Community > General Religion Chat

Topic: "The Observer"
SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Wed 11/12/08 02:09 PM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Wed 11/12/08 02:12 PM
Reality reached by consesus.Interesting. I've said it before, but I still don't see any better practical definition for reality. What's real is what we agree on. If no one agrees on it, then how can it be real? If everyone agrees with it, can it not be real? And even if it were not, how would one be able to tell? And most important of all, what possible difference could it make to anything at all? Yeah, I remember when you had a thread about this. I personally feel that although there may be an aspect of this to reality as we percive it,there is a more fundamental true reality that we may not be fully able to percieve.Like Plato's Cave. It may very well be that there is such a reality. But by it's very definition, it cannot be perceived and thus, is of no practical use to me. I can't use it, or the knowledge of it, in any practical way. Actually, higher reality can be percieved through a variety of methods.The best example I can think of would be through mathematics.The fundamental truth of any mathematical equation is always true.For example 1 + 1 always equals 2.Theres some unchanging truth for ya. Ok, then I guess I've misunderstood what you mean by "higher reality". It seems to me that by your example, "A ball is spherical" is just as much an unchanging truth as is "1 + 1 = 2". Which I have no problem with. It just didn't seem to me that that was what Plato was talking about with his Cave analogy. As I understood it, the "lower reality" was the shadows on the wall. The "higher reality" was the unseen people that cast those shadows. Now if that's correct, then mathematics would be more accurately equated with the mental processes of the prisoners than with either the shadows or the shadow casters. In other words, math is a means of symbolizing the higher reality. It is not that reality itself. Math is the "map", not the "territory."

MirrorMirror Joined Fri 10/26/07 Posts: 89680	Wed 11/12/08 04:50 PM
Reality reached by consesus.Interesting. I've said it before, but I still don't see any better practical definition for reality. What's real is what we agree on. If no one agrees on it, then how can it be real? If everyone agrees with it, can it not be real? And even if it were not, how would one be able to tell? And most important of all, what possible difference could it make to anything at all? Yeah, I remember when you had a thread about this. I personally feel that although there may be an aspect of this to reality as we percive it,there is a more fundamental true reality that we may not be fully able to percieve.Like Plato's Cave. It may very well be that there is such a reality. But by it's very definition, it cannot be perceived and thus, is of no practical use to me. I can't use it, or the knowledge of it, in any practical way. Actually, higher reality can be percieved through a variety of methods.The best example I can think of would be through mathematics.The fundamental truth of any mathematical equation is always true.For example 1 + 1 always equals 2.Theres some unchanging truth for ya. Ok, then I guess I've misunderstood what you mean by "higher reality". It seems to me that by your example, "A ball is spherical" is just as much an unchanging truth as is "1 + 1 = 2". Which I have no problem with. It just didn't seem to me that that was what Plato was talking about with his Cave analogy. As I understood it, the "lower reality" was the shadows on the wall. The "higher reality" was the unseen people that cast those shadows. Now if that's correct, then mathematics would be more accurately equated with the mental processes of the prisoners than with either the shadows or the shadow casters. In other words, math is a means of symbolizing the higher reality. It is not that reality itself. Math is the "map", not the "territory." The world outside the cave was the higher reality of Forms that Plato spoke of.Numbers are Forms.No matter what the symbol the definition is always the same.The world we live in now is malleable and impermanent because of time,but their are fundamental truths that never change and concepts and numbers are good examples of these Forms.It is not a physical reality, it is a reality of idea.

cliteeter Joined Wed 11/12/08 Posts: 20	Wed 11/12/08 04:52 PM
there is no such thing as reality. we make it up as we go along.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Wed 11/12/08 06:38 PM
Reality reached by consesus.Interesting. I've said it before, but I still don't see any better practical definition for reality. What's real is what we agree on. If no one agrees on it, then how can it be real? If everyone agrees with it, can it not be real? And even if it were not, how would one be able to tell? And most important of all, what possible difference could it make to anything at all? Yeah, I remember when you had a thread about this. I personally feel that although there may be an aspect of this to reality as we percive it,there is a more fundamental true reality that we may not be fully able to percieve.Like Plato's Cave. It may very well be that there is such a reality. But by it's very definition, it cannot be perceived and thus, is of no practical use to me. I can't use it, or the knowledge of it, in any practical way. Actually, higher reality can be percieved through a variety of methods.The best example I can think of would be through mathematics.The fundamental truth of any mathematical equation is always true.For example 1 + 1 always equals 2.Theres some unchanging truth for ya. Ok, then I guess I've misunderstood what you mean by "higher reality". It seems to me that by your example, "A ball is spherical" is just as much an unchanging truth as is "1 + 1 = 2". Which I have no problem with. It just didn't seem to me that that was what Plato was talking about with his Cave analogy. As I understood it, the "lower reality" was the shadows on the wall. The "higher reality" was the unseen people that cast those shadows. Now if that's correct, then mathematics would be more accurately equated with the mental processes of the prisoners than with either the shadows or the shadow casters. In other words, math is a means of symbolizing the higher reality. It is not that reality itself. Math is the "map", not the "territory." The world outside the cave was the higher reality of Forms that Plato spoke of.Numbers are Forms.No matter what the symbol the definition is always the same.The world we live in now is malleable and impermanent because of time,but their are fundamental truths that never change and concepts and numbers are good examples of these Forms.It is not a physical reality, it is a reality of idea. Ok. I have no problem with assigning the label of "reality" to both "intangible ideas" and "tangible objects" and specifying that they are two different types of realities.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 11/12/08 06:42 PM
Ok. I have no problem with assigning the label of "reality" to both "intangible ideas" and "tangible objects" and specifying that they are two different types of realities. Sky, could you give some samples of what you would assign the label of "reality" to an intangible idea" and a tangible object?

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Wed 11/12/08 08:29 PM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Wed 11/12/08 08:30 PM
Ok. I have no problem with assigning the label of "reality" to both "intangible ideas" and "tangible objects" and specifying that they are two different types of realities. Sky, could you give some samples of what you would assign the label of "reality" to an intangible idea" and a tangible object? Intangible ideas: Chair Sphere Butterfiles are pretty Tangible object: The chair I am sitting in The softball in my closet My body I have no problem with labeling all of those as "real".

Jess642 Joined Sat 03/31/07 Posts: 22732	Thu 11/13/08 12:56 PM
You've read "The Four Agreements", haven't you?

Seamonster Joined Mon 11/03/08 Posts: 902	Thu 11/13/08 04:44 PM
Yes, the majority rules. but does that make it moral? If the majority of people said that stealing is moral. Is it? And if a few said they did not believe stealing was moral then are they just confused? You seem to be proposing that there is such a thing as an "absolute" when it comes to morality. But that is not the case. "Morality" is what the majority says it is. Look at it this way: in the entire history of mankind, is there anying that has been considered "moral" by every person who ever lived? I agree with you in the sense that morality is subjective. And there is a diffrence in being moral and being obedient, those that follow the 10 commandments so they don't burn in hell are just being obedient, not moral. Fo instance, if I have 2 neighbors and one of them wants to kill me and steal my land, but does not do it becose he may get caught and go to jail, and the other neighbor just does not want to, which one is moral? So realy religion just promots obedience, not morality.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 11/13/08 04:45 PM
So god did it. Ok, no need to get more detailed then that really. Unless of course there is some way to falsify this . . . good luck.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 11/13/08 04:54 PM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 11/13/08 04:55 PM
Reality reached by consesus.Interesting. I've said it before, but I still don't see any better practical definition for reality. What's real is what we agree on. If no one agrees on it, then how can it be real? If everyone agrees with it, can it not be real? And even if it were not, how would one be able to tell? And most important of all, what possible difference could it make to anything at all? So the universe has been expanding for billions of years with no one there to see it . . . . did it happen? There are rocks that are over a billion years old deep within the earth, are they not really there till we dig up the earth and observe them? Or is it ok that this god universal subconsciousness twiddled his nose and winked it all into existence, ie observed it to be so . . . . It seems to me this is the same old religion but with bigger words.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Thu 11/13/08 05:23 PM
Reality reached by consesus.Interesting. I've said it before, but I still don't see any better practical definition for reality. What's real is what we agree on. If no one agrees on it, then how can it be real? If everyone agrees with it, can it not be real? And even if it were not, how would one be able to tell? And most important of all, what possible difference could it make to anything at all? So the universe has been expanding for billions of years with no one there to see it . . . . did it happen? There are rocks that are over a billion years old deep within the earth, are they not really there till we dig up the earth and observe them? Or is it ok that this god universal subconsciousness twiddled his nose and winked it all into existence, ie observed it to be so . . . . It seems to me this is the same old religion but with bigger words. Yes the universe has been expanding for billions of years but there are billions and billions of observers involved. The universe is alive and aware. Anything that sends and receives and responds to vibrations is an observer. Of course the rocks are there. They vibrate with their own unique frequency and they respond to other vibrations. You are (like most) stuck on the idea that an observer has to be a "human being." Geeeze. Life and consciousness has existed for billions of years without human observers. That is typical and totally arrogant and ridiculous human thinking, to think that they are so totally above all life forms that they and they alone are the only observers of this reality. I'm getting tired of this subject because no body seems to comprehend the scope of what I am saying. Observation is the detection and response to vibration. Period. Humans just happen to have developed organs like eyes to see, ears to hear, nose to smell, and nerves to feel and touch. Not all creatures have developed the same type of sensory organs so they observe the universe very differently than humans do. JB

Milesoftheusa Joined Fri 10/27/06 Posts: 5122	Thu 11/13/08 06:51 PM
Yes but the light we see from the universe is so old that what we are seeing may not be thier now

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Thu 11/13/08 07:57 PM Edited by tribo on Thu 11/13/08 08:04 PM
JB: "Having said that, I will also say that I believe the observer (God) has "eyes." Those "eyes" are the "creatures" and the lifeforms and the many worlds they inhabit. " TRIBO: But then you also say that everything [not just creatures] are vibrational also, how does this fit in to your theory? if all is prime source - then is all not observers? rocks, trees, atoms? here your limiting the observer to that which has cognizance and perceptive abilities like animals/creatures/and such. You can't have it both ways - either prime source creates everything vibrational or doesn't. if cognizance is necessary in order to be an eye of prime source why would i have to look past this reality and mankind, to understand what i observe? who can say that other celestial creatures observe what i observe or would agree with that which i observe as being the same? only like kinds in my estimation would be able to come to agree on what is observed as being the same. JB: Of course the rocks are there. They vibrate with their own unique frequency and they respond to other vibrations. tribo what are they observing, how or what is there response? do they have cognizance? can i understand and agree with waht they observe? then whats the point?

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Thu 11/13/08 08:09 PM Edited by tribo on Thu 11/13/08 08:09 PM
JB: You are (like most) stuck on the idea that an observer has to be a "human being." Geeeze. Life and consciousness has existed for billions of years without human observers. tribo: you state that like it is an absolute fact? and then put mankind down for being ignorant in your opinion? if its a fact and not an opinion - then show me this - if it's an opinion then you have no right to [but the ability] to say i or others are being arrogant? explain please?

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Thu 11/13/08 10:00 PM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Thu 11/13/08 10:27 PM
Reality reached by consesus.Interesting. I've said it before, but I still don't see any better practical definition for reality. What's real is what we agree on. If no one agrees on it, then how can it be real? If everyone agrees with it, can it not be real? And even if it were not, how would one be able to tell? And most important of all, what possible difference could it make to anything at all? So the universe has been expanding for billions of years with no one there to see it . . . . did it happen? I can answer that question, but I don’t see how my answer has any relevance at all. I’m sure it wouldn’t to me. It’s like saying “I have a ball in my hand. Is it really a ball?” If I answer “No”, then you simply reply with, “You’re wrong because it is a ball. Well of course it’s a ball. You stipulated that it was a ball before you even asked the question. So what is the point in answering it again? Likewise, you stipulated the answer (expanding universe) to your question (did it happen) before asking it.So what is the point in answering it again? There are rocks that are over a billion years old deep within the earth, are they not really there till we dig up the earth and observe them? This is similar to the above self-answering question. You say that there is a billion year old rock deep within the earth. Ok, that’s the observation you stipulated. So yes, there is a billion year old rock under the earth. Did the rock exist before you dug it up and observed it? Here again, you stipulated it as a premise of the argument. So if I am to agree with all the premises of the argument (including the one that directly exclude the possibility of any opposing premise being valid) then of course the answer must be yes. But here again, all you’ve really ask is if a billion year old rock is a billion year old rock. Yep, it sure is. Or is it ok that this god universal subconsciousness twiddled his nose and winked it all into existence, ie observed it to be so . . . . It seems to me this is the same old religion but with bigger words. Interestingly enough, that is pretty close. In my view, there are a few very important differences though: - There is not a single "god", but each of us is an individual "god", separate from all other gods. (Jennie and I differ here.) - It allows for explanations of phenomena that science either denies the existence of entirely, or simply discounts as delusion (any and all paranormal phenomena) - It requires every individual to accept full responsibility for their own condition. That last point is, for me, the most important one of all because it addresses ethics. It says that you cannot blame either god or the physical universe or other people for your problems or shortcomings. It says that abdicating responsibility is the reason why you have those problems and shortcomings. It says that an unethical act does more harm to you than it does to anyone else. But it also says that you have the potential to rise to heretofore unimaginable heights. That you can attain any goal you set for yourself. That you are not limited by either “god” or “the material world”. That the only reason you think you can’t do something is because you think you can’t do something. Aw ****. Now I’m preachin’. Anyway, from the viewpoint of demonstrating “an example of a reality that exists without any observation”, it should seem obvious that there can be no empirical proof of any such because empirical proof requires an observation somewhere along the line, which would violate the “without any observation” clause.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 11/14/08 01:57 AM Edited by Jeanniebean on Fri 11/14/08 01:57 AM
JB: "Having said that, I will also say that I believe the observer (God) has "eyes." Those "eyes" are the "creatures" and the lifeforms and the many worlds they inhabit. " TRIBO: But then you also say that everything [not just creatures] are vibrational also, how does this fit in to your theory? if all is prime source - then is all not observers? rocks, trees, atoms? here your limiting the observer to that which has cognizance and perceptive abilities like animals/creatures/and such. I believe I responded to a similar question in another thread, but yes you are correct. Everything that exists is an observer according to its conscious state, not just creatures. I used creatures as an example here because it is difficult for people to understand that all things are aware to a degree according to their conscious state. You can't have it both ways - either prime source creates everything vibrational or doesn't. if cognizance is necessary in order to be an eye of prime source why would i have to look past this reality and mankind, to understand what i observe? who can say that other celestial creatures observe what i observe or would agree with that which i observe as being the same? only like kinds in my estimation would be able to come to agree on what is observed as being the same. You are right. Prime Source manifests (not creates) everything vibrational. You are right also that other observers will not agree with that which you observe and they would describe "reality" in a very different manner if they could communicate with you or if you could understand their communication to you. They could only describe "reality" from their perspective the way they perceive it, providing you could communicate with them. Universal communication comes in many forms. Telepathy is one of them and its language is in the form of feeling and images, not words. That is the only way to communicate with extremely different forms. Within the human consciousness where different languages exist there is another form of communication. Body language, feeling, and symbolism. (Pictures) That is how native Americans communicated with us, through pictures.

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Fri 11/14/08 08:00 AM
Sounds le Mr. Spock on star trek to me - i think funch was right - you are soooo much a trekkie -

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 11/14/08 08:07 AM
Sounds le Mr. Spock on star trek to me - i think funch was right - you are soooo much a trekkie - It is the truth as I see it. I loved that star trek episode where Spock mind melted with the rock creature and learned about how it perceived reality and why it was killing people. They were destroying its eggs. If you or if we could learn to mind melt with things we would all understand what I am saying. But the next best thing is to imagine the answer that makes the most sense.

Seamonster Joined Mon 11/03/08 Posts: 902	Fri 11/14/08 09:08 AM
Sounds le Mr. Spock on star trek to me - i think funch was right - you are soooo much a trekkie - It is the truth as I see it. I loved that star trek episode where Spock mind melted with the rock creature and learned about how it perceived reality and why it was killing people. They were destroying its eggs. If you or if we could learn to mind melt with things we would all understand what I am saying. But the next best thing is to imagine the answer that makes the most sense. Best line in that episode, "Damn it Jim, I'm a Doctor not a brick layer"!!

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Fri 11/14/08 09:10 AM
Reality reached by consesus.Interesting. I've said it before, but I still don't see any better practical definition for reality. What's real is what we agree on. If no one agrees on it, then how can it be real? If everyone agrees with it, can it not be real? And even if it were not, how would one be able to tell? And most important of all, what possible difference could it make to anything at all? So the universe has been expanding for billions of years with no one there to see it . . . . did it happen? There are rocks that are over a billion years old deep within the earth, are they not really there till we dig up the earth and observe them? Or is it ok that this god universal subconsciousness twiddled his nose and winked it all into existence, ie observed it to be so . . . . It seems to me this is the same old religion but with bigger words. Yes the universe has been expanding for billions of years but there are billions and billions of observers involved. The universe is alive and aware. Anything that sends and receives and responds to vibrations is an observer. Of course the rocks are there. They vibrate with their own unique frequency and they respond to other vibrations. You are (like most) stuck on the idea that an observer has to be a "human being." Geeeze. Life and consciousness has existed for billions of years without human observers. That is typical and totally arrogant and ridiculous human thinking, to think that they are so totally above all life forms that they and they alone are the only observers of this reality. I'm getting tired of this subject because no body seems to comprehend the scope of what I am saying. Observation is the detection and response to vibration. Period. Humans just happen to have developed organs like eyes to see, ears to hear, nose to smell, and nerves to feel and touch. Not all creatures have developed the same type of sensory organs so they observe the universe very differently than humans do. JB No I am not saying human, I am saying consciousness. and you are saying rocks are alive, gotcha.