BS: Reality: Real or Fake?

Subject: BS: Reality: Real or Fake?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 11:51 AM

One More Time....

Subject: RE: BS: Reality: Real or Fake?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 11:57 AM

Cogitate, Greg!

Subject: RE: BS: Reality: Real or Fake?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 12:06 PM

Well, many very interesting metaphysical treatises have been written concerning this very question, Greg. For example, we have the Upanishads, a collection of philosophical texts which form the theoretical basis for the Hindu religion.

To describe the Upanishads in their entirety would take a very long time, but here is a brief summary of just one aspect of the Upanishads...

Metaphysics

The three main approaches in arriving at the solution to the problem of the Ultimate Reality have traditionally been the theological, the cosmological and the psychological approaches.[44] The cosmological approach involves looking outward, to the world; the psychological approach meaning looking inside or to the Self; and the theological approach is looking upward or to God. Descartes takes the first and starts with the argument that the Self is the primary reality, self-consciousness the primary fact of existence, and introspection the start of the real philosophical process.[45] According to him, we can arrive at the conception of God only through the Self because it is God who is the cause of the Self and thus, we should regard God as more perfect than the Self. Spinoza on the other hand, believed that God is the be-all and the end-all of all things, the alpha and the omega of existence. From God philosophy starts, and in God philosophy ends. The manner of approach of the Upanishadic philosophers to the problem of ultimate reality was neither the Cartesian nor Spinozistic. The Upanishadic philosophers regarded the Self as the ultimate existence and subordinated the world and God to the Self. The Self to them, is more real than either the world or God. It is only ultimately that they identify the Self with God, and thus bridge over the gulf that exists between the theological and psychological approaches to reality. They take the cosmological approach to start with, but they find that this cannot give them the solution of the ultimate reality. So, Upanishadic thinkers go back and start over by taking the psychological approach and here again, they cannot find the solution to the ultimate reality. They therefore perform yet another experiment by taking the theological approach. They find that this too is lacking in finding the solution. They give yet another try to the psychological approach, and come up with the solution to the problem of the ultimate reality. Thus, the Upanishadic thinkers follow a cosmo-theo-psychological approach.[45] A study of the mukhya Upanishads shows that the Upanishadic thinkers progressively build on each other's ideas. They go back and forth and refute improbable approaches before arriving at the solution of the ultimate reality.[46]

Then you have Plato and Aristotle's views on Reality. Again, a very extensive body of work.

Then you have the modern philosophers such as Goethe, Nietsche, Locke, and many others all of whom attempted in their own way to grasp and define reality.

Then you have present day Quantum Physics, a discipline which is suggesting many quite surprising things about the nature of Reality.

Is the reality we perceive the entire reality? Probably not. But it's the part we are able to perceive with our 5 senses, so most people assume it is the entire reality most of the time...unless they are familiar with quantum physics and/or a great many philosophical treatises that have come down through the ages.

People like to say that "what you see is what you get". Maybe so. Maybe not. Sight can sometimes be deceiving.

Subject: RE: BS: Reality: Real or Fake?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 12:25 PM

What would you expect from a sensor that only responds to a small fraction of the EMF spectrum? Besides, reality isn't ALL EMF anyway. So where are our sensors for those bands outside the optical, or those perceptic channels that have no EMF signature?

Cogitate!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Reality: Real or Fake?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 12:44 PM

Indeed, Amos, indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Reality: Real or Fake?
From: GUEST,DrWord
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 02:06 PM

How do you know but ev'ry bird that flies the airy way
is an immense world of delight, clos'd by your senses five?

keep on pickin'
dennis

Subject: RE: BS: Reality: Real or Fake?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 02:31 PM

Reality: Real or Fake?


The only way to get to the essence of this deep question and do justice to our understanding is to reply in Dzindalian.

Jil tarzator diod solgrudnum istamestek.

That's all I have to add.

Subject: RE: BS: Reality: Real or Fake?
From: fat B****rd
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 03:06 PM

Dzindalian. Phew !

Subject: RE: BS: Reality: Real or Fake?
From: gnu
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 03:14 PM

Here's a reply in Zindanian.