TED Conversations

Harald Jezek

Owner, Nuada beauty+wellness


This conversation is closed.

What is reality ?

Did you ever think about what it is that makes reality real ?
How is our reality created ? Isn't it the perceptions our brain creates based on our sensory inputs ?
But what if we lack a sense ? How does reality change for somebody who cannot hear or see ?
Or take it even a step further, assume you are deprived of all your senses, What would reality mean in such a case ?
And last but not least, let's assume you are born without any senses. What would that mean to your reality ?
So what is reality and what are we as part of this reality ?


Closing Statement from Harald Jezek

Thanks everybody for participating in this conversation.
After 900+ comments did we solve the question of what reality actually is ? Probably not, however it was a good exercise in contemplating what it actually means when we say this or this is "real".
What most of us agreed upon is that there are different aspects to reality.

One is the reality we deal with on a daily basis and which we share to a large degree. For example we agree upon common things, such as when we see a car we all agree it's a car, a tree is a tree and a house if a house.
Although we know that this reality is created by our mind based on sensory inputs which is not only incomplete but often also faulty, it still is "real" because we share the same benchmarking (same sensory inputs, generally same mechanism how our brain interprets those sensory inputs.

Beside this shared reality we all have our own reality. This can be something simple like the perception of a taste, odor or a color.
Although we might agree that a given color is read or an odor is that of a pine, we never can know how another person actually perceives this sensory input.
Individual reality also becomes visible in our beliefs. For a religious person the existence of a God is a fact and hence part of reality while for an atheist reality is free of such a God.
Differences in this aspect of reality can also be observed in how different people get different perceptions of the same situation.

Last but not least there must be an underlying objective reality which includes the laws of nature (whether those are the ones we believe are valid today or perhaps something even deeper which we don't have discovered yet) and which exists regardless of us being here to contemplate it and regardless of our beliefs.

Next time we insist something is real, let's think whether it's real for me, for all(most) of us or real in an absolute sense.

To finish with Albert Einstein:
"“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 4 2013: Reality is what you can sense and perceive. It is relative depending on how one's brain processes sensory input data and supply the compiled interpretation to one's ego/self.
    • thumb
      Nov 5 2013: I think that's too simple.
      There are many aspects of reality we can't sense or perceive.
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2013: I hope it's not simpler than necessary :)
        Yes, there is always a part of reality outside of one's experience/knowledge but that's a capacity issue not really anything in basic disagreement of what I said. We include multitudes of facts as reality in the realm of our experiential capacity on a daily basis. But we need to sense it (input) and conceive it (interpretation). I think the idea will be clear if we compare surrealism with realism.
        Pray tell me what reality is beyond our sense and perception? If you answer my question it must be within it.
        • Nov 5 2013: I 'pray' in answer to your question that your understanding go beyond your senses and perception... when such prayer is answered you will understand what is beyond senses and perception which never the less is quite understandable.

          I imagine you meant to say 'please' rather than 'pray' though found the freudian slip quite revealing.

          BTW the meaning of the words are not contained in the words; likewise the ideas are not contained in the thoughts. 3D is a reality which is beyond our senses and perception which emerges from our senses and perception (sometimes :-)
        • thumb
          Nov 5 2013: Esteban, you may find interesting the origins (medieval) of the common phrase "pray tell" in English as an alternative with a slightly different connotation to "please tell."

          I will leave this investigation to you if you are interested.

          "Prithee" and "pray tell" are essentially the same expression.
        • Nov 5 2013: Thanks for pointing that out... I did investigate the expression of "Prithee" and "pray tell" and discovered that what I thought was an error itself was an error... from what I found the stated words suggests connotes that the author consider that the person being addressed will not be willing to forgo and answer the request. Fortunately for me the essence of my response still remains.
        • thumb
          Nov 5 2013: Pabitra, not sure what you mean with capacity issue. As a matter of fact, we only can detect with our senses a very narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum. Basically, we are limited to visible light. This is not a question of capacity but because we have no detectors for the vast majority of electromagnetic radiation.
          This is just one simple example how our perception of reality is limited.
          If you go further and look at reality as described by quantum physics everything that we consider facts and common sense actually breaks down.
        • thumb
          Nov 6 2013: Pabitra....just pondering....
          You write..." there is always a part of reality outside of one's experience/knowledge...."

          If something is "outside" one's experience/knowledge, then it is not a part of OUR reality, but rather, may be part of someone else's reality?

          You say..."If you...look at reality as described by quantum physics everything that we consider facts and common sense actually breaks down".

          You guys are expressing something similar? If what I'm perceiving from your comments is "reality", I agree! LOL!

          There is always something outside our experience/knowledge which can be broken down?
          So, "reality" for an individual, may have several different elements....including fact, speculation, imagination, etc.....depending on what information we, as individuals choose to accept?
        • Nov 6 2013: Colleen,

          If something is "outside" one's experience/knowledge, then it is still part of one's reality, it's just something that is "outside" one's experience/knowledge.

          "reality" for an individual stems from a combination of reality and what they think of it, what they do with and to it.
          Reality itself encompasses the individuals, what they think, feels, dream up and a bunch of other stuff.
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2013: "3D is a reality which is beyond our senses and perception which emerges from our senses and perception (sometimes :-)"
        I am confused. Are you meaning the simulated version of it? Otherwise our sight sensation is 3D enabled, we can perceive depth of field through vision. Our two eyes are designed that way. Try putting a thread through the eye of a needle with one eye closed.
        3D is certainly within our senses and perception.
        • Nov 5 2013: I mean that we actually see in 2D and create the 3D model view from integrating the two separate eye images while thinking we actually see in 3D. Sight sensation is 2D, we can perceive depth of field thanks to a complex integration of the two separate images which sometimes isn't enabled, though each eye may see just fine. Threading a needle is a piece of cake compared to catching a ball or driving through some gateways. 3D is certainly within certain individuals senses and perception and a bit beyond certain individuals developed competences. Personally I can remember and tell you about my first 3D experience because it happened in an accounting class during my first year in college! In hindsight it certainly explained why I had such a hard time catching balls and learning to drive. For the latter I used all sort of heuristics that didn't depend on 'seeing depth', such as if I am on my lane the other cars will pass without hitting me (or white light - car is coming, red light - car is going unless it was the car that had the reverse light on while still going).

          Most people have the ability to integrate the two eye sensation into a single 3D view and then for some reason may have much more difficulty producing a congruent story resulting from integrating different viewpoints from separate individuals. In math individuals may be able to solve x and y algebraic problems but if the variables change say to a and b they get confused and don't know what to do until they change a and be into x and y. Unfortunately in some coordinate systems doing certain things is practically impossible if not much more complex. For example a circle and a line can be represented by a simple constant equation if one uses the appropriate coordinate system. Depending on the system in use one may do stuff easier .

          The point I was sharing was that in reality our eyes sense in 2D though some think to see in 3D.
          Some see only through one eye at a time and cant perceive the richer experience
      • thumb
        Nov 6 2013: @ Harald Jezek.
        I think capacity issue is nicely explained through Esteban's comment above.
        Regarding rest of your reply where you referred x-ray, I need to explain.
        By senses and perception what I meant was not only our biological senses, namely the five most accepted sensory perceptions. Even biologically we are capable of sensing more than 5 inputs. But essentially what I meant was physical realism. In science nothing is accepted as a fact of reality without a proof or until it is testable through experiments. For example x-ray would never have been accepted as a part of reality unless we could render its effect verifiable within our range of electromagnetic opthalmoception. For the same reason something such as clairvoyance or ghosts will never be part of physical realism or reality. Something that is extrasensory is unreal, abstract or imaginary.
        I was certainly not talking about common sense reality.
        I hope you noted that I mentioned the constant increase of the boundary of reality through our experiences. Quantum reality is now within it. We may not directly experience it but we experience its effect on a daily basis each time we refer a GPS application.
        Something so obvious as two parallel lines never meeting is not within reality and I guess will never be. Infinity is another example. Singularity, yet another.
        I hope you get my drift.
      • thumb
        Nov 6 2013: @Esteban:
        At the center of the substance of your last comment lies the verifiability of string theory which claims that there are as many as 11 physical dimensions that we cannot sense or perceive but everything that we accept as real spring from those dimensions. This is not mainstream scientific theory as yet just because we do not have capacity (experimental ) to verify its credibility. So there is no string reality as yet.
        • Nov 6 2013: With that logic there was no round world reality till being accepted...rather than having the erroneous world view in place... because of 'lack of evidence' to the contrary. Do note that the evidence was there it was rejected as evidence.

          I was also going to mention how the instrumentation to validate the existence of something such as clairvoyance or ghosts could someday be part of physical reality.

          The underlying point I am addressing is that the validity of some claim depends on the congruence between what is claimed and what happens to be... being able to prove it or not is 'a secondary' issue. Scientist believe that the evidence and their methods enables them to perceive reality rather than keep them from seeing it. Few will recognize that ultimately what one considers valid boils down to what each chooses to believe to be valid. This can get a bit 'problematic' when the reality one experiences actually depends on the stories one holds of the reality... It gets even more complicated when the reality itself changes dew to the stories one holds, especial when such reality provides real evidence to maintain the story going and expanding. For example confidence in performing adequately leading to actually performing adequately. The same in the reverse. Self-fulfilling-prophecies. I can think of other examples though consider everyone gets the point and can think of additional ones themselves.

          I am puzzled by what you meant in: 'At the center of the substance of your last comment lies the verifiability of string theory which claims that there are as many as 11 physical dimensions that we cannot sense or perceive but everything that we accept as real spring from those dimensions. ' If you could please elaborate a bit on it.
        • thumb
          Nov 6 2013: Pabitra: I agree it's not mainstream science, but then I think most theories started out as being not mainstream. While the impossibility to verify the validity (at least for now) of string theory through measurements and observations it shouldn't be considered.
          What is important in a theory is that it provides predictions about events that then match the prediction.
          For example, the Higgs Bosom was a theoretical prediction. Back then, nobody had ever seen it, and there was no way to measure it. It needed the LHC to finally make it possible to identify it and so obtaining proof for the theory.
        • thumb
          Nov 6 2013: Esteban, ghosts or other paranormal events are different because there is no scientific theory predicting them in any way.
          To make a theory feasible you don't necessary have to have air tight proof, however, there must be at least sufficient evidence supporting the theory and it must be in line with what we observe.
          For example, the statement "there is a god", is not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis because there are no evidence supporting such a statement.
          I agree however that even using the scientific method there is no guarantee that something believed to be true, actually is true. However, science at least never stops inquiring, so eventually, the truth will come out (at least most of the time).
        • Nov 6 2013: Harald,

          Just to clarify a bit the point... the appropriate scientific claim would be that to this day we know of no scientific theory to predict them... nor know of instruments or experiments to validate (or invalidate) their existence.

          By some standards there is sufficient evidence and observations to support the belief in ghosts and other paranormal events... By some standards there will never be sufficient evidence nor observations to support the case.

          The statement "There is a God" is a factual declaration which depending on the existence of God would be true or not. Providing the proof of the existence of God would not change the veracity of the claim it would just make it a statement which has been proven. I concur with you that the statement isn't a theory, nor even a hypothesis its a factual declarative statement (which some believe is self evidently true, which some claim is a dogmatic revelation to be believed in, which some hold to be true, which some reject as true, and the list could go on and on).

          The fact some claim that there are no evidence supporting such a statement seem to me like the idea that there was no evidence supporting the claim that the earth was round, the evidence was/is there for those who know how to look for it and how to interpret it.

          I also concur with the idea that we ought to keep inquiring into the truth of the matter, the truth will eventually come out (question is what will one do with it....will one embrace it or reject it when it comes out and exposes what be true based on what be true... will one choose to use it for good things ).
      • thumb
        Nov 6 2013: @Esteban.
        As reality is a function of sensory perception and as sensory perception varies like finger prints between individuals, individual reality may be different for different people. That's why I said it's relative. Since I have no access to your personal reality and vice verse, we can only exchange anecdotes.
        However, science recognizes reality as standard. This means from a scientific stand point I cannot claim anything as real unless I can forward evidence perceivable by you and all and in ways repeatable as many times as one wants with the appeal to prove me wrong so that there is a chance to modify the general version of reality.
        Your mention of flat earth debate seems to point towards an absolute reality existing 'out there' irrespective of whether we can sense and perceive it. It reminds me the famous debate between Einstein and Tagore about the flower blooming in a valley where nobody sees or experiences it. Or say, if I am not looking at the moon, whether it exists for me. That's an existential reality debate. I am not sure whether this thread is intended for that.
        I'd prefer to accept reality as something sensed and perceived in the standard framework of science and relatable to all. From that stand point, round earth was not a reality some 1000 years ago.
        To help you out of em-puzzlement, one day something so anti-common sense notion that there may exist n number of dimensions for ultra minuscule strings in perpetual vibration giving rise to both gravity and electricity may become as real as anything. I shall accept it as real when such a theory can be relatable to all in a standard framework.
        Our senses and perception will continue to be the foundation of that framework, not any revelation.
        • Nov 6 2013: Pabitra

          I'd too prefer to accept reality as reality and not dependent on it being something sensed by someone or something; An objective absolute reality rather than a relative subjective one (the relative subject being the absolute reality). Do note that your framework foundation is based on a revelation, according to senses and perceptions and other devices.

          "individual reality may be different for different people" reminds me of the notion of identical copes existing in separate minds; 'evidently' each copy was different for different people ... or so I used to believe. At a latter time I corrected that belief. I do adhere to the notion of a standard reality existing. I realized that scientists do make claims about reality in the name of science without the evidence to back up those assertions. I also realized how some shift the burden of proof to the others rather than assume it themselves based on the premise that it is practically impossible for them to prove their claim. Using that logic they would have to accept whatever is practically impossible for me to prove to them by proving to me their assertion. At some point I just determined that each one has the burden of proof... if someone states the truth and others rejected it that be the others responsibility, for someone has done their part. BTW a single voice or righteous reason should suffice to silence oppositors and direct the progress of science. In the scientific way its not the general vision of reality that dictates what reality be, it be reality that determines what reality be and what ought to be the general vision of reality according to what be reality. In principle whomever is right, is right and whomever is wrong does the corrections necessary to ensure their view of reality corresponds to reality (which exists regardless of one looking at it or not, accepting it or rejecting it). Of course there is more to the story of reality when reality expands thanks to individual actions.
      • thumb
        Nov 6 2013: Esteban,
        I disagree that it's a revelation that I am claiming reality is a function of only our senses and perception (an extended understanding of things based on these) and a standard description of it relatable to all. it's a philosophy based on science We both believe in standard form of reality, may be many do, so it cannot be a private revelation.
        The private point of disagreement between us is that you think there is an absolute existential reality whereas I believe the only absolute is the relative nature of it. The standard description of reality keeps on changing as our experiences and understanding grow.
        Nice talking to you.
        • Nov 6 2013: Pabitra

          My intention is to playfully nudge you into understanding reality based on reality hovering over semantical entanglements while objectively observing them embroilments... hoping to provide an enriching 'liberating' experience (that binds you to the truth while still enabling you to 'freely' choose what to cultivate). To me making a false statement and telling a lie both correspond to untruthful assertions, just because one ignores the facts intentionally or unintentionally does not change the fact one ignores the facts and made a false statement. I mention this because I observe 'similar' semantical differentiating distinctions being used in your response when you say a revelation isn't a revelation because...

          What constitutes a revelation? is it " a surprising and previously unknown fact, esp. one that is made known in a dramatic way"? is it something else? I hold that with ' (an extended understanding of things based on these)' one can better discern what be and what to cultivate, how, why and a couple of other stuff. I realize that the words use can have multiple purposes and reasons. For a while now I realized that when someone calls me persistent or calls me stubborn they are complementing my 'continuing enduring determination' into a course of action. Which could be a desirable trait, an undesirable defect, a conscious objective choice and additional connotations. I see that their choice of words may stem from the stories they hold and what they want to achieve, similarly to dehumanizing the enemy to facilitate doing certain stuff in war. With that preparation:

          In other words... in essence you hold that reality corresponds to what 'you' thinks, understands claims reality to be... instead of holding that reality be what reality be. 'you' being the mumbo-jumbo 'changing standard description' in vogue that science arbitrarily states.

          BTW the fact one disagree or agree with what be hardly determines wether it be.

          This been nice and entertaining.
      • thumb
        Nov 6 2013: Harald,
        This is a response to your exchange with Pabitra....

        " Reality is what you can sense and perceive. It is relative depending on how one's brain processes sensory input data and supply the compiled interpretation to one's ego/self."

        "I think that's too simple.
        There are many aspects of reality we can't sense or perceive."

        I do not agree that the concept is "too simple".....it is what it is:>)

        Within the simple concept, however, there may be complex information on many different levels for different people. So, what an individual can or cannot sense or perceive is subjective.... how one's brain processes sensory input data and supply the compiled interpretation to one's ego/self is subjective, and there are probably other elements that are subjective as well.
        • Nov 6 2013: Colleen,

          your response lead me to think that:
          they can sense and perceive it, they just refuse to do it

          That is the there is quite a difference between the reality we can't sense or perceive from the reality some refuse to sense or perceive... in other words it is what it is regardless if some refuse to recognize or acknowledge it or choose to accept what be... of course accepting what be does not mean that we need to keep it as it be for we can act to actually change what be.
        • thumb
          Nov 6 2013: Colleen, Pabrita's view is too simple because there is more of reality that we cannot perceive or sense than we actually can.
          There is a lot our senses cannot detect. For example, we detect only a tiny fraction of electromagnetic waves (visible light), we have no sense to detect ultrasound (for example bats do), we have no means to perceive or sense all the activities going on in the subatomic realm. I could go on and on with this list.
          This is not something subjective depending who our brains process certain information.
      • thumb
        Nov 6 2013: Sorry I had to come back for some clarification to be made regarding what Esteban is saying here. If I am not wrong and by his own admission:
        1. He thinks reality is what it is. I take it that he is saying that reality is absolute and independent of our sensory perception. I am not getting any other meaning from his posts.
        2. He admits that he also believes in a standard form of reality but does not clarify if that standard form of reality is based on scientific principles of evidence, testability and repeatability. he is claiming that the standard description of reality is mumbo-jumbo in vogue that science arbitrarily states.
        3. He raises point about semantics and different meaning and connotations of words. I am not clear if that means he is finding my stand dubious. I think I am sufficiently plain talking.
        4. He also admits that he is playfully nudging me to the understanding of reality based on reality hovering over semantical entanglements while objectively observing them embroilments... hoping to provide an enriching 'liberating' experience (that binds me to the truth while still enabling me to 'freely' choose what to cultivate).

        I am stumped! Either I should take that as condescending or hyperbole and I choose the later. I am happy that I could make some sense to the author of the question.
        • Nov 6 2013: Pabitra,

          Indeed I am saying that reality is absolute
          I also expressed how I believe in a standard form of reality which holds that reality corresponds to reality rather than corresponds to what some claim to be real (evidently when some claim to be real what be real, it does correspond to what some claim, though when some claim to be what is't well what be is that some claimed to be what isn't and what be be what be , some made a false claim ).
          What I sought to convey with the statement of mumbo-jumbo in vogue that science claims referred to the changing standard description of reality being an oxymoronic concept for a changing idea or thing used as the standard measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations complicates the comparisons.
          Yes I did raised the point that thinking a revelation isn't a revelation does not alter the fact of the revelation being a revelation as a semantic entanglement. For the record I do not find you stand dubious its quite clear to me that you choose to hold such a stand. I do find it peculiar how on the one hand you claim to base your stand on evidence testability and repeatability while at the same time in practice rejecting the absolute reality.

          I am sorry that you are stumped and you choose to take my comments the way you did... I had intended and hoped that you would see my comments as I intended them... rather than as you choose to do... evidently to me what you choose to do has a lot to do with the beliefs and stories you choose to hold and what you choose to do is up to you. I wanted this to be a fun interchange where each learned and contributed towards the enrichment and understanding of themselves and others.

          From what I perceive in your response its evident to me that the playfully nudging towards fun discoveries was considered by you as something else, you could take what I said differently though you choose for whatever reason to consider it as you did... hopefully this will help to clarify some stuff..
        • thumb
          Nov 6 2013: Pabrita, there are lots of things I disagree with Esteban, or perhaps I just don't get what he means because he talks so much in circles instead of getting to the point of his argument.
          However, 1 point stands out and I actually though we all agreed upon that.
          This is that there is our perceived reality as produced by our brains based on sensory input and absolute reality.
          Let's go back to string theory and assume it's true. So if vibrating strings are the basic raw material of everything then this would be an element of absolute reality because it would be a fact regardless of whether or not there is any observer or the observers senses, measurement methods, bias, etc.
        • Nov 6 2013: Harald,

          Just consider that the circle (2D object) is actually a point (1D object) with a radius of understanding ... of course it could be a sphere (3D object) ...

          a point with a radius produces a nice circle in 2D and a nice sphere in 3D... I think there are other objects equidistant from a point in the other dimension though I ignore their names...

          I have to pass on string theory dialogue for the time being because I am unfamiliar with it for the time being. It sounded a bit like does a tree falling in the forest create ripples...
    • thumb
      Nov 6 2013: Hi Esteban:>)

      Some people cannot honestly perceive something (for example.....me.....with some scientific/technical facts), and, as you say, some refuse to even look at the information. That seems to be another variable when discussing reality......good point!

      I believe we can change our reality when/if we are willing to accept new information as reality. The example of our world being flat, which was brought up on this thread. It appears, that with the information available at that time, it seemed to be accepted that the world was flat. With new exploration, observation and discovery, we now accept different information as fact/reality. So, I agree with you that we can refuse to accept new information, and/or, we can have an open mind and heart and be willing to explore beyond what we think we know:>)
      • Nov 6 2013: Colleen,

        I will go on a limb here... hopefully without going to far of the branch...

        Some people cannot honestly perceive something intuitive perceive and refuse to look deeper into the truth of the matter/issue/idea/story. Some insist on maintaining the story they hold and believe they can't change such story while some recognize what be, acknowledge it and then focus on cultivating/building what will be 'now'.

        Note that with the information available at that time some accepted the fact/reality as fact/reality and some refused to accept it because of ... the implications and changes involved.

        I consider a heuristic related to knowledge and the wise... it is inversely proportional to emotive responses and knowing the truth. Those who know the truth are more open and serene to objective explore and consider propositions --- the exercises serves to validate what they know or discover something they didn't know (and expand what they do know). Then there are those who see the truth as a treat to their standing and what they hold to authoritatively know. In a way its related to the allegiance towards a fixed mindset where image and appearance is more valued than a growth mindset where learning and knowledge is mostly valued. The fixed are more interested in who is right and being right independent of what be right while the later are more interested in what be right and being right based on what be right.

        I liked what you said last... ' have an open mind and heart and be willing to explore beyond what we think we know'.

        A while back I had the revelation that what distinguishes the charlatans from the visionaries was NOT the fact each talked about what was't ... what sets them apart was their attitude towards the facts... only the visionary recognizes them for what they where and where willing to expose the truth of the matter... it didn't really change the validity viability of their vision/proposition. Something similar happens to the wise, the truth helps
        • thumb
          Nov 6 2013: Esteban,
          Why do you think/feel you may be going out on a limb with your comment?
      • Nov 6 2013: Because the interactions here have been mostly a bit scientific biased rather than including the intuitive stand ...
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2013: That is what I suspected Esteban, and I prefer to ask for clarification, rather than assume:>)

          I wholeheartedly support the idea to consider ALL available information when exploring any topic, and as I've said in comments on this thread, I believe our reality is based on information we are willing to explore, including science based fact, intuition, instinct....I like to consider ALL information, and this practice has been very helpful in my life experiences.

          For example:
          23 years ago, I sustained a near fatal head/brain injury, had emergency craniotomy, and at first, because of the severity of the damage, was not expected to live. After two weeks unconscious, kept alive with life support systems, the body started to stabilize, and regained consciousness. My family was told that I probably would never function "normally" again.

          In the back of my mind (such as it was), I knew I learned how to walk and talk before, and I was determined to do it again.....to what level, I had no idea.

          I was constantly bugging technicians.....wanting to view the x-rays, Scans, EEG charts, reviewing the cognitive testing, etc. etc. I wanted to learn what happened clinically, and I explored all scientific information. The prognosis I was given, was based on previous similar injuries....reality based on scientific fact, which I accepted....to a certain extent.

          With intuition/instinct, I also was aware that I had learned functions before, and I believed I could learn them again. This was reality, based on my previous experience, and according to science, didn't have much value. However, within a short time I was functioning again at a high level.

          Scientific reality at the time, was that if certain parts of the brain were damaged, a person would lose certain functions.

          Scientific reality NOW, is that the brain creates new neural pathways. Nice to know science finally caught up with my intuition/instinct! LOL:>)
      • Nov 8 2013: Collen,

        Thanks for your response and sharing life experience. Succinctly put be aware that when you declare to be open to consider ALL available information it can attract good and bad stuff. I prefer to be open to what I ought to be open and closed to what I ought to be closed.

        Indeed I too prefer to validate and clarify to ensure ones assumptions corresponds to what happens to be. In that light I assume that by " to consider ALL available information when exploring any topic" you intend to mean 'actual valid and relevant towards understanding' this not according to some authority's claim but according to what be true. A similar related idea is the notion of the tolerant tolerating all... Notice the challenge of remaining tolerant when faced with the intolerant. Giving each tolerance accordingly to their state resolves the issue... one gives the tolerant tolerance and one gives the intolerant 'intolerance' (which comes in the form of enforcing them into tolerance. For being forced into tolerance is what they find intolerant).

        Do we need to be accepting of all perspectives? Why would we need to accept erroneous perspectives as valid perspectives? Of course the challenge involves actually knowing which perspectives belong to which category and to determining what to do with each one accordingly to what ought to be done to each one. Your first line points the way... always seek clarification rather than assume it ... I consider that based on what I seen you post in essence we mostly agree...
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2013: Esteban,
          My pleasure to share information:>)

          I agree....when we are open to information, we may get a variety of information. Information is simply information.....neither good or bad, in my perception. That is why, as thinking, feeling, intelligent, multi sensory, multi dimensional human beings, we have a filter system in our brain.

          How do you determine what you "ought to be open" to, and what you will be "closed" to? In my humble perception, that creates limitation, because you have already made a choice regarding what you will, or will not be open to.

          I am open to ALL information, and with my own filter, I decide what information I embrace as my own reality....or not.

          I did not say anything about "accepting all perspectives". I said I am open to information. I LISTEN and HEAR all available information to the best of my ability.

          You seem to like to speak in riddles and puzzles, and I suggest that the practice causes difficulty in understanding you or continuing a conversation.
      • Nov 8 2013: Why/how would determining what on ought to be open and what one will be closed to create limitation rather than opportunities? look at it this way having already made a choice regarding to love or to hate focused on love enables one to guide every opportunities to cultivate love, always.

        Having already made a choice regarding what one will, or will not be open/closed to enables us to focus on cultivating it. I realized a long time ago that my own filter can be easily mislead into thinking that what is wrong is right and what is right is wrong and to me believing one can actually distinguish and discern for oneself which is which opens the door into dangerous delusional deceptions difficult to escape. The worst kind of blindness involves refusing to see, the worst kind of slavery involves believing one is free while choosing to remain enslaved.

        The way I determine what I ought to be open to and what I will be closed to involves a simple heuristic: Be it a dream be it real, always choose the better way. That is be it for real be it pretend always choose what be right to choose. It also involve focusing on what be right independent of who that validates or invalidates. In a way it would be calling a coin-toss "heads I win, tails you lose" ... yea either way I win! The same happens in conversations if I learn I am right or I learn I am wrong :-) then I learn something about what be. That is in conversations I can always learn something about myself and what be, whatever happens I win :-) And others can win too if they choose to learn what they ought to learn.

        The reason I think you perceive me speak in riddles and puzzles stems from using a language applicable to all framings each one getting according to their belief language. For example the statement : "may you reap abundantly what you sow" can be a blessing and a curse. Can you see why? and how? that be so... I also value the notion of wonder. Like to cultivate it, ideally in the eureka/humorous: 'Oh I get it!
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2013: Esteban,
          I agree with making a choice to love rather than hate. Personally, I am open to information about "hate" because it is an opportunity to learn. So, I am open to receiving information about that topic, and closed to the practice.

          In my humble perception, this is how we sometimes create change. If we totally close something or someone out, there is no opportunity to learn about that concept or person, and no opportunity to connect.

          I agree with you...."the worst kind of blindness involves refusing to see...", and that is why I prefer to be open to ALL information for the purpose of learning. It does not mean I accept or embrace ALL information as my own, it simply means I am open to learning, which seems to be your practice as well:>) As I am open and learning, it gives me a glimpse of the many different realities that different people embrace, and this practice encourages compassion.

          The reason I perceive your dialogue to be complicated, is that you seem to sometimes go round in circles. When it comes to dialogue in an on-line forum, more is not always better. I respect your reality, and it would be good to be able to understand it more effectively:>)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.