What is reality?

[NotVoid]

Reality - what is it?

We all likely have at least some concept in our mind about what 'reality' is, even if we might not be able to articulate well this concept or concepts that we hold about 'reality'. So what is reality actually? Is there 'really' even such a clear cut thing? It seems to me that 'in reality', it is not an easy topic at all to address, all things considered.

A dictionary definition of the word reality will probably give something along these lines:
re·al·i·ty
rēˈalədē/
noun
noun: reality
    1.
    the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
    2.
    the state or quality of having existence or substance.


Also, for consideration, I don't think anyone can deny that wacking your thumb with a heavy steel hammer will probably do some damage to your thumb, and will probably hurt a lot unless you have some paralysis in that area, whether a person 'believes' or not in the reality of heavy steel hammers and their properties.

Generally though when referring to reality, at least in a modern Western view, a widely held view is that it is something that can be *physically* confirmed to 'exist' whether people may believe in it or not, but there is maybe some room in there to at least allow that some 'things' might possibly be real which are not physically observable or physically confirm-able. In modern physics, I believe there are theories of other dimensions beyond what we consider to be the three physical dimensions and time. However, I don't think the concept of reality necessarily needs to be limited to the concept of dimensions.

If a person has some sort of an experience that has a noticeable impact on them to any degree, then does that experience hold 'reality' no matter what the nature of the experience was? For example, a person can have a dream or vision of some sort and potentially be very noticeably influenced by the dream or vision to some degree or other. If something does not hold any 'reality', then how could it influence a person in any way? The clear lines of what 'reality' is may begin to break down a little bit if viewed in this way. A dream or vision may not at all be part of 'consensus reality' in any way, but it can still potentially have strong impact on the individual having the experience. Another example is a given person may focus on something or some activity that is important to them and which has a lot of influence or meaning for them personally, and which can potentially elicit strong change in that person, but which to someone else seems pointless and meaningless and empty. So, what then is 'reality'? Even within the concept of 'consensus reality' there can be seeming 'cracks' that appear from time to time if a person is paying attention, so even the concept of 'consensus reality' is maybe not so clear cut as we might like to think.

Related to this, it seems to me that as long as we are inside a particular 'reality bubble' of some type or other, whether we are talking about 'physical reality' or something on a smaller scale, it can seem very 'real' and consistent; but, if a person pays close attention, they may sometimes notice things occurring that just don't quite fit the 'mold'. A bit of a 'crack' may have formed on the surface of the reality 'bubble', at least momentarily. I believe all people have built-in mental 'protection mechanisms' that help us to block out or dismiss these inconsistencies which we may encounter from time to time, which helps us maintain a more stable sense of 'reality', but we can learn to bypass or at least reduce the influence of these mental 'protection mechanisms' with observation and intent. Certain types of 'cultivation' practices may focus on or make use of similar observation approaches to help us observe or temporarily bypass or reduce the influence of some of our mental filters. Such approaches can potentially help us to see that 'reality' is possibly not what we may think it is. The question may then begin to arise in a person's mind, if reality is not exactly what we think it is, then what is reality? Is there really even some clear cut 'thing' out there called reality?

Personally, I don't think the question can be easily answered, if it can even be answered satisfactorily at all in logical or rational terms, so I am not really expecting answers to such questions. Really I am just expressing some of my own current thoughts and ideas and personal observations on the matter here for consideration, in case anyone might be interested.  :-)

Some notable thoughts by some others on the matter:
Descartes said to the effect, "I think, therefore I am."
Robin Williams said, "Reality. What a concept!"
Popeye said, "I am what I am."
I think these are all views equally worthy of consideration as well, and much more aptly said.

 

[Marblehead]

Let us know if you arrive at any new answers, Okay?

[Karl]

We perceive reality directly through the senses, but we can have conceptual error. ( the case of the stick in the beaker of water appearing bent ). Our eyes do perceive it as it is, but we have to have a concept of light, water, density etc in order for us to understand why we perceive it, yet, just because we then understand what we are seeing it doesn't translate to seeing a straight stick.

Dreams/hallucinations are concepts, to speak of them already assumes we know they are different to reality.

[NotVoid]

Let us know if you arrive at any new answers, Okay?

 

Did you post this to the wrong thread? I really don't know what you mean. I clearly haven't arrived at any answers period. Surely you would know that if you actually read what I wrote however.

[Marblehead]

Did you post this to the wrong thread? I really don't know what you mean. I clearly haven't arrived at any answers period. Surely you would know that if you actually read what I wrote however.

 

Hehehe.  Yes, I read the entire post.  You had some answers but didn't admit to it.  I'm just saying that if you are considering this concept and arrive at something you feel is an answer then please let us know.

 

"Your" answers are in what your wrote.  Did you read what you wrote?

[NotVoid]

We perceive reality directly through the senses, but we can have conceptual error. ( the case of the stick in the beaker of water appearing bent ). Our eyes do perceive it as it is, but we have to have a concept of light, water, density etc in order for us to understand why we perceive it, yet, just because we then understand what we are seeing it doesn't translate to seeing a straight stick.

Dreams/hallucinations are concepts, to speak of them already assumes we know they are different to reality.

 

Hi Karl. Ok, you seem to speak about reality as if it is something that you think is clearly identifiable. If so, what is it to you? My personal view is that 'reality' is maybe not so clear cut as we might think. 'Dream' or 'vision' are just labels to certain types of experience. In my view this in no way determines whether something is or isn't part of 'reality'. We can arbitrarily define that dreams and visions are not real, but that doesn't mean that our definition is necessarily wholly accurate. If a person has a dream that has strong influence on them, then it seems it may hold some degree of 'reality', even if it may be hard to pin down. Those are just some ideas on the matter. I don't hold to any strict view on the matter. Just throwing about some views for consideration.

[NotVoid]

"Your" answers are in what your wrote.  Did you read what you wrote?

 

Hi Marblehead. Did I even write anything? Are you and I even having a discussion?

I do admit that It at least seems that something of this sort is happening. Although something along these lines does indeed seem to be going on, is that which is going on 'really' what we think it is, is more along the lines of what I was looking at. I am really just raising a few questions for consideration. Noting more. I know full well the potential perils of even taking such a minor diversionary course from the norm however.

[Marblehead]

Yes, you wrote something NotVoid.  You wrote words that questioned a concept.  And in your questions are some of your answers.

 

(Are you reading the Chuang Tzu study?)

 

And I think your effort of working with the concept is worthwhile.  There are many different and some incompatible understandings regarding the concept.  Might even be helpful for some.

[Karl]

Hi Karl. Ok, you seem to speak about reality as if it is something that you think is clearly identifiable. If so, what is it to you? My personal view is that 'reality' is maybe not so clear cut as we might think. 'Dream' or 'vision' are just labels to certain types of experience. In my view this in no way determines whether something is or isn't part of 'reality'. We can arbitrarily define that dreams and visions are not real, but that doesn't mean that our definition is necessarily wholly accurate. If a person has a dream that has strong influence on them, then it seems it may hold some degree of 'reality', even if it may be hard to pin down. Those are just some ideas on the matter. I don't hold to any strict view on the matter. Just throwing about some views for consideration.

You are really asking about an axiom. Reality is existence as opposed to the unreal and non existent.

 

These things always have a habit of magically turning into a question of primacy and I hold the view that existent holds primacy over consciousness. In other words existence exists and consciousness is the faculty of grasping that existence. To be conscious, is to be conscious of something so when the tree is shaken out drops existence, consciousness and identity as corollary axioms.

 

I follow objectivist philosophy and this boils down to: existence is identity; consciousness is identification.

 

The axioms aren't reducible, that all we have to work with. The objectivism holds the view that X is X, a thing is a thing, it is what it is and it is nothing else. A subjectivist, or skeptic would hold the view that nothing is exactly what it seems because 'one may not step in the same river twice' 'what's true for you isn't necessarily tru for me' and Max Planck wrapped consciousness into existence and came out with a Nobel prize and quantum theory.

 

Therefore as an objectivist I have my senses and I perceive reality directly, as it is. Any proof is proof based on those same senses. Everything has to be related back to the reality and checked to see if there is error between the conceptual abstract and the perceptual perceived concrete.

 

In plain Yogic terms there is the story of the rope and snake. Perception sees what it sees, the mind may conceive a snake at a distance in the dark and see it moving. The only way to check is to get close enough to use the senses to prove what it is. If it turns out to be only old rope, then it hasn't magically transformed from the snake. Conception was in error, but that can be rectified by resolving it to the perceptual concrete.

[NotVoid]

Yes, you wrote something NotVoid.  You wrote words that questioned a concept.  And in your questions are some of your answers.

 

(Are you reading the Chuang Tzu study?)

 

And I think your effort of working with the concept is worthwhile.  There are many different and some incompatible understandings regarding the concept.  Might even be helpful for some.

 

No, I have been away from this forum for a while. I know well that raising certain types of questions in a forum such as this can bring out interesting responses, shall I say, so all is good. Your responses are welcome even if they may seem like blatant trolling to the casual observer.

[Marblehead]

... even if they may seem like blatant trolling to the casual observer.

I've been accused of that before.  Sad that many people cannot see into the depth of my words.

 

But that's okay.  Some can and that makes it worth while.

[NotVoid]

Thanks for the reply Karl. The objectivist view I guess then is that for something to be real it must be verifiable as existing in 'physical reality'? I mentioned that physicists have theorized that there may be dimensions beyond the three accepted physical dimensions and time. So if the physicists are right about there being other dimensions beyond the observable three physical dimensions and time, then it seems to me that something could be 'real' that we could not observe with our physical senses or physical instruments. However, that is actually not what my original post was about however, as I was not questioning what the limits of reality are and how this concept of reality could be verified, but I was raising questions about whether the general concept of reality itself is 'really' what we may think it is. I personally don't think 'reality' is something that can be determined through logical analysis. People can try, but I think they will likely end up just running in circles. By attempting to do so, I think we would be imposing conceptual limitations on something (or maybe no-thing) that may not fall within those limitations. If so, then we would be off on the wrong track right from the get go. At any rate, I have no answers on the matter. Just expressing some of my current thoughts. Many people likely have some different ideas on such things as well.

Edited August 11, 2016 by NotVoid

[NotVoid]

I've been accused of that before.  Sad that many people cannot see into the depth of my words.

 

But that's okay.  Some can and that makes it worth while.

 

No worries Marblehead. Your comments are always welcome however they may be perceived.

Edited August 12, 2016 by NotVoid

[Karl]

Thanks for the reply Karl. The objectivist view I guess then is that for something to be real it must be verifiable as existing in physical reality? I mentioned that physicists have theorized that may be dimensions beyond the three accepted physical dimensions and time. So if the physicists are right about there being other dimensions beyond the observable three physical dimensions and time, then it seems to me that something could be real that we could not observe with our physical senses or physical instruments. However, That is actually not what my post was about however, as I was not questioning what the limits of reality are and how this concept of reality could be verified, but I was raising questions about whether the general concept of reality itself is 'really' what we may think it is. I personally don't think 'reality' is something that can be determined through logical analysis. People can try, but I think they will likely end up just running in circles. By attempting to do so, I think we would be imposing conceptual limitations on something (or maybe no-thing) that may not fall within those limitations. If so, then we would be off on the wrong track right from the get go. At any rate, I have no answers on the matter. Just expressing some of my current thoughts. Many people likely have some different ideas on such things.

If we can't verify it then it's non existent as far as we are concerned. If we look at a piece of material it looks solid enough, but we know that it's composed of atoms and those atoms are composed of a multiplicity of particles. We can construct experiments and machines that can give us results which we can see using our senses. There are lots of things we don't yet know, but what we see with our senses is all we have to go on. They and we are part of the universe itself, not an alien adjunct.

 

You cannot prove proof. So we cannot go beyond the axioms. Existence exists and our consciousness grasps that existence through our sensing/cognitive faculties. We can only discuss one axiom with respect to another. One day we might discover that the universe is made of ethereal cosmic puffs, but it won't change existence, consciousness or our direct perception of reality. If we stick to proving our inductive conceptual theories through proof of their existence, it's better than wasting time trying to prove the non existence of something, we don't need to and cannot prove the absence of something.

[NotVoid]

If we can't verify it then it's non existent as far as we are concerned. If we look at a piece of material it looks solid enough, but we know that it's composed of atoms and those atoms are composed of a multiplicity of particles. We can construct experiments and machines that can give us results which we can see using our senses. There are lots of things we don't yet know, but what we see with our senses is all we have to go on. They and we are part of the universe itself, not an alien adjunct.

 

You cannot prove proof. So we cannot go beyond the axioms. Existence exists and our consciousness grasps that existence through our sensing/cognitive faculties. We can only discuss one axiom with respect to another. One day we might discover that the universe is made of ethereal cosmic puffs, but it won't change existence, consciousness or our direct perception of reality. If we stick to proving our inductive conceptual theories through proof of their existence, it's better than wasting time trying to prove the non existence of something, we don't need to and cannot prove the absence of something.

 

I think that what we observe or think we observe, or what we can verify within a specific limited framework or system in no way necessarily determines the full extent or nature of reality. When working within the limitations of a framework or system, we are confined to those very limitations. The framework we are within may well highly filter or color or limit our view of what may be a much larger or very different picture overall. The framework we are in may be giving us a very limited or distorted view of overall 'reality'. Just because we cannot easily move or observe outside of that framework, it seems to me that this in no way means that only what can be observed and conceptualized and analyzed within the framework we are 'in' is all that could be real, nor do I think such an approach would necessarily be a complete or accurate overall picture of 'reality'. For all we know we could be way off the mark taking such an approach. A basic example I can think of is a person watching a movie in the dark in a movie theater. If the movie is well done and very captivating, the person is mostly only aware of what is going on in the movie projected onto the movie screen, and not aware of anything much else outside of that, at the time, and if other audience members aren't making noise. From inside the movie theater in the dark, we only know mainly about the movie but we can't observe or know much beyond that at the time and under those circumstances. That's not the best example, I know, but I think it gives the general idea of how a framework can be very limiting and misleading when trying to draw conclusions about a wide scale view about 'something' which may 'extend' way beyond the limitations of the tools at our disposal, whether they be physical tools or physical senses, etc. Therefore, what we think of as reality may potentially be far off from the mark. Whether it is or it isn't is anyone's guess, but as I have mentioned, I think sometimes some 'cracks' can appear, even if only momentarily, which may give hints that all is not really as it may seem. Also, as I have mentioned, there are also various 'cultivation' methods that may be used to potentially help us drop some of our limitations and filters we may have on our perception, if they work at all as advertised.

Edited August 11, 2016 by NotVoid

[Karl]

The fact remains that our senses/perception-and I should add the caveat of a fully working human being-perceive reality as it is. That is regardless of what lies beneath the surface, or beyond the range of our unassisted senses. You can't prove otherwise, all you are doing is conceptualising snakes from rope. We identify virus, particles, genomes that we didn't know we're there, but we could conceive them and then test to see if they were real. Our ability to create abstract concepts, integrate them and make new conceptions is-as far as we know-unique. Because we must conceptualise, we have the ability to question the reality of our perceptions.

 

Thus the three objectivist questions: where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ?

 

If you cannot trust your senses, then you cannot answer the second. Then you can't answer the first, or the third. Do you glimpse the problem ? You see, if you can't trust your senses, then moving straight to some thesis about what you believe, simply holds no water. There is just a conceptual abstract linked to nothing, by nothing, proven by nothing, sensed by nothing. It is a completely floating abstraction. It is pointless to set out to prove your perception is faulty, if proof relies entirely on perceptions of concretes.

 

This is where Kant, Planck and their cohorts have planted the old skeptic seed that consciousness has primacy over existence. If you wish to accept their premise then you must accept that you can't know anything for certain. Everything is subjective consciousness playing out its tune. Therefore consciousness has no identity. Man is a quantum consciousness creating its own universe. To me that's abdication of the human mind. I get the sense of mental surrender and man simply giving up, like the last thoughts of a drowning man who hasn't the strength to fight to survive.

 

I say 'rage against the dying of the light, do not go quietly into that dark place' thus I will act as a beacon, a solitary station cranking out a direction signal to anyone with ears enough to hear it. The mass of lemmings are heading for their quantum cliff, but a few will run the other way. Not many I think, but sufficient I hope.

[silent thunder]

ay yai yai

 

You children now love luxury. You have bad manners, contempt for authority; you show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.  ~ Socrates

[NotVoid]

Karl, I think I see where you are coming from. It appears we differ in points of view.,

 

silent thunder, questioning is natural. There is nothing to fear from it.

[Karl]

Karl, I think I see where you are coming from. It appears we differ in points of view.,

 

silent thunder, questioning is natural. There is nothing to fear from it.

It's kind of a thing you have to prove for yourself, or not. If you now have the alternate view then that allows an examination of your own conceptions. I've been on both sides so I know the strong lure of the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of consciousness argument leaves open possibilities that the primacy of existence slams shut. It seems more expansive, but there is more than one way to expand consciousness, so, if it doesn't work out for you, then at least you have another option. It's more earthy, grounded and one dimensional (Brian tells me) but, like a guitarist with only one finger, beautiful music may still be played within the limits of those confines. Sometimes less is more :-)

[NotVoid]

It's kind of a thing you have to prove for yourself, or not. If you now have the alternate view then that allows an examination of your own conceptions. I've been on both sides so I know the strong lure of the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of consciousness argument leaves open possibilities that the primacy of existence slams shut. It seems more expansive, but there is more than one way to expand consciousness, so, if it doesn't work out for you, then at least you have another option. It's more earthy, grounded and one dimensional (Brian tells me) but, like a guitarist with only one finger, beautiful music may still be played within the limits of those confines. Sometimes less is more :-)

 

Hi Karl. I am not committed to any particular point of view. My own personal observation however is that each and every one of us view the world/universe ('reality') through the filters of our beliefs. It seems to me that there may be little chance of ever getting a better understanding of 'reality' if a person does not first look into the nature of beliefs and spend some amount of time observing how our beliefs influence our world view.

 

As an example of how important I think this is to the way we each perceive the world/universe around us (and likely within us as well), I have observed that when people are immediately dismissive or insulting or attack others' ideas and points of view that differ notably in some way from some important belief or beliefs that a person holds, that there is a pretty high chance that what is really at work is a natural unconscious protection response to try to help protect the stability of a person's own belief system. Because this occurs, it can be very hard for new ideas and points of view to even slightly penetrate the consciousness of someone who may have strong beliefs to the contrary. It appears that the stronger or more important the belief or beliefs are that are being challenged by some other idea or point of view, the stronger the unconsciously activated belief protection responses can be. Have you ever tried to convince someone of something that goes strongly against their beliefs or world view? Good luck with that.

 

The reason I am mentioning all this is that If my observations are at all accurate about beliefs and the associated unconscious belief/world view protection mechanisms being in place in each and every one of us, then if a person does not ever take any time to look into this in them self to see how our beliefs and the associated unconscious belief protection mechanisms strongly influence our perceptions and ability to consider new ideas and concepts, then any other efforts put towards trying to understand 'reality' might possibly be quite hindered.

 

I think there is nothing much more simple than mere self-observation to potentially help improve self awareness. My suggestion here is that any increase in self awareness also may, potentially at least,  work towards an increase in our ability or potential to approach understanding 'reality'. Although perhaps from a materialistic point of view these may seem like two completely separate and unconnected things, I am suggesting that possibly these two things may actually be closely inter-related, if not inseparable.  :-)

Edited August 13, 2016 by NotVoid

[silent thunder]

The process of awakening is far from pleasant and blissful for me most of the time.

It's much more akin, usually, to bathing in paint thinner and having my assumed untruths and unconscious beliefs, systematically stripped and eaten away in the presence of authentic awareness, than it is to some blissful basking in the light of eternally present loving compassionate bliss... although that's there as well... hmm.

[NotVoid]

The process of awakening is far from pleasant and blissful for me most of the time.

It's much more akin, usually, to bathing in paint thinner and having my assumed untruths and unconscious beliefs, systematically stripped and eaten away in the presence of authentic awareness, than it is to some blissful basking in the light of eternally present loving compassionate bliss... although that's there as well... hmm.

 

Hello silent thunder. Even though something may be quite natural and a fairly simple process, I guess that doesn't mean at all that it will necessarily be easy.

Edited August 14, 2016 by NotVoid

[Karl]

Hi Karl. I am not committed to any particular point of view. My own personal observation however is that each and every one of us view the world/universe ('reality') through the filters of our beliefs. It seems to me that there may be little chance of ever getting a better understanding of 'reality' if a person does not first look into the nature of beliefs and spend some amount of time observing how our beliefs influence our world view.

 

As an example of how important I think this is to the way we each perceive the world/universe around us (and likely within us as well), I have observed that when people are immediately dismissive or insulting or attack others' ideas and points of view that differ notably in some way from some important belief or beliefs that a person holds, that there is a pretty high chance that what is really at work is a natural unconscious protection response to try to help protect the stability of a person's own belief system. Because this occurs, it can be very hard for new ideas and points of view to even slightly penetrate the consciousness of someone who may have strong beliefs to the contrary. It appears that the stronger or more important the belief or beliefs are that are being challenged by some other idea or point of view, the stronger the unconsciously activated belief protection responses can be. Have you ever tried to convince someone of something that goes strongly against their beliefs or world view? Good luck with that.

 

The reason I am mentioning all this is that If my observations are at all accurate about beliefs and the associated unconscious belief/world view protection mechanisms being in place in each and every one of us, then if a person does not ever take any time to look into this in them self to see how our beliefs and the associated unconscious belief protection mechanisms strongly influence our perceptions and ability to consider new ideas and concepts, then any other efforts put towards trying to understand 'reality' might possibly be quite hindered.

 

I think there is nothing much more simple than mere self-observation to potentially help improve self awareness. My suggestion here is that any increase in self awareness also may, potentially at least,  work towards an increase in our ability or potential to approach understanding 'reality'. Although perhaps from a materialistic point of view these may seem like two completely separate and unconnected things, I am suggesting that possibly these two things may actually be closely inter-related, if not inseparable.  :-)

Reality is reality: existence is existence. In this respect it does not matter what you believe it does not alter those facts, or the fact that you believe such and such a thing.

 

The problem is believing than consciousness alters reality and then reality shows us how wrong we were. When our internal philosophies are to abandon reason for faith by ignorance or evasion, then we step further away from reality and the conflict between what we believe and how things are imposes a greater burden.

 

The delusion is abandon the mind and trust emotion, instinct, premonition, dreams to figure out reality. They are useful, only if we first know their cognitive cause and then use reason to evaluate our actions. It is best if we stick as close to reality as we can at all times. As I said before, we can choose to evade realit , but we cannot avoid the ramifications of that evasion. Despite our best efforts reality will overcome fantasy, it seems wiser not to fall too far from it and avoid the greater shock. In the old Boy Scout parlance 'be prepared '.

[silent thunder]

Hello silent thunder. Even though something may be quite natural and a fairly simple process, I guess that doesn't mean at all that it will necessarily be easy.

aye... ain't that a truth!

[NotVoid]

Reality is reality: existence is existence. In this respect it does not matter what you believe it does not alter those facts, or the fact that you believe such and such a thing.

 

The problem is believing than consciousness alters reality and then reality shows us how wrong we were. When our internal philosophies are to abandon reason for faith by ignorance or evasion, then we step further away from reality and the conflict between what we believe and how things are imposes a greater burden.

 

Hi Karl. I have not suggested anything in my comments here about consciousness altering 'reality'. I have suggested that whatever 'reality' may be, it seems beliefs can have a strong influence on how we perceive it. I have observed that this typically seems to happen at an unconscious level, but I think we can raise our awareness of how this process works and become more conscious of those mental constructs and processes which strongly influence our perception.

 

Regarding consciousness having a part in possibly creating or influencing/altering 'reality', although I have not suggested anything about this, it seems to me that for all anyone knows for certain there could at least possibly be something to such a concept. I think It would be an unsupportable belief for someone to suggest that such a thing is definitely impossible, just as it is an unsupportable belief for someone to suggest that 'reality' definitely only consists of what we can currently observe and measure and interpret with our physical senses and current physical instruments and current scientific world view, and that our current scientific views of 'reality' are completely accurate and complete. I think current trends in modern physics give indications that whatever reality is, it seems it may well possibly be a fair bit stranger than such a simplistic Newtonian-like view of the world and universe. In other words, It would be very much a matter of faith for someone to suggest that consciousness definitely does not interact with 'reality' in some way or another. This would be a good example of how unconscious beliefs can be mistaken for demonstrable fact. I sincerely doubt that anyone could convincingly prove such an assertion in any reasonable way, no matter how much they may *believe* such to be true. 

 

 

 

The delusion is abandon the mind and trust emotion, instinct, premonition, dreams to figure out reality. They are useful, only if we first know their cognitive cause and then use reason to evaluate our actions. It is best if we stick as close to reality as we can at all times. As I said before, we can choose to evade realit , but we cannot avoid the ramifications of that evasion. Despite our best efforts reality will overcome fantasy, it seems wiser not to fall too far from it and avoid the greater shock. In the old Boy Scout parlance 'be prepared '.

 

You continue to talk about 'reality' as if it is something that is already fully understood in all aspects. I just don't think that is the case. In actuality I think modern physics is showing that the 'deeper' scientists look into such things, the more puzzling it seems to become. From what I understand, modern day physicists are throwing theories around which include concepts such as multiple dimensions and multiple parallel universes, etc. It sure doesn't seem to me like things are at all so straight forward and clear cut. It sounds like possibly despite all we currently know about the world and universe, that we may possibly have a long way to go yet, and some current accepted theories could possibly even be altered yet in the future for all anyone really knows for certain.

 

I won't harp on such things any much further, as I know the pointlessness of doing so. If someone has very strong and fixed beliefs about what 'reality' is, no amount of discussion is likely going to change that, even when it can be pointed out that at least some very qualified modern day physicists them self have been and are considering very strange and abstruse ideas as serious possibilities about 'reality', ideas which may stress and stretch the very limits of our conceptual minds.

 

I personally still maintain the possibility that whatever 'reality' might be, it may possibly be much more different and mysterious at its essence than anything we currently may conceive and assume. That is the essence of what I have been suggesting here. I realize that such a notion may well conflict with some or even many people's beliefs about such things, but that is how I personally currently see things anyway.

Edited August 14, 2016 by NotVoid