Objective reality

[Brian]

Brian

 

But you said that the image is re-emitted at the mirror? If it is re-emitted then why does my eye not strain to see the reflected forest?

 

I would say that when we see, we see from nowhere.  The distance between the eye and the mirror is an illusion.  The troubl focussing is due to our belief in our spatial location vis a vis the mirror.

 

This reconciles the difficulty you talked about earlier between the re-emission theory and the bouncing theory.

This helps to illustrate, BTW, why we still teach physics by building upon simple "everyday" observations rather than starting with, say, quantum theory and working back towards "common sense reality." It turns out that "reality" and "common sense" are joined primarily at the doors of perception. If we were to begin with, for example, quantum electrodynamics then we would lose most people with the math, and if we were to begin with, for example, the concept of future events altering past options then we would lose most people with the strangeness.

[Brian]

Please don't mistake me, however -- I have no problem with the concept of "objective reality" but I have come to recognize that our subjective perception of and "rational" understanding of that reality is a fluid and impermanent thing.

[Karl]

No grief I'm aware of how it sounds from your view point. Hey, I may well be proven wrong. Wouldn't be the first time I've had to rethink my opinion...although, it would take something incredible to warrant interest.

 

The thing is it isn't a case of right and wrong. It is how things are. This is very difficult to get across because we have been conditioned to think a certain way. Right and wrong has been with us since we entered primary school. A tick for right, cross for wrong. Red stop, green go.

 

Try to think of it in different and more neutral terms if you can. What is true for you, is objectively true for you, even if the thought is subjective. So, it isn't wrong, it's just how it is. When it's different, then it will be how it is. See, it doesn't change. I'm not the teacher stood at the blackboard scowling because you gave an answer he didn't agree with. That is subjectivity, it has no place in reality. Don't let those emotions transfer-you know the ones in school don't you ?

[Karl]

Karl

 

 

You know, if there is one thing I will say for you...you are at least a bit different.  Non-duality is so modish, that its rare to hear the logical counterpart.  But I still hope you don't take it too seriously.

 

You forget. I've been there. I didn't go straight to rational logic and objectivity. I didn't even know it existed and had I known, I doubt at the time I would have shown the slightest interest in it. Too early.

[Karl]

Please don't mistake me, however -- I have no problem with the concept of "objective reality" but I have come to recognize that our subjective perception of and "rational" understanding of that reality is a fluid and impermanent thing.

 

Doesn't have to be, it's a choice. It might not be where you are, but it doesn't matter, either way is the choice you make, neither right nor wrong, good or bad.

 

I didn't really know what I was trying to achieve, right up until the point in made no difference anyway.

 

 

[Brian]

You forget. I've been there. I didn't go straight to rational logic and objectivity. I didn't even know it existed and had I known, I doubt at the time I would have shown the slightest interest in it. Too early.

What many are trying to tell you, Karl, is that the incredibly important transformation you experienced is not the ultimate one. I honestly can't tell you what the ultimate transformation is because I haven't experienced it but I can tell you there is a level beyond the one you currently occupy.

 

Most people never make the transition you have made -- including some in this thread -- and even fewer take the next step.

[Marblehead]

It is quite impossible to think objectively. We can strive to become aware of our subjectivity in thought and to consciously attempt to take that into account but the illusion of objectivity is a trap. This is not to say that "objective reality" doesn't exist, mind you, only that it is not so firm as we often wish to believe.

 

 

I am hesitatingly going to agree with you.  There are many things we need understand about our senses and functioning of our brain before we can understand that nearly all our thoughts (but not our experiences) are subjective.  If we can experience the moment without thought then yes, our experience will have been objective. 

[Karl]

Thanks for your condescending evaluation

 

It's not meant to be. Do I really seem that arrogant and patronising to you ? I'm not dismissing it, I'm just saying that I don't particularly want to get involved in a heated discussion about something on which I cannot provide much commentary beyond saying it was your imagination.

[Stosh]

I'm thinking  The explanation about the mirror is seriously flawed , the 'reflection' isn't from the glass , its from the silvered back, if the light is all absorbed by the silvering , as if it were the source,  then a mirror would be as dull as a non mirror and the basic direction of propagation wouldn't be preserved. 

[Brian]

Doesn't have to be, it's a choice. It might not be where you are, but it doesn't matter, either way is the choice you make, neither right nor wrong, good or bad. I didn't really know what I was trying to achieve, right up until the point in made no difference anyway.

Yes!

 

What you perceive as "objective reality" and how you choose to interpret and rationalize that perception is inherently subjective and is subject to change. What you believe you perceive to be objective reality, however, is not really objective reality but is your current limited perception of reality.

 

Same applies to my perception of reality, too. After exercising the intellect for many years, though, I one day learned to observe that intellect from a new perspective and suddenly saw that the intellect is fundamentally limited in perceptive ability but it is also a control-freak. That doesn't mean tossing the intellect out but rather keeping it on a leash, viewing it as a tool to be used appropriately and carefully.

[Brian]

 

I'm thinking The explanation about the mirror is seriously flawed , the 'reflection' isn't from the glass , its from the silvered back, if the light is all absorbed by the silvering , as if it were the source, then a mirror would be as dull as a non mirror and the basic direction of propagation wouldn't be preserved.

The purpose of the glass is to provide a smooth platform upon which to lay down the crystalline metallic film. Some of the photons are absorbed and re-emitted from the glass itself (distorting the image) but most pass straight through it.

[Karl]

What many are trying to tell you, Karl, is that the incredibly important transformation you experienced is not the ultimate one. I honestly can't tell you what the ultimate transformation is because I haven't experienced it but I can tell you there is a level beyond the one you currently occupy.

Most people never make the transition you have made -- including some in this thread -- and even fewer take the next step.

 

I haven't experienced a transformation. There is no ultimate. There is progressive learning that all.

 

You are looking for levels that don't exist, you are as you are that's it.

 

I tell you it's our education system that has bashed out all the good stuff, but brainwashing isn't permanent. We can learn outside of a strict institutional tyranny.

 

The other day I was watching a programme. It was about primary schools. The kids were being taught to 'express' themselves.

 

I ask, you, go into any home or park or playground where toddlers play and 'expressing' themselves is hardly an issue. They are bundles of emotional energy, screaming, crying, fighting, hugging, kissing, brooding. It's full on, non stop emotional chaos. However, do they exhibit a lack of objective critical reasoning ? I think it goes without saying they show absolutely none at all. They are wrapped in imaginative worlds, they go knocking into things, falling, running in front of cars, eating worms, swallowing pennies.

[Brian]

I am hesitatingly going to agree with you. There are many things we need understand about our senses and functioning of our brain before we can understand that nearly all our thoughts (but not our experiences) are subjective. If we can experience the moment without thought then yes, our experience will have been objective.

Precisely. Get the intellect out of the way and it becomes possible to experience "that which is."

 

Can't intellectualize it, though, or explain it completely. This is why we make and improve upon models which abstract and simplify things in order to wrap our heads around them.

[Karl]

Yes!

What you perceive as "objective reality" and how you choose to interpret and rationalize that perception is inherently subjective and is subject to change. What you believe you perceive to be objective reality, however, is not really objective reality but is your current limited perception of reality.

Same applies to my perception of reality, too. After exercising the intellect for many years, though, I one day learned to observe that intellect from a new perspective and suddenly saw that the intellect is fundamentally limited in perceptive ability but it is also a control-freak. That doesn't mean tossing the intellect out but rather keeping it on a leash, viewing it as a tool to be used appropriately and carefully.

 

I think we have already done this already. Your arguments are completely based on logical reasoning sound or unsound). If you insist that your reasoning is entirely subjective then why should I even reply to you ? You are telling me you can't know what your saying is true. You need reason to construct an argument and the argument and thoughts have to be objective to survive in order that you can pose them.

 

This is logic 101. The very base. Get rid of all the theory stuff and you are left with that one thing. If your arguments are all subjective then they are groundless, floating fantasies.

[Marblehead]

 

Can't intellectualize it, though, or explain it completely.

I guess that's from where "Those who speak do not know and those who know do not speak." comes from.

[Brian]

I haven't experienced a transformation. There is no ultimate. There is progressive learning that all. You are looking for levels that don't exist, you are as you are that's it. I tell you it's our education system that has bashed out all the good stuff, but brainwashing isn't permanent. We can learn outside of a strict institutional tyranny.The other day I was watching a programme. It was about primary schools. The kids were being taught to 'express' themselves.I ask, you, go into any home or park or playground where toddlers play and 'expressing' themselves is hardly an issue. They are bundles of emotional energy, screaming, crying, fighting, hugging, kissing, brooding. It's full on, non stop emotional chaos. However, do they exhibit a lack of objective critical reasoning ? I think it goes without saying they show absolutely none at all. They are wrapped in imaginative worlds, they go knocking into things, falling, running in front of cars, eating worms, swallowing pennies.

No transformation? Your own words reveal something completely contrary to that statement.

 

The idea of "steps" or "levels" is a manufactured one for the purpose of intellectualizing -- the transformation isn't along a continuum but the lumpiness is not discrete and predictable.

 

Contemplating changing perspectives, though, gives some insight into the on-going process of transformation.

[Brian]

I think we have already done this already. Your arguments are completely based on logical reasoning sound or unsound). If you insist that your reasoning is entirely subjective then why should I even reply to you ? You are telling me you can't know what your saying is true. You need reason to construct an argument and the argument and thoughts have to be objective to survive in order that you can pose them. This is logic 101. The very base. Get rid of all the theory stuff and you are left with that one thing. If your arguments are all subjective then they are groundless, floating fantasies.

LOL

 

Don't believe everything you think, Karl.

[Stosh]

The purpose of the glass is to provide a smooth platform upon which to lay down the crystalline metallic film. Some of the photons are absorbed and re-emitted from the glass itself (distorting the image) but most pass straight through it.

Agreed, the glass is moot, the silver would be absorbing all the light in virtually no thickness, which would increase its thermal energy at the surface , then it would have to re-emit at specific wavelenths in a specific direction with no interference pattern. A laser would heat up the mirror. 

[Marblehead]

I guess that's why Chuang Tzu told us to keep our mirror clean and blemish free.

[Brian]

Agreed, the glass is moot, the silver would be absorbing all the light in virtually no thickness, which would increase its thermal energy at the surface , then it would have to re-emit at specific wavelenths in a specific direction with no interference pattern. A laser would heat up the mirror.

Think about other surfaces -- a sheet of glass, a smooth lake, a polished stone, an eyeball, the surface of the moon, a cloud. All absorb and emit energy but the penetration depth relative to the wavelength of the photons has a huge impact on the appearance of that emission.

[Marblehead]

I look wiggley when I look at my reflection in flowing water.

[Stosh]

Think about other surfaces -- a sheet of glass, a smooth lake, a polished stone, an eyeball, the surface of the moon, a cloud. All absorb and emit energy but the penetration depth relative to the wavelength of the photons has a huge impact on the appearance of that emission.

Again agreed. This firms my point though, since there is no width to the perforation through which the light propagates , the diffraction pattern isn't created. If the light is absorbed  then the backing would get hot unless there is some other effect which 'remembers' the inflow orientation of the photons and preferentially makes new ones of the correct wavelength to spit out . 

[Stosh]

I look wiggley when I look at my reflection in flowing water.

I look wiggly in a mirror.  

[Karl]

LOL

Don't believe everything you think, Karl.

I don't, that's why I have a great piece of filtration equipment which gets used for checking objectivity. I don't believe everything I see, hear or read either until it's been through the objectivity mincer.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Karl

[Brian]

The electrons at/near the surface do the absorbing and emitting. No perforations needed. The energy gaps between electron orbits determine which photons get absorbed and which pass through. The smooth surface helps to flatten the image.