is reality subjective?

[Freedom_Man]

what is your opinion on this? I've been looking at reality as subjective lately. Not only in the sense that all the different species on earth experience a variety of different perceptions but just in gerneral. Like 4 people sitting in a car all in a conversation, each one is coming from his or her own perception in life and bringing ideas from their exoperience to the conversation. Like were all just a different point in the whole experience. i dont know kind of weird i guess.

[psychedelic goddess]

i agree, reality is subjective, a personal thing to the individual, and each reality is equally valid

i don't think reality being subjective is weird - what i do find weird or amazing is the fact that all of our subjective realities merge at some point so we can get along together - that's what boggles my mind! :)

[Freedom_Man]

i agree, reality is subjective, a personal thing to the individual, and each reality is equally valid

i don't think reality being subjective is weird - what i do find weird or amazing is the fact that all of our subjective realities merge at some point so we can get along together - that's what boggles my mind! :)
yup, i was watching this doors dvd last night, ray manzerak said thats what a good rock concert can do. haha i think hes right.

i dont think its weird, its just when i bring these things up with other friends its like they dont care they just push me off kinda...

deep south huh? where at? im in tennessee

[Peterness]

Yep totally, reality is subjective, and thus meaning and value is also subjective.

We can have ideas and morals, they may appear the same on the surface, but really it's unique to the individual no matter how similar they appear. Like some of us might agree that killing is wrong, but our reasons surrounding that shape that value/moral uniquely. Our interpretations are unique to each individual even though we can find common ground.

I don't think anything has any meaning, no higher meaning at least, other than what we choose to give to it. Everything (objects/phenomena) is in flux, everything is interconected, and ultimately objects flow into each other and are thus 'empty'. Paradoxically they are 'one' but even this 'oneness' is in constant state of flux so it's erroneous to describe it as 'one', because you can't pin any 'oneness' down.
Our mind sees most objects as being seperate, that's what it does. It also gives a set of meanings and values to the object it's preceiving. But these meanings are formed from a unique interpretation based on unique factors such as previous experiences (memories) as well as physiological factors, emotions etc. So they are always unique and thus subjective.

Buddhism, taoism, existentialism and absurdism I think all touch on this and share similar views.

Also I think the old riddle is appropriate; "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?"

[Freedom_Man]

Yep totally, reality is subjective, and thus meaning and value is also subjective.

We can have ideas and morals, they may appear the same on the surface, but really it's unique to the individual no matter how similar they appear. Like some of us might agree that killing is wrong, but our reasons surrounding that shape that value/moral uniquely. Our interpretations are unique to each individual even though we can find common ground.

I don't think anything has any meaning, no higher meaning at least, other than what we choose to give to it. Everything (objects/phenomena) is in flux, everything is interconected, and ultimately objects flow into each other and are thus 'empty'. Paradoxically they are 'one' but even this 'oneness' is in constant state of flux so it's erroneous to describe it as 'one', because you can't pin any 'oneness' down.
Our mind sees most objects as being seperate, that's what it does. It also gives a set of meanings and values to the object it's preceiving. But these meanings are formed from a unique interpretation based on unique factors such as previous experiences (memories) as well as physiological factors, emotions etc. So they are always unique and thus subjective.

Buddhism, taoism, existentialism and absurdism I think all touch on this and share similar views.

Also I think the old riddle is appropriate; "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?"also "if a person is forgotten did they really exist? honestly. and i can't say whether or not the tree makes a sound. this reminds me of robert anton wilson on agnosticism.

[natural philosophy]

Of course reality is subjective. The only way to view the world in a truly objective way is to have a new, fresh mind with no experience. Kind of like a baby, except that a baby has already had world experience in it's mother's womb. Perhaps we can catch glimpses of reality in an objective way, but not truly. Our past experiences shape what we see right now. Subjectivity exists only in our minds. Our perception fools us. The world is objective; our perception of it is skewed and therefore subjective.

[enter`name`here]

It is impossible to know whether or not reality is subjective or not, this is because it is impossible to know what it is like to experience something from someone else's perspective. For example imagine I wanted to know if this pen is objectively 'black', meaning it is 'black' regardless of how or who looks at it, how would I find out? If I look at it all I can prove is that it is 'black' when I look at it. Suppose then that I ask other people if it is 'black' and they tell me it is, does this proves the pen is indeed black? The problem however is that its possible they experience what I would call 'white' but they have just learned to call it 'black', but then again its possible they do see exactly what I see and that the pen is indeed objectively 'black'. My point however is that it's impossible to tell.

[Go ask alice]

Haha, "enter name here" just gave the exact same reply as I was going to =)

The whole, "Is it red? Yeah. But whats red?" deal.

My brain swirls in confusion, I like subjectivity, creates more variety and interest, itd be very dull if we all saw it the same after all.

Woop, loop, boop, shhoop a noop coop doop yoop. Byebye sky high nye fly buy why? ;)

[Bongish]

what is your opinion on this?
there is no reality, only perception.

[BlackBillBlake]

there is no reality, only perception.
Real perception? Perception of the real?

[sentient]

How can reality be subjective - there is an objective reality but we cannot know what that looks like since we can only examine it through a particular perspective that is a subjective view of the world.

If you say "that's a good painting". You are not stating an objective reality about the painting. Infact you are saying more about yourself than the painting - but this works for everything in the world - because it is dificult to see how any sentence can be stated that would remain true for all observers. For example - everything that you state as a fact can be prefixed with the statement "as I see it"

As I see it, the sky is what I call "blue" - not everyone will see exactly the same as you do and even if they did we cannot be sure that they see the colour blue exactly as you do.

I was thinking this very thing just the other day and cannot make a sentence which is true that begins "No-one can disagree" - but then we are talking about the world of objects this is not the case for such things as mathematics where a high degree of objectivity is obtained - yes there is an objective world but not in the way you think it exists and its not physically objective but mentally objective

In other words - mathematics attains objectivity - other subjects which rely on deduction are objective. But inductively attained data is exactly what is subjective. Anything which exists and can only be known about by induction has an objective reality that we cannot know, but we know of its existence in a subjective way - so yes reality is objective but no we cannot see what an objective reality looks like - unless its deduced rather than an inductive process

So if we have one apple in a basket and add another apple to it - then objectively there are two apples - that much will be known about reality - but if we have to state anything that cannot be deduced - that is about the qualitative nature of the apples or the way in which they appear then that is subjective to us

[Freedom_Man]

How can reality be subjective - there is an objective reality but we cannot know what that looks like since we can only examine it through a particular perspective that is a subjective view of the world.

If you say "that's a good painting". You are not stating an objective reality about the painting. Infact you are saying more about yourself than the painting - but this works for everything in the world - because it is dificult to see how any sentence can be stated that would remain true for all observers. For example - everything that you state as a fact can be prefixed with the statement "as I see it"

As I see it, the sky is what I call "blue" - not everyone will see exactly the same as you do and even if they did we cannot be sure that they see the colour blue exactly as you do.

I was thinking this very thing just the other day and cannot make a sentence which is true that begins "No-one can disagree" - but then we are talking about the world of objects this is not the case for such things as mathematics where a high degree of objectivity is obtained - yes there is an objective world but not in the way you think it exists and its not physically objective but mentally objective

In other words - mathematics attains objectivity - other subjects which rely on deduction are objective. But inductively attained data is exactly what is subjective. Anything which exists and can only be known about by induction has an objective reality that we cannot know, but we know of its existence in a subjective way - so yes reality is objective but no we cannot see what an objective reality looks like - unless its deduced rather than an inductive process

So if we have one apple in a basket and add another apple to it - then objectively there are two apples - that much will be known about reality - but if we have to state anything that cannot be deduced - that is about the qualitative nature of the apples or the way in which they appear then that is subjective to us
oh i see, reality is objective, our perception is subjective. i agree. makes much more sense. i think that has something to do with maya in hiduism, i might be wrong.

[gib_0101]

In other words - mathematics attains objectivity - other subjects which rely on deduction are objective. But inductively attained data is exactly what is subjective. Anything which exists and can only be known about by induction has an objective reality that we cannot know, but we know of its existence in a subjective way - so yes reality is objective but no we cannot see what an objective reality looks like - unless its deduced rather than an inductive process
That's an interesting way of putting it. This means that you can have something objective which is inherently mental. I mean, there is no such thing as a '2' or a '3' out there. There aren't really things like '+' and 'x' or any of the other rules and relations of mathematics. What makes them objective? Isn't it that we all seem to come to the same conclusions on these things? Maybe it's that we can't imagine mathematics working out any other way. It's strange that, no matter how you cut it, it's still something completely mental. Maybe objectivity is really a special case of subjectivity, not an opposite.

[Common Sense]

Reality involves subjective, inter-subjective, and objective aspects. If reality were totally subjective, then little sense can be made of the term "reality." Properly speaking, there would be no "reality," only many, potentially very different, realities. So, it cannot be the case that reality is totally subjective.

In order to represent objects outside myself, there must be an external world, which is objective because it houses these outter objects of experience.

It is not difficult to imagine what another person is perceiving in her visual field. In fact, we do it all the time, and acts like pointing are tools we use to help us do so. If there were no objective reality, then some methods of communication, such as ostension, would be impossible, there would be no objects apart from sense-data, and language, in general, would break down, because all names would fail to refer.

[gib_0101]

If there were no objective reality, then some methods of communication, such as ostension, would be impossible, there would be no objects apart from sense-data, and language, in general, would break down, because all names would fail to refer.
I don't know about that. Words can refer to things within our own mental worlds. I can refer to "my thoughts" or "my feelings". I can even refer to my sensory experience like "my visual perceptions", "the warmth I feel", "the loudness I hear", and so on. If the entire universe was subjective, we might still be fooled into thinking of it as having an objective existence and thereby refer to it and the things therein, but we would in fact be refering to our own experiences of it. This doesn't constitute a breakdown in ostension, it just reconfigures it.

[Common Sense]

I don't know about that. Words can refer to things within our own mental worlds. I can refer to "my thoughts" or "my feelings". I can even refer to my sensory experience like "my visual perceptions", "the warmth I feel", "the loudness I hear", and so on. If the entire universe was subjective, we might still be fooled into thinking of it as having an objective existence and thereby refer to it and the things therein, but we would in fact be refering to our own experiences of it. This doesn't constitute a breakdown in ostension, it just reconfigures it.
There is, of course, no logical contradiction in what you've said. But there is, I think, a semantic mistake. This has to do with what, exactly, it means to refer.

First, if the world is purely subjective, then it is quite a coincidence that I can talk about the same objects as you. If subjectivism is the case, then this world is my world, some world is your world, and the two shall never meet. Insofar as your world is concerned, I can say nothing.

Now, you are quite right that propositions such as "I feel warmth right now," and "I hear loudness right now," could be nothing more than my private, subjective impressions, and that what feels warm to me might feel cool to another. But this is not what I mean by "refering."

By "refering," I mean picking out an object in space and time, such as tables, chairs, and coffee mugs. You can see that this quite different from speaking of first-person, present-tense, mental states. Concerning space, there is only one space; and when we speak of different spaces, we mean only parts of the one, all-embracing space. The same can be said of time. The objects within space and time are the world, and there can be only one world.

Anything within space and time can, in principle, be given a proper name. Let's call this the act of "ostensive naming." As it so happens, we give very few objects proper names, but this is just a contingent feature of ordinary language. But, concerning the objects we do, in practice, give proper names to, they include, persons, pets, works of art, and heavenly bodies.

The form of the act of ostensive naming is, "This is a," where "a" is a proper name. To perform an act of ostensive naming, certain conditions are requisite. First and foremost, the object named must be extended in space and must endure in time. As there is only one space and only one time, to which we all have access, the object named is objective. The properties of the object, such as warmness and loudness, are quite irrelevant to ostensive naming, and can vary from subject to subject, without affecting the success of the act of ostensive naming. In this way, we can guarantee the existence of the objective world.

[gib_0101]

There is, of course, no logical contradiction in what you've said. But there is, I think, a semantic mistake. This has to do with what, exactly, it means to refer.



First, if the world is purely subjective, then it is quite a coincidence that I can talk about the same objects as you. If subjectivism is the case, then this world is my world, some world is your world, and the two shall never meet. Insofar as your world is concerned, I can say nothing.



Now, you are quite right that propositions such as "I feel warmth right now," and "I hear loudness right now," could be nothing more than my private, subjective impressions, and that what feels warm to me might feel cool to another. But this is not what I mean by "refering."



By "refering," I mean picking out an object in space and time, such as tables, chairs, and coffee mugs. You can see that this quite different from speaking of first-person, present-tense, mental states. Concerning space, there is only one space; and when we speak of different spaces, we mean only parts of the one, all-embracing space. The same can be said of time. The objects within space and time are the world, and there can be only one world.I think what I need to get across about my view is that it even applies to how we experience space and time. A subjectivist - especially a radical one - will take anything you refer to and call it a mental experience. I can do this with space and time - they are mental experiences. In fact, I know the neurological facts that back this idea up. You can locate neural circuits in the brain whose function it is to perceive 3D space, and other circuits that give rise to our sense of time. When you look at the brain as a whole, you eventually come to see that for anything and everything you can refer to in the real world, it has a neural corolate in the brain. To be aware of it is for it to be mental. There's two things that this shows us: 1) That each of us is living in his/her own universe - each one a 4D spacetime continuum full of matter and energy in flux. 2) That "mental life", if we can call it that, can take on way more forms and qualities than we thought. Mind can be matter and energy, space and time.





Anything within space and time can, in principle, be given a proper name. Let's call this the act of "ostensive naming." As it so happens, we give very few objects proper names, but this is just a contingent feature of ordinary language. But, concerning the objects we do, in practice, give proper names to, they include, persons, pets, works of art, and heavenly bodies.



The form of the act of ostensive naming is, "This is a," where "a" is a proper name. To perform an act of ostensive naming, certain conditions are requisite. First and foremost, the object named must be extended in space and must endure in time. As there is only one space and only one time, to which we all have access, the object named is objective. The properties of the object, such as warmness and loudness, are quite irrelevant to ostensive naming, and can vary from subject to subject, without affecting the success of the act of ostensive naming. In this way, we can guarantee the existence of the objective world.
True, but given what I said above, we can still do this even though the "objective world" exists in virtue of our greater subjective experiences. That there is an objective world is due to the fact that we experience an objective world. My central claim is that its realness is rooted in the essence of the experience of it, not somewhere beyond it. My view doesn't change the fact that it's real or that it's "out there" - it says that "out there" is really just a form of "in here", and that reality is not independent of perception and experience. It's a difficult concept to grasp, I understand, which is why it requires a rethinking of what it means for something to be "mental".

[run2fly]

I agree with sentient. There is, in some Ultimate Realm of Truth, an objective reality. However, we are limited by our human perceptions, desires, psychologicl blocks, etc., from being able to perceive this reality with any degree of accuracy.

I would add that there are so many forces acting in the Universe and, as a consequence, on our own minds (I'm talking about spiritual forces), that even among those powers which exceed that of our mere human powers, there are differnent interpretations of reality based on their different perspectives, ideals, and so forth. As an example, I personally don't find the God of the Bible to hold the final key to absolute truth. If the descent of Lucifer from heaven is real, and not mere mythology, I wouldn't doubt that Lucifer simply had a viewpoint that was valid from his own perspective, but that "God" merely disagreed.

So, in addition to the limitations of our own human perceptions, we are confused by receiving different spiritual influences, from all over the Universe. So it is indeed amazing that we humans function and even get along on occasion. My personal belief is that there is something in the human spirit itself that, when permitted to express itself and not be repressed or denied, is capable of rising up and doing just what is needed--although history shows us that we also tend to wait until the very last moment in doing so.

Ah, but I digress.

[Peterness]

There is, in some Ultimate Realm of Truth, an objective reality. However, we are limited by our human perceptions, desires, psychologicl blocks, etc., from being able to perceive this reality with any degree of accuracy.But how do you know for sure there is an ultimate realm of truth/objective reality if you can't percieve or experience this? Isn't that a contradiction? Surely if there was an objective reality somewhere it would be seperate and independent from an otherwise interconnected universe (where all objects and phenomena are unique and in constant flux) and therefore findable?

[moonlightdelerium]

We know nothing.

[gib_0101]

We know nothing.
Well said! :)

[yyyesiam2]

my dad always said: "nothing is permanent". took me a long time to realize what he meant by that.

[themnax]

We know nothing.

this may well be the ultimate truth.

though we can also create and explore and find gratifictaion in doing so
and study and learn to attempt to avoid causing harm in the proccess of doing so.

we can observe that some things happen more often then others, and that some things appear to do so more often when other things happen first.

while we tangably live we can pick up inert objects and hold them in our hands and feel reasonably confident that they are in some sense real.

=^^=
.../\...

[Varuna]

Reality exists.

It may be useful to understand reality according to such patterns of thought as subjective/objective, but this dualism is ultimately as inaccurate and unnecessarily limiting as right/left, east/west, male/female, yin/yang, etc.

No one has anything even close to a complete perception of reality. The limitations and substance of one's perception may be a matter of habit, culture, and other physical/cognative/psychological conditions, but a belief in a purely subjective reality suggests (erroneously) that there is no reality beyond one's subjective consciousness.

But of course, there are life-sustaining processes in your own body of which you are neither objectively nor subjectively conscious. If these processes could not exist without the creative force of your consciousness, then it would be impossible for you to exist. Obviously, you do exist. So there must be something more than your subjective perception determining reality's existence.

Whatever you may think may be true, but there is always more reality than the things your thoughts may name.

Maybe this is good news.

Peace and Love

[gib_0101]

So there must be something more than your subjective perception determining reality's existence.I actually agree with this. I don't believe that it is my subjective experiences, or your subjective experiences, or any one being's subjective experiences in particular, that determines reality. I just believe that in order for something to exist, it has to be experienced or perceived in some way.

Putting this another way, whereas most people believe that an objective non-conscious reality has to exist before any one being can have experiences or perceptions of it, I believe that if you take all perceptions and experiences of every conscious being that exists, the subjective worlds that they underlie can support each other's existence.

The biology that supports my existence is really a material representation of other perceptions and experiences that have made their way into my consciousness. It didn't originally take the form of material biological processes as I experience it - it took the form of some other kind of subjective experience (most likely completely unimaginable to me) that morphed or changed into the sensory perceptions that I have of my own body that tell me I am a biological organism.

[sexylilunicornbutt]

I think we know everything. It's just that what you know usually isn't easily definable. Like your own sentience, for instance. Who are you? How can you know what it's really like to be you if you aren't conscious of what it's like to be other people?

So I think subjective and objective reality are one in the same. "What is subjectively true for me is in your objective reality, and you know it, though you may not be consciously aware of it.

As for numbers...the 1 apple plus 1 apple = 2 apples thing. I always had a problem with this, because what is an apple? Is it the first thing or the second? They are similar, but they are also fundamentally different. "An apple is red, round, grows on trees, tastes like (?), etc."??? Couldn't this be descriptive of anything else anywhere else in the universe?

[Common Sense]

I think what I need to get across about my view is that it even applies to how we experience space and time. A subjectivist - especially a radical one - will take anything you refer to and call it a mental experience. I can do this with space and time - they are mental experiences. In fact, I know the neurological facts that back this idea up. You can locate neural circuits in the brain whose function it is to perceive 3D space, and other circuits that give rise to our sense of time. When you look at the brain as a whole, you eventually come to see that for anything and everything you can refer to in the real world, it has a neural corolate in the brain. To be aware of it is for it to be mental. There's two things that this shows us: 1) That each of us is living in his/her own universe - each one a 4D spacetime continuum full of matter and energy in flux. 2) That "mental life", if we can call it that, can take on way more forms and qualities than we thought. Mind can be matter and energy, space and time.

I think that we actually don't disagree to the degree it might appear. Obviously, all experiences are "mental" experiences, and I don't see how it could be otherwise. The facts from neuroscience you bring in really don't concern us here, and I think you misinterpreted them. For example, space and time are not a 4D continuum. We experience space and time distinctly as a 3D continuum and a 1D continuum. The point where I seriously disagree with you is (1). This is not "my own" universe; there is only one universe, which is just what it means to be a universe, and it is ours. I think I clearly demonstrated this with my remarks on ostensive naming.



[quote]True, but given what I said above, we can still do this even though the "objective world" exists in virtue of our greater subjective experiences. That there is an objective world is due to the fact that we experience an objective world. My central claim is that its realness is rooted in the essence of the experience of it, not somewhere beyond it. My view doesn't change the fact that it's real or that it's "out there" - it says that "out there" is really just a form of "in here", and that reality is not independent of perception and experience. It's a difficult concept to grasp, I understand, which is why it requires a rethinking of what it means for something to be "mental".
And I'm not disagreeing that we experience the objective world. I don't see where this "beyond it" could be. But you're view does dispute the idea that the universe is "out there." If it is purely subjective, then it must be "in here." And that it very unlikely because you cannot account for the weird correspondence between the things in my subjective world and the things in your subjective world, as demonstrated from our considerations on ostensive naming. Even if the "real-ness" of the world is rooted in our experience of it, that doesn't change the fact that its our inter-subjectiveexperience, and that it is "out there." The true subjectivist assertion is "The world is my world," and this cannot be the case.

[yyyesiam2]

i suppose there's always that core question of: "are all you people real, or is it just me in here?" no way to answer that, and thusly, no way to answer the subjective/objective reality question, other than basing your answer on faith.

[Varuna]

gib 0101, are you suggesting that wherever or whenever there is any kind of existence there is always some kind of consciousness?

If so, then I think maybe there is a deeper question. What, exactly, is the relationship between existence and consciousness? Does consciousness define existence? Are existence and consciousness always identical with one another? Are existence and consciousness expressions of one another? Are all things also expressions of Consciousness? Is Consciousness an atom, a stone, a star, a galaxy, a universe, a human?

Who knows?

This idea appeals to the unnameable sense of the transcendent. You know, the one that suggests, with sublime subtlety, this may be a glimpse of something more real than one's thoughts about it.

Peace and Love

[mandell]

To a poet, a tree might be a thing of beauty.

To a dog, a tree might be nothing more than a convenient place to piss on.

[gib_0101]

gib 0101, are you suggesting that wherever or whenever there is any kind of existence there is always some kind of consciousness?
If so, then I think maybe there is a deeper question. What, exactly, is the relationship between existence and consciousness? Does consciousness define existence? Are existence and consciousness always identical with one another? Are existence and consciousness expressions of one another? Are all things also expressions of Consciousness? Is Consciousness an atom, a stone, a star, a galaxy, a universe, a human?That pretty much sums it up. It's not solipsism where the idea is that it's only my experiences which define reality - just that if there is reality, it is only in virtue the conscious experiences underlying that reality. It's not anti-realism either where perception is totally unreal - it's that perception defines what reality is.

In regards to the objective/subjective question, I'm not exactly sure how it should be worded. I know what I think about it, but I don't know exactly how to express it without sounding like I'm contradicting myself on certain levels. Since reality is not defined based on my experiences, or any one being's experiences in particular, there has to be more to reality than what I, or any one being, experiences. So is that the basis for saying there is an objective reality out there? In a sense, yes, but in another sense, no. It is objective in the sense that it is a fact - and facts are artifacts of the human mind - they are thoughts, knowledge, belief, etc. So I would say the "objective" character of reality is more a character of our knowledge of it. The sense in which there is no objective reality - but a subjective one - is that what reality ultimately is (if I'm right) is a tapestry of different interacting experiences, and these experiences are, by their very nature, subjective.

I don't know - what do you think we should say about that last point? If a subjective experience exists, could we say that it's existence is objective?

[yyyesiam2]

how could one possibly know if anything exists outside of their subjective experience? "objective reality" seems to be more of an agreement than a plane of existance.


also, to another statement made-it seems that life and consciousness are one and the same.

[darrellkitchen]

... it seems that life and consciousness are one and the same.Staying within the realm of the original question, what is "Life" and what is "Consciousness", and how are they the same?

[yyyesiam2]

or an even better question......how are they different?

[darrellkitchen]

or an even better question......how are they different?Ahhh ... I see ... you like playing games ...

Please forgive me for giving the appearance of sounding childish ... but ... I asked first ... you want me to answer your question, you must first answer mine ...



I can't believe I actually walked into that ... much less responded to it ...

[yyyesiam2]

i responded with a question because i am not able to define life or consciousness in words. i could talk my way around and around in an attempt, but it would only lead in a circle and never the center. my puzzlement is why you would ask how they are the same, while not having an answer for the opposing question-other than trying to make the point that there is no verbal answer. if this was your goal, there is no need. we are in agreement. otherwise, can you tell me how they are different?

oh, and yes-i love playing games.

[yyyesiam2]

your turn.

[darrellkitchen]

i responded with a question because i am not able to define life or consciousness in words. ... oh, and yes-i love playing games.Then you like playing unfarily ...

Because you will not answer my question, then neither will I answer yours ...

[yyyesiam2]

i didn't expect an answer. that was my point, and my game. no need to be right or wrong here. i respect your question, as it does lead to some creative thinking. if you would like me to attempt to talk around it, i will.


i feel that present experience is life. i also feel that this defines consciousness. this present experience is something i can't describe......only experience, and i'm back where i started....

[Varuna]

May I?

Staying within the realm of the original question, what is "Life" and what is "Consciousness", and how are they the same?
Maybe . . . "Life" is what one is, "Consciousness" is what one experiences.

Maybe, Life and Consciousness are not nouns but verbs.

Life is being, Consciousness is knowing.

Maybe the question is "Who" instead of "What" is doing all of this being and knowing. It seems this question allows their sameness to be knowable.

or an even better question......how are they different?
Who knows?

Are they different? Should they be different? Why? Who says so? How would one know if they were?

If being and knowing were different, then what would one know? Would there be anything to know, or anyone to know it?

Who knows?

I hope you and I can agree that consciousness exists and existence (Being, Life . . . etc) is knowable. Ultimately, they are the same, otherwise consciousness does not exist and existence is unknowable.

This is a fun game.

Peace and Love