Appearance and Reality

badabing106

Do you think we are living "Reality" or is what we are experiencing "Not Reality" .? A science experiment /Computer Simulation or something else..

Humans have 5 senses except for Bruce Willis. If we had 100 senses the nature of reality would be completely unrecognisable

The flying mouse

When I on boards it's not reality, When I of I up to my neck in reality living.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

We had this same thing on another thread very recently.

Sorry to tell you but this is reality.

alchemist33

badabing106 wrote: »

Do you think we are living "reality" or is what we are experiencing "Not Reality" .? A science experiment /Computer Simulation or something else..

Back in your lifepod, you.

Hector Bellend

I'll have a **** just to make sure

s4uv3

badabing106 wrote: »

Do you think we are living "reality" or is what we are experiencing "Not Reality" .? A science experiment /Computer Simulation or something else..

Mad weekend, eh?

mansize

infogiver

When I look a bits of film of David Bowie now I wonder was he actually "here" at all or was he some kind of fabulous hologram?

darkpagandeath

You are experience the Reality your Brain interprets via its poor level of input from Senses.

HeidiHeidi

Put away the funny pills, OP, it's a school night.

Ted111

I'm eating my breakfast, Kate.

Hector Bellend

Ted_YNWA

it is Fanta Sea

posturingpat

One thing's for sure Tinder isn't reality. I've matched with some fine looking things only to turn up and meet their uglier fatter sister.

Wibbs

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You are experience the Reality your Brain interprets via its poor level of input from Senses.

Nails it for me TBH. There is observable reality and reality itself, but since all we can do is observe reality with the tools at our disposal, tools which evolve, reality itself evolves. EG we had no perception of ultraviolet light until we could build technologies to augment our perceptions and then we could see it. The question then becomes how much more reality are we missing? Every society thinks they have it covered, or that there's less to discover about reality and certainly we're way ahead of say the ancient Greeks who mused on such things, but there may yet be real surprises as we add more and more tech to our quest.

Laeot

Nick Bostrom has various research papers published on the idea and puts forward an interesting hypothesis on same.

Epistemological externalism is another interesting angle on it.

darkpagandeath

Wibbs wrote: »

Nails it for me TBH. There is observable reality and reality itself, but since all we can do is observe reality with the tools at our disposal, tools which evolve, reality itself evolves. EG we had no perception of ultraviolet light until we could build technologies to augment our perceptions and then we could see it. The question then becomes how much more reality are we missing? Every society thinks they have it covered, or that there's less to discover about reality and certainly we're way ahead of say the ancient Greeks who mused on such things, but there may yet be real surprises as we add more and more tech to our quest.

It's can melt the head pretty fast. Watched a physics show on a few theory's and explanations on Time. One was that time is a set of snapshots happening all at the same time and your brain chooses the order. Crazy stuff.

Capt'n Midnight

I think therefore I am.

There are unpredictable things outside my knowledge so other(s) are too.

Haven't noticed any glitches yet

And Occam's razor suggests that we aren't in a simulation.




On the other hand if we are in a simulation who's to say those running the simulation weren't also in a simulation ?

It's simulations all the way down.

Capt'n Midnight

darkpagandeath wrote: »

It's can melt the head pretty fast. Watched a physics show on a few theory's and explanations on Time. One was that time is a set of snapshots happening all at the same time and your brain chooses the order. Crazy stuff.

Isn't "now" spread over 3 seconds or so ?

Things get out of synch and it's one explanation for déjà vu

And yes the transfer of things from short term to longer term memory is messy too.


As for time itself the equations for the big bang work out OK. As long as you use complex numbers.

deco nate

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Put away the funny pills, OP, it's a school night.

.... Or is it?.. .. .

darkpagandeath

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Isn't "now" spread over 3 seconds or so ?

Things get out of synch and it's one explanation for déjà vu

And yes the transfer of things from short term to longer term memory is messy too.


As for time itself the equations for the big bang work out OK. As long as you use complex numbers.

Yes Its hard to get your head around. Remember there is delay in the system as well due to the Nervous system and the processing is not instant. déjà vu could be explained on this 3 seconds due to the brain seeing similarity in it's input and triggering a memory. Its all very very odd. There are several problems, How your brain is wired to recognise things Immediately like faces and alike. The fact that you view the world though a very small window. the list goes on. The staggering amount of input we disregard in rendering our perception.


Just to add, life flashing before the eyes could be the brain playing all it's stored information looking for a compatible match to get out of said lethal situation. Or it could just be a backup to the computer system we are in.

mzungu

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

On the other hand if we are in a simulation who's to say those running the simulation weren't also in a simulation ?

And why are they so interested in having simulations of people using forums? Surely they would want to see us taking on Nile crocodiles in a fight to the death, or something exciting like that.

darkpagandeath

mzungu wrote: »

And why are they so interested in having simulations of people using forums? Surely they would want to see us taking on Nile crocodiles in a fight to the death, or something exciting like that.

Vincent Vega

I think we all (or at least we have the ability to) experience our own subjective 'reality', and that we struggle to come to terms with it, unless we can successfully manifest it in some form of language.

And for the most part we try to settle this problem by attempting to fabricate a collective agreement, a grand narrative, in the stories we tell through forms of media, which is actually a hyperreality.

darkpagandeath

Vincent Vega wrote: »

I think we all (or at least we have the ability to) experience our own subjective 'reality', and that we struggle to come to terms with it, unless we can successfully manifest it in some form of language.

And for the most part we try to settle this problem by attempting to fabricate a collective agreement, a grand narrative, in the stories we tell through forms of media, which is actually a hyperreality.

Brain teaser, What I see and recognise as red could be what you see as green. My brains interpretation to yours.

Capt'n Midnight

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Brain teaser, What I see and recognise as red could be what you see as green. My brains interpretation to yours.

That's nothing compared to chromesthesia or an acid trip.

endacl

badabing106 wrote: »

Do you think we are living "Reality" or is what we are experiencing "Not Reality" .? A science experiment /Computer Simulation or something else..

Humans have 5 senses except for Bruce Willis. If we had 100 senses the nature of reality would be completely unrecognisable

If we had 100 senses subjective reality would be completely recognisable, because it would be our normal.

darkpagandeath

endacl wrote: »

If we had 100 senses subjective reality would be completely recognisable, because it would be our normal.

We have loads and loads of senses, They just picked 5. Close your eyes, put your arm out then without opening your eyes grab your outstretched hand with the other. You know exactly where it is in 3 dimensional space. You can detect radiated heat feel the wind.

Junkyard Tom

Which came first: the brain or the mind?

Atoms for Peace

You realize the sun doesn't go down,
It's just an illusion caused by the world spinning round,

RobbingBandit

Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try. Damn hippies and their paradoxical conundrums...

darkpagandeath

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Which came first: the brain or the mind?

The Brain, formed as part of the nervous system in relatively simple organisms. The mind came about due to complex input into the brain Resulting in self awareness. The brain is not the only option in Nature either. In cephalopods Clusters and bundles of nerves that do the same job not centralised like the brain.

Junkyard Tom

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The Brain

Who's to say that things without brains don't have a mind? Jellyfish don't have a brain but they must be thinking about where they're going to swim next.

darkpagandeath

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Who's to say that things without brains don't have a mind? Jellyfish don't have a brain but they must be thinking about where they're going to swim next.

The mind is hard to explain, it evolved out of complex survival instincts learned behaviour until sentience was reached. Jelly fish don't have a brain I don't think, nerve clusters like cephalopods. Brain is not the only game in town.