Debate - perceived reality

[Lohman446]

Alright folks... there seems to be a lack of discussion in friendly corner as of late, and having to avoid politics I have decided to put this idea out there. Let me start with the basics.

Everyday our perception of realtiy shapes how we see things that happen. For instance, if I have been abused and one of my friends hits me in the arm I may take that as a show of force, where as different life experiences may take it as a friendly gesture...

Thats the simplistic thing. Why can't you walk through walls? The simple answer is that they are solid. There is a seemingly convincing argument, or one that is hard to overcome at least, that says you cannot walk through a wall because your mind perceives it as solid. What if you don't understand solids, like a child? Well... the argument breaks down to instinctual, that you see it, that your senses tell you it is solid, and as such it stops your progress. Not an actual physical stop, but the metnal stop that is important. Its an offshoot of the brain in the vat argument - stimuli to a brain and the world around you does not really exist. Now without violating the rules of the board, discussing religion for instance, lets discuss :)

[PyRo]

Their is no spoon

Really, no more drugs for you.

[Lohman446]

Come on Pyro.. its better than the thread I started considering the technological marvel of the stapler and the marketing power that had ended in a "standard" staple. I can hunt down that thread instead :D

[Duzzy]

I am basing my answer off this assumption so please correct me if I am wrong but the difference between a solid and air is the space between the molecules and the amount of movement between the molecules

If you were able to walk through a wall your molecules would need to split because without them seperating there are no spaces small enough to fit through. You would no longer be a "whole" person because of the seperating. Now once you seperated and momentum carried your molecules through the wall, what would put them back together? Mental power? Telepathy?

[Lohman446]

But Duzzy, why do you beleive that? The point of the perceived reality thread is this. I would say I can't walk through a wall because I beleive it to be solid. You say you cannot walk through a wall because "your molecules would need to split because without them seperating there are no spaces small enough to fit through. You would no longer be a "whole" person because of the seperating. Now once you seperated and momentum carried your molecules through the wall". I tried to paraphrase and just got confused.. so I quoted.

The perceived reality argument would state you cannot because you do nto beleive you can - because you perceive that you cannot.

[Duzzy]

I gotcha, this is a perception argument.

Let me ask you this, if what you percieved was reality what would be the point of existing? You would most likely die young, get bored, or commit suicide.

Also, how would individual perceptions effect each other?

Like if I perceived that I could walk through walls but you perceived that I couldn't?

[Lohman446]

I gotcha, this is a perception argument.

Let me ask you this, if what you percieved was reality what would be the point of existing? You would most likely die young, get bored, or commit suicide.

Also, how would individual perceptions effect each other?

Like if I perceived that I could walk through walls but you perceived that I couldn't?


I have tried to test this (yes I have) by trying to truly convince someone they could walk through walls.. or myself. I have found that instinct, that a lingering doubt remains.. so the perceived reality argument is still in tact withotu being proven or disproven.

So if your truly beleived you could and I truly beleived you couldn't. Well if we argue that the universe is infinite than can we make an argument that time is infinite? If it is infinite, in countless possibilities, perhaps there are branches. You beleive you can walk through it - and do, your perceived reality is not altered. I perceive you cannot.. so in my reality you do not - my perceived reality is nto destroyed. Is it possible for both to happen at once?

I don't understand why noone on my team wants to ride to tournaments with me? LOL

[Gitaroo Man]

It's a physical reality. Don't question it lol

[Duzzy]

If reality branches then how does it come back together?

If everyone is in their own seperate reality after the branching then why are people from the previous reality who didn't branch still in it?

If it doesn't then why would you still be in my reality when I walked back through the wall?

And why aren't mentally damaged people who truly believe that they are something not? There are people who have suffered head injuries (whether pre or post birth) and are thoroughly convinced that they are kings, dogs, whatever...

[Lohman446]

Why does it have to come back together. Perhaps I have defined you in my mind, and in that vast area of unused brain I can define your actions, see what I perceive.. does that mean its there? I mean.. you walk through the wall, in your reality everyone is like HOLY COW you did it. In my reality everyone is looking at your broken nose going what a dumb... Mentally deficient.. at the moment they perceive it, are you certain they are not?

[Duzzy]

Why does it have to come back together. Perhaps I have defined you in my mind, and in that vast area of unused brain I can define your actions, see what I perceive.. does that mean its there? I mean.. you walk through the wall, in your reality everyone is like HOLY COW you did it. In my reality everyone is looking at your broken nose going what a dumb... Mentally deficient.. at the moment they perceive it, are you certain they are not?

If the realities never come back together then we go to one of my new questions.

If I am in my own reality, and my perceptions alter my reality, where did my reality come from? And where did my perceptions come from?

Let me give you an example, my mom takes a branch into her own reality seperate from everyone elses. She perceives that she is pregnant and I am born. She perceives me the way she wants me to look so eventually I am the "perfect" child. Where do my perceptions come from? She cannot perceive that I have perceptions because then they would be based off her perceptions, and we would be identical.

New question, what is to keep me from perceiving that you cannot be in any reality but mine? If I truly believed it, and made it happen the world would be a slave to my wants and desires, but it isn't.

[Lohman446]

New question, what is to keep me from perceiving that you cannot be in any reality but mine? If I truly believed it, and made it happen the world would be a slave to my wants and desires, but it isn't.

Are you sure it isn't? Yes, I'm dodging out of some of these, because a question is easier than an answer. But where do you perceive your perceptions as having come from?

[Duzzy]

Are you sure it isn't? Yes, I'm dodging out of some of these, because a question is easier than an answer. But where do you perceive your perceptions as having come from?

Slaves don't argue.

A question is easier most of the time, but if you never have an answer what kind of argument is it?

How do I perceive my perceptions?

I perceive my perceptions as based on a concrete reality that everyone is a part of in some way, including you.

So now we have an interesting situation, if I am right then you are wrong simple as that.

If you are right, then you are locked into my reality by my perceptions and you are my slave. As my slave you are not allowed to be right, only I am.

Therefore I win!

[Lohman446]

Slaves don't argue.

A question is easier most of the time, but if you never have an answer what kind of argument is it?

How do I perceive my perceptions?

I perceive my perceptions as based on a concrete reality that everyone is a part of in some way, including you.

So now we have an interesting situation, if I am right then you are wrong simple as that.

If you are right, then you are locked into my reality by my perceptions and you are my slave. As my slave you are not allowed to be right, only I am.

Therefore I win!

Close.. but I can still wiggle. In your perceived reality therei s no other reality.. good for you. In my perceived reality there is. You may perceive them to be mutally exclusive, but I do not. I would also point out that you cannot and do not fully perceive the slave theory... and as you do not actually perceive it you have not offered solid disproof.

I cannot disprove that that wall is not able to be walked through - ie I cant walk through it.

You cannot disprove that if someone TRULY beleived it was, withotu any doubt... that they could nto walk through it, because you cannot find the person that truly beleives it without doubt.

[Duzzy]

Close.. but I can still wiggle. In your perceived reality therei s no other reality.. good for you. In my perceived reality there is. You may perceive them to be mutally exclusive, but I do not. I would also point out that you cannot and do not fully perceive the slave theory... and as you do not actually perceive it you have not offered solid disproof.

I cannot disprove that that wall is not able to be walked through - ie I cant walk through it.

You cannot disprove that if someone TRULY beleived it was, withotu any doubt... that they could nto walk through it, because you cannot find the person that truly beleives it without doubt.

You stated that perceptions make reality, my perceptions have limited you to my reality and nothing else. How will you wiggle? In my reality the same rules do not apply so you are stuck, trapped by my perceptions.

As for finding someone what about people who are mentally altered. Either born that way, injured, or even abused until their mind is destroyed to such an extent that they don't know what is reality anymore. They might believe that they can walk through walls. And people who have been hypnotized, delusional? I might not find one in my lifetime but to say that someone doesn't exist?

[Lohman446]

You stated that perceptions make reality, my perceptions have limited you to my reality and nothing else. How will you wiggle? In my reality the same rules do not apply so you are stuck, trapped by my perceptions.

As for finding someone what about people who are mentally altered. Either born that way, injured, or even abused until their mind is destroyed to such an extent that they don't know what is reality anymore. They might believe that they can walk through walls. And people who have been hypnotized, delusional? I might not find one in my lifetime but to say that someone doesn't exist?


You don't actually have the perceptions you elude to - so its a hard one to argue. I point out without having those perceptions then you do not validate your argument - though you bring up a possibility.

Those who cannot truly perceive.. who cannot put two and two together to form "valid" perceptions. Perhaps they do have, just not fully conscioulsy. I mean if I say I can walk through this wall, no matter how hard I try to beleive it (and trust me, I catually have) I always have a lingering doubt. Maybe these people do to, only buried deeper?

BTW.. you've made further inroads into this argument quicker than most people. I have made it often, and with very bright people, and not had to defend it this abstractly this early before. I think you can make powerful inroads into it.. but in the end it is extremely hard to "clinch" as totally impossible as being true. In the end the defense is always abstract.. and hard to overcome

[Duzzy]

You don't actually have the perceptions you elude to - so its a hard one to argue. I point out without having those perceptions then you do not validate your argument - though you bring up a possibility.

Those who cannot truly perceive.. who cannot put two and two together to form "valid" perceptions. Perhaps they do have, just not fully conscioulsy. I mean if I say I can walk through this wall, no matter how hard I try to beleive it (and trust me, I catually have) I always have a lingering doubt. Maybe these people do to, only buried deeper?

BTW.. you've made further inroads into this argument quicker than most people. I have made it often, and with very bright people, and not had to defend it this abstractly this early before. I think you can make powerful inroads into it.. but in the end it is extremely hard to "clinch" as totally impossible as being true. In the end the defense is always abstract.. and hard to overcome

In Logic you only need one example of something being false for it to be invalid.

Now I may not personally have the perceptions I was arguing on a hypothetical level, and my point is that if I perceive limitations onto you, then what can you do? You cannot unperceive them because I won't let you, you are basically limited to my reality in which everything you have alluded to is false.

This is one instance where your argument does not work, there would exist no perceived reality but mine, and I would perceive that reality not as perceived but as concrete. So it would be a concrete and unchanging reality.

[nippinout]

This is what I have always wondered about: Do I see the color blue, the same way you see the color blue? Maybe your blue is what I would see as orange. MINDS EYE!!! MINDS EYE???

[Duzzy]

If you say something is blue, and I say it is orange, but we are both talking about the same thing does it really matter? Meaning is what is important, not the vibrations in the air or the scribbles on the page.

[Lohman446]

If your perceptions of that situation truly existed without question - I don't think they do, so well you have a hypothetical situatin that would disprove it you have no more proof than I have of walking through a wall and proving it (understanding taht would not be perfect proof, but you know what I mean)

Let me take this into an idea. You are looking at emptying your bank account on whatever. You decide to do it.

Later that day you girlfriend informs you she was pregnant.

You did not perceive that when you made the purchase - was she pregnant at the time or not. In your reality no. not then. But in your newest and current reality she is... and in this reality she was then. I could argue that they are two seperate realities.

[Lohman446]

This is what I have always wondered about: Do I see the color blue, the same way you see the color blue? Maybe your blue is what I would see as orange. MINDS EYE!!! MINDS EYE???


Interesting idea... what I would call orange if I saw what your mind saw you would call blue - we perceive them different even though we have both been taught to call what we call blue blue... maybe what we see is actually different :D

[Duzzy]

If your perceptions of that situation truly existed without question - I don't think they do, so well you have a hypothetical situatin that would disprove it you have no more proof than I have of walking through a wall and proving it (understanding taht would not be perfect proof, but you know what I mean)

Let me take this into an idea. You are looking at emptying your bank account on whatever. You decide to do it.

Later that day you girlfriend informs you she was pregnant.

You did not perceive that when you made the purchase - was she pregnant at the time or not. In your reality no. not then. But in your newest and current reality she is... and in this reality she was then. I could argue that they are two seperate realities.

I hate to say it but hypothetical situations are the only thing you can use when dealing with some philosophical situations.

Example:

I want to prove Responsibility for Accidents that harm someone... You say no, I say yes...

A doctor carelessly injects the wrong needles and kills your mom with an OD. He didn't do it on purpose, but he is still responsible for her death.

It is a hypothetical but it is still a valid example, and it still proves that he is responsible (I know someone is going to say something stupid like, "Well I don't think he is" but please don't let's see my point and keep this intelligent.).

Things can exist in my reality without my knowing them. In my reality you are nothing more than a screen name on AO. I don't have a face, or a name, or age, or anything. For all I know you could be Tuna, or Dayspring, or CoolHand, or anyone else (these names came first to my mind, nothing is meant by it) on this forum, but the fact is that whether I know who you are or not you still exist. Either as a real person, or as an alter ego on an internet forum.

[Lohman446]

Ahh... but. Your giving hypotheticals of situations that I perceive as being possible, I assert for this argument that the hypotheticals that you assert to disprove the argument, while if real would disprove it, are simply not possible.

No.. I'm not trying to be dense either, I do follow your line of reasoning. Its nearly impossible to win a philosophical argument, though your argument can be much stronger.. its hard to disprove the theory.

[Duzzy]

though your argument can be much stronger

You do know that if you can make my argument stronger it is your job to do so... To do otherwise is referred to as creating a Strawman argument. Which basically means that you have so little faith in your own argument that you can only win against a weak argument.

Not saying that you are doing this but it is actually a rule in Philosophy, it is your solemn duty to create the strongest opposing arguments possible and then either crush them, or learn from them. So sayeth my philosophy teacher.

Let us say that what you are claiming is true, then what I am saying will also be true. But my true cancels out your true and replaces it, so if your argument is true, I win. If mine is true, I win.

[Duzzy]

As much fun as this is I am going to bed now. This will probably be my last post for this topic as well. However, if you ever want to discuss something philosophical send me a PM, it will be an adventure.

[Lohman446]

I to will have to call it a night, I have to concede that I need time to fully consider your arguments on this one... they are pretty good. You've found a circular argument that would make proof of perceived reality theory nearly impossible, one I have honestly not seen before.

[PyRo]

The perceived reality argument would state you cannot because you do nto beleive you can - because you perceive that you cannot.
When an infant tries to get through a piece of glass they cannot even though they may believe they can...

[vf-xx]

You are confusing the perceptions of reality.

There are "two" realities. The physical and the mental.

The physical reality holds true for all of us. Doubt this? Find someone who is/has hallucinated on drugs. They percieve something that is not real yet the real world affects them. Or you could say other people's version of reality affects them. Either way the bus going 40 still makes squishy noises on the body.

However, the fully mental reality of emotion, rationalization, and other strictly mental concepts are open game.

Or things could be how I see them: This reality is my dream. I feel sorry for you for when I wake up.

[Lohman446]

When an infant tries to get through a piece of glass they cannot even though they may believe they can...


Instinct? thats the normal hard to answer question - along with the - if you turn and walk into a wall.. you didn't perceive it there but it still stopped you. There is an argument against it, that says that yuo became aware of it and subconcsiously beleived it solid when you did become aware of it. Im still trying to circle out of Duzzy's hypothetical circular argument. I don't have to beleive something to make an argument for it.

[SlartyBartFast]

If everyone is in their own seperate reality after the branching then why are people from the previous reality who didn't branch still in it?

Theologically and physically speaking, there is only one reality. Only the viewpoint, interpretation, and portion experienced is different for each individual experiencing it (thus you could discuss different "perceived" realities).

As far as the "solids aren't solid" "perceived reality" crap, :rofl: well some of you have been watching the Matrix too many times while doing powerful drugs. Using this argument seriously, just shows that you are capable of disociating thought from logic. Otherwise, to "prove" your view point, you have to come up with a powerfl enough argument to disprove hundreds of years of scientific theory, knowledge, and experimentation.

[punkncat]

This thread is very "Matrix"-esce. You sound like you are trying to convince Neo that in your mind everything is possible.

The point is that our bodies experiance our physical limitations letting our mind know what is possible and what is not. Generally through pain reflex. I don't care of you are convinced or not. Your body tissue is softer than a brick and thus cannot overcome the physical limitation and walk through it.

Its like trying to convince an egg that it will not break on the edge of the pan. Physical reality MAKES it break.

The realities of our life experiance form our perception. You see someone fall out of a tree flapping their arms, fall to the ground and break a leg. Perception or no, you have just learned that regardless of your desire, humans don't fly un-aided.

[Duzzy]

This is why I wasn't going to post anymore, you guys took all the fun out of the argument.

If you look at my first reply I am all for one, physical reality. But for the sake of argument, or fun, I tried to look at it from Lohman446's viewpoint and prove him wrong.

An open mind is a free world, have a little fun.

[Lohman446]

Agreeing with Duzzy on this. There is a purpose behind philosophical debate, and often you take an argument that you may nto agree with just to see how far you can run with it, how strong you can make it. I have heard very good arguments on the existence of god for instance that had no basis on weather the arguer actually beleived it. Its an exercise in logic, in cricital thinking. Philosophy, at least the study of it and participation in it, to many people serves a purpose more valuable than the actual answers - it teaches slightly different ways of thinking, and of consideration.