"Somebody decides what reality is" does not follow at all from the preamble in the post.

"I" knows only that "I" exists and PERHAPS "other" exists. The existence of "other" is not guaranteed.

You state that something that can be determined by "decision", but your argument does not support that. There is actually no formal argument there; your post just states two incongruent statements following each other. In my opinion.

Furthermore, for "I" it is only "I" who can decide; but the decision of "I" has zilch dependable accuracy over what portion of its decision corresponds with actual reality.

If you meant to say that "I" decides how to determine reality, that's true, but again, his determination of the methodology has no bearing on the actual accuracy of his findings.

In fact, it just adds one layer of the same conundrum or difficulty "I" has to the original question:

“Do we perceive reality?”


If you ask, beyond the original question, with or without adding the circumstential givens, "How do we determine reality?" trying to find the answer to this question hinges upon the same thing that stop us from perceiving reality, and that is that there is no ojective way of CHECKING our answers. There is no possible PROOF to verify or deny the validity of our answers, to either “Do we perceive reality?” or to "How do we determine reality?" (Which should say, instead, "How do we determine that what we perceive is indeed reality or not?”)

Why did you say, "semantically speaking?” This additive seems to insinuate that the two questions are not equivalent, but only if you consider them as a semantic statements, not as what they mean in fact.

Well. Semanics IS meaning. It is the part of the language that is expressed by language atoms (words) in relationships with each other that is ruled by grammar, to produce meaning in communication, and that meaning is the product of semantics, which, like I said, depends on words and grammar for its own creation.

Trying to discredit or lessen the impact of a statement that is frightfully right by saying ”It`s only semantics” does not do any less disservice to meaning than saying ”It`s only a bullet” does to keeping someone alive when he is approached by a very fast moving bullet.

First of all, “determine, adjudicate or otherwise settle” includes “or”, which means that it only need be one, not all or any combination thereof. And the same thing applies to “issues or disputes”.

Secondly if you understand how dictionaries work, then you understand that the semicolon is used to separate different wordings of the same meaning. The semicolon is essentially shorthand for “or”. So the same thing applies there.

Thus “the power to determine issues” is a perfectly valid simplification of the entire definition.

Now if we look at the definition of “determine” (again from dictionary.com)

Determine:
1. “the act of coming to a decision or of fixing or settling a purpose.”

… we can make a substitution like this
the power to come to a decision (regarding) issues

So now we’re down to the word “issue”, which seems to be the main bone of contention.

And again from dictionary.com

Issue:
7. a point the decision of which determines a matter: The real issue in the strike was the right to bargain collectively.

Now we start to get into the circularity of dictionary definitions.

So at this point we can either throw up our hands and say that “we can’t know what it means”, or just do the best we can with what we’ve got.

So here’s the best I can do.

Since it is obvious (to me anyway) that an individual has the power to make a decision without anyone else involved, and the definition of “issue” is dependent on “decision”, that means an individual does have “the power to determine issues” (i.e. authority) even when no one else involved.

I agree that this is one way of looking at things that cannot be disproved. It's like solipsism (not to imply that it's the same philosophy, it's just like it in the sense that it can't be disproved).

But there are many philosophies that can't be disproved.

It sounds to me like all you are truly saying is that all determinations of what is real are decisions. All decisions are subjective, therefore all determinations of what reality consists of are necessarily subjective decisions.

That sounds good on the surface, and like I say, it can't truly be disproved (just like soplisism can't be disproved). However, rational reasons can be given to reject it.

For example, your entire position rests upon the supposition that all decisions are 'subjective'.

Many people would argue (especially scientists) that decisions are not entirely subjective as you suggest. The reason they would give is because they claim that it's "self-evident" that we are being bombarded by "external" stimuli of the senses. This argument is pragmatically compelling becasue any human who gives a serious attempt at trying to 'shut down' in some type of meditative trance where no 'external stimuli is being sense' will find that extremely difficult to do. And this would even include heartbeats and breathing could could be argues to be "physical" and thus "external" of the pysche.

Therefore they could argue that any decisions we come to are not entirely subjective at all, but are indeed based upon these 'self-evident' "External" stimuli.

All this would boil down to at this point would be an argument over whether these "physical sensations" do indeed qualify as being "objective" or "extrernal" to the psyche.

This is similar to solipsism, in the sense that in an argument for solipsism the "argument" is that you can't "prove" that other people actually "exist".

So in this argument, at best all that could be given is that we can't "prove" any physical sensations stem from anything beyond our own decisions.

So the entire thing boils down to which ideal a person is willing to accept as being 'self-evident' to them.

You could even argue that whichever one they chose is a "subjective decision". But that would be beating a dead horse, because the whole idea is that they are claiming those sensation to not be dependent upon their subjective decisions.

So it's not all that different from the argumental style of solipsism. We can even believe that other people are their own entities, or we can believe that they are just figments of our imagination.

In this case, we can even believe that all sensations are nothing more than figments of our imagination, or we can't believe that they actually come from an objective physical universe.

Yes, we all must make that choice of which to believe.

I choose to believe the latter. I believe in an objective universe.

Now you talk about 'agreement' of 'consensus' but since I 'feel' physical stimuli all the time, I feel that I have no choice but to 'agree' with the objective pulses of the physical universe.

If I ever die and cease to feel anything, then owl be in agreement that there is nothing "out there". Although I probably won't be very conscious of that agreement at that time.

In fact, I'd probably be willing to accept that solipsism was true too since when I died the whole universe ceased to exist from my point of view. Of course, I won't have a point of view any longer so it will all be moot.

But isn't that a strange thing?

If when I die, if it's just 'lights out' and I no longer exist or know anything, then 'From my point of view' (which would no longer exist) the whole universe would have ceased to exist.

However, from the point of view of the people left behind it would continue, even though for me, they no longer exist.

Very strange indeed.

That almost suggests that it's impossible for anyone to actually cease to exist, because if they did, then everything else would need to cease to exist too.

Now, that actually makes sense in pantheism (believe it or not)

Almost, but not quite.

If the last five words (“what they mean in fact.”) were replace with “their intended meaning”, then you would be exactly right.

Well first of all, semantics is not meaning. Semantics is the study of meaning.

Saying “meaning is the product of semantics” is completely backwards. There can be meanings without semantics. But there cannot be semantics without meanings.

Now you are perfectly correct in saying that words and grammar are an important factor in communication.

But saying that they are the only things relevant to written communication is sheer folly.

Consider the sentence “They had a ball.”

Now that sentence is perfectly constructed both grammatically and semantically. It says exactly what it means, and all the words in it are very common words with very well known meanings.

So tell me what that sentence means.

(Hint: You’ve got a one in three chance of getting it right.)

So where does that leave semantics?

Running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

The key here is that context is actually more important than grammar. The context itself imparts meaning. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, the context is what imparts meaning, not the semantics. Semantics are dependent on context. So when discussing meaning, leaving out context is just plain … well … I’ll let you pick whatever adjective you think might be appropriate.

And that has really been my point all along in this discussion about the rephrasing of the question.

Within the context of the entire thread as a whole, the rephrasing appeared to me to be not only reasonable but necessary to my point. That’s the simplicity of it.

SELF EVIDENT.

SELF EVIDENT.

Evident to self.

That is a single individual viewpoint.

Its just another word for "obvious."

Which is a decision, and an opinion.

Good post.

I just want to clarify one thing here...

I don’t consider “external stimulus” to be an intrinsic part of decision.

The reason is that, if that were true, then the reductio ad absurdum would be that decision itself is a product of external stimulus. Which would mean that any interaction at all could be classified as a decision. Two subatomic particles colliding constitute a “decision”. The earth circling the sun would constitute a “decision”.

Either that or you’d have to postulate some rule(s) by which to differentiate between a decision and an interaction, which would get way too complicated for my tastes. (But then, that seems to be the order of the day, considering all the confusion surrounding the area of “consciousnees”.)

Well said!

Which kinda leads to an interesting chicken/egg conundrum relating to solisism: If there is only "one", then does the decision cause the stimulus or does the stimulus cause the decision? Or are they one and the same thing?

I have been considering what Sky has said to me about spirit (or source consciousness) not being able to assume more than one point of view 'at a time' and I am going to have to disagree.

That is exactly what it does and why it had to manifest 'mind.'

More and more I begin to feel that we are one multi-dimensional being, and I am giving up on the idea that we are separate INDIVIDUALS. We only 'think' we are.

Once consciousness departs (or arises from) 'mind' we are clearly only ONE. ONE CONSCIOUSNESS.

ONE PLACE, ONE TIME ONE BEING.

HERE NOW

I AM

SELF EVIDENT.

This is my final conclusion. It explains everything.
It explains why all of my different psyche's are also me, and I them.

Its not that I am ONE and everything else is "a figment of my imagination or created by me, therefore you don't exist, (soplisism).

It is that I am you and you are me.

(Hence debating with you guys is part of a self-realization exercise.)

I finally get it.

I think this is a very good observation Sky.

You say, "The reason is that, if that were true, then the reductio ad absurdum would be that decision itself is a product of external stimulus. Which would mean that any interaction at all could be classified as a decision."

I'm not so sure that is absurd. On the contrary, in a very real sense this is the position of physics. The "decision" may be a result of the "laws of physics" rather than any sense of a "free agent" but it could indeed be seen as a "decision".

In fact, when physicists speak about 'observations' what they truly mean is 'interactions'. And for much the same reaons that you allude to. Interactions and observations utilmate amount to the very same thing.

Why? Because no interaction can truly be said to have occurred unless it has been 'observed' (or at least the results of that interaction have been 'observed'). After all if it hasn't been observed how can anyone say that it has ever occurred?

It's kind of like the old saying, "If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it fall, does it still make a sound".

Well, take that a bit further and ask, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one knows about it does it even make sense to claim that it actually happened?"

It's seems that from your point of view, the very idea of the concept of a "decision" is an absurd concept if there is no conscious free agent to 'make' the decision. This probably stems from your semantic idea of what the term 'decision' even means?

Do computers make "decisions"? If so, then no free agent of consciousness is required during the decision making process.

If not , (i.e. if you don't accept that computer programs make "decisions" then you going to need to re-define what you mean by decision.

Also, the computer program is an excellent example of how "decisions" can indeed be driven by external stimuli.

Program a computer to "decide" to turn on a light when the sky is dark, and turn off the light when the sky is bright.

Now we have a "decision" that is being made entirely based on external stimuli.

What then comes into play is not the meaning of 'decision' itself, but whether or not decisions can be made for no appearent reasons.

Do we ever make a "decision" for no reason?

And if we always have a reason can we always (or ever) say with certainty that the reason didn't have grounds in our immediate physical environment stimulation?

I would beg to suggest that our physical environmental stimulation has a very large affect on the decisions we made.

For example if we are attending a funeral of a dear loved one, we are probably going to make decisions to think, say, and act in certain ways.

On the other hand if we are at a beach party that is being thrown to celebrate the birth of someone's newborn twins, we're probably going to make descisions to think, say, and act, in totally different ways.

Our "external stimulation", without a doubt, affects our decisions.

So I don't see where this leads to reductio ad absurdum at all. On the contrary it appears to me to be the status quo.

All actions are basically 'decisions' except some are more conscious than others and many are simply 'automatic.'

Automatic decisions are programs or laws (of physics). Computers make automatic 'decisions.' They are programed (by the programmer)for specific purposes. At some point a (conscious) programmer decided to create a program that would automatically respond and interact and do certain things.

Some of our own reactions are automatic unconscious reactions and interactions. Our heart beats without consciously thinking about it. It is automatic. We even consciously 'program' ourselves to do things automatically, and we will do them without having to think and focus that much. My fingers automatically type these words, but I could not draw a picture of a keyboard.

Our survival instincts are automatic programing. Much of what we do and how we react is unconscious and automatic.

But they are all decisions, whether they are conscious or automatic. At some point a conscious mind manifested the programing for everything -- including the laws of physics and the law of cause and effect.

What we (mere human mortals) call a 'decision' is a "conscious choice." It is new territory because we actually break out of our programing when we make conscious decisions. As we become more conscious, we make more conscious decisions and that is THE WILL at work. (What everyone calls "free will.")

The amount of "free" will we have depends on how conscious we are of what we are doing and thinking and deciding.

The more we depend on programming, the less conscious we are and the less WILL we are using. So if you want "FREE WILL" you have to become more conscious.

A zombie may not use his will because he is not conscious. A person hypnotized may not use his will because he is not conscious. People who are walking around "in a daze" (or on drugs)and are just doing things automatically, are easy targets for the powers of suggestion and control by others because they are not very conscious.

They HAVE A WILL but they just aren't using it. Its like they are sleep walking. I'm guilty of that too.

You're absolutely right that it really all depends on how you define "decision".

From an "everyday, human being, man-in-the-street" perspective, it appears that all decisions are dependent on external stimulus - either present (like the difference between being at a funeral and at a child’s birthday party), or past (our previous experiences with other, similar situations and the people involved in them). And that perspective is essentially no different from the computer perspective. The output is dependent on the input.

Now we can follow that same input=>output logic “down” to single celled organisms, where upon it starts to get a little weird. Do individual cells “make the decision to split? And even farther down - do individual oxygen and hydrogen atoms make the decision to combine into H2O? And ever farther “down” - do individual electrons “make the decision” to jump from one quantum level to another?

And finally, we get to the quantum field itself. Does the quantum field “decide” to create virtual particles? And if so, does the quantum field “have a reason” for making those decisions? It doesn’t look to me like it possibly can. At least not any reason associated with “external stimulus”. So at that point we simply run into an unknown. Now we could of course postulate some even lower level cause, but that’s really no different from postulating God – no evidence to support it.

On the other hand what if we start with the man-in-the-street and go “up” – from “human” to “God” ? (With as many in-between steps as one’s personal philosophy dictates.)

We could look at the bible and say that “Let there be light” was a decision with no dependency on any external stimulus. (Because no external stimulus existed.)

So we’ve got to two ends of the same spectrum that are, from the “external stimulus” perspective, exactly equivalent – God “decides” and the quantum field “decides”, and in both cases, things “pop into existence” with no external stimulus.

Now when I think of decision, I always differentiate between “decision” and “reaction”. “Reaction” is always caused by external stimulus.

Decision, on the other hand is never “caused by” anything. It is cause. (“Let there be light!”)

So from a purely philosophical view (mine), decision and creation are effectively synonymous. In other words, “the creator”, “the decider” and “the cause” are all one and the same, as are “to create”, “to decide” and “to cause”.

The whole key to my concept of decision is that “reaction” is no part of it. Really, “decision” and “reaction” form a dichotomy that is effectively equivalent to “cause” and “effect”.



Now as to This points out the difference between “choice” and “decision”. It is a subtle difference, in the everyday sense, I grant you. But I consider it a very important one, from the philosophical perspective.

A “choice” requires at least two pre-existing options which can be compared. In other words, a “choice” requires “external stimulus”.

A “decision” on the other hand, cannot by (my above) definition, depend on any external stimulus.

“Let there be light!” is not a choice, it is a decision.

So from my point of view, “choice” is more akin to “reaction” than to “decision”.

As I said earlier, “choice” involves comparing two pre-existing options. The comparison is essentially composed of interactions between the pre-existing options according to a set of pre-existing rules (i.e. “logic”.) But (without going into the whole chain of events that led to the existence of the options in the first place) both the options, and the rules, are themselves the products of decision. (And this is why I don’t call anything a computer does “decision”. All it does is compare it’s various pre-existing inputs and rearrange them according to it’s pre-existing rules. But the inputs and rules are “created” (decided) by the programmer.)

In short, one must first decide to compare the options. It is that decision that causes “the act of choosing”.

Anyway, that’s how I see it.

Just a clarification here.

I wouldn’t say that spirit is the source of consciousness. I would say that spirit is consciousness.

And the only reason it “had to” create the mind is to play the game. But it didn’t “have to” play the game. It had to first decide to play the game before it could play the game.

Like any player in a major sporting league.

In deciding to play the game, he must adopt and abide by the rules of that game. Otherwise he would not really be playing that game. But he does not “have to” play the game at all. He can decide not to.

Once, a long time ago, you started a thread wherein you said that discussions in this forum helped you in developing your own personal philosophy (or something to that effect.) And this post seems to be going in that same general direction. So I’d like to just say: “Glad I could help. ”.

And even though my own philosophy is fundamentally different from yours, I can say something similar – these discussions have helped me to refine and express more clearly my own philosophy. So I must also say to you and everyone else that took part in these discussions – “Thanks for the help. ”

I truly do understand what you are attempting to construct here. And you seem to be fulfilled and satistified with this on a personal level which is cool with me.

Just the same, I don't find it entirely satisfying for the following reasons:

First off, to even think "Let there be light" implies several things.

This implies that there is no light at the current time and that fact has already been recognized. In other words, that's already an observation of an "existing situation" as far as I'm concerned. If there is no light, there must then "exist" the absence of light.

Moroever, what would "light" even mean to a consciousness that couldn't first recognize and comprehend 'darkness'? If it can recognize and comprehend "darkness" then it can "perceve" darkness, and thus "darkness" is "perceivable" (i.e. it a stimulus)

2. It also implies that this consciousness can imagine things that it has never experienced before. (i.e. Let there be Light?)

Light? What would light even be to a consciousness that had never experienced such a thing?

In other words this begs the question: Was there ever a time when "god" did not know of light?

How can a consciousness 'decide' to create something that it has no knowledge of?

If a consciousness looks around and sees "nothing", and says, "Let there be Light", how can you say that it was not "reacting" to the observation that there was no light in the first place? Sure sounds to me like this is precisely what it did. It was a reaction to the absense of light (i.e. to the observation of darkness).

I can imagine a baby God and its mentor having the following class.

Mentor says to the baby God: "Look around, what do you see?"

Baby God: "I see nothing"

Mentor: "Ok now imagine that you see something"

Baby god: "What should I imagine to see?"

Mentor: "Try to imagine seeing light"

Baby God: "What is light?"

Mentor: "Just say; Let there be light"

Baby God: "Let there be light".

Mentor: "Now what do you see?"

Baby God: "Nothing"

Mentor: "That's ok. You can't see anything with the light until you have an object to bath in the light and illuminate it"

Baby God: "Oh Wow! I get it now!"

Mentor: "Tell me. What do you see?"

Baby God: "I see naked goddesses playing volley ball on the beach!"

Mentor: "Good grasshopper. You're going to make a fine God"

I didn't read through the whole topic, but did anyone mention, that what we have (vision, hearing, feeling, smelling, touching) is only based on what we need to survive as primates?

All of our perception is based around survivability as mammals on this planet. We only see what we need to see to eat or save ourselves and so on. Dogs smell better, because their way of life, same with the bat in the dark with their radar thing.

So really, what is reality what isn't only based on our own sensors, and since we know that other animals have developed much more sensitive ones that work a lot better, it's not really crazy to theoratically saying that there are much more to reality than we sense.
I know it's a bit off , because I didn't talk about imagination or the difference between the two, but I wanted to mention it.

Yes, the creature must be programed to survive, procreate, grow, adapt and evolve.

But again, Nature is very conservative, it does not give extra perceptional powers for no reason.

I also have to mention, that even if you wish to have an eagle-vision, dog-smelling, bat-hearing capability, you are still limited, because you are only still getting as much as they need to survive.
But then comes up another factor, which is brain capacity and intelligence. It is also not a crazy idea to believe, that an animal feels certain things due to their extra sensitive capability (compared to a human) but unable to process the information, due to limited intelligence. All they get out of is possibly that "danger" or "safe" or "food" or "stay away".

Then you arrive to humans. We do have a limited understanding and it's not because we haven't investigated enough , but because we do have limits of intelligence also. Some things we will never be able to comprehend.

Looks like we’re basically discussing the chicken/egg conundrum here. But that’s cool. It’s always a fun topic to try and find different perspectives on.

So…

Considering this statement…

Now I could argue that “the absence of anything” cannot constitute an “existing situation”, since there is nothing existing to situate. But I think I understand what you’re actually trying to say and that argument doesn;t really address it.

So let me put it thise way: If there is no such thing as light, then there cannot be such a thing as the absence of light. In other words, the concept of light must exist before it’s absence can be considered.

But really, even that is not quite right.

The presence of light and absence of light come into being at the same time. That is, by creating light the possibility for the absence of light is also created.

And now that I look at it, even that does not quite do it for me.

So after thinking about it for quite a while, I was hit by a (personal) revelation. What if we state it this way: It is the difference between light and dark that is created.

(Now I’m going to have to sit back and think about the implications of that from my own perspective, because it is really quite a revelation and resolves a lot for me.)

(BTW – Jeannie, in light of this, I think I understand more of why you believe as you do. )

The more I consider this, the better it looks.

It would explain the phenomenon of “splitting” that is integral to Jeannie’s belief. That is, the one-an-only-spirit simply decides to differentiate parts of itself from other parts. It does not matter whether or not such a differentiation exists intrinsically. (In fact, there is none as she is so quick to point out.) It is the act of deciding that there is a difference which creates the split.

And another thing about it is that it would seem, at fist glance, to imply that everything must exist before any differentiation could be decided upon.

But when you look more closely at it, there is really no intrinsic dependency on anything. It really does not matter whether everything exists, or nothing exists, or anything in between. Because all that is really being created is a differentiation. It is an entirely made-up set of rules that are created out of thin air.

And it still aligns well with my favorite “life as a game” analogy. Before football existed, someone had to create a set of rules that defined “football”. “Let’s see. We’ll have a goalpost and an funny shaped ball and a field 100 yards long and two teams of 11 players each and…” In other words, someone just “decided what the game of football is” and thus “the game of football” came into existence where it did not exist before.

As with the game of football, so with the game of “light and dark”. The specification of the rules for differentiating light from dark is what brought light and dark into being.

A rephrasing of a quote from the bible comes to mind: “In the beginning was the decision. And the decision was with God. And the decision was God.”

It all just works so beautifully!

I agree, it works out so beautifully, it kinda makes me horny!