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.

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.  :)

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)

   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?

What he said. 

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

  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?

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

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.

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

re #9:  Are there any aspects of humanity that are "true" -- part of
nature?

   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?

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.

      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

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.

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.  

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.

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!

[ 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. ]

[sorry for the drift, but...  Does anyone know the title and author?]

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.

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

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?

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

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.

But matter does not evolve into a Buick. It is manipulated into a Buick.
There are three parts to it: 1) elements 2) man 3) Buick . But a diamond

is completely natural(well, as use in my example). There are only 2 "parts" :
1) elements 2) diamond . There is no manipulation by a creature of the 
elements in order to obtain a diamond.  And I'm not classifying cognition.
I'm classifying creatures and their products. 
  So far, there have been only two theories brought forward. Those in 
item 1 and my theory. You have only tried to disprove (with despair, I might
add) my theory. You have not presented any theories of your own. 
  Guess I'll have to use ecen simpler words in my posts. How in H*ll could
elements evolve into a Buick???? Evolution is the NATURAL process of an
organism to adapt to its environment! I don't see Mother Earth producing
any Buicks! Last time I checked Buicks were made in a factory by humans!

    -   REN

The point that I am trying to make is that humans are not outside nature.
Humans, and human activity are products of the very same energies, laws,
and processes as the rest of reality.  Human creations are evolution in
action.  There is no fundamental difference between humans, human activity,
and the products of that activity, and any other part of nature.  The
characters on your monitor, and your thoughts as you read them, are a
completely natural consequence of the evolution of the universe -- not
artificial or "untrue" in any way.

There is no break in the links between Mother Earth, humans, factories,
and Buicks.  Every moment is the current state of the evolution of the
universe.  Natural evolution didn't stop when the first human word was
uttered, or the first tool was used.  It's all part of the process.

Ren, I wonder if you're reading response #0 the same way as some of 
your inquisitors in this item are reading it.  

Possibility #2 says "that the world is a creation of our (human) 
minds, and is entirely a (changeable) human construct."  

I might be wrong, but I don't think that's supposed to refer to 
just man-made things like cars and office buildings.  I think it 
means *everything* is a creation of our minds - sun, moon, stars, 
the whole universe.  It's all in our heads, in other words.  
Nothing is really real.  You can't disprove that, I suppose, but 
you still have to live your life as if the world really existed.

But I like your distinction of the REAL world vs the TRUE world.  
(I liked it even better before you eliminated from the true world 
"what would have existed without any intervention by ANY animal"; 
meaning beaver dams and termite castles are "real" but not "true".)  
The arguments people have been making against your 
characterizations are perfectly logical, but with all respect I 
think they're missing the point.  We human animals really are in a 
different class than the other animals.  Logically we can say that 
we, too, are a part of nature, and that the Empire State Building 
is no less "natural" in that sense than a beaver dam, or even a 
redwood tree.  But the social and political implications of your 
REAL vs TRUE categories override any of that, in my opinion.  We're 
making a "real" mess of things.  

(We can make all sorts of distinctions between humans and other entities 
for the discussion of sociology, psychology, ecology, etc.; but I don't 
think such distinctions are valid in a definition of the fundamental 
nature of reality.  Also, I think a case can be made that recognition of 
humanity's intrinsic unity with the rest of the universe is basic to any 
understanding that might lead to "improvement" of social or environmental 
conditions.)

In response to R#26 :   You're trying to say that everything was preordained!
That no matter what could have happened, the Empire State building would
have been built, that I would have been born, that you would have been
born..... That's not an arguement, that's an excuse. And excuse to accept
things as and for what they are. I never said humans were outside of
nature. If we were, THEN and ONLY then  would our products be part of the
TRUE world as well as reality. Since we ARE part of nature then we are
limited to manufacturing products which can only be part of reality, not of
the true world. And as far as these monitor characters being "untrue", I'm
taking that statement and flushing it down the cammode. Just because I used
the word "true" doesn't mean that anything not belonging to that category
is "fake" or "untrue". There are only TWO categoriees to use : Reality,
and True World. If it belongs to the True World then it also belongs to 
Reality. But just because it belongs to Reality doesn't mean it belongs
to the True World. It's a one way street: You can get from True World to
Reality, but not from Reality to True World. And that one way street is the
ONLY street available anywhere!

In response to R#27:   I'm not using just ONE of these statements, but TWO
of them - #1 and #2. And I'm also expanding these one sentence examples
into (sofar) MANY paragraphs. I didn't sit back and say,"Ok, I agree with
#1 and with #2" and then not add to them or manipulate them in any way. I
chose to take these statements and form them into a complete idea which (sofar)
not many people posting here are able to understand completely. Instead, they
are taking that one sentence and trying to argue against that. It just can't
be done. You need to bite off the whole chimmalie (sp?) and try to swallow
in one big gulp, spitting out what you don't like. In other words (for those
of you who don't comprehend metaphors) Take my whole idea, think abt it, and
then argue against (or for) it as an entire idea, not just a sentence. Also, 
:e
when you said :
     >(I liked it even better before you eliminated from the true world
     >"what would have existed without any intervention by ANY animal"...)
  That actually contradicts itself since what would have existed without any
intervention by ANY animal(I think I used the word creature) IS part of the
true world. Just checking to see what you meant by that statement, please
reword it as what you actually intended. And as far as the Empire State
Building being as "natural" as a beaver dam - I would think that the beaver
dam would be more "natural" than the ESB since every beaver NEEDS a dam in
order to survive. But every human doesn't need an ESB in order to survive.
Nevertheless, neither one are part of the TRUE WORLD since they would not
have existed if it were not for the intervention of a creature.  But, I'm
glad that someone is finally noticing that all of the previous arguements
have been missing the point entirely. I'm also glad that you else

(sorry abt the break, but I messed up while editing) Anyways, to get back into
the fight:  I'm also glad that you (md) see the point I'm trying to make, and
at least somewhat comprehend my idea.  :)

In rsponse to R#28 :    Then what do you see as the fundamental processes of
nature? And if you think a case can be made, then start crackin'. I get
really upset when people post a statement and then let others prove it for
them. If you  believe in something, then you should be the one to try to 
prove. Don't let others prove it, let them try to DISprove it. And then
possibly we would be able to combine ideas, learn from our mistakes and
those of others, and some day come up with a solution that is at least
closer to the truth than what we started with.


    -   Ren

You're talking yourself in circles.

Ok -- here's my view.  I as understand the evidence of physics and 
cosmology, the incredibly complex universe that I experience today was, at 
one time, a much simpler place.  According to the "big bang" theory -- as 
I understand it -- the proto-universe was a singularity, having no distict 
particles or sub-entities.  (I am not a physicist, so I might be 
completely wrong about this; but I will proceed as if I am correct.)  For 
some reason, this proto-universe changed and eventually produced the 
myriad of things around today.  As many things as there are, they are all 
fashioned from the same stuff -- the original proto-universe.  We could 
say -- and I think, correctly so -- that the instantaneous state of the 
universe is simply the current installment in the continuing evolution of 
that original "stuff".

To this view, I will add the stipulation that all the energy required to 
produce the current universe, and the rules governing its evolution are a 
product of the nature of the proto-universe.  There has been no 
invervention in this process from any super-natural source.  The motive 
force and form of the universe are inherent in it, and are not imposed 
from outside.

Also, (and I think this is where I differ with the goddess's view) I will 
attribute intellection, volition, consciousness, and the forms that are 
products of those process, to the same natural laws and energies that 
govern and propel the evolution of the rest of the universe.  In this 
sense, philosopher's search for understanding does not differ from the 
stream's search for the sea; nor does the gravitational greed of a black 
hole differ from the conqueror's greed for wealth and power.

I don't see this view as an excuse to accept things as they are, but 
rather as an imperative to do so.  However, I don't think such acceptance 
need inhibit the desire for change.  Instead, acceptance of all forms and 
circumstances might be a kind of "moral judo" allowing one to utilize the 
energies of the moment to effect the desired change.  Additionally, 
recognizing one's own universal identity would seem to energize one's sense 
of compassion with the most powerful of all human motivations -- self 
preservation.

I won't claim that these ideas are originally mine, but they do have a 
ring of truth for me.  They are certainly not meant as an attack on those 
presented before, but as an alternative to consider.

I accept this as an alternative theory (what more can I do), but how do you
surmise the existence of the proto-universe? 


   -   "To every end there is a beginning. To every beginning, an end"
   (can't think of who stated this, offhand, but sofar it seems to prove true)

Of course, if it never had a beginning, then I suppose it wouldn't need an
end. And vice versa. But it will be interesting to see how you try to

"start" the proto-universe.

   -  REN

RE#31 -- You're right.

  Re: #32  I beg to differ with you on the issue of greediness.  The
'greed' of a black hole is fundamentally different from the 'greed'
of a conqueror.  The black hole lives in an asocial world, it does
not exist as part of a social community, as the conqueror does.  The
emotions and motivations of people are not (as our culture likes to
portray them) the product of individual minds: they are social
responses, and part of the society that condemns (or praises) them. 
Not only are they part of the society, they are meaningless without
it.  If there is one part of reality which is _truly_ a construct of
only the human mind, it is this.

Re 15.  When I was young, I imagined a world which contained such a device,
as well accepted for transportation as, say, air travel is today, but with
exactly the same problem.  In such a world, I imagined myself understanding
this, refusing to use the device, and being ridiculed as an unthinking
Luddite.

At the sigularity just of the "Big Bang", Space and time were folded i
in on each other. One effect of the Big Bang was the creation of time.
Hence, nothing before the Big Bang could have possibly affected our
current universe, therfore it did not exist.

(Thank you.  I've been looking for information on this subject.  Do
you know of a "popularized" reference?)

RE: #32 (walker)
 
Bravo! well said.
 
I have not heard anything else here that so closely resembled zen.  
Why is this?
 
Nothing and Everything simultaneously.
 
I liked the part about the philosophers search for truth and the streams
movement toward the sea.
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss