PDA

View Full Version : The nature of Truth or what is Reality



Catsquotl
22nd January 2015, 08:30
Lately I find myself wondering about the nature of reality and its relationship to Truth.
As some of you might suspect I like to call everything that is in my immediate sensate awareness Reality or Truth. Much in the way that is explained in Theravada Buddhism.

I do not consider it "The Truth", but for purposes of thinking about it and sometimes talking about it That is, as far as I see anyway, where 2 individuals can agree on what is truth. The distinction made is that of all the tiny sensations that make up a concept of breathing for instance. Not the impression that the mind has of it. Just the bare sensations.

Everything else in my view is open for debate and resides in the realm of idea's, abstractions, imaginations and what not's. Meaning that they can become real into the world of sensate reality, but don't have to.

Now this is where it gets confusing. If I have a very vivid imagining of an event. Does that make it real? If my mind where to interpret a set of sensations, filling in the gaps from its backlog of memories and ideas. Does that make it real. AKA is that then Reality?

Personally I think so.
This process is imho what is meant by we create our own reality.
So let's say you have this dream of being a model.
Your backlog of memories is filled with ideas of hard to obtain ideal measurements. You adhere to the notion that life revolves around money and beauty.
You are almost hired for that modelling job at vogue and you wake up with a huge pimple white head and all on the tip of your nose. The photo-shoot is cancelled because of it. You didn't get the job. You get depressed and commit suicide.

From the outside we/I would say it's ridiculous. Why?
Because from my outside perspective where I couldn't care less what I look like. My job does not depend on it and I have a different set of backlog memories. A scenario like that seems over the Top. Unrealistic on so many levels.
However for the one who just died because of the depression her/his pimple has brought her/him in. All the sensation, idea's and p.o.v lived that reality. So was that Truth? or not?

Anyway just my thoughts..
What are yours?

With Love
Eelco

Seikou-Kishi
22nd January 2015, 09:04
This sounds a lot like Berkeleyan Idealism in many respects, though obviously it is not identical with it. You might find it of interest to study in that direction — particularly within the greater context of realism generally and within epistemology yet more generally.

It seems to commit the fallacy of a category mistake, however. Imagine the following conversation:

1: that's my favourite tree. Oak. Planted by my great grandfather.
2: but I don't see a tree.
1: this one! You rest your hand upon the trunk
2: oh! ... That's not a tree; it's a trunk

And so on for the leaves, the branches, the roots, the acorns, etc.

This is a category mistake. And I think what you have said commits a category mistake in a similar way. If you were to interpret sense data and extrapolate missing information by recourse to history/experience/memory, it would be real in the sense that it was imperfect data supplemented by extrapolation/supposition. If you see a car driving down the road but don't notice the driver, you would probably assume it had one nonetheless. It doesn't mean it had one. The idea is "real" in the sense that it (the extrapolation) really occured, but the key isn't "it is real" but "it is real".

What is the it of which you consider the reality? Is it full sense data, bound by the limits of sense data, or is it an extrapolation based upon incomplete sense data, and therefore bound by the greater limits of such? Etc.

When we come to something like an opinion, it becomes more obvious. Say one person believes in creationism. Is the opinion true/real? Of course: it's true within the context of an opinion, which is to say that it lives up go the requirements of an opinion. Whether or not this opinion is consistent with objectivity and is therefore a fact is another matter.

The true crux of epistemology is not in determining what is real, but in ascertaining an accurate description of this "what" first. If we confuse them or say that all categories of data have the same quality and degree of reality, this is where we commit the category mistake. Indeed, you imply an acceptance of this idea in your original post by saying "... a very vivid imagining..." — this demonstrates that while you do not turn your thought to determining which category of thought you are dealing with, and therefore the peculiar limitations thereto pertaining, you do indeed acknowledge that different limits apply to different categories: thus, the limits applying to a "very vivid" imagining are different than those applying to a half-hearted imagining.

Catsquotl
22nd January 2015, 09:58
Thanks SK,

I think I understand what you are saying. The category mistake however is there. The whole as in the example of the tree only exists if we agree to see all the parts and call them tree together. Sort of like the innuit who distinguish different kinds of snow where non innuit just see snow.

In my work with autistic human beings the following occurs for example.
On a roadtrip through the field one cliënt asked : "Peter? (a colleague) this is going to sound strange, but a see a horses head hanging in the sky."

This is what we saw.
http://www.egelbeek.nl/images/img02Stal.jpg

A realively new development in understanding autism is the idea of context blindness.
In the above example the cliënt was unable to use his imagination if you will to complete the "picture" of the rest of the horse that was hidden behind the stable door.

So even if we agree the rest of the body was there (and I don't doubt it wouldn't be if we would have checked) It raises the same question I am stating above.
Reality is construed from our ability to connect and imagine the rest to get a full picture. The sensate awarenes was just the visual input of the barn and the horses head. We construed a horse from it whereas my cliënt did not.

In thinking about the importance of truth that particular event got me thinking. How important is it to hold/carry the idea of the whole horse around. We could have easily just registered the visual input without these interpretations and it wouldn't have changed the fact we were walking, feeling the sun and conversing.

Another example like that which did impact reality (not my example, but heresay) A young girl that loves to swim. Goes to the beach and refuses in horror/panic to enter the sea. The water was somewhat murky and all she saw were people's heads floating bodyless on the ocean surface. All her previous swimming experiences were in a clear water swimming pool.

With Love
Eelco

Tonz
22nd January 2015, 10:38
If some one screams in space and there isn't a mass for it to resonate to/from ,would there even be a sound, was there even a scream at all if it was impossible to hear?.
Within ones reality it is as it is , the material world is another story.

The nature of truth? with this question i think even nature plays tricks on us,that would mean it's got a sense of humor.

Catsquotl
23rd January 2015, 04:20
This sounds a lot like Berkeleyan Idealism in many respects, though obviously it is not identical with it. You might find it of interest to study in that direction — particularly within the greater context of realism generally and within epistemology yet more generally.


I had to look up Berkelyan and epistemology.
I see the similarity in Berkeleyan idealism, but don't conclude it continues to exist just because God is observing.
What I am thinking is that there are 2 sets of knowledge. The one set sensory awarenes provides. And the set "mind/consciousness" provides which is based on the sensory input. The idea about the data if you will.



It seems to commit the fallacy of a category mistake, however. Imagine the following conversation:

1: that's my favourite tree. Oak. Planted by my great grandfather.
2: but I don't see a tree.
1: this one! You rest your hand upon the trunk
2: oh! ... That's not a tree; it's a trunk

And so on for the leaves, the branches, the roots, the acorns, etc.

This is a category mistake. And I think what you have said commits a category mistake in a similar way. If you were to interpret sense data and extrapolate missing information by recourse to history/experience/memory, it would be real in the sense that it was imperfect data supplemented by extrapolation/supposition. If you see a car driving down the road but don't notice the driver, you would probably assume it had one nonetheless. It doesn't mean it had one. The idea is "real" in the sense that it (the extrapolation) really occured, but the key isn't "it is real" but "it is real".

What is the it of which you consider the reality? Is it full sense data, bound by the limits of sense data, or is it an extrapolation based upon incomplete sense data, and therefore bound by the greater limits of such? Etc.


Don't you think that it is based on what we can percieve of it?
Take a blind man as the second member of the above conversation. In his reality a tree would never enter his sensory awareness as it will in those who see. Because he is limited to touch he will have a fragmented awareness of the parts that make up the tree yes? It will be his mind that will construct the tree if he follows when he feels his way around the oak and deducts that all parts are connected so they must be 1 entity called a tree.



When we come to something like an opinion, it becomes more obvious. Say one person believes in creationism. Is the opinion true/real? Of course: it's true within the context of an opinion, which is to say that it lives up go the requirements of an opinion. Whether or not this opinion is consistent with objectivity and is therefore a fact is another matter.

The true crux of epistemology is not in determining what is real, but in ascertaining an accurate description of this "what" first. If we confuse them or say that all categories of data have the same quality and degree of reality, this is where we commit the category mistake. Indeed, you imply an acceptance of this idea in your original post by saying "... a very vivid imagining..." — this demonstrates that while you do not turn your thought to determining which category of thought you are dealing with, and therefore the peculiar limitations thereto pertaining, you do indeed acknowledge that different limits apply to different categories: thus, the limits applying to a "very vivid" imagining are different than those applying to a half-hearted imagining.

I used the very vivid imagining reference, because in my experience it takes very vivid to make an idea more real in the sense you use your imagination to add some believed sensory awareness around it. Half hearted awareness imagining in my view will stop at the idea level, where very vivid can engage the senses. Much like hypnotism I gather where the believe someone is touching you with a burning cigarette where in fact its an ice-cube can cause a burn blister.

Can I ask what you think about how Truth can be know and how it relates to reality?

With Love
Eelco

Catsquotl
23rd January 2015, 04:24
If some one screams in space and there isn't a mass for it to resonate to/from ,would there even be a sound, was there even a scream at all if it was impossible to hear?.


I don't know if the rest of the world would agree, but the screamer (if he had screamed before in a place where there was resonant mass. Would certainly have the experience of screaming even though he missed the sound of it. His mind would create the truth for him that he was screaming from his backlog.

The rest of the world would have a long philosophical discussion maybe.



Within ones reality it is as it is , the material world is another story.

The nature of truth? with this question i think even nature plays tricks on us,that would mean it's got a sense of humor.

WIth Love
Eelco

Tonz
23rd January 2015, 11:32
Now this is where it gets confusing. If I have a very vivid imagining of an event. Does that make it real? If my mind where to interpret a set of sensations, filling in the gaps from its backlog of memories and ideas. Does that make it real. AKA is that then Reality?

I must say Eelco , experiencing this myself ,at times i prefer it more than the physical reality .
I have, in general been forced ,in some sense,to accept this as escapism from our daily lives , that it's a remedy to help put up with routine..........
At times i must admit that has been true!lol
But also at times i know it is not. It is not in my past meditations and is not in my present as i live my life with a feeling everyday that there is more , more happening , more realities that i am participating in simultaneously , When i focus i know this to be true , at least for myself ,,,,,,,,,,hard for me to explain ,,,,,,Is any of this actually true? For me at least yes it is.
I think the most difficult thing to understand about truth is its mutable levels and time frames, in fact i dare say that it is probably one of those words that can be a word and can be a phase on its own. At least that is how i use it , it also is forever incomplete, things that are incomplete intentionally, are things like you and me , the heavens and Sofia ,ever evolving , so truth can not be put in a box and say ''yep that's it ,wanna see it , it's in the box.''

The search for the true nature of the truth can only be within imho although it would be so much easier if it would fit in that god damned box.

Catsquotl
23rd January 2015, 11:45
The search for the true nature of the truth can only be within imho although it would be so much easier if it would fit in that god damned box.

I agree,

The latest example of personal truths was given to me an hour ago.
I picked up my 2 youngest peeps from school ( 4 and 5 yrs respectively). The were having a conversation about what they enjoyed most that day. Both said physical exersice.
My youngest said the elder didn't have PE.
He replied yes I did remember? I was in your classroom (which is also the pe classroom) and you were in mine?
My youngest replied, But I did not see you have PE.

Being the fiesty little critter she is. She refused to believe my son had had PE and enjoyed that most of all.
In here world He is lying.

With Love
Eelco

modwiz
23rd January 2015, 12:01
A duality based polarized mind will be limited to perceiving only the truth that fits that way of thinking and unity will remain elusive. So will reality perception.

Catsquotl
23rd January 2015, 12:59
A duality based polarized mind will be limited to perceiving only the truth that fits that way of thinking and unity will remain elusive. So will reality perception.

Thank you,

Just goes to show I'm a better reader than a listener/watcher.
This is exactly what you have been talking about in your video's is it not.

Gawd i'm slow on the uptake lately.

With Love
Eelco

Hermit
23rd January 2015, 20:57
Eelco!

Have you read any Thomas Reid or John Searle?

Seikou-Kishi
23rd January 2015, 22:34
Hi Eelco,

The reference to Berkeleyan Idealism was specifically a reference to the idea "esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived") and how a perception is equated with truth (that is, by a conflation of the phenomenal and the noumenal). Berkeley's use of god to explain the apparent permanence of the world is a classic example of how philosophers, in a fit of cowardice or incompetence, have often resorted to what scientists today call "the god of the gaps".

Berkeley used the idea of perception in the mind of god as a way to explain the apparent permanence of the world even in the face of inconsistent/intermittent perception. It is, in other words, a plaster over the cracks in his theory, rather than the foundaton of the theory itself.

Truth and knowledge are phenomenal conditions, whereas the best I think we are capable of down here is a network of "intersupportive" ideas — if this sounds like nothing more than a whole clot of circular reasoning, it wouldn't be an inaccurate impression. Trying to arrive at complete truth is like trying to arrive at perfection from imperfection. It is trying to arrive at an infinitude via a series of finite quantities.

When it comes to very vivid versus half hearted imagination, and how very vivid imagination is more real because it is more convincing... Doesn't this suggest that something is real if it is convincing, and consequently that, for example, the only lie is a lie which fails, etc.?

Concerning the blind man — he can increase his knowledge by investigation using those faculties remaining to him. If your idea was true and that his understanding was impaired, it would also be the case that human scientists would never have discovered the electrosense of creatures like sharks: we have no ability to sense what they can sense, and yet we are able to understand it anyway.

Personally, I am not convinced that "the truth" in the sense of absolute truth is possible. At least "down here". It seems to me that we can only arrive at relative truth and seek to improve that. For this we need a broad scope to assess how ideas "interact", and we must assess the coherence between them. Only absolute truth is infallible, thus we should accept the fact that unless we have that, we will always contend with a degree of falsehood. We can minimise that falsehood with diligence, but not, I don't think, eliminate it completely.

Catsquotl
24th January 2015, 05:14
That reminds me of something my father wrote to me when I was 6 or 7.
"You don't need the world to see, The world needs you to be seen."



When it comes to very vivid versus half hearted imagination, and how very vivid imagination is more real because it is more convincing... Doesn't this suggest that something is real if it is convincing, and consequently that, for example, the only lie is a lie which fails, etc.?

I ma unsure about this one. I think the above statement must be false. However as I am investigating the relationship between Truth and Reality it seems to work that way doesn't it? If enough people believe the lie, reality will be percieved warped through the lenses of the lie does it not? Lets take the lies Hitler put forth. The amount of people believing him caused reality to become a war against the percieved evil-doers.


Concerning the blind man — he can increase his knowledge by investigation using those faculties remaining to him. If your idea was true and that his understanding was impaired, it would also be the case that human scientists would never have discovered the electrosense of creatures like sharks: we have no ability to sense what they can sense, and yet we are able to understand it anyway.

We have no way of knowing how the blind man percieves Reality. If he accepts his sense input he could stop at experiencing the parts and leave it at that e.g not have knowledge of the tree. It's his mental faculty that construes the whole. the tree. A thing people with sight will see as a whole imediately probably.

I agree that Perfect Truth is hard to grasp if at all possible "down here" That said there seems to be a realation between Relative Truth and percieved Reality.

With Love
Eelco

Catsquotl
24th January 2015, 05:14
Eelco!

Have you read any Thomas Reid or John Searle?

I don't think so... Should I?

With Love
Eelco

Seikou-Kishi
24th January 2015, 08:08
When it comes to the first statement appearing to be false (that the only lie is a lie which fails), I agree. That was my point lol.

With the second, I agree again: we have no way of knowing how the blind man perceives. However, we can extrapolate based on our knowledge with sharks and others that senses we don't have are not beyond our comprehension. If we can understand that sharks have the ability to accept data we can't and how this contributes to their view of the world, it is not beyond a blind man to understand that we have the ability to see reflected light, and how this allows us greater access to the world.



Lastly, there is a relationship between relative truth and perceived reality, and it's coherence. When two pieces of knowledge contradict each other (reduced coherence), it becomes necessary to consider which is greater and which should take precedence. Say you'd grown up believing dogs can't climb trees, and yet one day see a dog do just that. You'd have to decide how to reconcile those contradictory ideas. When it comes to the first, it is an example of inductive reasoning in that a subset is used to declare general rules concerning the set (all observed dogs have been unable to climb trees, and generalising from this that (all) dogs are unable.) This allows you to reconcile them, because inductive reasoning is inherently imperfect. So is sense data, of course. Did you really see what you thought? Do you remember correctly? Etc.

The clearest truths are those which are true a priori, but most of these are tautologies and reveal nothing to little about the world. Within this, there is also the possibility of appearing to be a priori by redefining to suit. The argument "god is that than which nothing greater can be conceived" contains such an argument by definition.

But a lot of the time, which idea is considered true in preference of the other is a popularity contest: thus, ideas which rewrite all we know about physics are almost automatically considered wrong. Coherence is useful but not great. When it comes to a complete lack of true knowledge, coherence works against truth and not for it because it is biased in favour of the existing network of ideas and applies ony to things within that web and not the web itself.

Shezbeth
24th January 2015, 09:35
In japanese (it may be noted that I have a penchant for things japanese) the word for reality is 'Genjutsu'. In a comparable sense, 'Genjutsu' is also the word for illusion.

Wrap your minds around that one!

Catsquotl
24th January 2015, 11:51
Wrap your minds around that one!

Cool, but it sounds like Maya to me.

With Love
Eelco

Hermit
24th January 2015, 20:59
Thomas Reid is...let's put it this way, the prof who recommended the treatis *running to the book shelf now* "An Inquiry into the Human Mind" said it's the kind of book you can take to the beach. It'd a bit dated? But there are moments where you will probably laugh out loud. Awesome read, even if occasionally it slips into concepts that seem pretty common sense at first, but then become a bit hard to defend if you go down certain roads.

John Searle on the other hand I had a really difficult time with, not because it's not difficult to understand: he's just a monist who believes that mind is simply an illusion created by the brain to assimilate sense experience. Put it this way. Once the class was over? I was very tempted to burn the book out of spite. I didn't. I may though! On the other hand, I may wait and compost it instead. ;)

Cearna
29th January 2015, 07:34
Truth is true no matter what. If it sits on what someone else thinks of as Truth, then it becomes "shallow Truth".. If it sits on what someone sees, feels or hears, then it took on their right to see, feel or hear, but may work against Truth, for now it becomes interpretation of that Truth.

There is some need to see, feel or hear this interpretation or you would not be taken to it in your meditation. To get to know who sent it, ask in the meditation to show who sent it, then you will know it is OK to use the ideas.

Now reality or not this is still only right for you to see it, as there are so many meanings to the one idea of Truth.

The definition of Truth will say that all is real, but the mind says "I will only trust it, if I see it", but the Truth was still Truth, no matter what. If you can't see, is it wrong, or is it still real in the first place?

Tonz
29th January 2015, 10:29
The definition of Truth will say that all is real, but the mind says "I will only trust it, if I see it", but the Truth was still Truth, no matter what. If you can't see, is it wrong, or is it still real in the first place?

I would agree and want to, but truth is often an elusive snake , it can take on many forms and just when you think youv'e got it it bites you on your ass!
Just to let me know that i were almost there but not quite enough to catch the real thing.

donk
29th January 2015, 13:36
The problem with the concept of “truth” in the reality that I find myself in is that my experience is saturated with deception, to which I have discovered I was sort of programmed to have an intense emotional attachment to.

It is much easier (for me) to understand my experience by exposing lies, and releasing/healing the damage/attachments. In walking this path, I find myself more aware, more able to function in a way to realize a reality of my liking.

The Truth, if there is one…just is, it’s whatever’s left. Our relationship with that--our ability to accept to that—defines what we are.

You can make it as simple or as complicated as you want, whatever is real…will be. I believe ‘life’/existence is whatever-we-are discovering, experiencing, working toward an understanding of it.

And in this particular incarnation…this here & now, this infintisimal slice of All That Is…is one where consciousnesses like whatever-we-are (and including YOU, whatever-you-are) have been intentionally by whatever-something-else-is consciousness hiding that from us, manipulating the reality-experiencing-vehicle we find ourselves in to have intense emotions (whatever they are) that tend to be stronger than the receptors that sense whatever-is-actually-here.

Just my understanding of it. I believe all “truth” to be negotiable. And have spent considerable energy attempting to disprove and/or expand on this understanding. So far, that all I got.

….oh and the only thing I REALLY believe to be true…need to have “I” or “me” qualifying it. I guess you can call it “faith”, but I believe my thoughts about my experience is about as close as real as I will ever to be able to come….not sure about y’all…but am fairly certain Truth will be what’s left, when we all stop lying to ourselves….

donk
29th January 2015, 13:40
**Please note, the previous comment is from a being that has never experienced anything “outside of time”. If time is really a lie, than so is “reality” (at least as far as I have so far been able to remember experiencing it). So be it.

That reality may be a lie, is a Truth I live with. I may not “really” live…but it seems like believing I do makes whatever it is that real worthwhile enough to keep doing it.

Hermit
29th January 2015, 19:38
1. How does one expose a lie, if one is not already familiar with what the idea of truth is, and the content of that truth? If you're able to expose lies my friend, then I would say you're in possession of some kind of truth; and if you're in possession of some kind of truth, then I would submit that the problem isn't so much finding out what's true and what isn't, but rather what you want to be true and what is true. That, my good buddy, is a real bitch of a problem for most of us.

2. If it's negotiable? Then what you're in possession of my friend is not truth. Truth is non-negotiable. Period. How we relate to it, twist it, pretend to ignore it, adapt to it, or live it, is negotiable.

3. The hardest part about this is knowing that we're lying to ourselves to begin with. That's what ascension is about when it comes right down to it. Stepping with both feet out of the pail of horse ****e we're standing in.

You're closer to being real than you think. ;)

donk
31st January 2015, 14:11
I guess we all are "in possession" of the truth, it's just elusive to truly comprehend. Seems like we it's easier for us to recognize that which conflicts with it, if we are open to that.

Perhaps it's the "level" after that which is worth living, searching for? An openness as much to the truth, inherent--internal-- to all of us, as we are to external suggestions that we can see as "lies" (or at least untruths) when we are open to that?

Hermit
2nd February 2015, 20:13
I hope people aren't going to get tired of hearing this...

Donk? If you want the purest reality of the truth, as soon as you can, grow a tomato. Just saying. ;)

And I'm really glad you're here that I may be a witness to your process. Also just saying. ;)

donk
2nd February 2015, 21:48
Truth is the tomato that grows without my planting it. (They call them "volunteers" round here and tell you they're no good, they're my favorite anyway)

It's so effing cold outside right now the only thing that can grow out there are my nipples (don't get any ideas bro)

Tonz
3rd February 2015, 09:21
It's so effing cold outside right now the only thing that can grow out there are my nipples (don't get any ideas bro)

but if you plant the seed!

ronin
3rd February 2015, 13:02
truth is a expression of creativeness.
creativeness comes as a thought form or energy.
travel the wave back to the source of creativeness.
to nothing.
nothingness could be truth.

and /or both and everything truth could be agape.
pure nothingness agape expressing it,s creativeness.

Hermit
4th February 2015, 19:50
It's freezing here too....which is why I am thankful to have graph paper, seed catalogues, and grow lights.

Now you don't get any ideas!

But yes, it's a three-smarty day out there as well. I'm feeling perky. :D