by Terry 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Your 3 year old son was very smart. Yes, that man on the TV screen was not really a person but an image . However, the newsman on the TV screen was/is a real person and the information (the news) he provided was a representation, reporting and the REALITY of the news of that day and time.
So, what's your point? Oh, forget it . I remember you don't care to respond to my questions.
Maybe we are just a simulation in some super mega quantum computer.
This question only will be fully answered when we can build one to us and see what happens.
The test of knowing if a picture is from a real object or a renderization is basically zooming in and see what the pixels tell to us. If we zoom in the real world we will end in a little bunch of "pixels". Our reality can be computerized.
If it's true, our existence is a little disappointing. It's not like Matrix b/c we have no "real" parts. All we are is a super mega simulation guided by simple laws.
Unless we can find some way to cheat our world computer. That's would be great.
Clearly Reality means different things to many people, and the 5 senses reality is what they mean most times, with out probing deeper into the mechanics of manufactered sensations felt by the psyche as only simulalizations and not in themselves the real thing.
Which may be a real paradox loop when you come to think of it. A tangled web of known/knower. I think Ultimate Reality may be able to be experienced as Cosmic consciousness where perhaps one experiences being the all embracing one-thing but one can never be concusive about such a thing as being possible, perhaps it is some wishful thinking that has lead some to conclude they have experienced Ultimate Reality, the highest Samadhi it is all so subjective any way when we speak of experience you can't get away from it it seems.
The reason is that I find individual reality regarding the same events or things differs , sometimes in imperceptible ways and other times in significant ways. This may be due to our unique point of view (either physical or attitudinal or both).
Well, I think I understand what you are saying-but-I have to take issue with HOW you've worded it, if you don't mind.
A boulder is a boulder when it is sitting in the middle of the highway regardless of whether you see it clearly or even understand it or perceive it to be
a shadow. Our perception OF things is irrelevent to what reality IS.
There is only one reality. Opinions differ ABOUT reality. What we think, feel or believe makes no difference to that reality.
It does bother me when, in a philisophical discussion, words aren't carefully weighted for exactitude. But, that's my fetish:)
Above and beyond the everyday events we experience, there seems to be a fundamental problem with reality even in the quantum world where the position of a speck of nanoscopic matter is reduced to a statistical probability and where another particle can exist in two places at the same time. How do we reconcile that?
The problem you are experiencing is due, once again, to WORDS and not the reality itself.
Quantum physics can only be described accurately using numbers/math and not words.
The way physicists locate a quantum partical explains why the path is changed in the process of observation.
Specifically: either light (photons) or electrons, etc. collide with the quantum particles to reflect back to the observer where it is.
That violent action changes what is going on.
The "two places at once" strangeness is a result of how location is measured in the first place.
You have probably heard it said that by "observing something we change it". That really intends to say: we interact physically for observation purposes.
Rip van Winkle says:
Your 3 year old son was very smart. Yes, that man on the TV screen was not really a person but an image . However, the newsman on the TV screen was/is a real person and the information (the news) he provided was a representation, reporting and the REALITY of the news of that day and time.
So, what's your point? Oh, forget it . I remember you don't care to respond to my questions.
My point is that clarity and specificity don't come easily unless we take great care in our vocabulary, observation and reasoning process.
In everyday conversation with each other this sport of pedantic exactitude is laborious and unnecessary certainly.
But, in science, philosophy and Law our deliberate care is richly rewarding as it yields useful data.
I didn't understand your last sentence about my not responding to your question.
I didn't understand your last sentence about my not responding to your question(s)..
In response to your OP, I asked you several questions:
Why would you place all JW's in the same category?
Why would you say that members are "unwitting criminals with zero personal integrity"?
How many witnesses do you know?
How many people do you know Terry that are 100% honest in everything that they do?
Are you?
Do you mislead people?
Do you always tell the truth?
Are you happy?
~~~~~~
Maybe I should have clarified and specified, as they were not rhetorical questions.
"The problem you are experiencing is due, once again, to WORDS and not the reality itself." -- OK, I grant you that there may be some semantics there. Therefore, we should consider what it is we mean. In your statement above, you refer to "reality itself". I think, from reading your entire comments, that you speak about an extrinsic reality, the one that exists whether we exist or not, the one that tells us the universe will still follow the laws of nature whether we're here or not. That reality is based on deduced principals (the laws of nature) which we have devised to explain our observations.
Based on those observations, we believed once that there was a luminiferous æther permeating the universe. Based on those observations, we decided that time was universal and absolute (Newtonian). Then we decided that time was relative (Einsteinian). Now, there's a new theory where time may contract but only locally (the revived Lorentzian) or that time does not exist all-together (the Julian Barbour premise). Those are serious conclusions (not yet full proofs) that explain reality in fundamentally different ways.
So what is reality? Is it that which we observe on a daily basis -- the sun comes out; the streets get wet when it rains; I feel pain and pleasure; if I get too drunk I'll vomit and have a hangover; etc. If we deny that what we observe or experience is filtered and manipulated by our senses and limitations, then we have no need to question what we see, hear or learn via our senses. We would accept and assume everything without question. We would then trust our feelings, imagination without question. There would be no differences of opinions.
On the other hand, it is the doubt of what we observe that has led many to question their own reality regarding what nature is and go beyond what the majority believes. So reality, in the most fundamental way, may be something other than what we can experience the way we cannot experience what matter really and truly is, because we can't really touch it or see it at its most basic nature.
We think it is atoms, composed of protons, electrons and neutrons, which in turn are made of quarks, which in turn are made of... Perhaps matter is not made up of atoms at all and is really made of one-dimensional strings that go in and out of several of a total of 11 physical dimensions. Perhaps matter is neither of those and instead is made of minute propagating waves that not only connect everything in the universe but do away with all the problems of Quantum Physics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BTcmuGdLCU
If we can conclude that a bolder in the middle of the road is one reality, it doesn't mean for example that my near-death experience, when I saw a light at the end of a tunnel and saw all my dead relatives on the other side awaiting for me full of immense love is also reality. Think about all the little things in between the bolder on the road and vision of heaven that can vary in perception from person to person. Yes, there is a reality. But I think that while we can identify and agree on some if it, there are slightly different versions of it due to our individual perspective and also to our physical and sensory limitations.
" The way physicists locate a quantum partical explains why the path is changed in the process of observation." That may be. But the classical quantum conundrum is that if you locate it, you cannot know its weight, charge or anything much else about it. If you know its weight or charge or spin, you will have no idea where it is. That is the Heisenberg Principle. It's like trying to figure out what a snow flake is like by touching it. The very act of finding out via your touch prevents you from ever knowing its makeup. The snow flake is real. But, your idea of what it really is (but for our other senses) will remain elusive.
That's how sometimes reality is to us. Our bolder in the middle of the road could be made from card board and happened to have fallen from a truck headed to a movie set. What is reality? Reality is a bolder. Is it? When you stop to examine it using other ways (not your sight because it looks just like many other boulders; not your smell, because boulders generally don't have odors; etc), you may find that it's not made up of cardboard but of synthetic foam. If you could look at it not in person but from a video, you might be able to tell that vegetation is crushed leading up to the bolder (telling you it come from somewhere else). Maybe that might indicate that it's real and not foam. But if someone else just drove past it, his reality of the boulder would be different from your reality tested by careful examination and verification.
" The 'two places at once' strangeness is a result of how location is measured in the first place ." -- Not quite. The discovery has led some to suggest "faster-than-light" communication and the possibility of instant tele-transportation. What you suggest is that the method of measurement yields two different location. OK. If the methods are correct, then there ARE two different location each with the entity being measured. This is also related to the Heisenberg Principle since any number of measurements of a particle can yield multiple locations.
Reality vs Delusion" Reality can only be realized through rational thought & reasoning. However, that reasoning must be based solely on whats really there & that isn’t always easy. "
Well R v D, I think it's a happy coincidence, your avatar name. As for its appearance, your description is quite amusing and close to my slightly warped view.
I think I mostly agree with you about perception with one major difference: the way we achieve or determine reality. You say:" Reality is not a perception, an idea, or a belief. Our personal understanding, knowledge, and feelings are simply NOT reality. They are only our limited understanding, our limited knowledge, and our feelings " and "Reality is simply fact and is beyond our personal perceptions and feelings". My major fundamental concern is that reality, whatever it is, is limited to how we attain it. I mean that in a very profound sense as well as in everyday life. Here's one example:
I have a recurring pleasant reality when I pet my tiny fuzzy dog. But along with other capabilities, I have determined that I have never done anything like pet my tiny fuzzy dog. Petting involves touching and atoms do not actually touch. So my perception of touching, softness, warmth, smooth or rough does not involve the experience of my atoms "mingling" with other atoms. It has more to do with the secondary effects of forces I don't fully understand operating on my atoms and causing tertiary waves that my brain interprets as touching, softness, warmth, smooth or rough. Moreover, I can actually experience the exact same sensation without actually petting anything. I have done so many times with other sensations in my dreams and it seems just as real.
But for a slight condition in our brains (like not being able to feel pain), our reality is severely altered. CIPA (Congenital Insensitivity to Pain with Anhidrosis) is a rare genetic condition that makes the bearer unable to feel pain, heat, cold or even the urge to pee.
As we move in complexity up the world line, reality is even more subject to our limited perceptions. Imagine if we could see the world in the entire range of light spectrum. Our reality would be significantly different. What I'm suggesting is that while we share a great deal of commonality in our share reality, there are variances, subtle and not so subtle, that affect that reality.
I think you're right in saying that "Reality can only be realized through rational thought & reasoning". That is precisely an indicator that reality is not always correct by virtue of our perceptions. With reasoning we can possibly come to a more accurate understanding of what reality is. If we just hold to what we observe we are giving in to our person delusions, the ones that cloud our perception of what we would like to know is true and real.
I'm suggesting that as a species, we have limitations and that as individuals we have a nuances that affect our view of the world (reality). Even with the deepest kind of reasoning, it may still not be possible to determine what the nature of the world is, in a literal sense. We have not yet determined whether light is a particle or a wave or both. We can't determine where an electron is and if we do, we know nothing about its state; we can't determine the nature of matter at all. Yet, we assume something and go on.
I was a Mathematics major in college and was blown away when my Calculus professor proved, using the basic rules of addition and subtraction that 1 + 1 = 3 (given a=b and a=1 so b=1). I know that it's based on a mathematical fallacy. But you can't tell that using notation and can only know after substituting for real values. Even so, there are a lot of mathematical oddities that push the boundaries of reason. Math is not a natural science and therefore is not subject to the same rules of verification. In the observable world, however, we must constantly test our observations in order to determine what is real. Why? Because what we think is real sometimes is not.
Ultimate reality isn’t known right now. One day, someone will probably prove it with mathematics and eventually it will become fact. I imagine we will be greatly disappointed in how unimportant we really are in the entire scheme of things. Today's grand ideas will be seen as naive hundreds of years from now, as it has always been.
People who become fascinated with the idea of quantum physics or other sciences and then make claims about how knowing science gives them “magical thoughts” or special understanding should be ignored. It is no different than someone who claims to have all the answers about god. Just ask them to prove it & they will reply that you have to have 'faith' in one form or another.
It is just another form of escapism. It is the abandoning of reality in favor of a desperate personal delusion.
Etude, it seems you are describing experiences. Experiences are hugely important to our survival and enjoyment to life, but they are not reality. Ideally, I would imagine our experiences and reality should be very similar, with some differences to allow for our personality.
True, every person experiences an object differently, but the object will always act according to its nature. Reality is the nature of the object. Our beliefs about the object are only accurate if they match its true nature, but our experiences with the object can be anything we chose.
While the observer may alter an object, it is only because the nature of the object allows it to be altered. We are living within a system that gives us plenty of control, but to control nature, we must recognize the reality & function of the system.
Our core thinking has to be grounded in reality. If experiences, wishing, imagining, or truly believing altered the nature of reality itself, then schizophrenia would be a superpower.
