We are well beyond that point, my friend. d:
I think we passed that point several years before we even started this...or at least I did. xD
I'd argue that there is a difference between those two, or that at least there could be. Even if our perception of reality were accurate, it doesn't make it complete; the gaps within our own notion of reality are large enough that - in the present time & existentialist wonderment notwithstanding - we have no way of truly knowing. Religion wonders of God and science speculates of dark matter and the edge of the universe. In the same vein, despite the possibility that our perceived reality is our actual reality, we don't have the tools or the proper perspective to find out. At least not yet.
Well, I wouldn't deny that there could be a difference, but I do wonder. I'm not entirely sure what a "complete" perception of reality would entail, honestly! I think we'd be entering the realm of omniscience, and that creates all sorts of messy tangents as to whether things will happen in a set way or not, whether there are infinite possibilities beyond what we can perceive, and what reality actually IS. What are we even trying to perceive here? It's probably safe to say that there is a difference, as all we can recognise is what we perceive, and as we all perceive different things...well, unless you're a solipsist, that implies an incomplete perception of reality straight away, as no two realities between individuals are exactly alike...presumably. There's an assumption in there that nobody is pondering what I am pondering. xD
I understand that such thoughts essentially close too many doors, and I agree that self-awareness is probably the best baseline in this situation. I'm too tired for this, I'm not sure my thoughts are translating properly into text xD
Aaah, interesting you bring that up! Isn't our whole basis for communicating this insufficient? I mean, words are a very diverse and complex tool for communication, but also very limited because of that. Being precise with words is an incredibly difficult and time-consuming task...hence why this is getting longer and longer, haha.
That's kinda going back to your earlier example about not being able to describe the colour orange if you don't perceive it. We can't describe our reality (or an external reality) to someone else with words even with that baseline, because it's not something they can perceive. Words allow for an approximation of understanding, but not a complete one. One of us could have a perfect understanding of reality, but we would never be able to fully explain that to others due to our limited ability to communicate.
tl;dr We can dance around the same point all day and even if we agree we'll come away with completely different interpretations of that point, both real to us, but neither necessarily real from that phantom objective viewpoint we're striving to reach. Diversity is such fun.
I have no qualms with any of this! I wasn't necessarily speaking in terms of essentialism or even socialism, I just think that, existentially/metaphysically/whatever term is appropriate (I'm running on coffee and childhood regrets right now), our thoughts more than likely don't carry much merit if only due to the limits of our own perception. That was an unnecessarily long sentence. The point I was originally going for was that the limits of not only our perspective but the thoughts bred therein would lead us to endlessly wonder if every conclusion we arrive at is a cognitive illusion, and should therefor be reexamined. We'd end up in a never-ending loop.
Ah, I see...although I wonder. People generally take an observable majority as objective truth, if they didn't then scientific theory, religious practices, and even social structure wouldn't function. But this idea of instinct, and that we KNOW some things on a basic level and will do them without even thinking, leads me to wonder if that could apply to existential thinking as well.
I mean, these thoughts have to come from somewhere, don't they? Is it possible that they carry more merit than we might suppose, given that these are things that repeatedly crop up in society in general? Is it all in our heads, so to speak, or does it have an application outside of being a construct we use to perceive the world around us? Sure, there are a lot of contradictions between pretty much every school of thought out there, but there is no reason that everything can't be correct, and the interpretation of reality doesn't matter as long as you are perceiving the same things. Maybe observation and acknowledgement is enough? Just understanding that something is there beyond yourself?
I'm almost left wondering if we're actually trying to figure something out or not hahaha. If I recall correctly, this was originally (and at least partially) about whether or not reality as we perceive it is real. And to that end, I find it difficult to reach a conclusion because you're right, we don't really know anything.
I think that was what we were originally talking about, but then we ended up sharing metaphysical viewpoints. xD
Lack of knowledge - or at least lack of certainty within that knowledge - is always going to make it difficult to draw any conclusion beyond not being able to draw a conclusion, yes. At least if you stop to really think about things, and question what I expect most dismiss or never even consider in their lives.
Exactly my point! I may have skipped a beat in my original post. What I meant is that in order to have an intelligent (or at least somewhat meaningful) debate about a topic this complex, two separate individuals would have to be entirely on the same page in terms of what they are perceiving. Two people can't agree on the actuality of their shared reality because we don't necessarily know that they do share a reality at all, in the same way that we can't know whether the orange that two people see is the same orange. Or whether or not the reason people have different tastes in food (and similarly different sensibilities for certain smells) is because the same food doesn't taste the same to them, at least in the way they perceive it. As I stated waaaay up there somewhere in a previous post, color, smell, taste, sound... etc, are all inherently individualistic in that their existence depends entirely on the individual perception of certain stimuli by different people.
Using that same logic (HA! logic...), who's to say that the perceived reality that we are trying to understand is even the same reality, given that we might perceive everything differently. I'm confusing myself.
I feel like I should have something to add to this, but I think I pretty much agree with that, haha. To even have a conversation like this - or even co-exist in a social structure - our thinking has to rest on a hell of a lot of assumptions, and we have to take certain things in without even considering them....lots and lots of things that are actually really hard to think about because I'm so used to NOT thinking about them.
But then, I wonder if these things that we don't acknowledge because we don't feel the need to, or because we don't even consider it, are what could be considered "true" reality, and our shared understanding of that is why we don't need to communicate it. Even if we perceive it differently, and react to it differently. Understanding does not have to be a conscious process, after all...in fact, given the number of directions our thoughts can take, and the contradictions we can find in things that are apparently very simple, one could argue that conscious understanding is actually impossible, due to our need for things to make sense in a way our minds can put into thoughts...or worse, words.
That's a really good point. I won't argue for the sake of arguing (but I'll admit that I really, really want to, partially because this is really fun and partially because I'm in the debating mindset hahaha).
...maybe in another thread. xD
If I might ask a question though: considering the possibility that we as a species have moved away from truly understanding ourselves and our reality, what would you argue we have moved away from? Is it a matter of simplicity? Is it spiritual, religious, perhaps even introspective? I'm just curious!
It's difficult to say without knowing what we're moving towards and what we initially started out as, haha. Having a sense of progression at all is an assumption, in fact. Change is not necessarily progression after all, and measuring change is very difficult to do...there is an argument for measuring change through scientific advancement, but if you look at our history and our behaviour as a species I would cynically point out that very little has changed. There is nothing to say that some things can't stay the same whilst other things change, of course, but even so, an overall sense of things is difficult to ascertain I think.
I think that, again, there is the possibility that understanding is a subconscious and instinctive process, rather than a cognitive, conscious one. Once you begin to question something you previously didn't question, your understanding of that thing, whatever it may be, begins to waver. It's...puzzling. In a way I think as a species we might be trying to move
beyond reality, and towards something else. Be that a higher plane of existence (or a lower one if you don't fit the criterion) or our own limitations, I'm not entirely certain. But as our perceptions are limited solely to ourselves, and we are constantly seeking as a species to broaden and redefine our collective perception, I think we might be seeking something beyond the reality we perceive. Maybe.
Hey look IT WAS THE LOGICAL PLACE TO GO WITH THAT. I actually typed it out and then went back and checked myself haha.
I'm not gonna argue, I'm just glad I wasn't the first one to bring it up! xD
Even so, how would those abiding by such religions even know? Most religious text has not only been translated but also appropriated over time and in different societies and political atmospheres. Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that God is real and created a certain religion, why would the followers of said religion not be ailed by the same perceptive limits of everyone else; why would they know God, but no one else?
You'd have to ask someone religious these questions, as in truth I'm not entirely sure. The concept of faith isn't one I'm hugely familiar with, and is one my mind rejects for various reasons. Whilst a lot of religions have changed with the social and political environment, those are the ones that were used as devices for a shared understanding of the world in the past for the most part, much as how scientific theory is used now. I'd have to do some research, but I think a lot of religions, such as Buddhism, haven't changed quite as much to reflect the current mood of society.
Religion is as much about spiritual growth as it is about acknowledgement and celebration of deities - or it should be, anyway - and I think that even if the core texts have changed, the belief systems have generally remained the same. Not sure. I'll do some research. Should have done that before I typed this out, but religion is a very sticky subject anyway and I don't want to offend anyone who might read this. But I think it's the interpretation of religion that has changed, not the concept of religion itself - the teachings, and the meanings behind those, and the ultimate objective of those, has remained the same. It's just observed differently. I realise I'm speaking in ignorance for the most part, but that's the sense I've always had from religion.
Additionally, a lot of people tend to ask: if God is real, where did he come from?
Well I ask: if God created the world, why would he be limited by its laws of causality? We assume that everything has a beginning and has an end, but that assumption is just another factor limiting our minds. Why should we assume that God would even need a beginning? I'm not trying to argue that God exists. I just find that in terms of speculation, theological or what have you, our limited perception creates a sort of bias. We wonder where God comes from because we assume everything has to come from somewhere. Good luck trying to convince someone otherwise d:
I agree. The idea of God is just a concept, one that many people feel/think differently about. (I'm also not saying that God doesn't exist, just to be clear. I generally avoid those kinds of discussions)
Pretty much. Everyone will have their own interpretation of the concept, be that as an abstract force or a sentient being. Going back to the idea of shared reality briefly, I do like the idea that when it comes to belief in a deity that we're all looking at the same thing, and that God is just another word for it, much like scientific theory will use concepts like particles and waves to explain how reality works.
I'm an apatheist, so whether or not God exists is something I don't think is of importance to me...my perception of reality allows for the possibility of a deity, much like it does everything else, but I'm not committed to the idea. I prefer not to get involved in religious debate too. But for the purpose of a discussion about reality I think the possibility of the existence of a deity is a relevant tangent I wanted to touch on briefly. xD
It's really hard to even fathom what that would be like. Without a frame of reference, I prefer to tread those waters carefully, if at all. Admittedly when I begin to think about something like this I always end up crying d:
i feel guilty about enjoying this, idk why hahaha
It's very difficult not to slip into a nihilistic way of thinking when considering stuff like this...but at the same time it's also kinda liberating - if it's down to your own interpretation, you can come out with whatever your mind can make itself believe! Even if you're totally wrong from that phantom objective standpoint, since you're unaware of it...well, there's nothing you can do about it, right?
tl;dr to literally everything I've said and this entire topic in general:
IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
probably because this isn't what the topic was supposed to be about and we've dissected it every which way and still have plenty more material left. xD
