I Need Guidance

[Noobstorm]

Do you agree that the thought itself is reality, but that it's content can only ever be ABOUT reality ?

Yes, and it influence reality.

Then do you agree that the content can change according to lots of conditions, even the mood you are in ?

Yes

That each person will have their own subtle (or not so subtle) variations on the same 'objective' reality ?

Yes

[vinceschubert]

...you mean that they can be an accurate representation of reality.
Indeed.
Is there a logical fallacy in my story, what is it?

Can you now see the fallacy of "accurate representation of reality" ?

[Noobstorm]

...you mean that they can be an accurate representation of reality.
Indeed.
Is there a logical fallacy in my story, what is it?

Can you now see the fallacy of "accurate representation of reality" ?

No.

[vinceschubert]

Don't these add up to the fallacy of "an accurate representation of reality." ?
Noobstorm » January 10th, 2013, 8:51 am

vinceschubert wrote:Do you agree that the thought itself is reality, but that it's content can only ever be ABOUT reality ?
Yes, and it influence reality.

Then do you agree that the content can change according to lots of conditions, even the mood you are in ?
Yes

That each person will have their own subtle (or not so subtle) variations on the same 'objective' reality ?
Yes

[Noobstorm]

Don't these add up to the fallacy of "an accurate representation of reality." ?

It is correct to me, I don't understand your line of logic.

My story is an accurate representation/description of this reality.

[vinceschubert]

description of this reality.

Certainly THIS (your) reality. The point is that there is no such thing as an objective external reality.
It doesn't exist without perception, and all perception is unique to each organism.

[Noobstorm]

It doesn't exist without perception,

Ok.. I'm not 100% certain though.

[vinceschubert]

I'm not 100% certain though.

Well let's test it out.
Now bear with me on this as we are going to question what the whole world takes for granted. What they never question, and rightly so as it serves a practical purpose (their beliefs).
Take a cup and place it in front of you.
Look at it with the knowledge that what you are seeing is light vibrating at a certain frequency which is stimulating the visual sensory organs (the eyes) which in turn send nerve (chemical, electrical) impulses along the optic nerve to the brain, which in turn interprets these int an experience of form and color. Mind then adds sensations based on preferences formed by experience and associations in the form of emotions which might be interpreted as "liking" or "appealing" etc.
Now close your eyes and recognise that the afterimage of the object is both physical (residual retinal image) and mental (memory), but that there is no fresh visual input.
Based on your direct experience (no mental logic or assumptions) does the object still exist for you (except as memory) ?
Now keeping your eyes closed, reach with your hand and touch the object. Feel it as if for the first time. Imagine that you have never seen it. Feel the shape and the texture. Feel the temperature of it. Recognise any preference for it weight and form as based on experience and associations and also the effect of the sensations as it is held.
How very real it feels.
Now put it down and keeping your eyes closed, does it exist for you, except as (a now different) memory ?

Without the perception of it, does it exist for you other than as concept (memory) ?
Can you imagine that other people would have an identical experience to what you just had ? or would it be unique to them ?

[Noobstorm]

Now put it down and keeping your eyes closed, does it exist for you, except as (a now different) memory ?

No

Without the perception of it, does it exist for you other than as concept (memory) ?

It exists as a concept.

Can you imagine that other people would have an identical experience to what you just had ? or would it be unique to them ?

It would be mostly identical.

[Noobstorm]

It doesn't exist without perception,

I can't completely accept this though.

[vinceschubert]

It would be mostly identical.

i would say at best that there would be some similarities. Language would make it seem more alike, because of lack of subtlety with words, but the actual experience would be unique. Perhaps you could try it next time the opportunity arises. If it's feasible, next time you are with a few friends, place an object in front of everybody and get them to write down a detailed description of it, then compare them. Then a discussion of the subtleties of what they see. Bet you get considerable variation on some aspects of it. (the object)

It doesn't exist without perception,
I can't completely accept this though.

Ok, i should have been more specific and said "It doesn't exist for you without your perception."

[Noobstorm]

Ok.

[Noobstorm]

It would be mostly identical.

i would say at best that there would be some similarities. Language would make it seem more alike, because of lack of subtlety with words, but the actual experience would be unique. Perhaps you could try it next time the opportunity arises. If it's feasible, next time you are with a few friends, place an object in front of everybody and get them to write down a detailed description of it, then compare them. Then a discussion of the subtleties of what they see. Bet you get considerable variation on some aspects of it. (the object)

It doesn't exist without perception,
I can't completely accept this though.

Ok, i should have been more specific and said "It doesn't exist for you without your perception."

Ok, I understand this.

[vinceschubert]

Alright, if you can see that reality is perceived through your sense organs and thought (words) can at best be a description of it, and at worst a distorting influence, then you are ready to ask the question; "is there a perceiver perceiving the perceived, or perceived being perceived by a perceiver, or is there just perception. Remembering that what is perceived with the eye is just light at varying frequencies and what is perceive with the ears is just air vibrating at varying frequencies, etc and it is the brain that decodes that into what you experience as visual objects or sound.

[Noobstorm]

From an experiential point of view, there is only perception and a "me" can't be focused on.

But there is still the underlying belief of a self.