From a human standpoint ...

We act upon that which is personal knowledge because we cannot do anything but...

We experience or observe something...it get passed through our filters - many of which are unconscious and rooted in childhood falsehood... it gets analyzed, sorted and filed, and we act or react.

Our recall of the information is dependent upon another set of fallible factors. Sometimes brains just cross-wire and information makes no sense. A segment of the population has sensory information wired into more than one part of their brain so broccoli tastes pointy for example.

Sometimes portions of the brain gets damaged ... for any number of reasons.

So if storage of information is not reliable and recall of information is also suspect, then yes I would agree without a doubt that there is a difference between what a human observer perceives as reality and what 'actually' existed at any given moment.

The observer not only records information through filters, they do so also through emotion and how they feel about what was perceived...and emotion isn't 'rational' and 'linear'.

It would seem then that to even know there is a difference between what one observes and what is 'actual' we must compare notes with other observers.

And even in comparing notes with other observers, we may shift our understanding of the actual reality ... but that still is not the actual reality ... it is then an agreement upon that reality made between the observers...

In test cases, human observers did not even agree en masse about what they saw on a video tape let alone what they could infer as to the meaning of it.

I am still pondering the notion of 'actuality' but from my personal human standpoint, it would seem that the only way to observe actuality would be through no filters or belief systems at all ...

...and then I would have no frame of reference to form an opinion about what it is that I was observing ...

And that is the notion of the ghost in the machine. The observer who observes without judgment.


I don't have any answers but I do love the questions they raise.

I am grateful for all who have shared in this thread, I am enjoying the pondering ...

That was so concisely and eloquently stated, my eyes were in rapture, and my soul did a little dance, thankyou Sherri.

Agreed.

I keep seeing constant mention of "real" reality and "actual" reality and how it is not always what we perceive it to be.

But if it's not what we perceive it to be, then what is it? And more importantly, how would we know if it was the "real/actual reality" even if we did perceive it?

How does one differentiate between "real/actual" reality and "false" reality?

I'm just not seeing any practical difference between this alleged "real/actual reality" and any other postulated entity such as "god" or "spirit" or "thought". There is no way to prove the existence of any of them.

it's quite simple really.....take the real out of reality...

it becomes illusion.

no it becomes "ITY"

Touche!

no it becomes "ITY"


ITY?

Internal Truth Yanno-meter?

Was that an acronym I saw wandering past?

no it becomes "ITY"


ITY?

Internal Truth Yanno-meter?


no thats "ITYM" what part of ITY dont you understand!!! -

Artsy...

Beautifully stated without abrasiveness...



Sky...



Actuality can and has been logically proven to exist, and it leaves behind the presuppositions concerning 'God'/'spirit'.

Actuality is not an entity... it is all that makes up the universe, in and of itself, without intent or purpose. That should be understood as well.

It is irrefutable that actuality existed before humans did. Actuality also awaits it's further discovery. There is overwhelming evidence to support this, which is why it is considered a fact. Keep in mind that knowledge about a thing is not the thing itself, it is only our understanding of that thing. Hence the distinction between actuality and reality(personal truth). The practical difference made when one realizes that there is a distinction between "god"/"spirit" and actuality is the significant difference(s) in understanding that this causuality bears. Human knowledge involves what we learn and prove regarding actuality. Whereas "god" and "spirit" have a tendency to be used as transcendental fillers, and there is no way to prove their existence either way.

The concept of observation is at the root of all human knowledge, therefore it is extremely important to understand the role that it has and will continue to play in our continued learning. The very notion necessitates a subject which is capable of observing and an object to observe. This brings up the importance of what it means when we say "to observe". To make an observation the subject itself must be capable of perception, for perception is the foundational element which facilitates awareness. To be aware of something is to have knowledge of it's existence... to know that "that" exists is to be aware of "that". In order to be aware of "that" the subject must possess the ability to perceive "that" and also to know that "that" is separate from itself. An observer must be able to draw inference from it's observation, lest it is merely existing not observing.

To observe something is to purposefully monitor it's properties and/or behaviours in order to draw some form of conclusion, even if that conclusion is not a conscious one.

Tribo

<----------I just tried to do that.... it's a little weird... crossing over left brain to right brain simultaneously.




No Bullsh*te!....

Creative



agreed, but is this not then complicated if not made impossible by the fact that the observer cannot be certain that they are observing what they think they are observing because it is being observed through their fallible filters and faulty belief constructs? So then what is observed? Still a perception of 'actuality'...

Oi! I think i just gave myself a headache!

Creativesoul said:
I have no disagreement with anything you’ve said in that post. But it only addressed the anecdotal comment, not the questions at issue.

So I’m still looking for a concise answer to this:
1) Given an observation, is it possible to determine if it is of the “real/actual/universal” reality or the “false/fake/personal” reality?
2) If so, how?

I would ask you to do the same with reincarnation.

Ok, you lost me completely there Tribo. I don't understand how differentiation of realities relates to reincarnation, and what I should "do".

Belly laugh.