|
|
| Author |
Message |
arthur
|
|
Is there a true reality, or not?
| 
Jan 17 04:56 UTC 1992 |
Over the past few years, I've run across three views of reality:
One, that a true world exists, independent of the human mind and
species.
Two, that the world is a creation of our (human) minds, and is
entirely a (changeable) human construct.
Three, that the world is real, but was created in October, 1957
with a 'history' that belies its true age.
I personally have never seriously considered #3, but the other
two both have some merits. Is one of these better than the others,
or is reality some mix of them?
|
| 87 responses total. |
frf
|
|
response 1 of 87:
|
Jan 17 10:02 UTC 1992 |
I believe a mix of 1 and 2. The human mind is a constrution of the
universe, but has the power to effect it.
But then #3 is probably the one thats really true anyways. :)
|
goddess
|
|
response 2 of 87:
|
Jan 17 19:15 UTC 1992 |
I also think that reality is a combination of #1 and #2. I think that there
does exist a "true world" but that it can be manipulated by the human mind
by humans in general. For instance, do you supppose that the "true world"
has skyscrapers, automobiles, high speed trains, and all that stuff which
humankind has invented? I don't. I think the "true world" is the world as
it was before mankind disrupted the forces of nature. It is a place where
there is no human monstrosity (referring to buildings, inventions, etc) and
where life is free to cohabitate. That's what I think and I am eagerly
awaiting anybody's response. That'
is what these conferences are for, ya know!
- Ren (Goddess)
|
arthur
|
|
response 3 of 87:
|
Jan 18 08:01 UTC 1992 |
Hmmmm. Do you mean that skyscrapers and such are figments of the
human mind, or that they do not exist as some true ideal form
outside of human experience?
|
frf
|
|
response 4 of 87:
|
Jan 18 13:29 UTC 1992 |
What he said.
|
goddess
|
|
response 5 of 87:
|
Jan 18 20:00 UTC 1992 |
No... I mean that humans created them for their own purposes..they're real,
but not part of the "true world".. the key word here is TRUE.
- Goddess
|
arthur
|
|
response 6 of 87:
|
Jan 19 16:16 UTC 1992 |
So, the TRUE world is the world that exists apart from human
intervention and activity? Do things constructed by other animals
count as part of the TRUE world, or not?
|
goddess
|
|
response 7 of 87:
|
Jan 19 22:05 UTC 1992 |
Good question. Hmmmm.... I guess I'd better try to answer it, hadn't I?
I think that things constructed by other animals do count as the TRUE world,
because the things they constructt are out of necessity, not want. But the
things that humankind builds aren't out of necessity, but of want. We don't
need all th ese fancy houses. Or automobiles, or airplanes, or any of that
stuff. Sure, it is nice to be able to travel anywhere in the world faster then
ever before. But those aren't part of the TRUE world, just part of the reality
that mankind has created for itself. Do you see what I'm driving at? I'm trying
to say that things that mankind builds/produces might be part of its reality,
but not part of the TRUE world. I guess it's a some-what "live-off-the-land"
perspective.
- Goddess
|
frf
|
|
response 8 of 87:
|
Jan 20 20:10 UTC 1992 |
So your saying that what you perceive as needs are real.
What other people perceive as needs are not?
Am I missing somthing here?
I thought this was a conversation about reality, and perception thereof.
As in, My universe is different then yours. Not about our own veiws on
what is needed by the human species. That seems to be more along the lines
of values in soceity.
|
goddess
|
|
response 9 of 87:
|
Jan 20 21:33 UTC 1992 |
No. I'm saying that just because mankind builds something, that doesn't mean
that it's part of the TRUE world. It's part of reality, but NOT part of the
TRUE world. OK.. I just thought of a better way of defining these terms. It
may not be totally correct, but it'll probably give anybody a beter idea of
how I view reality and the TRUE world. Reality is what actually exits in the
environ. But the TRUE world is only what "Nature" produces. Therefore,
mankind can make something that is part of reality but not part of the
TRUE world. Got it yet?
- REN
|
walker
|
|
response 10 of 87:
|
Jan 21 12:57 UTC 1992 |
re #9: Are there any aspects of humanity that are "true" -- part of
nature?
|
arthur
|
|
response 11 of 87:
|
Jan 21 18:21 UTC 1992 |
How are humans unnatural? Are we not part of nature simply
because we like to think of ourselves as something other than
just another kind of animal?
|
goddess
|
|
response 12 of 87:
|
Jan 21 18:58 UTC 1992 |
Hey! You're getting off of the entire subject! Of course humans are part of
nature and therefore part of BOTH the true wrold and part of reality. But the
PRODUCTS that humans create (besides other humans and basic necessities) are
only par t of reality and NOT part of the true world. And who considers
themselves NOT just another animal? That's what we are, it just so happens that
we have a grreater intelligence than nany other animal (although, we still
don't understand ev erything and not even some things that other animals must
definitely know). And yes, when trying to limit the list of things that
humankind needs, it is partly sociological, but everyone has similar basic
needs, such as shelter, food, etc. But just how much of each of those do we
need? And, also, sociology DOES belong in this conference because isn't it at
least a portion of reality?
- Ren.
|
frf
|
|
response 13 of 87:
|
Jan 21 20:46 UTC 1992 |
So this greater intelligence allows us to build things that are not true?
Do bees that live in "man made" hives know that their homes don't exist?
They don't even know (much less care) that humans built the box they live in.
It is outside their perception, so therefore, outside their reality. Yet they
have a hive. So for them it exists. It is real, just viewed very differently
from what we, as humans, see as real.
The contructs of mankind are as much a part of the world as ant hills
and bee hives. Reality is how we veiw these things. Do we see a dead tree
or man made wooden box? Or a collection of insects, working to suvive? Or
one of the wonders of nature, a group of "lesser?" beings manipulating
their environment, doing what we humans only wish we could.
It depends completly on how I (or we) veiw our surroundings.
This is the nature of reality
|
goddess
|
|
response 14 of 87:
|
Jan 21 22:32 UTC 1992 |
They DO exist, but only in reality and not in the true world. If mankind can
produce something that does not disrupt the processes of Nature, then it is
part of the true world and also of reality. But since automobiles(for
instance) disrupt the processes of Nature, then it is part of reality and not
of the true world. I agree, there must be different levels of reality. There
must be since we can view the world as an entire planet, but something like
an ant, could only possibly view the world as the area in which it can travel
and is familiar with. But "lower" beings have only a sense of need. They only
do something, perform an action, etc. if it is necessary (unless we have
trained that animal to perform a different function). You are using reality
and the true world in one single word having a single definition. You clearly
can not do that since reality and the true world have two different
definitions (although they do share similarities). It's like an apple and an
orange: they are both fruit, somewhat spherical, and both have seeds, a skin,
etc.... but they are two different colors, have two seperate tastes, one skin
is thick and bitter, while the other thin and almost tasteless, etc. It's
a little premature to use that sort of example, but it seems like you are
skimming the posts, picking out bits, and posting against those points,
instead of reading and comprehending the post as a whole.
- Ren.
|
md
|
|
response 15 of 87:
|
Jan 21 23:12 UTC 1992 |
I once had an idea for a science fiction story about a future in
which people are routinely traveling from place to place by means
of a transporter device of the type seen on Star Trek. You
disappear at this end and appear instantaneously at the other end.
Problem is, this miraculous device is used only for miners and
other common laborers on outlying planets. One of them eventually
uncovers this fact. After some thriller-style detective work, he
finds out that the reason why the ruling classes don't use it for
themselves is that it doesn't actually transport anyone anywhere:
What it does is, it makes a living replica at the other end, and
then vaporizes the "expendable" original at this end. None of the
replicas know they are replicas, of course, because they were all
"born" complete with all the memories of the originals. Some of
them have been through this device *dozens* of times. (I know, I
know, md is a weird dude.)
I never did anything with it because I couldn't think of a good
ending, and also I had the feeling I'd read it somewhere before.
(That is, not only am I not a good enough writer, I'm not even a
good enough reader.) Anyway, I tell about it here because the idea
is essentially that of secenario 3 in response #0.
|
frf
|
|
response 16 of 87:
|
Jan 22 13:59 UTC 1992 |
Re#14 - Then it must be entirely up to the observer to decide if
what has been built is disrupting the process of nature. And again
we see that is only how we perceive things. Since 2 different people
may have two different answers.
|
goddess
|
|
response 17 of 87:
|
Jan 22 17:32 UTC 1992 |
Not at all! Wouldn't you agree that an automobile disrupts nature because of
the immense amount of pollution it causes? And buildings/houses disrupt nature,
although in a more subtle manner, because they use some materials that can
never b e replaced, and many that will take decades to replace. And when a
building is condemned what does mankind do? It tears them down and throws
everything into a land fill as if that is going to take care of the problem.
Many things that man
builds have great advantages, but most of them also have many disadvantages
(such as messing with nature). And just because two people have different
decisions/opinions doesn't mean that either one of them has to be right! As
a matter of fact, all the answers that mankind has ever found might not be
the correct answers, nor even close to being the truth. But they are what
we have found and therefore part of our reality, but if they are not the
correct answers then they wouldn't be part of the true world. Let's take the
dinosaurs for instance. Some scientists believe that a volcano erupted and
destroyed most if not all, of them. Others believe that they simply degenerated
until they were too weak to survive the environ and then judt died. Both of
these answers are part of reality, but only the one answer (which would be what
actually happened to them) would be part of the true world. And until we
discover that answer, it will never be part of our reality.
- REN!
|
ecl
|
|
response 18 of 87:
|
Jan 23 06:23 UTC 1992 |
[ re #15, I have read a story similar to that before.
the ending of which was, the operator of the device
decided to let an original of a senator live, even though
the copy had been created at the other end. ]
|
md
|
|
response 19 of 87:
|
Jan 23 14:15 UTC 1992 |
[sorry for the drift, but... Does anyone know the title and author?]
|
walker
|
|
response 20 of 87:
|
Jan 23 16:10 UTC 1992 |
re #17: The separation of humankind from nature is strictly a conceptual
construct. The human mental and physical activities that produce automobiles
are no less (or more) a function of natural energies and laws than the song
of a bird or the birth of a star. Unless you can show some supernatural
source of human activity, you must accept the products of human endeavor
as entirely natural.
|
goddess
|
|
response 21 of 87:
|
Jan 23 18:22 UTC 1992 |
I'm not seperating humankind from Nature. You're the only one who's even
sugested that. I'm saying that many products of mankind are not part of
the true world. Unless nature manipulates something into existence, then it
cannott be part of the true world. Let's take radio waves for an example.
They are of course part of reality. They have a certain energy composition,
they can be measured, defined, manipulated, etc. But they are the productions
of an invention of mankind. Hence they are not part of the true world, they
would never have existed if it were not for the cognition of mankind. Only
the energy which radio waves contain are of the true world, not the actual
radio wave as a whole. That's like a building. The elements making up the
building are of the true world (excxpet for steel, and other artificial
materials), but the bulding as a whole is not part of the true world -
only a part of reality.
Obviously most of you aren't classifying reality and the true world as
two seperate existences. .But instead are seeing them as one. I'm not
doing that. I'm taking reality and spliting it into two seperate and
distinct existences. One is what would have existed without any intervention
by ANY animal - this is called the true world. The other - reality - is what
does exist, but only via the intervention of an animal. The anthill is part
of reality since it exists, yet it is not part of the true world since it
was construsted not by "natural" processes, but manually. Yet the substances
which make up this anthill are of the true world are of the true world since
they would have existed whether the ant(s) did or not.
Maybe now we can comprehend each other on fairly even levels. This idea
has gone from "reality" to "reality and the true world" to "reality and the
true world and society" to "reality and the true world and society and nature".
This is wrong since nature is part of the true world and society is part of
reality. So now we should only have "reality and the true world".
Sorry abt the long post, but I wanted to clear some things up. Maybe now
someone is going to argue about why society is part of reality and not of
the true world, hopefully not. And hopefully no one is going to pick at
limited details and post on those.... Hopefully!
- Ren
|
walker
|
|
response 22 of 87:
|
Jan 23 20:51 UTC 1992 |
How is the function of an animal brain different from all other "natural"
processes? Is congnition not a natural process, determined by the nature
of the brain, the sensory organs, and the evnironmental stimuli? You seem
to see a fundamental difference between cognition and all other processes
in nature -- what is the difference?
|
goddess
|
|
response 23 of 87:
|
Jan 24 00:18 UTC 1992 |
OK.. I'm gonna try to use simple words so that everybody can understand what
I am saying. Everything and anything that was created by "natural processes"
is part of the true world. Anything that is created by the creations of
these natural processes is part of reality, but not part of the true world
since they would never have existed if they hadn't been invented by some
form (creature). Since cognition was created by nature (in a sense, since
man was created by "nature") it is of course natural. Look, it's really
simple. All you have to do is read a sentence: Anything which would have
existed without the manipulation of any creature is part of the true world.
Therefore, anything that would NOT have existed if it weren't for the
manipulation of a creature is only part of reality and not part of the
true world. It's really simple. But if you can't understand the words,
use a dictionary.
- Ren
|
walker
|
|
response 24 of 87:
|
Jan 24 01:20 UTC 1992 |
re #23: Suppose we consider stars to be special entities instead of
animals, and nuclear fusion to be the special process instead of congntion.
In that scenario, the only "true world" would be hydrogen gas clouds, and
all the "inventions" of the stars -- the rest of the elements -- would be
part of reality, but not part of the true world. Perhaps this is too
obscure, but the point is that your designation of cognition and its
products as "special" is purely arbitrary. The evolution of matter into
a Buick is no different than the evolution of matter into a diamond. Both
are spontaneously produced by natural energies and according to natural
laws.
|