Does Man Exist?

Except for this paragraph, I have no bones to pick with really any of the rest of your post, about the advantages of simplifying. But just citing that all reality is a creation of our own minds, based upon our perception of external conditions, does NOT prove that things do not occur in a sequential order. That is extrapolation, to a bizarre degree. What can you offer, to suggest that the reason we hear one of a speaker's sentences, before another (for example), is not because the speaker had said one, in front of the other? And would it be only the speaker's mind's way of dealing with information overload, that would cause it to convince himself, that he had not expressed the train of his thought all at once but, rather, that he'd spoken of things in a logical order?

 

Reality is a slippery word.
For example what is real for a person without colorblindness is not the same as reality for someone with the condition.
What is reality for my dog is not what reality is for me...for example she learned that if she barks at a closed door I come to open it. But I know I have the choice whether to open it or not.
I cannot think that stripping experience down to whatever one thinks reality is, provides the universal answer. This week scientists have produced useful nuclear fusion after years of complex process and used both intellectual and creative human potential.
In my experience, my reality, the sum total of Reality is not intellectual or spiritual but a combination of the two plus the creative, by which we are capable of combining known elements to provide a new one. That is a skill allowed us by the construction of our brains.
My own reality does not include the spiritual other than a crutch in times of need. But that doesn't mean my reality is the only one.

I don't like this word reality. We all have our own. It depends on what we perceive and how we process it according to our individual selves. It should be open to change by inputting new information so that our reality then changes. I don't think there is one reality but countless ones.

Lastly, what we see of the universe is purely a function of our brains. It might not be the same as some other thinking alien whose brain records colors we can't see and shapes we can't process. Until someone proves that our experience is the only possible one, reality is still just the output of our particular brains.

 

Incorrect.

A green chair is a green chair even if someone can't perceive that it is green.

Reality is the objective standard of the world around us. A green chair is green because it reflects a particular wavelength of visible light. That doesn't change just because my eyes cannot perceive that wavelength.

Your PERCEPTION of reality may be different than mine, but the underlying reality is the same for both of us.

 

When we speak of reality we usually refer to our own reality.
And there is no objective reality if all our brains work the same way due to development.
My dog can see only a limited number of colors but can swell superbly.
The reality for all dogs is very different than mine. They have no idea of mine and I have none of theirs.
But if we go by your suggestion then neither of us have a complete idea of what reality is. Nor can we because of the way we are "wired".
You have to say WHOSE reality and allow for others we have no way of knowing.
Light may well provide colors we recognise. It can also perhaps contain colors we cannot recognise. It might be that frogs or sparrows see different colors . We can never know because we can't test for that since we don't know what to test for, having never experienced it.
We are only as real as our brain has developed.

 

Again, incorrect.

We may all have a different PERCEPTION of reality but that perception is not, in fact, always in agreement with reality.

As I said, in my example, we see something as "green" because of the wavelength of light it reflects. That wavelength is the same no matter who is looking at it. The fact that some eyes cannot perceive that wavelength does not change the reality. A blind person cannot see the object at all, that doesn't mean the object does not exist. A blind person can stub his toe on the green chair just as a color blind person can or a person with perfect vision can. The chair exists, it is green. This is reality. If someone cannot see the chair or see that it is green then the problem is that their vision is flawed, not that reality is different for these different people.

We CAN test for it in frogs, sparrows, dogs or other people. It's how we diagnose if someone is colorblind. It's how we know what range of wavelengths other species can see. We know the exact wavelength emitted (or reflected) by objects allowing us to know what "color" it is without ever having to see the color.

 

Again, which reality are you speaking of, actual Reality or the reality we perceive? In perceived realty, the sequential thing works because this is all our brain can process. But how about if our brains were much more capable and we could process ALL information available. Time is meaningless in a scenario where you have each coordinate point being its own Universe. What happens to the sequential order of events when confronting an infinite number of Universes?

 

A green chair is only green if there happens to that wavelength of light available. What color is the same chair in a room without any light?

 

What would color blindness have to do with what is real?

 

The chair changes composition and becomes a salamander.

 

What indeed?
Best for familial basis of reality to stay within the capacity of our species to compute.
Outside that, we are into fairytales and Startrek.

 

This is just you, trying to claim that your version of spirituality invalidates everything we know about this universe.

And, you don't even bother to give evidence or justification for that.

 

It depends on which interpretation of the optics one's brain recognises.
I thought you said you were a doctor???

 

Why don't you just admit that you don't know. It's ok. No need to be nasty.

And btw, what does, "The interpretation of the optics," mean?

 

Believe it or not, I am not really interested in what you think of me. If you do not understand what the non-intellectual is about, join the club. Very, very people do.

 

Perhaps, but unlikely. My point was that when you are taking perceptual reality, it's important to know the ambient conditions. If it only works within the human visible light spectrum, that matters.

 

Science has many ways of examining nature that don't involve the human detectable portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. In fact, the electromagnetic spectrum is not always required.

You've repeatedly relied on the notion that all we know comes from visual detection of light. That is just plain nonsense.

 

You are aptly demonstrating how difficult it is to understand from where another person comes. It's impossible to do in person yet online.

Your assumptions are completely tainted by a combination of your personal narratives and some bizarre notion of who you think I am [or how I think]. You're not even close. Just try to express your own thoughts and don't worry about mine.

 

No, you are the one who brought up this idea that we can't know, because of our visual senses being fallible, aren't you?

Please remember that our observation of this world we live in is a major factor in the decisions we make - both personally and through government.

When you declare our ability to observe to be crap, that can not be taken lightly.

 

Really? Why is that? Who cares what I say?

 

It's still green because what makes it green is the surface of the chair that reflects green light. Because it isn't reflecting light at the time does not change that aspect of the chair.

 

It was an example. A hydrogen atom has one proton and one electron...that's what makes it a hydrogen atom. It doesn't matter if we are observing it or not.
Reality is reality...it is those things that are true about our surroundings no matter what our perception of it is.

 

The obvious reply to this, is that you should practice what you preach, that is: simplify.

IOW, let's deal with one universe at a time (as, according to you, we cannot even be sure that one, exists-- but it seems a little less of a stretch, than assuming of "infinite universes"). Whenever I speak of "reality," btw, you can assume that I am referring to "actual Reality," as you have never answered my question, as to whether you consider an individual's perceptions, to be "reality."

I also disagree with your underlined statement that, even accepting your notion, for the sake of argument-- that each "coordinate point" is it's "own universe"-- this would make time "meaningless," at each of those (presumedly) infinite number of points. In fact, even if it would, that was not what we were arguing: our debate was over whether or not, Time exists, meaninglessly, or not.

 

Are you sure? I think reality changes based on human perception. I would like to change my answer to Lizard.

What about the double slit experiment?

 

I suggest that the reality of the universe known two years ago has been changed by the James Webb telescope.
Galileo and Copernicus got into trouble with the spiritual powers by discovering a new reality.
The best we can say is that our understanding of reality is only a tiny part of the whole and that because our brains limit us, we will never know it completely, anymore than a goldfish in a bowl can know what reality outside that bowl is.
My own doubts about the traditional afterlife or some existence of gods is because of two things...one is that every other religion in the past has been disbanded and that we have multiple religions today, all saying they are the right one. That can't be so.
As for the spiritual and creative abilities of animates, they do exist but are limited by brain functions. We can never be more than our brains allow.

 

I think we are soon going to be enhanced, at least some of us since it will probably be expensive. Implants into the brain will be the only way you will be able to keep up in an ai world. We will have enhanced memory and calculating speed. We could be sharing memes telepathically.

We are on the verge of a big change. The Technological Singularity is only 7 years away.