Reality Development Lab: Reality as it really is. - Reality Development Lab

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Reality as it really is.

#1 User is offline   sirnex 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 26-November 09

Posted 26 November 2009 - 04:53 PM

I absolutely love the concept of learning to understand reality and to attempt to know reality as it really is rather than as we wish it to be or think it should be.

I've come to understand that in order to do such a monumental task of understanding, we must first learn how to understand understanding of reality by dismissing all humanized biased concepts of reality. Essentially start from the ground up. Let's first focus on the fundamentals and learn from there how those fundamentals create all things as they exist within reality. Be it a deity of sorts, a magical power, a universe from nothing, or a human who's common ancestor was a bacterium billions of years ago.

Instead of pretending to know or think we know now, let's forget what we know and look at the issue of reality without the subjective human experience of reality. A dog isn't a human, yet it is still conscious of itself and surroundings; Reality for that dog isn't subjectively the same reality for a human mind. Yet we both exist in some higher fundamental objective reality while subjectively experiencing that reality and defining that reality biased upon those experiences. The first task is to first learn how to learn or how to best approximate the task of attempting to learn based upon whatever limitation may exist in learning.

So what thing's would be most fundamental for all of reality?

One thing for me that comes to mind is cause and effect. Can anyone think of anything else that exists for all things in reality?
0

#2 User is offline   Ocelot 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,128
  • Joined: 22-May 06

Posted 03 December 2009 - 10:21 AM

I thinks it's harder than you might assume to dismiss all humanized biases. You are after all human. It's impossible to dismiss the filter that says you see in just three colours within a narrow band. You can't just wish that away and experience the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum in fine detail. Instead you have to recognise that you are limited that you are baised towards the information that you can access easily and remember to use more appropriate tools at times.

It's similarly equally impossible to to simply dismiss our cognitive biases. We will presume false consensuses, we will tend to favour confirmatory evidence rather than contradictory. What we must do is the same as above. Recognise that this is the case and use the appropriate tools when we need to.

The art is then determining when to best invest the extra time energy and effort in doubting our own filtered perceptions and conceptions.
Good buy and gobble less.

Ocelot.

A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth.
-Edward De Bono, consultant, writer, and speaker (1933- )
0

#3 User is offline   Poor Richard 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: 16-April 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, AL
  • Interests:Science, philosophy, evolutionary psychology, cognitive neuroscience, cosmology, Gurdjieff, intentional community

Posted 24 December 2009 - 12:24 AM

View PostOcelot, on Dec 3 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

It's similarly equally impossible to to simply dismiss our cognitive biases. We will presume false consensuses, we will tend to favour confirmatory evidence rather than contradictory. What we must do is the same as above. Recognise that this is the case and use the appropriate tools when we need to.

The art is then determining when to best invest the extra time energy and effort in doubting our own filtered perceptions and conceptions.


So, so true. In addition to logical fallacies, an important topic of study is the list of cognitive biases including the all important subject of implicit (unconscious) associations.

Richard
Poor Richard

My Blog: Poor Richard's Almanack 2010

Facebook: Poor Richard

There is no answer. There is no solution. There is only practice. (Anon.)
0

#4 User is offline   krosbowe 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 18-May 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Half Moon Bay, CA
  • Interests:Environmentalism, sustainable architectural design & construction, music, cooking, fine arts, performing arts, literature, history, philosophy, history, geography, sciences, technology, health & fitness, social justice, non-violence, open society, political progress/evolution.

Posted 30 May 2010 - 02:49 AM

View Postsirnex, on 26 November 2009 - 04:53 PM, said:

I've come to understand that in order to do such a monumental task of understanding, we must first learn how to understand understanding of reality by dismissing all humanized biased concepts of reality. Essentially start from the ground up. Let's first focus on the fundamentals and learn from there how those fundamentals create all things as they exist within reality. Be it a deity of sorts, a magical power, a universe from nothing, or a human who's common ancestor was a bacterium billions of years ago.


To say that the task of understanding reality (the universal one from which all our own subjective virtual realities are derived) is a monumental undertaking is kind of an understatement. As the renowned philosopher of science, Karl Popper, put it: "Our knowledge can only be finite, whereas our ignorance is necessarily infinite."

I would like share with you, the concept that there are only really three basic categories of knowledge.

1) That which we have learned from direct observation and personal experience.
2) That which we have learned from others.
3) That which we have deduced, inferred or otherwise derived from knowledge of the first 2 kinds.

Let us not confuse knowledge with truth. Knowledge is derived from information (e.g. we form opinions based on what we believe to be the relevant facts), but the accuracy of that knowledge depends on the correctness and completeness of the information and the methods of derivation used. So, it can be reasonably said that there is no such thing as "truth" (outside of how the term is defined and used in the mathematical specialty of formal logic) it is only a concept like zero or infinity. So, when we say that we see the "truth" of a statement, we mean that this is a piece of knowledge that seems accurate. For example, the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west.

We usually trust our own experience, but when it comes to trusting information we get from others, we have to make a judgement about the credibility of the source. For example I personally think the trustworthiness of information from people dedicated to upholding scientific principles in the pursuit of understanding is far greater than the trustworthiness of ancient scriptures and the teachings of those who claim that the scriptures contain sacred, unimpeachable, "revealed truth"--that answer all the important question of life the universe and everything. So, based on this judgement, I have great interest in news from the first group and little tolerance for the expoundings of the second group.

I think understanding understanding is an important step toward building knowledge of reality. I was once given the answer to the question of what is understanding, that understanding something means having some kind of model of that thing. For example a map of a place is a kind of model (which can exist only in your mind or like on paper, etc.) of that part of the surface of the earth. But, any map is limited in its accuracy. Even a big, sharp aerial photograph of that place is limited by the size (granularity) of the pixels or photographic media particles, the size of the image, the resolution of the camera, the distance from the subject area, etc. So, to say that a photo or a map (or any kind of construct that models some aspect of reality) provides a true understanding of it, is to say that it seems to be a fairly accurate model, but obviously imperfect. That's what's so good about saying The Tree of Knowledge is like a fractal, because both have potentially infinite detail in every part depending on how much you "zoom-in" for a better look and greater accuracy. Therefore, the task of totally understanding reality is not merely monumental it is virtually impossible. However, it is obvious there are great benefits to be had from working towards that goal.

If we just accept our limitations, we can move forward on the task of improving our understanding of reality. The word "our" is the key one, because the work to better understand reality is a shared burden and challenge, but likewise the rewards that arise from gaining a better understanding of reality are also shared. The ability to share relatively large quantities of relatively complex information and knowledge (even sometimes wisdom) as well as the ability to store and retrieve that information and knowledge, is the special talent that is unique to homo sapiens. Certainly, what makes us special in the animal kingdom is not our capacity for emotions like love, hate, fear, empathy and anger (contrary to what Hollywood would have us believe), because other animals obviously have that capacity as well. My dog loves me, my cat hates my dog, but they don't share stories with others of their kind (contrary to what Hollywood would have us believe), so there is little if any possibility for future dog or cat generations to benefit from the experience and wisdom of their forbearers.

There is a term, "Noosphere", that has been coined to identify this body of shared knowledge and the growing infrastructure that facilitates it, like "The World Wide Web", television networks, telephone networks, (even letters, magazines, books and postal services), etc. The term Noosphere was introduced by Vladimir Vernadsky in the early 20th century and developed much further by the French philosopher, Jesuit Priest and Paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Some say it was a kind of prediction of the eventual development of The Internet and WWW. However, in reading what Chardin wrote, it sounds more like they thought the minds of all humans would merge by some mechanism like universal telepathy and that this capability would be the ultimate evolution of the human species.

I haven't read everything in the CoR website yet, so I'm probably echoing much of what is there already.
Krosbowe
0

#5 User is offline   Poor Richard 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: 16-April 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, AL
  • Interests:Science, philosophy, evolutionary psychology, cognitive neuroscience, cosmology, Gurdjieff, intentional community

Posted 31 May 2010 - 07:06 AM

View Postkrosbowe, on 30 May 2010 - 02:49 AM, said:

We usually trust our own experience,


Mistake #1. We should take account of 1) "tricks" our senses play, 2) cognitive biases, 3) unconscious memory manipulation/distortion, 4) brain farts.


krosbowe said:

My dog loves me, my cat hates my dog, but they don't share stories with others of their kind (contrary to what Hollywood would have us believe), so there is little if any possibility for future dog or cat generations to benefit from the experience and wisdom of their forbearers.


Au contraire, mon frere. The Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny has some interesting information on animal culture and communication. Many animals teach each other vocalizations and other behaviors that are inter-generationally transmissible. Even your cat can teach hunting skills to her kittens who can pass them on to further generations. (Sorry--knocking people off their "only humans do this" perches is a favorite thing of mine.)

krosbowe said:

However, in reading what Chardin wrote, it sounds more like they thought the minds of all humans would merge by some mechanism like universal telepathy and that this capability would be the ultimate evolution of the human species.


He may have been collaborating with Nikola Tesla on the telepathy typewriter.
Poor Richard

My Blog: Poor Richard's Almanack 2010

Facebook: Poor Richard

There is no answer. There is no solution. There is only practice. (Anon.)
0

#6 User is offline   krosbowe 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 18-May 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Half Moon Bay, CA
  • Interests:Environmentalism, sustainable architectural design & construction, music, cooking, fine arts, performing arts, literature, history, philosophy, history, geography, sciences, technology, health & fitness, social justice, non-violence, open society, political progress/evolution.

Posted 01 June 2010 - 04:31 AM

View PostPoor Richard, on 31 May 2010 - 07:06 AM, said:

Mistake #1. We should take account of 1) "tricks" our senses play, 2) cognitive biases, 3) unconscious memory manipulation/distortion, 4) brain farts.

Au contraire, mon frere. The Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny has some interesting information on animal culture and communication. Many animals teach each other vocalizations and other behaviors that are inter-generationally transmissible. Even your cat can teach hunting skills to her kittens who can pass them on to further generations. (Sorry--knocking people off their "only humans do this" perches is a favorite thing of mine.)

He may have been collaborating with Nikola Tesla on the telepathy typewriter.


Big time. Trusting our own experience is a huge source of faulty information and false conclusions. I usually trust my experience about a thing more than someone else's story about experience with the same thing, but I know I'm often mistaken, that I miss plenty and forget things, get mixed up and miss-judge, etc.

Sure, animals learn stuff from each other and its and oversimplification to say only humans do that. Dolphins & Orcas, elephants, apes all do. It's just that humans do it to a much, much greater degree. Like sharing abstract ideas and stories, etc. So, much so that ideas, stories, memes, take on a life of their own that last for many generations and can actually be subject to evolution. That's my real point.
Krosbowe
0

#7 User is offline   Poor Richard 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: 16-April 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, AL
  • Interests:Science, philosophy, evolutionary psychology, cognitive neuroscience, cosmology, Gurdjieff, intentional community

Posted 01 June 2010 - 04:56 AM

View Postkrosbowe, on 01 June 2010 - 04:31 AM, said:

Sure, animals learn stuff from each other and its and oversimplification to say only humans do that. Dolphins & Orcas, elephants, apes all do. It's just that humans do it to a much, much greater degree. Like sharing abstract ideas and stories, etc. So, much so that ideas, stories, memes, take on a life of their own that last for many generations and can actually be subject to evolution. That's my real point.


We do everything to a greater degree, including sex. At the CARTA site they discuss how animal cultures evolve, too, as in the case of Mackaw vocalizations. But I take your point. We are unique in the complexity of our higher cognitive abilities and culture. But I'd still say its more about quantity than quality. You might say that when the quantitative difference becomes great enough it becomes qualitative, but I'm not sure if I'd agree.

I am fascinated by imagining the subjective experience of animals (a la Beatrice Potter) and of other people. I really wish science would hurry up and find a way to hook us up subjectively without going through the language interface. The internet is a poor substitute for telepathy.
Poor Richard

My Blog: Poor Richard's Almanack 2010

Facebook: Poor Richard

There is no answer. There is no solution. There is only practice. (Anon.)
0

#8 User is offline   Darabe 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 934
  • Joined: 10-June 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 June 2010 - 07:39 AM

some thinkings



The reality for a cat is defined by the body that they inhabit
the cat has adapted to the limitations of that body just like we have
adjusted to the limitations of the body that we inhabit.

If the reality is then defined by the inhabited body then yes, there
reality is different then ours.
But should we as a species degrade or look down an another species
just because we as the species are in a more complex body.
maybe it is us who should be looked down upon because we have
not learned how to use this complex biological machine for good
and not for evil, oh but that’s our reality, not there’s.
Ok here’s reality as it really is.
Consider the cat again, cute little kitty, oh look at that he’s rubbing
on my leg, what the cat is really saying, you are mine, you are mine,
i am marking you to let other cat’s know that you are mine.
Man: oh look the little kitty has caught a mouse, good kitty.
cat: hay man i really didn’t mean to kill it, i just wanted to play with it
and now i have to eat the thing just to hide the evidence.
So now all the mice are eaten and there are no more to be had.
kitty starts looking at the birds, just to keep you interested in his
predatory manner.
Then the control really starts,
You start to give him canned cat food. You should never, ever do this.
3:00 pm, here kitty, here kitty, its time for your din din.
Now you are fully trapped in his claws, he will now let you know when it is
exactly 3:00 pm for the rest of your life.
It’s now that he can lay around all day and do nothing, you will make sure
there is food for him, you will pet him when he wants to be petted, but here
is the best one, you will keep his litter box clean.
Now which is the superior species.
You have just learned another piece of reality.

I Thank You
darabe
you should really be eating more onions
Entelechy Intrapsychic

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

~Leonardo da Vinci~
0

#9 User is offline   keepingItReal 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 06-January 11

Posted 06 January 2011 - 04:33 PM

Our only hope to understanding reality, being a compromised perspective due to our limited tools of observation, is the scientific method. I think the Church of Reality needs a mechanism of connecting the scientific method to the issues that affect our daily lives. Millions of scientists of all types are doing great science everyday, including the brilliant minds that post on this forum. But the connection of the research to our lives is limited at best, both in the Church of Reality and the world at large.
0

#10 User is offline   thought-full 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 04-January 11

Posted 07 January 2011 - 02:28 AM

View PostkeepingItReal, on 06 January 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

Our only hope to understanding reality, being a compromised perspective due to our limited tools of observation, is the scientific method. I think the Church of Reality needs a mechanism of connecting the scientific method to the issues that affect our daily lives. Millions of scientists of all types are doing great science everyday, including the brilliant minds that post on this forum. But the connection of the research to our lives is limited at best, both in the Church of Reality and the world at large.


Particularly with respect to your last sentence, but at least in part with respect to the balance of the meanings of your statements as I interpret them, and with a bit of a kind gentle humor intended as well, I "say" (here write): "AMEN(!), Brother!"
0

#11 User is offline   NorEaster 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 20-January 11

Posted 21 January 2011 - 04:49 PM

View Postsirnex, on 26 November 2009 - 04:53 PM, said:


So what thing's would be most fundamental for all of reality?

One thing for me that comes to mind is cause and effect. Can anyone think of anything else that exists for all things in reality?


I tend to consider reality as being what constitutes a shared contextual environment. Of course, there is the foundational environment - the one that only exists due to the logical need to maintain a definition of real - but we don't exist within that reality, so I'll limit my thoughts to what must lay the foundation for the contextual environment that we inhabit. As any good thinker knows, a relative real must adhere to the foundational real, even as it piles the additional qualifications in as they emerge due to the inevitable shifts in contextual juxtaposition that all dynamic activity imposes. I'll also refrain from addressing the tenets of foundational logic and the inter-environmental imperative suite that drives existence to relentlessly express what it expresses in its struggle to maintain existence either in actuality or through logical identity representation. I'll limit my suggestion to only that which can be seen as uniting only that which exists as confined within this one contextual environment, and uniting it all as the most primitive and pervasive commonality of all.

That would be the Causal Unit Rate of Change.

This unit rate - from one indivisible unit of event to the next - is what bases everything that exists within any full contextual environment. Take any form of molecular matter apart, and where do you stop? A vibrating string? And what is this string made of? String stuff? You can suggest whatever you like, but the only truth that exists in such a notion is the notion of vibration - of a change from one relative positional state to another. Even if the string that is suggested can be taken apart, then those parts are changing relative position. The change itself is still the primordial unit of existence.

Now, let's look at change (the event) and see what we can determine from what it is and what it can't be. What it is, is capable of redundancy. This means that it can't be chaotic at its core essence. It can't be amorphous in form. It can't be - as a full expression - completely unique and indivisible each time it manifests. After all, if it was, it could never be reliable enough to be managed and controlled. Or perfected. And yet, it is manageable, controllable and perfected at all levels of manifestation. From space travel to and from the moon, to the micro-factories that inhabit our own bodies in the form of cells. The event is completely manageable and the rules of organization are very well established and - for the most part - well understood by the human being on this planet.

Now, if the event - as manifested in corporeal expression - is manageable and predictable, then it must be organizeable. One section must be capable of being addressed, and then joined with another associable section, to create a larger section of event that will behave as one continuum. In fact, we work with event in this manner all the time. One play associates with the next and that one links to the next, and before too long, an entire football game emerges as a unique event in its own right. Same with each moment of a person's own life. One instant linking in logical progression and consistent flow of sequence. All adding together to create the event of a life lived as a corporeal human being. Yes, this is how we manage event sections and experience them as they manifest within the contextual environment that we call reality.

So, let's take the event apart, and see how far we can take it down. After all, if something can be sectioned, then it consists of indivisible units. In the case of event, those units must consist of a clearly definable point of emergence and a clearly definable point where it fails to maintain existence. The period of presence within the contextual environment, that each indivisible unit of event maintains, is what I have termed the Causal Unit Rate of Change.

Now, in my book TAKING DOWN THE CURTAIN I use the analogy of a space walker who's just stepped out of the space station to illustrate the concept of shared sub-structural context as it relates to the Causal Unit Rate of Change. In that orbit, there is no slurry of gas molecules to fight through as the station drifts serenely along at 18,000 mph. If there was...well, we all know how serene that would be. Place that space station and that space walker at 30,000 and watch the fireworks. What occurs at that altitude is that there is a clash between the station and the walker, and that entire soup of gaseous particles, and since there is an entire ocean of gaseous particles up there, they win the clash. Their relative movement dominates that specific environment, and the 18,000 mph station and walker burn up in short order.

When dealing with the Causal Unit Rate of Change, the clash isn't aggressive. It's absolutely passive. The result is a complete absence of existential commonality. If one whole changes at a slightly different rate than another whole, then what's there to be shared between them? Nothing at all. However, if one whole changes - be it the unit-to-unit progression of a ball rolling across the floor, the unit-to-unit spin of an electron within the sub-atomic structure of the ball, or the movement of a gaseous particle in the atmosphere as the whole of that ball pushes it out of the way as it rolls - in exact harmony with another whole's change, then like the space walker and the space station as they relate in motionlessness as the earth spins beneath them, it all is experienced as a constant and stable "now". Wit that "now" replaced by the next "now" and then the next and then one and on. Like the frames of a movie film passing before the projector bulb before disappearing to the past of the catch reel.

In the end, the only thing that unites all that can be said to be associable is that shared Causal Unit Rate of Change. In that, it is the most fundamental aspect of any reality. It is that shared Causal Unit Rate of Change - occurring at the sub-structural level, and with frequency harmonics expressed as layers of dynamic change that rest across that foundational structure - that defines the contextual environment - one from the next. We experience a stable and predictable constant as a result of falling through progressive causation at the exact unit rate as everything else in our reality, and like the space walker and the space station, we feel motionless.

0

#12 User is offline   Poor Richard 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: 16-April 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, AL
  • Interests:Science, philosophy, evolutionary psychology, cognitive neuroscience, cosmology, Gurdjieff, intentional community

Posted 01 April 2011 - 08:16 PM

Your screed seems loosely consistent with general relativity (geometrodynamics), wave function, and multiverse (many worlds) theory. But I have difficulty parsing your language without some definitions.

In my opinion, discussing reality as it really is best begins with a discussion of how the only reality we know is a simulation created in the brain. We only know about general reality through that special reality.
Poor Richard

My Blog: Poor Richard's Almanack 2010

Facebook: Poor Richard

There is no answer. There is no solution. There is only practice. (Anon.)
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users