What Is Reality? Can Anyone Define It?

[NoVA101]

Generally in philosophy we can talk about:

A <- B <- C
Self/Mind <- Perception/Experience <- Existense/Physical world

(C)A flame makes contact with your hand and a signal is sent to your brain. Your brain processes the signal as pain.

(A) And you...

(B)..experience pain.

Things can 'go wrong' however.
You can feel a burning pain when no flame is present, or you can feel no pain, even when one is.

So how does one know when one has made an error?

The problem is, the 'causes of perception', the physical world, is actually entirely theoretical. We experience different sensations, we look for patterns in those sensations and we develop rules based on those patterns. The most basic of these rules are based on patterns we experienced growing up. We tend to take them for granted as adults. But the rules are still only rules we made up to describe patterns of experience.

Now, the theory of gravity as described by Newton is a very precise rule. And useful, and based on very consistent experience. Its so consistent, that when we experience something that contradicts it, we assume we have either made an error, or that some other variable is involved. Einstein took that and gave us an even better rule. But there are still inconsistencies.

So, how do we know that existence is entirely consistent?
We don't.
We simply go on the assumption that there is consistency in existence.

Many philosophers place 'reality' in the perception area, because comparing perceptions is really where the work gets done. And its why science is so important. Science is about comparing perceptions, and some would say, constructing a 'reality', or model of existence, based on the consistency of perception.

The self has direct access to experience, but not to existence, not to the 'causes of perception', which may seem very real, but on an intellectual level are entirely theoretical.

Awesome JoeDawg!

You have bumped right up against perhaps the most important part of any discussion of reality. But I believe you have made a fundamental -- and incorrect -- assumption. AND WE ALL DO IT! We all make this same error. Myself included.

And I believe most scientists would agree that making a poor assumption is antithetical to all scientific inquiry.

At one level, it seems accurate that your model makes sense:

A <- B <- C
Self/Mind <- Perception/Experience <- Existence/Physical world​

But fully explore A, Self/Mind. I believe most people (at least scientists) would agree to this refined model of your A:

Self <-- Mind <-- Brain​

Do you agree? A human is an animal with a brain. The brain gives rise to a concept we call the "mind". And then what would you say? The mind gives rise to the "self"? There is a separate independent "self" that controls the mind? Humans have a unique "sense-of-self" unlike most? all? other "lesser" life forms?

I believe there are two possible ways to answer the question of what is the "self".

1. Make stuff up.
2. Get rid of the assumption. That is to say, there is no such thing as a "self".

Here is some simplified answers to both 1 and 2.

1. You could make up some sort of "soul" or something like that. You could make up something called a "spirit" or some sort of "energy" or any number of cool sounding non-provable, non-scientific things. You could believe that a "mind" gives rise to a "free will" -- but then I ask you, where is it? Prove it. To yourself! How does a human make a totally and completely free decision (not influenced by anything at all)? Look into your own experience and see where "you" have done this.

2. You could give up the assumption that there is any "self" at all. This implies that I am just an animal, and all my actions, thoughts, beliefs, and things that seem to be acts of "free will" are no different than any other (complex) organism responding to stimuli.

Scientists don't like any of the answers under 1, because they are made up, non-scientific.

But no one likes the answer under 2, because everyone likes to think they have free will, and that there is a "self", and in fact they themselves feel like they have some sort of "sense of self". But most scientists, pure scientists, believe humans are just animals, like any other. But that would mean the very thoughts I am having right now, they are just happening, "I" don't control them, because there is no "I". There is just a complex organism reacting to the current stimulus. But wait, if you take that even further, then that means I am not doing anything, because there is no "I", there is just stuff happening (albeit seemingly quite complex and unpredictable). [Do you feel the mind wresting with this? No way! The implication is that I am not doing anything! I have no control, because there is no "I"! No one has any control! That can't be! Chaos would erupt!] Just because the mind doesn't like the implications doesn't mean it isn't true!

This is it! This is the question I would love to have a scientist answer for me in the most scientific manner, in a way that is provable, without making up anything at all:

What is the "you", the "I", the "self" that controls the mind?

[You can probably tell I think I know what the answer is. But the implications of that answer actually change everything you currently know about reality. Everything.]

 

[JoeDawg]

There's still a reason in reality why these perceptions exist, whether internal (in the head) or external.

I don't think I would go so far, 'reason' implies some understanding of cause/effect. While its true this is what we generally experience, its not a certainty. It *could be* a random event, therefore, no 'reason'. What I would say is that the perception is part of reality. You can't deny the feeling. Its either there or not. What the feeling indicates... that's more problematic.

All in all, I completely disbelieve someone when they say they meditated, or reached nirvana

I think its possible for people to experience something profound, that isn't necessarily a different level of existence... but when they do experience the profound, since it affects them so deeply, they give it, or attribute to it, an objective existence.

 

[JoeDawg]

A <- B <- C
Self/Mind <- Perception/Experience <- Existence/Physical world

But fully explore A, Self/Mind. I believe most people (at least scientists) would agree to this refined model of your A:

Self <-- Mind <-- Brain

Do you agree?

That's complicating things. My model was limited on purpose. It was only intended to show, in a basic way, the different levels of what we could call 'reality'. People disagree about this quite a lot. Your model implies an understanding of how consciousness relates to brain, but the fact consciousness can be self-reflective creates a problem in your model.

I'm tempted to correct it:
Self <--> Mind <--> Brain

Or I could do it this way:
(Self <--> Mind) <--> Brain

But honestly, I don't find either very compelling.
I think there is a recursive element to our minds that we don't quite understand.

Humans have a unique "sense-of-self" unlike most? all? other "lesser" life forms?

How unique we are is an open question.
It seems the more we learn the less 'special' we see ourselves.

Freewill is a problem unto itself. I tend to side with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism" on this issue.

I find I'm rarely impressed by people who think they have 'the answers that will change everything'. People like this are a dime a dozen. And you get what you pay for.

 

[NoVA101]

That's complicating things. My model was limited on purpose. It was only intended to show, in a basic way, the different levels of what we could call 'reality'. People disagree about this quite a lot. Your model implies an understanding of how consciousness relates to brain, but the fact consciousness can be self-reflective creates a problem in your model.

I'm tempted to correct it:
Self <--> Mind <--> Brain

Or I could do it this way:
(Self <--> Mind) <--> Brain

But honestly, I don't find either very compelling.
I think there is a recursive element to our minds that we don't quite understand.


How unique we are is an open question.
It seems the more we learn the less 'special' we see ourselves.

Freewill is a problem unto itself. I tend to side with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism" on this issue.

I find I'm rarely impressed by people who think they have 'the answers that will change everything'. People like this are a dime a dozen. And you get what you pay for.

I guess I don't understand. It seems clear to me that you are making an assumption or you are clinging to a belief. Both of which are non-scientific.

You say, "It seems the more we learn the less 'special' we see ourselves." Right! So why do we assign to ourselves the belief or assumption that there is a unique "self"?

You say, "Freewill is a problem unto itself." But doesn't the very discussion of "free will" depend on the assumption that there is in fact a "self" to have a will?

You say, "I'm rarely impressed by people who think they have 'the answers that will change everything' " -- but I can assure you that a simple, scientific, rational analysis of what results when there is no longer the assumption or belief in a self changes everything. Maybe we'll do that, if you or anyone else can provide me a scientific reason to have the belief in a self.

 

[JoeDawg]

I guess I don't understand.

I think that's because you are jumping around from one topic to another and not examining anything thoroughly.

I described different ways that philosophers look at reality.

You jumped into a discussion about the nature of consciousness, which is not what I was talking about. And then you jump into a discussion of freewill.
No wonder you are confused.

Science doesn't know what consciousness is, and philosophers have all kinds of opinions.
The fact no one seems to agree doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It might not, but so what?

I'm not making any kind of assumption about the self. The self appears to exist.
If you're looking for a good argument for 'the self' read: Descartes' Meditations.

But seriously, you should settle on a topic and try and examine it thoroughly before making pronouncements. Otherwise you just sound like you are ranting.

You say, "I'm rarely impressed by people who think they have 'the answers that will change everything' " -- but I can assure you that a simple, scientific, rational analysis of what results when there is no longer the assumption or belief in a self changes everything.

And I can assure you it doesn't. Yay me.
There are all different species of Monism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
You're not talking about anything new here. But none of that is scientific by the way.

 

[NoVA101]

I'm not making any kind of assumption about the self. The self appears to exist.

But seriously, you should settle on a topic and try and examine it thoroughly before making pronouncements.

You're not talking about anything new here. But none of that is scientific by the way.

The self "appears" to exist? Where's the proof? Scientific proof? If there is only debate, then stop assuming. Then the answer is: There is no self.

All the "ranting" leads to that one question. All of it. Does the self exist?

"None of that is scientific" -- Nor is assuming the self exists. That is an assumption, based on an "appearance" or a "belief", nothing scientific. All other beliefs, observations, senses, memories, all of them are all based on that one unfounded belief, in the "self". Get rid of that unfounded, unscientific belief, and everything totally changes. Cling to a belief that is unfounded = religion.

 

[JoeDawg]

Where's the proof? Scientific proof?

Again, you are confused. Science deals with evidence, theory, laws, and hypothesis.
Not proofs. No proof for you!

Proofs are used in things like mathematics.
For another example Look up: "Deductive reasoning"

I'm not assuming anything. I was detailing several different positions.

"There is no self" is an assumption.
Read some Descartes, then get back to me. Repeating yourself is just not convincing.

 

[Sorry!]

interesting this reminds me of berkeley... i have to agree with Nova. although i do NOT think that we can perceive reality directly at all ever

my reasoning for humans not being able to perceive reality directly is just the fact that we CAN NOT know for sure if what we are perceiving is in fact REAL at all unless we have pure perception from some omnipresent location which we can not do so there's no point in thinking about doing that... maybe we can get closer to 'viewing' what we think is more accurate than what we saw before but how do we know this to be valid the fact that we don't know if what we perceive is ever real is unfalsifiable.

as for the discussion about the self that has come i do not think humans have a 'self' as well it is just illusory strange eh? but i don't see how a 'self' can exist it just makes no sense

so yeah we can never know reality more than how we perceive it and we can never be certain of a fundamental reality THEREFORE reality to us is exactly whatever we perceive it to be whether or not its fundamental or not since we can not know we shouldn't bother bringing it any further

 

[Sorry!]

Again, you are confused. Science deals with evidence, theory, laws, and hypothesis.
Not proofs. No proof for you!

Proofs are used in things like mathematics.
For another example Look up: "Deductive reasoning"

I'm not assuming anything. I was detailing several different positions.

"There is no self" is an assumption.
Read some Descartes, then get back to me. Repeating yourself is just not convincing.

i think evidence from science points to humans having no self.

 

[JoeDawg]

i think evidence from science points to humans having no self.

Ok, I'll bite, what is your evidence?

 

[Sorry!]

well the biggest would be libet's experiment which showed that conscious awareness does not arrive until half a second after something occurs...

how can it control us then as the self is supposed to do?

everything in our universe is made of the same matter from the big bang we shouldn't try to make ourselves special in anyway by giving ourselves something spiritual that exists regardless of what is 'carrying' it.
even if it did exist.. is it physical? mental? neither? what is it then... where is it located how does it work?

i also think that the burden of scientific evidence should be placed on showing the self exist or is likely to exist just as the burden of does such and such a god exist should be placed on the believers.

 

[JoeDawg]

well the biggest would be libet's experiment which showed that conscious awareness does not arrive until half a second after something occurs...

Its certainly an interesting experiment, but epiphenomenalism has its problems too.

You might find these interesting as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#neuroscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism#Some_critical_responses

what is it then... where is it located how does it work?

It relates to how complex systems work, no supernatural agency necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism

 

[Sorry!]

Its certainly an interesting experiment, but epiphenomenalism has its problems too.

You might find these interesting as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#neuroscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism#Some_critical_responses



It relates to how complex systems work, no supernatural agency necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism

never heard of emergentism before hmmph :P thanks for link..

just to clarify it is stating that when simple parts combine to form more complex systems properties emerge in the system that could not have been previously expected? i could accept this version of a 'self' (gonna read a bit more about it...)when i was thinking of a self i thought more of a spirtual 'its me' type of thing :P


:::EDIT:::
ok i was thinking about this just now while looking for more information about it... and i can't seem to get past the 'the whole is greater than the sum of the parts' approach emergentism takes. As i was saying before we can only know reality as we perceive it. When i look at say a dog i know I'm looking at a dog but what makes the dog? It can be broken down further and further until you reach the fundamental particles. and that's all that is there really and you can only explain seeing the dog by considering the facts about positions etc of fundamental particles. so how can something emerge from the fundamental particles that is not logically consistent with what they are capable of anyways.

or am i misunderstanding something about emergentism

 

[JoeDawg]

or am i misunderstanding something about emergentism

I'm not a expert, but I think the idea goes along the same lines as this:

If you have a room filled with Hydrogen and Oxygen, and you light a match, that would be bad.
But if that same room was filled with Water, its not the fire you have to worry about, its drowning.

When the atoms combine to form water, you are not adding together the properties of hydrogen and water. Water has completely different, or new properties, compared to either hydrogen or oxygen. The whole (of water) is NOT just the sum of the parts.

 

[Sorry!]

I'm not a expert, but I think the idea goes along the same lines as this:

If you have a room filled with Hydrogen and Oxygen, and you light a match, that would be bad.
But if that same room was filled with Water, its not the fire you have to worry about, its drowning.

When the atoms combine to form water, you are not adding together the properties of hydrogen and water. Water has completely different, or new properties, compared to either hydrogen or oxygen. The whole (of water) is NOT just the sum of the parts.

i'm sure that when scientist are making new compounds they know what form the compound will take and don't just wing it...? this is because they would have a general understanding of how the elements work and how they react and why. so if they looked at hydrogen and oxygen I'm sure they would figure out that it will make a liquid when they come together to form a stable compound (h2o).

this means its the sum of the parts makes the whole and no more.

 

[JoeDawg]

i'm sure that when scientist are making new compounds they know what form the compound will take and don't just wing it...? this is because they would have a general understanding of how the elements work and how they react and why. so if they looked at hydrogen and oxygen I'm sure they would figure out that it will make a liquid when they come together to form a stable compound (h2o).

this means its the sum of the parts makes the whole and no more.

You're sure?? My understanding of science is that scientists do an experiment and then note the results. And its often NOT what they thought it would be.

People used to think water/earth/air/fire were the elements. It sure seemed logical at the time. Then they actually started doing experiments. Its only after scientists did a huge number of these experiments that they discovered molecules and the elements of the periodic table.

Now, I'm not a chemist, so I really have no idea. But that was simply 'my example', something that came off the top of my head. Take it literally or as an analogy. Clearly water is not what most people would think of as a complex system. And complex systems are what emergence is all about. But the idea behind emergence is that when things combine 'new' properties, that don't belong to either part, 'emerge'.

I'm not even advocating this position, but I find in interesting, and i find reductionism, especially when it comes to consciousness unsatisfying, and really we're only scratching the surface with regards to neuroscience so I'd say the jury is still out.

 

[Anticitizen]

I don't think I would go so far, 'reason' implies some understanding of cause/effect. While its true this is what we generally experience, its not a certainty. It *could be* a random event, therefore, no 'reason'. What I would say is that the perception is part of reality. You can't deny the feeling. Its either there or not. What the feeling indicates... that's more problematic.

I suppose, for clarity, I should've said a cause, not a reason.

On the other topic of the mind/brain/spirit/whatever:

I was told my computer ran Windows, and that it was in the hard drive, but when I took the hard drive apart, all I found were chipboards, wires, and magnetic platters. I took a microscope to the platters but I couldn't see Windows there anywhere. Then someone told me I had to use magnetic sensors to read the platters, but then all I found were ones and zeroes (in reality, not even that, just on/off states). I don't suggest you cut your brain open hoping to find a mind in there.

 

[JoeDawg]

I don't suggest you cut your brain open hoping to find a mind in there.

I think the preferred method is using an fMRI. Less messy.

 

[NoVA101]

I suppose, for clarity, I should've said a cause, not a reason.

On the other topic of the mind/brain/spirit/whatever:

I was told my computer ran Windows, and that it was in the hard drive, but when I took the hard drive apart, all I found were chipboards, wires, and magnetic platters. I took a microscope to the platters but I couldn't see Windows there anywhere. Then someone told me I had to use magnetic sensors to read the platters, but then all I found were ones and zeroes (in reality, not even that, just on/off states). I don't suggest you cut your brain open hoping to find a mind in there.

Oh my god, that is awesome... you get it!

All of my crazy-sounding messages ALL point to this same thing... everything, everything, everything that you THINK exists in Reality, doesn't. And most importantly, that means YOU.

When you finally get that, then understand the implications, everything, everything, everything changes.

 

[Anticitizen]

However, I wouldn't say that the implication is that there is no 'self' or no 'mind', only that they are not anything that exists independently of the brain. As I said in the 'non-physical universe' thread, I think consciousness is a process that the physical brain performs, not a 'noun' in its own right. If that makes sense.

Sort of how a symphony piece is a process of the performing orchestra. When the instruments stop moving, the process halts.

 

[Anticitizen]

Huh. Cosmic weirdness. It's windy outside, and after I typed my previous post concerning the orchestra, my mind wandered, and I thought about the idea a wind-powered music box... and naturally did a google search for 'wind-powered music box.' The third result led to a physicsforums thread :)

 

[NoVA101]

However, I wouldn't say that the implication is that there is no 'self' or no 'mind', only that they are not anything that exists independently of the brain. As I said in the 'non-physical universe' thread, I think consciousness is a process that the physical brain performs, not a 'noun' in its own right. If that makes sense.

Sort of how a symphony piece is a process of the performing orchestra. When the instruments stop moving, the process halts.

So where is the "symphony piece"? It is a concept in human minds. Where is a constellation? It is a concept in human minds. Where does the dark side of the moon end and the light side begin? Only in a mind. When you see two things, where is "two"? There is no such thing as "two", that is only a concept in a mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object . Where do "you" end and where does "other" begin? That is only in the mind. Why not give up this silly notion that there is a "you" entirely? That is infinitely closer to Reality. And then the implications!

 

[Math Is Hard]

Nova, the mind may be nothing more than what the brain "does". This is not a novel concept. Please acquaint yourself with readings on the philosophy of mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

We have wandered far from the topic here. You've given us too much story with too little punchline.