seeing the pen
as opposed to photons that have been reflected from its surface? You
understand, I hope, that as sensory beings, we must be content with the
reception of signals (for now.) We evolved five ways of sensing our
environment-- this is not a complete set and it suffices only to give us a
particular picture of reality.
I do not place absolute belief in my senses. I am aware of the fact that
they represent information regarding properties of the object and not the
object itself.
Let me try a brief example to illustrate why our perception of reality is
necessarily indirect.
I'm going to abstract the model by one level to see if it becomes more
clear:
Let us suppose that I have a bunch of multi-colored tennis balls, that I am
bouncing up against some object. And let us further suppose that due to the
nature of this object, only the orange balls are 'springy' enough to
ricochet over a wall and land in your lap. Do you think that only receiving
orange balls from the object is an indication that the object itself is
orange? Or instead an indication of a particular property of the object?
--
I could go on. Alien beings may perceive 'reality' in a totally different
fashion from us. What you call an orange pen, they may describe in
radically different terms. "We" (my mouse and I) are simply brains in a
box, sending and receiving signals to and from existence. When we are able
to disassociate ourselves from our physical models of the universe, we
enable our brains to penetrate deeper into the substrate. We cling to a
tactile conceptualization of reality-- objects 'moving' around, etc. Hey,
it's a very good working model for our current condition, but it is a mental
construct that is ultimately limiting. We might dismiss the theoretical
physicists who want to describe reality as vacuum fluctuations, or
collapsing wave forms, but these people are pointing at deeper
constructions.
>
> > Actually, it does. If we draw the distinction you agree to above, the
only
> > 'fact' we have is in our perception of reality. Your belief in the
> > existence of one reality is an article of faith, not fact. Under
current
> > operating conditions we are slaves to a sensory mode of existence.
>
> I don't "believe" in one reality. I accept it as a fact of existence.
And I do not. I am of the understanding that on this planet we are barely
of the intelligence to walk around upright and dress ourselves. I'm not
quite prepared to make definitive statements about the nature of everything
just yet.
If "we" (now I'm talking about you and I) should happen to make it on the
post-human bus, I think we should arrange to meet somewhere, let's say the
rings of Saturn, in... oh I dunno, 100 years? and continue this very
discussion to consider whether our relative viewpoints have changed. I'm
willing to wager a five-spot, right here and now, that you'll allow for
other alternatives (other than the "fact" of reality.) :)
>
> The fact that a person can be fooled into thinking that an illusion is
real does
> *not* mean that a separate reality exists. It simply means that people can
be
> fooled.
Exactly. And it is in the realization that we can be fooled that allows the
mind to open to the possibility that all this ain't real either (or the next
level, or the next level...)
>
> > Again, belief in reality is obviously a good working model. It is a
> > convention of your mind that facilitates your existence. I prefer
however
> > to leave that sliver of skepticism in my mind-- I trust my senses, but
if the
> > nature of things is shown to be fundamentally different, then I am
prepared
> > to be flexible. Further, I am prepared to believe in no "nature of
things"
> > at all-- that we live in the emergent vapor of an existence that is
> > illusory, for instance.
>
> Nevertheless, the illusory existence comes from the ground of being, a
single
> reality with a kaleidoscopic array of illusory aspects.
Why must there even be that single reality? Why not just the shadows?
> > I do hold however, that there are very practical ways in which we can
> > leverage the plasticity of our perception of reality into control over
that
> > reality. If I could sit you down in a room and have a conversation with
you
> > about it, I would, because a written explanation would be tiresome-- I'd
> > have to spend too much time convincing you I was talking about something
> > rational. Indeed, extremely rational.
>
> Ah, but how do you know it's *really* rational, rather than merely a
reasonable
> illusion?
Ah, you see, now you've started this conversation down what I consider to be
the interesting road. I -do- believe in a type of reality-- the realm of
mind.
--
::jason.joel.thompson::
::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:42 MST