The Nature of Reality

Of course it's possible. For all we know, we could be brains in a jar in some science lab, and what we think is real is a Matrix-style computer generated virtual reality. In fact, Professor Nick Bostrom at Oxford University, believes the latter is actually the case. I've often wondered about your existence, since all I know of it are these typewritten messages I get on my computer screen. You probably think you exist, but I'm not too sure. In order to function, we need a modicum of what Santayana calls "animal faith"--the instinctive belief that a reality external to our own consciousness exists and that we can access it through our senses and intuition. I remember a fellow on HF a few years back who thought material reality didn't exist. I suggested he could try out his theory by jumping off the top of a tall building.. Never heard back from him. Faith, as I understand it, is a bet. (Martin Luther said, a "joyful bet", but it can downright depressing. In making my way through life, I'm guided by principles of Okie existentialism. Unlike Pascal, who was concerned with betting on Heaven and Hell, I don't bet on the next life, only on this one--the existence and nature of immediate reality.

I prefer hops of faith to leaps of faith. I like to make educated bets, drawing on logic, the best available evidence, experience, book learning, and--yes, intuition which Gladwell tells us (Blink) can often be trustworthy in making rough and ready snap judgments. Everything I believe has to be based either on evidence or a conscious acknowledgement that I'm leaping. By evidence, I'm talking about empirical evidence--not courtroom proof, but at least the "substantial evidence"test used to support administrative regulations--enough to convince a reasonable decision maker, even though other reasonable persons may not be convinced. What Is Substantial Evidence in Law? What is the substantial evidence test? Georgia Administrative Law Firm What is Substantial Evidence? (with pictures)
In the era of postmodernism, Q-Anon and "alternative facts", defining "reasonable person" is challenging. In criminal law and tort law, this is a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct. Reasonable person standard This imaginary fellow has an ordinary degree of reason, prudence, care, foresight, or intelligence whose conduct, conclusion, or expectation in relation to a particular decision. Obviously, it is a matter of some subjective judgment what this "objective" standard would be, which in trials is left to a jury or trier of fact, but it's something to go on.

Science is the gold standard of human knowledge, so I try to accept nothing that is contrary to science. But science has the inbuilt limitation of involving rigorous testing of empirically refutable hypotheses. Not all important questions are subject to empirical refutation by rigorous methods, so I draw a distinction between doing science and doing life. Science is best in rooting out false positives--the "Type 1" statistical errors inclining us to believe something that can't be shown to be true. Science is less helpful in identifying false negatives or Type 2 statistical errors of not accepting things which are true but can't meet its rigorous standards. Sometimes, a reasonable person might take a chance on believing something that science can't validate. A lot depends on the consequences of being wrong. A person with terminal cancer might want to take a chance on the snake oil that hasn't been shown to be safe and effective. Politics is one of those areas where we must choose between rival conclusions on the basis of which candidate or position seems more plausible. We generally can't prove to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers which competing candidate or ideology is best. I don't think it's just a matter of arbitrary choice. Its usually a matter of which of two flawed candidates or news outlets is less odious or untrustworthy, which is always a judgment call. But I think the differences are real and not entirely subjective. Trump, Tucker Carlson, and Alex Jones are world class jerks, and although there are jerks on the other side, none can really compete with those three and their ilk. When someone tells me that a school shooting was fake and the child victims and their parents were crisis actors, I expect to see lots of hard evidence backing up that claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's why claims involving miracles or extraterrestrial aliens are automatically suspect, as are Jews starting forest fires from outer space. These views might not be true, but from a pragmatic standpoint they work for me in navigating the complexities of existence.

As for the Vedanta though, that's another story, which I'll try to get into later. My question: to what extent do you want to get into the weeds of the Vedanta and epistemology? I suspect we might not have a lot of others who are interested.

 

Long time ago I knew this blind guy. It was an optic nerve thing, blind from birth. He said he could "see" in his dreams. He had some kind of visual reference for houses, trees, birds, etc. without ever having seen these things in reality. I never figured out how "visually" accurate his dreams were, but some of what he described seemed to me to be things he wouldn't know from his functional senses (smell,touch,hearing,etc) Like how a tree looked and how it's leaves were attached, how they moved with the wind. What birds looked like in flight. Things like that.

So here was a guy who's dreams were not originating from waking experiences... At least not fully.

 

I have really vivid dreams in loving color. I understand not everybody does this. If originating from waking experience means that the images are similar to those encountered while awake, your statement seems to be true. But usually my dreams seem to be about things that come out of left field and have no relationship to anything I've been thinking about or encounter while awake. For example, two nights ago, I had a dream that was especially vivid that started out with a trip on the interstate that had been "repaired" to have stairs that I had to drive over--a bumpy ride.. I ended up in what seemed to be a college-style dormitory that was packed with strangers I had to share space with and compete with for soap, towels, bedding, etc. When I woke up, I was much relieved, and asked myself what that was all about. I concluded it had something to do with the fact that I've been kind of isolated as a result of the virus. All the people gave me a new appreciation of the blessings of social isolation.

Yes, I think psychology would back you up that both dreams and waking experiences are influenced by the unconscious. In fact, Freud and Jung used to regard dreams as the "royal road" to the unconscious. I don't think modern psychology is as confident about that. Drs. Allan Hobson and Robert McCarley of Harvard University advance the activation-synthesis hypothesis that the content of our dreams is really an ex post facto construct that we make up upon waking to explain random neruonal firing experienced while asleep. I find that hard to believe. But truth is, we don't really understand what dreams are about. Nor do we understand what waking consciousness is about. Acccording to Michio Kaku (The Future of the Mind, pp. 34-35), our mind is a collection of competing submodules like the bunch I encountered in my dream the other night, with final decisions being made by a "CEO" in the prefrontal cortex. The continuity of the "I" making all decisions is an illusion created by our subconscious minds to make us feel in charge.

According to neruoscientist and "new atheist" Sam Harris, the notion that consciousness results from brain physiology has yet to be demonstrated scientifically. I guess that's a matter on which I'm willing to make the hop of faith and assume that consciousness is the product of my brain in action. No brain, no consciousness--which is why prize fighters go blank when they are knocked out. So we're in an area where there is much uncertainty and no easy answers. I do think that consciousness is the most immediate experience of reality we have. Descartes' observation "I think, therefore I am" may be interpreted as a logical syllogism, but I think might also express a phenomenological verity. Our consciousness is the one thing we can't reasonably deny, although new atheist Daniel Dennett tries and has written a book about it. Consciousness Explained.

You ask if "it is possible that the "real" tangible objects, and our bodies, that we experience in the waking state can be seen to hold no more reality than dream objects if they could be viewed from outside of the waking state?" Yes, it is possible. It is also possible that the tangible objects that we experience are real and therefore hold more reality than dream objects. When you speak of "viewed from outside the waking state", what exactly do you mean? Viewed by whom? And outside both the waking and the dreaming state? What state would that be? Another dimension of reality? Dreamless sleep? That state transcending those?

 

Do you want us to point out problems in your statements while you're away. "The waking state is thus only a mental activity, the same as a dream, and the two states are actually the same." When you say "actually the same" you're implying identity. You've shown they're both the same in being mental activity, but previously, I thought you acknowledged that there were significant difference between dreaming and the awakened condition. Beware of false equivalences!

 

I thought that's what you were saying in Post #4

When you're dreaming, it all seems very real, but when you wake up, do you know you woke up? Do you notice a qualitative difference between that state and the dream state? Is there any confusion or doubt about which is which?

I won't tell you to jump off the top of a tall building and see what happens. I like you and want you to stay around!

 

the nature of reality begins, where the nature of society ends. not that its existence isn't part of it too. just not the beginning, end or the major part of the middle.
that belongs to environment and its diversity. frequently inconvenient but always indifferent.

rocks and trees and galaxies are real. nothing to stop self aware beings who are neither physical nor imaginary from existing either.
just that the stories people make up about them, because the ego refuses to accept its innocent ignorance, are stories people make up, of which gods and little furry creatures are utterly innocent.

it is not that our stories preclude reality. they are merely not reality itself.
peer reviewing has more going for it, but no proof is ever absolute or final. there is only greater or lesser preponderances of evidence, one way or some other of the infinity of possibilities.

there are no "authorities" on reality. there is only what is there or what is not, and that, seldom if ever understood with complete accuracy.

oh and if you want a one word answer; that word would be "diversity".
(why would a story yet to be told, be any less likely then one already familiar?)

 

That kind of reminds me of trying to think up a new color... I just don't know how I'd go about doing that.