Is TIME actually real? Is MOTION actually real?

[Dale]

I mean, are they really there? Or are they just something that is only perceived by humans? Do they exist in Reality?

You still haven't defined your terms. What do you mean by "actually real", "really", and "in Reality"?

Let me try to help you here. So far, unless I have misunderstood, you have made the following categorizations:

Real:
neurons firing
light
electrical signals
central nervous system
brain
stars
water
land
molecules

Not real:
time
motion
hearing voices in your head
perception
beliefs
delusion
constellations
meaning
solids
coastlines

I certainly would not have categorized things this way, so what is it about these things that leads you to put them in these groups? What is your definition of "reality"? None of your posts say anything until you define this core concept.

 

[octelcogopod]

And also, nobody is arguing that mental models humans creates in their heads are not simplified or not abstract.
I'm not sure what you mean, but coastlines are everywhere.
A coastline is an abstract concept, it doesn't matter how flawed or simplistic the view is, the fact is that it is a byproduct of the human processing, which is guess what, creating models of reality. These models do not represent a specific coastline, or a specific anything, they are ways for people to categorize the same things under language, both for communication purposes AND personal grasp.

And by the way, about solids..
I'd just like to quote wikipedia..

A solid object is in the states of matter characterized by resistance to deformation and changes of volume. In other words, it has high values both of Young's modulus and of shear modulus; this contrasts e.g. with a liquid, which has a low shear modulus.
The atoms or molecules that compose the solid are packed closely together.

That's pretty simple isn't it?
A solid is not defined by how it looks from at a microscopic level, it is defined by how it behaves as a whole, on the macroscopic level..
So then arguing that nothing is solid because it's all atoms and molecules becomes not true, and you're already jumping over a big subject in philosophy: emergence.
Not only that but you're jumping over almost every core subject, including consciousness, emergence and subjective/objective.

Like Dale said, you need to define 'reality' at the least to begin to solve these problems.

 

[NoVA101]

You still haven't defined your terms. What do you mean by "actually real", "really", and "in Reality"?

Let me try to help you here. So far, unless I have misunderstood, you have made the following categorizations:

Real:
neurons firing
light
electrical signals
central nervous system
brain
stars
water
land
molecules

Not real:
time
motion
hearing voices in your head
perception
beliefs
delusion
constellations
meaning
solids
coastlines

I certainly would not have categorized things this way, so what is it about these things that leads you to put them in these groups? What is your definition of "reality"? None of your posts say anything until you define this core concept.

Wow. Fascinating.

The whole point of the exercise, the reason it becomes long-winded and rambling is to try to get you to realize something. And your very question and analysis IS the problem.

This is all so very very simple:

REALITY JUST IS.

That is really all that you can say. That's it.

You keep on asking me for a definition. That is a result of the problem.

You have categorized stuff into a neat chart. That is a result of the problem.

Here's an example to illustrate the problem, at the simplest level. If you can get this, then everything else is just a more complicated version of this:

Imagine you are walking along and you see two rocks laying on the ground.

Where is "two"?

What is "two"?

Two is a concept. This is something that is in your mind. IT IS ONLY IN YOUR MIND. It is a way for your mind to process that data coming into it via your perceptions, your senses.

In Reality, the rocks just are.

Are there really "two" rocks? Are there "two" rocks, in Reality?

NO!

Rocks just are. A human mind adds this concept of "two". That is what human minds do all day, take perceptions and add layer upon layer upon layer of concepts.

That's it.

Fin.

Unless you say to yourself -- Well, I am a human which means I am trapped in a Mind which overlays concepts on top of reality, and there is no way out, right?

WRONG.

It is possible for you, a human, to perceive reality directly, non-conceptually.

THIS WILL NOT MAKE SENSE TO YOUR CONCEPTUAL MIND.

That doesn't mean it isn't possible.

This other way to perceive reality without concepts means you perceive reality directly. This then changes everything.

Your entire notion of reality changes.

I can hear your conceptual mind say, "Ya, but that doesn't make any sense!"

Right! Of course it won't. That is because you continue to "believe" you are trapped in a conceptual mind, and you also continue to believe that what your conceptual mind perceives is actually reality, rather than realizing that your conceptual mind is adding to reality.

 

[Dale]

All you have done in this entire post is to add "rocks" to the "real" category and "two" to the "not real" category.

This is not a question of the merit of your idea, but of the content of your idea. You are using the english word "real" to express some idea that you have. But the way that you are using it is non-standard. So the rest of us are unable to evaluate the merit of your idea because fundamentally you have not yet communicated it.

You have categorized stuff into a neat chart. That is a result of the problem.

No, the categorization is entirely yours, I only organized it. You came up with the categorization by applying some definition that you are either unable or unwilling to share. We cannot have a successful communication until you do.

Sorry, but until you clearly define your core concept there is no point in responding further. I have done all I can do from my end to help this conversation, the next step is up to you.

PS:

the reason it becomes long-winded and rambling is to try to get you to realize something

This is counter-productive. If you want to get someone to realize something you should say it in the most succinct manner possible.

 

[Fredrik]

Two is a concept. This is something that is in your mind. IT IS ONLY IN YOUR MIND. It is a way for your mind to process that data coming into it via your perceptions, your senses.

In Reality, the rocks just are.

Are there really "two" rocks? Are there "two" rocks, in Reality?

NO!

Rocks just are. A human mind adds this concept of "two". That is what human minds do all day, take perceptions and add layer upon layer upon layer of concepts.

I agree with you so far. (This is only a comment about the text I quoted. I haven't read all the previous posts in this thread).

It is possible for you, a human, to perceive reality directly, non-conceptually.

How? By not thinking? Why would we want to do that?

 

[NoVA101]

All you have done in this entire post is to add "rocks" to the "real" category and "two" to the "not real" category.

This is not a question of the merit of your idea, but of the content of your idea. You are using the english word "real" to express some idea that you have. But the way that you are using it is non-standard. So the rest of us are unable to evaluate the merit of your idea because fundamentally you have not yet communicated it.

No, the categorization is entirely yours, I only organized it. You came up with the categorization by applying some definition that you are either unable or unwilling to share. We cannot have a successful communication until you do.

Sorry, but until you clearly define your core concept there is no point in responding further. I have done all I can do from my end to help this conversation, the next step is up to you.

PS: This is counter-productive. If you want to get someone to realize something you should say it in the most succinct manner possible.

"...until you clearly define your core concept..."

Dude! Are you reading what I am writing?

Here is my attempt to provide the clearest explanation of Reality:

Concepts are not real. Reality just is.

There.

If that were true -- and I contend that is obviously true -- then your questions would clearly not make sense.

Here's why:

I am saying concepts aren't real, and you are saying you want me to define the concept of Reality.

"If you want to get someone to realize something you should say it in the most succinct manner possible."

So again you are doing the same thing -- you are saying I am not explaining my concept of Reality clearly.

But Reality is NON-CONCEPTUAL! Concepts are ONLY an extremely limited function within a human mind.

Reality just is. Reality can NOT be explained by using concepts.

I can almost anticipate what you are thinking, "Yes, but I don't understand that concept." Or, "But that concept doesn't make any sense to my mind." Right!

This is a paradox. It is (almost) the most fundamental paradox of human existence.

And like I said before, it IS possible for you to understand Reality without concepts. That is, YOU can perceive Reality directly.

If you say this doesn't make sense... then you are finally getting it. It does not make sense to your conceptual mind. Reality does not have concepts. The rocks just are, the mind ADDS IN the CONCEPT of "two", which is not there in Reality.

 

[NoVA101]

I agree with you so far. (This is only a comment about the text I quoted. I haven't read all the previous posts in this thread).How? By not thinking? Why would we want to do that?

Aaaah! Good questions!

How? Very very very very long answer. Maybe we'll get to that sometime!

By not thinking? Why would we want to do that? Well, that too is a very long answer, but let me try to prompt you with a couple of questions.

You seem to be asking, "Why would we not want to think?" ... so let me ask you -- when, in your early life, when you were an infant or whatever, did you DECIDE to first start thinking? You didn't really think about thinking right? How could you... you weren't even thinking yet!

So really, the brain started doing its thing, and the "mind" (whatever that is) started having thoughts. Presumably all of your first thoughts were totally in response to some sort of stimuli, right? You don't have any opinions or beliefs when you are an infant, do you? So if someone accidentally poked you with a pin or something, your body and mind just did an animal reaction thing and pulled away, but in the mind there was presumably a thought, like, "Ouch, that hurts." And then shortly thereafter there was probably a thought about "I want to avoid that situation in the future" or something. Animal reactions. Avoidance of bad stuff, attraction to good stuff.

Then more complex things happened, and opinions began to be formed. Maybe something happened that the mind interpreted as "good" occurred when someone did something for you and they were wearing red, and later in life your favorite color is red, and you don't really even know why. Its just an opinion. Based on thoughts that just occurred. And as these thoughts get more and more complex in response to more and more stimuli, being interpreted by this ever increasingly complex database of memories and processing power and opinions, etc. So perhaps later in life they are so random and unpredictable that decisions aren't as simple as, "I don't want to be poked with a pin" they actually seem to be freely chosen, by a "will" or something. Are they?

So let's fast forward to this morning. When you woke up this morning, when did you decide to begin the whole thinking process?

Seriously. You seem to be asking why would a person not want to think.

But I am asking how you decide you DO want to think.

Do you? Do you decide in the morning to start thinking, or does it just happen?

You don't have to think about thinking, right? Does that even make sense? Then what happens? This starts getting strange!

But you don't think about thinking, you just think. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say, thoughts just occur in the mind.

Oh! You mean like an infant? When thoughts just occur in the mind in reaction to stimuli?

What is the first thought you have in the morning. Well, it depends, right? If you have a radio come on, you might start thinking about some news story. That is, an external stimulus caused certain thoughts to begin occurring in the mind. Did you CHOOSE to start thinking about those things?

If the hot body next to you starts doing stuff to your body, do you have to think about your reaction, or does the reaction just occur? Do the thoughts just occur, or do you have to think about starting to think those thoughts?

Who is thinking your thoughts. No really. That seems like a strange question, but it really isn't.

Do you think about your thoughts? But aren't those just more thoughts? But when did you think, "I should have my first thought for today?" You can't think about your first thought, because that IS your first thought! So where did that first thought come from? It just arose in the mind. Sometimes from an external stimulus, sometimes you just wake up and think, "I have to do this today." Right? Where did that thought come from? It just popped into your mind. And then you start thinking about that.

But you didn't choose the first thought, right? So what makes you think you chose the second thought -- the thought about that thought? And on and on it goes, until you are where you are right now, lost in a stream of thoughts.

Wait. What is the YOU that is lost in a stream of thoughts? Am I not my thoughts?

Wait. Are you your thoughts, or are you that which is thinking the thoughts, choosing the thoughts?

Wait. Or am I that which is aware of the thoughts that are being thought?

Again... I don't know how you can get out of this trap... you can't be the thoughts and also be thinking the thoughts. How do you choose to think thoughts about thoughts?

If you are your thoughts, then what is doing the choosing about which thoughts to think?

Here is a really simple test you can take for your self.

Do you think you control your thoughts? Then do it! Do this for yourself. Here is a test you can do for yourself so you can prove to yourself for yourself that you control your thoughts.

Just sit there quietly for the next 5 minutes, and have no thoughts at all. None. Zero. Zip. Nothing. Empty.

Try it.

I know the answer already. Do you? I tried it. You have to try it for yourself or you won't get it! But the answer is simple. Its not possible. Thoughts pop into your head. Important things you think you have to do arise in your mind. Or you might think, "This is dumb, why am I doing this." That's a thought!

I thought you said you could control your thoughts? Do it! You can't.

I double-dog dare you to try to convince me or anyone else for that matter that you can control your thoughts such that you can have no thoughts whatsoever for 5 minutes.

Fine, here's an even easier test.

For the next five minutes only think about ONE thing. It could be anything. But once you choose that one thing, do NOT think about anything else. At all. For five minutes. If you do it for a few seconds, but then find yourself thinking about that sound you just heard, then you failed and have to start over. I thought you said you can control your thoughts?

Here, I'll make it even easier for you. Take something that is really simple, and really fundamental, and is always available for you to think about, and think about that one thing. (If you choose something complex or emotionally charged, that will likely lead you to more complex thoughts. The point of this exercise is to just think about ONE thing. Because you have control over your thoughts, right?) So for example, take you Breathing. It is always there! It is so simple and so natural you don't even think about it usually, so it should be really easy to concentrate your thoughts on this one thing. Pick one small part of your breathing, like your belly moving in and out. Or the feel of the air moving in and out at the tip of your nostrils. Whatever. Simple, fundamental, always there. Easy to control those thoughts. :)

Take these tests for yourself. Prove to yourself that you have control over your thoughts.

WARNING: These tests are very dangerous. If you can NOT pass these tests, then your entire notion of reality will change fundamentally and forever. Can you see why?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Reality just is. Reality can NOT be explained by using concepts.

Then that makes it pretty tough to have a conversation about it.