What Is Reality? Can Anyone Define It?

[Graviton]

Can anyone define me reality please?Is it what we see real or it is just an illusion?

 

[Sorry!]

i would define reality as: that which continues to exist after all all conscious thought is removed.

as for your second question... it would really depend on what you yourself believe. I don't think it would make much sense to ask other people if there are supernatural beings.

 

[Bill Foster]

Is it what we see real or it is just an illusion?

Yes.

 

[JoeDawg]

Can anyone define me reality please?Is it what we see real or it is just an illusion?

Reality is what we experience.

When philosophers talk about 'illusion' its mainly a reference to the idea that reality may not be what it appears. When we look at solid objects we can see that this appears to be true... 'solid' objects are actually almost entirely empty space after all.

According to our current understanding of physics... what we experience is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what 'exists'. In that sense what we experience is not 'true', it is illusory. Also our understanding can be said to create a model of what exists, a virtual reality in our minds.

What causes our reality, what is beyond our ability to consciously experience in some way, is not something science can comment on.

 

[Qmystic]

Although Joedawg (as usual) hit the nail on the head in my opinion, I couldn't resist adding a thought.

Is it what we see real

How about considering: More than "is what we see real" - - - is that which we see out there really "out there" as we see it. Have you considered that what we think we see is the result of photons either bouncing off or being emitted from an entity (mostly empty of stuff) that our eyes translate to biochemical pulses that our brain assembles as information to creat a mental image of what we "perceive" to be out there?

As Joedawg saws, it's real because we percieve it as real. All reality is perception, but that is our reality. To me the important thing is to ENJOY the perceived reality.

 

[ripcurl1016]

there is no reality only perception

 

[Sorry!]

there is no reality only perception

odd what would we perceive and what would we call what we make of what we perceive?

 

[ripcurl1016]

reality is perception...but the idea of a reality is something singularly real...perception is subjective, so reality is subjective...

 

[mathfigure]

Reality (real world) is just a chromo-spatio-temporal interaction.

 

[NoVA101]

Can anyone define me reality please?Is it what we see real or it is just an illusion?

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 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?

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

Is it possible for a human to perceive without adding in this layer of concepts?

If I understand it correctly, the answer is yes. This other way to perceive reality without concepts means you perceive reality directly. This then changes everything. Your entire notion of reality changes. (I could tell you more, but it gets weird fast, and is difficult to talk about, but ask if you really want to know...)

 

[WaveJumper]

Can anyone define me reality please?

Wavefunctions.

Those are vectors in linear space. If you think of wavefunctions as ideas or thoughts, you wouldn't be too far off the mark, since they are made of the same "substance" as ideas and thoughts. In certain circumstances, those wavefunctions have the ability to appear particle-like to observers and form a conscious experience that there is something "out there". QM is nonlocal and this "out there" is most certainly an illusion.

 

[Sorry!]

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 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?

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

Is it possible for a human to perceive without adding in this layer of concepts?

If I understand it correctly, the answer is yes. This other way to perceive reality without concepts means you perceive reality directly. This then changes everything. Your entire notion of reality changes. (I could tell you more, but it gets weird fast, and is difficult to talk about, but ask if you really want to know...)

i don't think it would be possible for a human to perceive reality directly. we are not meant to do this in ANY way. in order to accomplish what you are saying we would have to have pure perception which we do not have and can not acquire...

 

[NoVA101]

i don't think it would be possible for a human to perceive reality directly. we are not meant to do this in ANY way. in order to accomplish what you are saying we would have to have pure perception which we do not have and can not acquire...

There is a book called My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientist's Personal Journey -- written by a Harvard brain scientist where she perceives reality differently ("directly") and describes in great detail how the human brain makes this possible.

There is a book called Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness -- written by a Professor of Neuroscience who explains how you can do exercises with your brain so that you too can experience reality differently, "directly" if you will.

There is a book called Perfect Brilliant Stillness by a non-scientist, non-spiritual person who describes a similar experience of reality, where he experiences reality "directly" but it happened for him spontaneously, he did not have a stroke, or do any exercises.

There are many books and teachings like this, that stretch back thousands of years. It is very difficult to understand this because it seems to be at the intersection of science and spirituality, and because it seems to be a way to use your brain in a way that is non-conceptual (which seems to be antithetical to science, even though it is just using your brain in a different way).

 

[Math Is Hard]

There is a book called My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientist's Personal Journey -- written by a Harvard brain scientist where she perceives reality differently ("directly") and describes in great detail how the human brain makes this possible.

I saw her TED video some time ago and thought it was fascinating.
http://blog.ted.com/2008/03/jill_bolte_tayl.php

Rather than interpret it as a "direct" reality experience, though, it seemed like a lesser and disorganized and substantially more indirect experience-- or what reality is like when half your equipment is on the blink.

There is a book called Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness -- written by a Professor of Neuroscience who explains how you can do exercises with your brain so that you too can experience reality differently, "directly" if you will.

There is a book called Perfect Brilliant Stillness by a non-scientist, non-spiritual person who describes a similar experience of reality, where he experiences reality "directly" but it happened for him spontaneously, he did not have a stroke, or do any exercises.

There are many books and teachings like this, that stretch back thousands of years. It is very difficult to understand this because it seems to be at the intersection of science and spirituality, and because it seems to be a way to use your brain in a way that is non-conceptual (which seems to be antithetical to science, even though it is just using your brain in a different way).

I'm not familiar with these authors, but they obviously wrote things that were very compelling to you. How do you satisfy yourself that they are not fooling themselves, that their claims of "direct" reality experience are not delusional?

 

[Sorry!]

i believe the only way to acquire pure perception is to have absolutely no past experiences and not use reasoning (impossible for a human...) about present experiences. not be hindered by our senses (which rely HEAVILY on reasoning in order to even work...) the list can go on about what is necessary but these 3 right here are the biggest road blocks for why i believe humans can never have pure perception.

firstly we do have past experiences and our conscious about this (whether we realize it or not... its not like we can 'control' our consciousness it just is.)

second we have imperfect perception tools (our senses) which are heavily hindered by our reasoning skills... it works for what we need in order to live and survive and thrive but not for knowing and being certain of what exist in actuality.

even if u remove reasoning skills for brief periods and lose conciousness i do not believe we can say our senses are ANYWHERE close enough to be considered 'perfect' and seeing 'what is truly there' what you would call 'direct perception' instead we would get a mashed up mashed up version of reality... if we could perfectly perceive this then it wouldn't be mashed up mashed up it would be clear and probably (i would assume...) to seem 'whole' and 'one' but still clear to the observer.


---edit
i watched that video and have to agree with math is hard that she observed the world rather indirectly than directly... it is quite fascinating how the brain works though thanks for posting that lol

 

[Pythagorean]

I always thought "perceiving directly" was when you like, squished your toes in the sand, or laid in a field of grass in the sun, and felt each little blade of grass and the warm sun on your exposed skin or listened to an orchestra...

and just perceived, without trying intellectually interpret your perceptions. I don't think this gives you a better intellectual understanding of reality, but it may give you a better feeling for reality.

Also, you have to remember that our imagination and consciousness and our physical bodies are all parts of reality too, we can't separate ourselves from safely behind a glass wall and say "that's reality over there" we're part of it, interacting with all the other parts of it.

Note: I'm not saying that an image of a rock in my brain is the same thing as a rock, I'm saying that there both part of the same reality, and the image of a rock in my brain wouldn't be there without rock-like things existing in the first place.

 

[Sorry!]

I always thought "perceiving directly" was when you like, squished your toes in the sand, or laid in a field of grass in the sun, and felt each little blade of grass and the warm sun on your exposed skin or listened to an orchestra...

and just perceived, without trying intellectually interpret your perceptions. I don't think this gives you a better intellectual understanding of reality, but it may give you a better feeling for reality.

Also, you have to remember that our imagination and consciousness and our physical bodies are all parts of reality too, we can't separate ourselves from safely behind a glass wall and say "that's reality over there" we're part of it, interacting with all the other parts of it.

Note: I'm not saying that an image of a rock in my brain is the same thing as a rock, I'm saying that there both part of the same reality, and the image of a rock in my brain wouldn't be there without rock-like things existing in the first place.

yeah that's what i guess im' getting at ... we can NOT purely perceive reality. impossible.

 

[NoVA101]

I saw her TED video some time ago and thought it was fascinating.
http://blog.ted.com/2008/03/jill_bolte_tayl.php

Rather than interpret it as a "direct" reality experience, though, it seemed like a lesser and disorganized and substantially more indirect experience-- or what reality is like when half your equipment is on the blink.

I'm not familiar with these authors, but they obviously wrote things that were very compelling to you. How do you satisfy yourself that they are not fooling themselves, that their claims of "direct" reality experience are not delusional?

Yes, what Jill Taylor experienced was a malfunctioning brain, so you would expect it to be messed up. But my understanding is you can use your equipment differently, and have a different experience of reality. And when this happens you "know" this new version is more accurate.

Very excellent question about delusional! But that begs the question: how can we know right now that what we are experiencing is not the delusional version of reality, and those other people have the more accurate version (or whatever you would call it).

If someone starts going off and talking about all sorts of "spiritual" stuff, you would rightly be suspicious that they are maybe just making stuff up. But if you are simply using your brain in a different manner, why can't that reality be the more accurate one? How would you know?

And of course that then begs the question of what an accurate version of reality is! Again, all I can say is what I've read (by many people).

 

[Sorry!]

Yes, what Jill Taylor experienced was a malfunctioning brain, so you would expect it to be messed up. But my understanding is you can use your equipment differently, and have a different experience of reality. And when this happens you "know" this new version is more accurate.

Very excellent question about delusional! But that begs the question: how can we know right now that what we are experiencing is not the delusional version of reality, and those other people have the more accurate version (or whatever you would call it).

If someone starts going off and talking about all sorts of "spiritual" stuff, you would rightly be suspicious that they are maybe just making stuff up. But if you are simply using your brain in a different manner, why can't that reality be the more accurate one? How would you know?

And of course that then begs the question of what an accurate version of reality is! Again, all I can say is what I've read (by many people).

oh ok so your just saying that it would more accurately represent reality.. well in that case i don't see why not.. we just can never be sure about it though... hmph.

 

[NoVA101]

i believe the only way to acquire pure perception is to have absolutely no past experiences and not use reasoning (impossible for a human...) about present experiences. not be hindered by our senses (which rely HEAVILY on reasoning in order to even work...) the list can go on about what is necessary but these 3 right here are the biggest road blocks for why i believe humans can never have pure perception.

firstly we do have past experiences and our conscious about this (whether we realize it or not... its not like we can 'control' our consciousness it just is.)

second we have imperfect perception tools (our senses) which are heavily hindered by our reasoning skills... it works for what we need in order to live and survive and thrive but not for knowing and being certain of what exist in actuality.

even if u remove reasoning skills for brief periods and lose conciousness i do not believe we can say our senses are ANYWHERE close enough to be considered 'perfect' and seeing 'what is truly there' what you would call 'direct perception' instead we would get a mashed up mashed up version of reality... if we could perfectly perceive this then it wouldn't be mashed up mashed up it would be clear and probably (i would assume...) to seem 'whole' and 'one' but still clear to the observer.


---edit
i watched that video and have to agree with math is hard that she observed the world rather indirectly than directly... it is quite fascinating how the brain works though thanks for posting that lol

I believe you are making an assumption when you say, "no past experiences and not use reasoning (impossible for a human)".

I believe what these brain scientists are clearly saying is that you have different parts of your brain that work differently. Most crudely, the Left half does all the reasoning and has all the rationality, and generates all concepts such as "time". But the Right half is infinitely in the present, receiving all data from the sense, and not actually processing it.

I believe that we all emphasize the Left half of our brains, and consider all that results from that to be the "real" reality. But -- again it is my understanding -- you can emphasize the Right half of your brain, and have a totally different sense of reality. And when this happens, you "know" that this new version is more accurate. I find that prospect to be fascinating!

So if you are "in" the Right half of your brain, you will experience everything, without thinking about anything, which is a radically different way to be. But again, the Left half does not shut down, it is just de-emphasized, it still works just fine, you simply experience reality from (what a lot of these people say) a "different perspective".

But you are no less human. You are no different at all. You are simply using the brain differently. And this results in a different reality.

 

[Evo]

Yes, what Jill Taylor experienced was a malfunctioning brain, so you would expect it to be messed up. But my understanding is you can use your equipment differently, and have a different experience of reality. And when this happens you "know" this new version is more accurate.

No you don't.

Very excellent question about delusional! But that begs the question: how can we know right now that what we are experiencing is not the delusional version of reality, and those other people have the more accurate version (or whatever you would call it).

If someone starts going off and talking about all sorts of "spiritual" stuff, you would rightly be suspicious that they are maybe just making stuff up. But if you are simply using your brain in a different manner, why can't that reality be the more accurate one? How would you know?

And of course that then begs the question of what an accurate version of reality is! Again, all I can say is what I've read (by many people).

If a person's perception of reality differs from what is the norm, then their perception would be abnormal.

We have laws of nature that are consistent. To me that is proof that my perception of reality is correct. I know if I drop a rock that it is not going to go up unless there is some force acting on it stronger than gravity.

 

[NoVA101]

No you don't.

If a person's perception of reality differs from what is the norm, then their perception would be abnormal.

I wonder why your statements are so definitive? Are you saying reality is what everyone else says it is? Or what is most obvious? Isn't that the opposite of Science? Do you know why Galileo was imprisoned?

EDIT: Stop using colored font. --> sorry, I have posted many times with colored font, and other admins have told me other problems, but no one ever mentioned this as a problem before. Can you point me to that in the guidelines, I want to be consistent.

 

[Evo]

I wonder why your statements are so definitive? Are you saying reality is what everyone else says it is? Or what is most obvious?

Brain damage doesn't change reality, it can skew a person's perception of reality.

Isn't that the opposite of Science? Do you know why Galileo was imprisoned?

Are you saying Galileo was brain damaged? If not, what does he have to do with this thread?

 

[Sorry!]

yeah i never took into account that someone may go through an experience which damages the rational part of the brain. if this was the case then i would say they are still 'perceiving' the world much less perfectly than if they had their reasoning capabilities. this is because our senses and mind WORK on this relationship if you damage part of the relationship it is no longer functioning how it is supposed to and therefore can not be relied upon...

 

[NoVA101]

Brain damage doesn't change reality, it can skew a person's perception of reality.

Are you saying Galileo was brain damaged? If not, what does he have to do with this thread?

Only one of the authors I referred to temporarily suffered from a brain injury. During that time she experienced a different way to use her brain, although she did not intend for this to happen. The other authors I referred to (and there are MANY more, and have been for thousands of years) also experienced this different way to perceive reality. Some intentionally, some not. But almost all of them claim to know that this other way to perceive reality is more accurate (and yes, how you define that IS a good question). But if you simply use your brain differently, or recognize or emphasize a different part of the brain, or a different functionality in the brain, is still just using your human brain. And this changes your perception of reality, such that you then "know", or you believe you know, reality more accurately.

I don't think anyone can know what this would be like unless they experienced it themselves.

The reference to Galileo is that he was condemned for saying that the consensus reality was not accurate. Everyone "knew" that the Earth did not move, and was at the center of the universe. In fact, there IS evidence to support this. Just look. Just like there IS evidence that the Earth is flat, and that was indeed the consensus reality. But just because there is empirical evidence for something, and everyone believes it, doesn't make it true. It is a version of reality, but there is sometimes a more accurate version of reality available. And now those updated realities are the consensus realities. But to say these new consensus versions of reality could never change would be non-scientific.

 

[Sorry!]

what about pure reason would that as well give us a more 'accurate' view of this world...

i'm interested say that i were a bat and somehow acquired reasoning skills from birth... then one day these skills were taken away from me.. i perceive the world MUCH differently from how a human perceives it is my perception of the world more accurate as well? what about for snakes... any lizard actually or dogs etc. etc.

all I'm saying is our perception tools are not perfect we're only human. they were made in sync with our minds and just because you take away adding concepts to what we perceive does not in any way make what they perceive to be more 'accurate' to what actually exist. this is one of those things i believe is best left alone in philosophy because in truth we will never know.

 

[Anticitizen]

What is the rationale for stating that we don't perceive reality directly? That seems to imply to me that our brains and sensory apparatus are in some way unreal. I think that if there's a disconnect between reality and ourselves, it's in the abstract constructs of conceptualization/rationalization/definition, not the perception stage. Excluding errors in measurement of course.

 

[fumalicious]

to ask if we perceive reality directly seems to me to echo, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?"

Another great quote I just read, "Experience is the mother of certainty."

If you have experienced something you could call "direct reality", then I think you could then talk with other people- with certainty- and be able to tell them that in your opinion, they haven't or are not experiencing what you call "direct reality". For you to just say in a blanket statement that other people simply don't experience it- and can't- seems to be nothing but pure speculation on where the limitations of the human capacities lie, as well as what other human beings' subjective experience is before/ during/ after perception along with the individual psychological mechanics of how that perception is constructed though the various levels of interpretations of the sensory data inputted into their brain... that's a lot to theorize.

It's ok for you to say that YOU don't experience it lol... I just don't think you can ever tell anyone else what they did or did not experience, or can or can not experience in the future...

Last good quote:

"Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing FACT, that we do not know who we are or where we are going, it's been the authorities- the religious, the political, the educational- authorities who have tried to comfort us with order... rule... regulation... informing... forming in our minds, their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a place of vulnerable, open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability- to inform yourself. "

And ultimately I think that's the best you'll ever do- inform yourself about your own reality- because that's the only frame of reference you really have... you can't really ever talk about others with CERTAINTY... you have to talk about yourself. And that ties into the first quote above... I feel the point is that you can't separate perception from reality, they are one in the same but also- reality isn't "out there" to be experienced unless we are there to experience it... anything else is a fantasy and not something that's known with certainty.

For me, there is "this" reality where I think/ feel and am "here"... then there are those moments when I'm snowboarding or playing my drums- i.e. doing something I love- where "I" am actually not "here" anymore; I'm watching effortlessly. My mind is silent/ empty and I am in the moment, I AM the moment... who is to say that's not "direct reality"?

 

[JoeDawg]

Excluding errors in measurement of course.

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.

 

[Anticitizen]

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.

I agree, JoeDawg, as far as the validity of perception is concerned - that the senses can be wrong. But if one feels a burning sensation where none exists, that doesn't mean the sensation is unreal - the feeling is very real; it's a question of what part of reality is causing the sensation (or lack thereof in the inverse). In those cases it's an error in measurement, failure of the sensory apparatus, hallucination, misattribution of the cause, etc. There's still a reason in reality why these perceptions exist, whether internal (in the head) or external.

All in all, I completely disbelieve someone when they say they meditated, or reached nirvana or something and were able to perceive reality 'directly' because I don't feel there's a meaningful distinction between it and 'indirectly' or even a clear definition of the two terms.

 

[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.