Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Philosophical Thoughts On Our Perceptions of Reality

  1. Dec 26, 2003 #1
    Someone posted the following at alt.atheism:

    How do you know what happens after death? Have you been in that position?

    If we are the rational skeptics we ought to be, we will doubt that our perception of 'fleshiness', or materialism in general, is a complete and perfect perception. If we doubt enough, we will see that there is no proof that anything we perceive is real. Then we will have to start from cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am. The only reality we can be sure of is that we are thinking.

    The human body is limited to the sensory and cognitive
    apparatus it is made up of. If you were a rat, do you doubt that there would be more to reality than you could perceive? Why do you think human beings are capable of perfect perception of reality? We're not much brighter than apes, after all, which sit around eating their own puke.

    So, having reached the decidedly un-atheist position of humility, you should look around and see what phenomena you can see. You might want to start with a book on near-death experiences, move on to synchronicity, read a mystic or two, and so on.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 26, 2003 #2
    Of course there is more to reality than we percieve, we're not omnipresent.

    However, because we are not omnipresent, that is not reasoning enough to speculate that there are things which exist beyond Materialist/Naturalist reality.

    However, doubting the perception to the point of "I exist and that's all me knows" is a bit much. If you familiarize yourself with the works of Philosopher G.E. Moore, you get to read some of his great essays such as "A Refutation Of Idealism", "Proof Of The External World", and "A Defense of Commonsense".

    The worldview most Skeptics adopt is known as "Methodological Naturalism". It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. Supernaturalism (whatever that is) is not ruled out a priori; it is left out because it has never been reliably observed. There are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.

    I personally do not like cognito ergo sum, because I dont agree with many of the ideas of Descarte (i.e. that animals have no souls and therefore cannot feel pain...).
  4. Dec 26, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    if we had ultimate perceptions of reality, we would be totally objective...however, we are subjective beings, which makes us human...
  5. Dec 26, 2003 #4
    Morons are correct in blindly stating that reality is whatever we make it to be, unfortunately we cannot ignore reality as we are part of it.

    The general trend seeems to be that nothing is for certain and nothing is not for certain and our reality lies somewhere in between.

    eh? This post isn't about reality but about life after death. We all find out what happens after death without needing to bother, why not concentrate on something more useful.
  6. Dec 27, 2003 #5
    moron takes umbrage

    resatated, we morons say "you create your own reality"

    if you believe that there is no 'life after death' you will not have an after death experience. if you believe in a greater reality, you will experience one.

    how fine is the line tween a moron and a genius???
  7. Dec 28, 2003 #6
    If you no longer exist after death and canot reflect apon what has happenned to you, it doesn't matter as you no longer exist. This is the fine line between moron and genius.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Philosophical Thoughts On Our Perceptions of Reality
  1. Is perception reality? (Replies: 1)