Sorry 'Bushidobillyclub' (not 'abra' here.)

Just couldn't resist this one.

To your question, a plausible answer might be '... I don't know, but I know that I don't know ...'.

In other words, it is very different from something we don't even know (aware) of not knowing, ... on this one, there is lots we do know, about not knowing it!!! :)

There is a large consensus, and a solid 'ontological' school of thought which claims that NOTHING 'EXISTS' for humans, without 'languaging'.

If you cannot conceive it in 'languaging' (a frontier less amalgam of images, structures; logic and order, and language; abstractions), it is deemed non-existent, from the human perspective.

But that gets tricky!!!

Put the 'room' aside for a moment and take the context of the universe.

We already have
... languaging for the known universe (defined enough to be real),
... Languaging for the universe '... that we know we don't know (defined enough to be hypothesized about, but not enough to be known as real),

and even,

... languaging for the universe that we don't even know that we don't know (we don't even have a clue about this dimension of the universe, beyound and distinct from the known-unknown to which belongs Einstein evoked 'background-intelligence' languaging, ... beyond that.)

So, from that ontological, very much human perspective, the room definitively exists in several human represented dimensions.

Beyond that, 'does the room exist', outside of the self-aware exclusive experience of 'human beings', that would belong in the intermediate stage of 'knowing that we don't know that one!' (the Quantum world would suggest that all these potentialities exist at once: no present, past or future, where time is but a 'direction' of all the different elements which cross each other within an orderly (system) yet random (unit) perpendicalar pattern).

Draconians are reality

And you've stated that beautiful.

Reality is our personal interpretation of our perception of actuality.

I couldn't agree with you more!

In fact, that's precisely my world view.

That would make a good answer to my question:

What is Reality? - Reality is our personal interpretation of our perception of actuality.

YES!

I can't describe someone else's reality. I can only tell you mine.
some people's reality is trying to decide between the new mercedes or the jag. Some people aren't sure if they're going to be able to eat tomorrow. Some people live just to get their next 'fix' Some people never picked up a drug in their life.
There's no one reality for everyone. You can have things in common with me. But your reality isn't mine.

Here is the thing. If I leave a room where no conscious being is left behind to perceive this room, however I leave my sandwich in there with just tons of mayo, and lets say the heat is turned up when I leave. Lets say I don't come back for several hours. You know how I know that this room with the sandwich was there the whole time? Because by now the bacteria have multiplied and multiplied by a very consistent and calculable way, over time.

The counter argument must be that this world with the bacteria included for some odd reason disappears, then returns and becuase the universal subconscious matrix mind wants it to seem consistent it comes in and makes the scene make sense by starting it back up where it should have in the context to the nature of bacteria growth and all other processes that develop over time . . . .

Here is the thing, we have senses, and we have reason. Our reason lets us make sense of the effect time has on things in the absence of direct observation. This is no less real.

I believe my concept of reality is true becuase when looked at through the objective lens of occums razor is lighter on the philosophical woo woo.

As far as the distinction between reality and actuality, I see no reason to make such a distinction unless someone wants to argue realty is only that which is perceived, in which case this more narrow definition requires a new word to deal with the fact there is an existence outside our perception, I am fine with actuality. This only happens due to the argument over what is real. I find this distinction about what is natural just as confusing to those that do not wish to get reductionist along with me.


However you want to define it things carry on with or without us perceiving them. Get over it we are not special.

We are in agreement on the part of your statement 'funches' .

...an imaginary friend that one realizes is imaginary, cannot be real...

It is not 'real' from the material-natural perspective of real.

But it is a 'real' (for emphasis only, as in real form of imaginary))-imaginary-friend, from the dimension of a real (true to form)-abstractions, real (true to form)-metaphors, real (true to form)-allegories, and REAL (TRUE TO FORM)-FANTASIES.

And if you wish, we could trace the reality of a belief, imaginary-friend, fantasy, delusion, and all of it to a very simple neuro-biologico-chemical chain reaction 'fart' of the human organism.

Very scientifically 'real'.

The words delusion, real, material, imaginary, etc., simply attempt to distinguish the particular nature of the chain reaction 'fart'. But they are all real 'farts'. What exact kind of 'brain-body-fart' chain reactio is the question.




Here I differ from your interpretation.

If one distinguishes the 'friend' as really (for emphasis) being imaginary, than it is a 'real (for emphasis)-imaginary-friend', ...

... and thereby not a 'real' friend.

If however, the 'imaginary' is not distinguished, an one insists that what is imagined for anyone else, is real for this one, others will be in a position to point out the delusion.



I wholeheartedly agree!

IMO, adding 'real' or 'true' to the concept of 'belief' is rarely done in a pleonastic redundant form, or for emphasis as done above.

When real is used to suggest that the inaginary friend is real, it rather transgresses the nature of imaginary, belief (not founded on evidence or fact), to lend it a delusional or deceitful taste of materialistic 'real', which is always as far as true as can be.

Billy,

As you know, we agree upon much...

Unfortunately, there is a blurred conceptual understanding of reality which, I believe, is the product of confusing one's personal perception with that which is being perceived(actuality). Because personal perceptions vary, so do the personal interpretations. Actuality is what it is, irrespective of interpretation. If there were no distinction made, then all personal perception(reality) would equate to actuality. It clearly does not... cannot.

It all boils down to the core elements of one's foundational belief system... the absolutes, which we all have, by which all other things are measured. These absolutes are most often unconscious elements. Unconscious perception is the involuntary remembrance of things previously thought about, but have long since been internalized. The are not consciously measured against, and have absolute value. If the current content of actuality triggers unconscious perception in a contradictory way, then the content currently being considered is rendered with little or no value. It is rendered as "false". Such is the case with differences in core belief systems. One cannot truly willfully change their core belief system without an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, some of which must be transitional truthes. There must be some element(s) of a new proposition which does not contradict unconscious absolutes in order for consideration to be had. If everything concerning a new proposition contradicts one's foundational beliefs then it is disregarded rather quickly.

Therein lies the importance underlying the necessary distinction between a personal interpretation of perception(reality), and that which is being perceived(actuality).

that definition also applies to hallucination, illusion, and delusion

Sounds to me like you're the one who is demanding that we're special.

You're suggesting that bacteria doesn't constitute 'consciouness'.

Why would you make such an assumption?

Mystics and shamans not only believe that all living matter has consciousness, but they also believe in what we precieve to be 'non-living' matter also has consciouness.

Certainly not human consciousness, but consciousness none the less.

They ulimately believe that consciouness is indeed the foundation of 'actuality' as Micheal tends to call it.

The western world one time time had a very 'physical' image of the world. Believing that the world was made of 'particles'. Quantum physics has blown that picture clean out of the water never to be ressurrected - ever!

The unvierse is not made of particals. It's many of something else. Some kind of vibrations that don't behave like we originally believed 'matter' should behave.

There are reasons to believe that a room and a sandwich and bacteria all 'exist' with some sense of stability and they tend to behave in a way that appears to be measurable via linear time.

But we now know that even our concept of absolute linear time has been shattered. Time is maleable by both movement and the presence of a gravitational field.

What mystics believe is that, yes, the world we call 'physical' does indeed have a 'density' that follows certain rules. But their claim is that this physicial world that we appear to live in is indeed manifest via thought.

The fact that it has delay both in the 'time' it takes to manifest, and in the 'time' it takes to deteriorate is the ONLY property that we can assign to it that we call 'reality'

If something if fleeing we call it a 'ghost'.

Yet, that's precisely how Quantum Physics describes the micro world. As 'ghost-like'.

According to quantum physics the entire universe is a ghost.

"Jill" ..it is possible to describe someone else reality...you ever heard of stockholm syndrome or brainwashing in which thoughts are implanted to use key signs to make their reality your reality ..

this can apply to religion as believer claim "no truth is proof"

Indeed it does funches, this is why it is so important to have the distinction between reality and actuality.

So abra are radioactive materials conscious?

You are belaboring my point and making more definitions wide and generalized to do so. It gets tiring.

Consciousness requires self-awareness, however, simply having awareness does not constitute having consciousness.

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 perceive the fact that "that" is separate from itself. This is displayed throughout the animal kingdom regarding predators and prey.

To have consciousness... one must know that it knows this.

There is a necessary physiological framework that must be in place in order to facilitate the existence of consciousness.

Instinct can be aware, but it knows no consciousness... and it needs none. It has no sense of "self".

I'm not denying a shared seemingly 'objective' reality Jeremy.

Don't forget I'm a scientist too! I'm well aware of the laws of physics and I do indeed believe that there is a consistency to our shared reality.

However, that doesn't automatically deny all other aspects of experience as being 'not real'.

One does not deny the other. There is no reason whatsoever why they can't coexist.

In fact, science is well aware that they can't explain what give rise to the laws of physics, specifically the laws of quantum mechanics.

I've studied science my entire life and the one thing I've learned is that the old cliche that the more we learn the more we realize we don't know, is very TRUE!

I've been studying witchcraft and shamanism for the past three months in some depth, along with the philosophy of Eastern Mysticism. What I'm discovering is that their world view cannot be denied, and in many cases it has indeed been verified to be true, at least by the testamony of personal practictioners.

It's not the kind of thing that loans itself to rigorous 'scientific' proof because of the nature of the emotional and psychic involvement that it requires.

When a scientist conducts an experiment on billard balls there is no emotional aspect or psychic aspect required. Any one who performs the given experiments will obtain precisely the same results.

You look at that and say, "Well, hey! That's PROOF that these things are objective for everyone!"

Fine.

But what about love?

Can't science measure love?

Hardly.

What it might be able to do is measure metabolic reactions of people who claim to be in love, but even that may be quite futile since everyone may react in different ways.

If experiments produce erradic
results then science says that there is no consistency. It's not 'repeatble' and therefore it's not 'real'.

The scientific method has already predetermined what reality must be!

Reality is whatever the scientific method can be used on. Anything it can't be used on is deemed unscientific and thus, not 'real'.

Don't you see the problem with this?

Science has pre-defined what reality must be!

In fact, according to the scientitic method the universe itself is NOT REAL! Because quantum mechanics has shown that it ultimately can't be measured or observed using the scientific method!

All it gives is probabilities!

But if that's all we got originally on the macro scale we would have given up on the scientific method a long time ago!

Reality is............. not having to debate what it may or may not be.

right "CreativeSoul" ...people are juggling it all together to justify their beliefs

if someone claim that God's existence is truth ...they're delusional

if someone claim that faith is more than a mind frame to be content ..they can either consciously control their subconscious which is easy to prove or they are delusional

if one has an real-imaginary friend or claim that God Jesus or the dog next door talks to them ...then they are either having an hallucination or they are delusional

people claim that I use delusional to much ...it's hard not to when most of the planet's inhabitants seem to fit that category

If being in love qualifies as delusion, then there's no question that the vast majority of the planet's inhabitants are delusional.

Love has been the subject and focus of human attention throughout all of history.

Is love a delusion?

Perhaps it is.

But then that only proves that delusion is the spice of life.

Take away delusion and what do you have left? A bunch of uninteresting drones that could easily pass as emotionless robots.

If the vast majority of the planet's inhabitants where actually under that delusion, it would be an entirely different planet, indeed.

as Tina Turner would say...what's love gots ta do gots ta do with it

can't blame mass delusion on love .. love is a committment ..a choice that one willingly enters into ..not some cupid shooting an arrow in somebody's ass or some uncontrollable emotion

Why do you say that? People in love are known to do stupid things.

Love doesn't make people wise, nor does it necessarily make them nice toward people they aren't necessarily in love with.

Besides, I never meant to imply that they remained in that state for very long, only that it seems to be a quite popular delusion.

Many people claim to be in love with other people that aren't necesarily in love with them back.

That still qualifies as love whether it came to fruition or not.