Perspective and Reality.

[Sinjihn]

The point of this thread is that since your reality is the only one that matters, anything you enver experience, whether other people did or not, if you never experienced it in some way shape or form, orally, by ear, firsthand etc, if you never have, it doesn't exist.

Lucifer is kind of saying that it does exist because other people can tell you, but if they dont, it doesn't exist.

If someone tells me tommorow there are people living on pluto, the people don't necessarily exist, but the IDEA exists, and therefore if we somehow find people on pluto and I hear of it, they exist. If we find no people on pluto, the IDEA exists. If noone told me about the people on pluto and nothing happened about it, the people nor the idea would ever exist. At least in my reality.

[JinDaYi]

So, how about this:

A child is born. The child's parents die the next day; the cause of death being irrelevant. The child is taken care of by foster parents, never told of their real parents, brought up as if nothing is different. Did the child's parents ever exist?

Yes. They existed. Simply because the child doesn't know does not mean their parents are nonexistent. Ignorance and reality are not interchangeable. Unless I were to say "he is ignorant, and that is reality", then the reality is that such a person is ignorant. Ignorance being his reality. But, to say "ignorance is truth, a defining point of reality", is completely ridiculous. On the basis that denial and the refusal or inability to comprehend makes up the universe around them is contradictory to the concept of reality (outside of being apart of the overall reality).

Not in the sense that, "because I am told 'x, y, and z', they are as they were exclaimed and are undeniable". That is ignorant, and a defining point of reality for many (if not everyone). Being a different context entirely, though.

[slingblader]

Originally Posted by JinDaYi

So, how about this:

A child is born. The child's parents die the next day; the cause of death being irrelevant. The child is taken care of by foster parents, never told of their real parents, brought up as if nothing is different. Did the child's parents ever exist?

Yes. They existed. Simply because the child doesn't know does not mean their parents are nonexistent. Ignorance and reality are not interchangeable. Unless I were to say "he is ignorant, and that is reality", then the reality is that such a person is ignorant. Ignorance being his reality. But, to say "ignorance is truth, a defining point of reality", is completely ridiculous. On the basis that denial and the refusal or inability to comprehend makes up the universe around them is contradictory to the concept of reality (outside of being apart of the overall reality).

Not in the sense that, "because I am told 'x, y, and z', they are as they were exclaimed and are undeniable". That is ignorant, and a defining point of reality for many (if not everyone). Being a different context entirely, though.

That's based solely on an individual, when the situation is definately defined by multiple people. Obviously someone had contact with the parents, therefore they "existed." Existence can be defined by another to be applied to another. But regardless, the parent's never "existed" to the child. Again, this is a psychological thing, not a physical thing. The laws of the universe or whatever you consider to be the rules of our physical world are irrelevant. But this entire ideal is used more to define that beyond what is known by all humans, not individuals (though it still applies). The simplest I can break it down is that if for your entire life, you were told 2 was what we consider 3, and you went about your life like that, 2 would be what we consider 3, plain and simple. There's nothing else to it. We all live in our own representations of the world, completely independently of the things we do not know exist.

There is no "one" reality. We all live in our own.

[ChunkyGerbil]

I just hate the way Sinjihn says "it doesnt exist." I just wished he said it doesn't exist to yourself. I would feel better then =)

[Jon88]

Originally Posted by Sinjihn

Listen. The tree fall thing makes sense, because essentially, the tree doesnt exist if noone was around to hear it either.

If noone EVER sees the tree, it will never exist. If you die before you see the tree, it doesn't exist.
HOWEVER
If you see the tree, you can speculate the sound it made, but the sound never existed, because the waves never reached your ears.

It may make sense in your reality, but the statement does not make sense in my reality.

"A tree", references a physical object with certain properties and which exists in the tangible Universe. "The tree falls", when a tree falls it makes a sound, I don't have to experience a tree falling to make that statement, it is a object moving through a medium pushing against other objects creating a wave... and so on. So when you say, "a tree falls and makes no sound", your statement is false. It also does not make sense to say, a tree exists but does not exist.

There is a car, but the car does not exist. Or. There is a car on the street, but the car does not exist within my home.

I am not missing your intended point. I am however... calling for a more explicit way of conveying it. I could say, 1+2=(-5), and that may make sense to me, but it probably won't make sense to most people. Because "1", "+", "2","-5", are all symbols which mean something else to 'most' people. That is what is happening when you reference a tree, what sound is, and what existence is; your meanings do not match my own (nor would it seem a few other people in this thread).

[Colby]

Originally Posted by Sinjihn

It's been talked about many times before on this forum, but I LIKE TALKInG ABOUT IT.

Basically heres the question.

If a tree falls down, and noone is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

NO.

Why? Sound is a definition of what HUMANS hear. If you did not hear it, sound did not exist. Everything we know, is definition, by people who came before us, or who will come to define things we have not experienced, only to find out they exist. But if you have never heard, or never will hear of something, never sensed or sense it with any of your 5/6 senses, it does not exist. Because each and every indvidual lives within their reality.

For example, if everyone in the world forgot about one person, forgot all physical evidence, and completely wiped that person out of memory, and never remembered them again, that person would cease to exist. But existing is something defined by your reality, so then something can only exist when you have heard of it. If i never heard of Gunz, it would not exist, because I, an individual, living in my own reality, have never sensed it in anyway.

At least, do you think this way?
Discuss.

@Bolded: No, that would only work if they died. A person could exist on a deserted island, and just because we don't percieve him doesn't mean he doesn't exist, it just means we don't know that he does. Similar to the Matrix, we theoretically cannot see, touch, taste, hear, or smell the Matrix because our bodies are "programmed" that way, however it may exist, and in the case of the movie it did.

@The Rest
Humans aren't the only beings capable of hearing, and again, just because you didn't hear it doesn't mean it was never made. Just like the Matrix. Or God possibly, who knows? Certainly if God does exist, and for this example we will assume he does, it doesn't mean the supreme master of everything would suddenly cease to exist just because everyone forgot. If anything existed at one point in time, it only ceases to exist when it is gone, even if everyone forgot it about it long ago.

Like uh, the Loch Ness monster (Which I think could be a dinosuar). There are very few who believe in it in comparison to the rest of the world, but if it does indeed exist it doesn't mean it popped into existence because we believed, it would have had to existed prior and simply revealed itself afterwards.

[Sinjihn]

Originally Posted by Billionz

@Bolded: No, that would only work if they died. A person could exist on a deserted island, and just because we don't percieve him doesn't mean he doesn't exist, it just means we don't know that he does. Similar to the Matrix, we theoretically cannot see, touch, taste, hear, or smell the Matrix because our bodies are "programmed" that way, however it may exist, and in the case of the movie it did.

@The Rest
Humans aren't the only beings capable of hearing, and again, just because you didn't hear it doesn't mean it was never made. Just like the Matrix. Or God possibly, who knows? Certainly if God does exist, and for this example we will assume he does, it doesn't mean the supreme master of everything would suddenly cease to exist just because everyone forgot. If anything existed at one point in time, it only ceases to exist when it is gone, even if everyone forgot it about it long ago.

Like uh, the Loch Ness monster (Which I think could be a dinosuar). There are very few who believe in it in comparison to the rest of the world, but if it does indeed exist it doesn't mean it popped into existence because we believed, it would have had to existed prior and simply revealed itself afterwards.

It seems like you are still not getting it. Allow me to bold it.


YOUR OWN REALITY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS

SO

If you never heard of something, and never will, IT DOESNT EXIST.
If a person dies and everyone forgot him, HE NEVER EXISTED. Because there is no left evidence and he has been wiped from memory, there is no way to recover, you cannot speculate that he may have exisTED when he has already been wiped from memory.

@LOCHNESS MONSTER

It exists as an abstract idea, therefore it exists. If the lochness monster was real, lets say, but noone ever saw it heard of it or knew it was there, it wouldn't exist.
Things DO pop into existence because existence is defined by the human, simply because we are human. Whether it existed beforehand is irrellevant, because it never exists if you never hear of it. Doesnt matter if other people have, doesnt matter if it REALLY AND TRULY EXISTS.

IF YOU AS AN INDIVIDuAL DONT SEE IT OR HEAR ABOUT IT, ETC. IT DOESNT EXIST.

[Colby]

Originally Posted by Sinjihn

It seems like you are still not getting it. Allow me to bold it.


YOUR OWN REALITY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS

SO

If you never heard of something, and never will, IT DOESNT EXIST.
If a person dies and everyone forgot him, HE NEVER EXISTED. Because there is no left evidence and he has been wiped from memory, there is no way to recover, you cannot speculate that he may have exisTED when he has already been wiped from memory.

@LOCHNESS MONSTER

It exists as an abstract idea, therefore it exists. If the lochness monster was real, lets say, but noone ever saw it heard of it or knew it was there, it wouldn't exist.
Things DO pop into existence because existence is defined by the human, simply because we are human. Whether it existed beforehand is irrellevant, because it never exists if you never hear of it. Doesnt matter if other people have, doesnt matter if it REALLY AND TRULY EXISTS.

IF YOU AS AN INDIVIDuAL DONT SEE IT OR HEAR ABOUT IT, ETC. IT DOESNT EXIST.

I think that what you're trying to tell me is that everything is in our minds and that things are only physical because we say so? What about the millions of years before humans existed? Are you saying that there were no donosaurs? There was no big bang/God/w/e before humans?

If you never heard of something, sure it can exist, you've just never heard of it. Even if nobody knew a person, and he was isolated, he would still exist because he himself knows he exists and any other wildlife that may have observed him. Existence is not of the individual, it's a universal truth, we exist not due to human perception but due to the unknown. God? Big Bang? Xenu? Who knows. But we are certain of our own existence.

Anyways, going by your logic anything we don't know about yet, like the answer to life, doesn't exist. There is no evidence to the answer, and is only something we can theorize. So lets say I theorize a big Apple appears in my hand, according to you it would appear, why? Because it's existence if defined by me and I am human, however things don't work that way.

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

ex·ist Audio Help /ɪgˈzɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ig-zist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.

Existence happens, think about all the unborn children yet to occur. They certainly don't know of anything existing, but we do don't we? So we exist. You can't deny existence even if you've never heard of it.

There are people who deny the existence of the holocaust, does that mean they are right in saying it never happened? They deny it, they say they never hear of it or they say there is no real proof of such a thing. Does that make them right?

The human opinion means nothing in the face of a fact that contradicts it, and the fact is, existence is here and real. Things exist outside of human understanding, maybe even beyond our own comprehension. However they may exist, we just don't know.

Look, right now I'm not aware of what is going on at your house right now, I don't know what your house looks like, or even if you live in one. I could at best guess, that doesn't mean your house doesn't exist. It does obviously, unless you live in an apartment or on the streets with a laptop.

[slingblader]

Originally Posted by Billionz

I think that what you're trying to tell me is that everything is in our minds and that things are only physical because we say so? What about the millions of years before humans existed? Are you saying that there were no donosaurs? There was no big bang/God/w/e before humans?

If you never heard of something, sure it can exist, you've just never heard of it. Even if nobody knew a person, and he was isolated, he would still exist because he himself knows he exists and any other wildlife that may have observed him. Existence is not of the individual, it's a universal truth, we exist not due to human perception but due to the unknown. God? Big Bang? Xenu? Who knows. But we are certain of our own existence.

Anyways, going by your logic anything we don't know about yet, like the answer to life, doesn't exist. There is no evidence to the answer, and is only something we can theorize. So lets say I theorize a big Apple appears in my hand, according to you it would appear, why? Because it's existence if defined by me and I am human, however things don't work that way.



Existence happens, think about all the unborn children yet to occur. They certainly don't know of anything existing, but we do don't we? So we exist. You can't deny existence even if you've never heard of it.

There are people who deny the existence of the holocaust, does that mean they are right in saying it never happened? They deny it, they say they never hear of it or they say there is no real proof of such a thing. Does that make them right?

The human opinion means nothing in the face of a fact that contradicts it, and the fact is, existence is here and real. Things exist outside of human understanding, maybe even beyond our own comprehension. However they may exist, we just don't know.

Look, right now I'm not aware of what is going on at your house right now, I don't know what your house looks like, or even if you live in one. I could at best guess, that doesn't mean your house doesn't exist. It does obviously, unless you live in an apartment or on the streets with a laptop.

The world isn't egocentric. YOUR world is egocentric. This isn't going to mak any sense, to anyone, unless you stop thinking about the physical. That's not the point of this. It makes perfect sense, and it's true. Did the holocaust exist? Obviously. SOMEONE experienced, many experienced. Does it exist to you? As an IDEA. Why, because you percieved evidence of it's existence. Is there a long lost island of perfection on some distant planet? Sure, why not. Does it matter? No, because our realities are defined by our experiences. It exists only as an idea until it is percieved in some way. Our reality operates independently of its physical presence.

[manofsparrow]

Originally Posted by Sinjihn

It seems like you are still not getting it. Allow me to bold it.


YOUR OWN REALITY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS

SO

If you never heard of something, and never will, IT DOESNT EXIST.
If a person dies and everyone forgot him, HE NEVER EXISTED. Because there is no left evidence and he has been wiped from memory, there is no way to recover, you cannot speculate that he may have exisTED when he has already been wiped from memory.

@LOCHNESS MONSTER

It exists as an abstract idea, therefore it exists. If the lochness monster was real, lets say, but noone ever saw it heard of it or knew it was there, it wouldn't exist.
Things DO pop into existence because existence is defined by the human, simply because we are human. Whether it existed beforehand is irrellevant, because it never exists if you never hear of it. Doesnt matter if other people have, doesnt matter if it REALLY AND TRULY EXISTS.

IF YOU AS AN INDIVIDuAL DONT SEE IT OR HEAR ABOUT IT, ETC. IT DOESNT EXIST.

You could just shorten everything you typed to "The world revolves around my head."

[Colby]

Originally Posted by slingblader

The world isn't egocentric. YOUR world is egocentric. This isn't going to mak any sense, to anyone, unless you stop thinking about the physical. That's not the point of this. It makes perfect sense, and it's true. Did the holocaust exist? Obviously. SOMEONE experienced, many experienced. Does it exist to you? As an IDEA. Why, because you percieved evidence of it's existence. Is there a long lost island of perfection on some distant planet? Sure, why not. Does it matter? No, because our realities are defined by our experiences. It exists only as an idea until it is percieved in some way. Our reality operates independently of its physical presence.

It's one thing to say percieve and another to say exist. Existence is broader than just ones own mind. Whether I percieve something to exist or not is irrelevant because in the end what exists depends on the "great creator" like God, or some chemical reaction, or some alien warlord.

If humans were wiped off the face of the planet existence would not cease to be, only us. The only way existence could not happen is if everything was gone including the "creator" and that's a big paradox on its own beyond human comprehension.

Even if our ideas are gone, the physical still remains assuming we are the only ones capable of thought. Of course we aren't, and existence is as much physical as metaphysical.

If nobody is around to percieve something, it is still there, we just don't know it. Which leads full circle back to the initial question, because yes it does still make sound waves which do exist. It doesn't need a thought to be there.

If I walk down a road and I see two paths leading to who knows where, and I can't travel both, does that mean that whatever is on the other path I don't choose doesn't exist? Assuming they are both abandoned cities but I don't know this, there is no life anywhere to percieve the cities...Does that really mean the other city is not within reality? I suppose the real answer would be, that there is always a perception, this perception being reality itself.

[shintenzu]

Originally Posted by slingblader

Ok, well I'm done discussing after this, as obviously no one is paying attention. This thread isn't about the physical. Do you know the definition of reality? It;s effectively the world you live in. It's everything around you that you perceive, that you can comprehend. Without perceiving it, without understanding it, IT DOES NOT EXIST. Under your logic, someone could be standing in front of every one of us yelling at the top of their longs for our entire lives. Maybe there is? But guess what, it doesn't matter. Why? Because it obviously can't be percieved by humans.

Seriously, 90% replying to this are missing the entire point of the thread. And pi doesn't exist even fundamentally for the record. It's not even a think, it's a concept, as are all numbers. But regardless, it still isn't "real." Why? Because one cannot perceive infinity. It's not possible.

What you dont get is that people dont agree with your definition of reality. If we agreed with your definition of reality then most of us would agree with your concept, but the definition is not even the accepted definition, it is a version of a philosophical definition held by a specific view of life.

Reality in its plain definition is "What is real" or "In a state of being real". Now that definition is slightly vague, but we know it means "What is existant". The problem with this definition is how do we define "what is real" do we define it by individual perception, the most popular perception, or do we define it by something else. YOU have defined it as the individual perception of each individual, which makes reality relative, and the only reason why someone could come with such a conclusion is because they believe in the relativity of truth. The rest of us who dont believe in the relativity of truth feel this is truely a crackpot philosophicla theory because if truth was relative, gravity should effect you differently than me, but it does not.

Now with that taken out of the way we must ask why we feel that ur definition of relative reality if wrong, and why we feel there is a higher standard of defining reality. Well simply put you must what our perception truely is. Well our senses are not 100% accurate, as they as a mass of tissues interpreting sensual and electric codes which creates our perceptions. Our eyes are limited, as what we can see is not always all that is out there, what we can touch is not all that is able to be felt, and etc. SO knowing that out perceptions are not 100% accurate, how can we be the ones to say what is real and what is not? Well what I will say is that an averagely healthy human being may not have 100% perfect perception but at the same time he does not have 0% perception, so I do believe we can trust the magority of what we can see, but be able to admit what we can sense may not be all that is out there.

Because we cannot sense everything in every square foot of the universe, we must be content with the definition that reality is what is in existance, whether or not we can perceive that existance or not within the limitations of being a human. Once we get to that point, reality no longer becomes just what we can observe, but what we think COULD be possible using as much of our knowledge as we can. That is when we get into the grounds of metaphysics, and all that crap, because what we cannot observe leaves the realm of observative deduction into the grounds of philosophy.

What you have to understand is that we are nothing more than audiences of reality, we can only take what we observe, but reality is here regardless of whether we can or cant perceive it. An ant is in a world begger than the yard that he is limited to whether or not he can percieve every inch of it, and the same reality is here even if he doesnt believe it is.

Happy now?

Originally Posted by Jon88

A computer can not make a 'perfect' circle, only a estimation. We can not program a computer to create a perfect circle using a fraction. We need the exact decimal number, which has yet to be determined.

If what you mean is that it will always be off by an amount unpercievable to the human eye, then yes you are right, not even computers can create something 100% perfect. However, the equation used to create the circle will be perfect, but the visual image we get may not be due to the limitations of pixels.

[slingblader]

The definition or reality is irrelevant. Whether our perception is correct or not is irrelevant. It's physical presence is irrelevant. You, and no one else on this planet, lives where things that aren't know of affect us. They do no exist. Like it or not, we are all human. Science and physicality aside, we our bound by the confines of our mind. Everything we determine through traditional science is completely sidelined by the actual decisions of the mind. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Sure, it's obviously physically there. I'm not denying, or even countering that. That's not the point, you don't live in a world where that "object" exists. If we knew what it was, then obviously it would be nameable. It's not, because it doesn't exist. There's nothing else to say.

[shintenzu]

Originally Posted by slingblader

The definition or reality is irrelevant. Whether our perception is correct or not is irrelevant. It's physical presence is irrelevant. You, and no one else on this planet, lives where things that aren't know of affect us. They do no exist. Like it or not, we are all human. Science and physicality aside, we our bound by the confines of our mind. Everything we determine through traditional science is completely sidelined by the actual decisions of the mind. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Sure, it's obviously physically there. I'm not denying, or even countering that. That's not the point, you don't live in a world where that "object" exists. If we knew what it was, then obviously it would be nameable. It's not, because it doesn't exist. There's nothing else to say.

You see, the problem with your statement is that you are not confining your statement you are making it so general that it is not true.

What would make your statement slightly more accurate is stating that "It does not exist within the confines of your mind" instead of "it simply does not exist". That is what you are not listening to, because you use the term existant then you ignore the definition of existant. Existancy is directly related to what is real, and you are NOT describing what is real, you are simply describing what an individual percieves. You talking about the little bubble in which an individual can percieve as "his world" or "his reality" so state it is such. What would be more accurate is "This subject MAY exist, but inside the bubble of this individuals limitations of perception it does not exist."

If you stated what you meant better it would not be so difficult.

[Colby]

Originally Posted by slingblader

The definition or reality is irrelevant. Whether our perception is correct or not is irrelevant. It's physical presence is irrelevant. You, and no one else on this planet, lives where things that aren't know of affect us. They do no exist. Like it or not, we are all human. Science and physicality aside, we our bound by the confines of our mind. Everything we determine through traditional science is completely sidelined by the actual decisions of the mind. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Sure, it's obviously physically there. I'm not denying, or even countering that. That's not the point, you don't live in a world where that "object" exists. If we knew what it was, then obviously it would be nameable. It's not, because it doesn't exist. There's nothing else to say.

That defeats the purpose of the original question then, sure nobody is around to "percieve" the sound, it does exist though, just outside of perception.