This conversation is closed.

Spinoff reality... individual, shared, collective, and actual realities


Here we seek to dialogue, converse and share viewpoints on HOW our minds produce subconscious "worlds", conscious realities and map within territories out there. This conversation stems from the what is reality? conversations as at least two tedsters seek to share their individual understanding to enrich each others views.

Note this is the second attempt to initiate this spinoff conversation to focus on:
Does every living form have a to be Limited to their own perceiving ? Can one actually 'see' the world out there? This conversation seeks to dialogue over how individuals and groups of individuals form their world views, the interaction beliefs, and ideas have on these views and how to actually see the world out there as it is... The idea of 'shared identical copies of reality' will be jointly explored here, as well as what it takes to actually share what one thinks/feels/experiences...

Of course the underlying premise will oscillate between :
A- belief that identical copies can not exist
B- belief that identical copies can exist
C- what does it take to move from A to B

  • thumb
    Dec 20 2013: Dearest Others,

    We always seem to find the evidence to support what we believe. There appear things I just can not seem to avoid. Such as a belief and a will. Even a belief in nothing is still belief. At my core, heart, center whatever you will to call it, the alter of whom I am. Empty, awaiting my arrival with empty hands and an open mind. It is there I must place my one belief that will rule my life as reveled, I believe in an unknown Loving God. All other plans will fail as I have tried. This is as close to reality as I can get but I can be certain more will be reveled. Please consider this as being spiritual in nature and not religious. As far as identical copies I have no clue but anything is possible.

    With Kindest Regards
  • Dec 20 2013: This conversation is about to end in a couple of hours and for me this will be my last entry in this conversation.

    I had hopped to share through this medium the experience of changing a belief about identical copies not exiting into existing. My impression is that that shared task was not accomplished for multiple of reasons... Dealing with beliefs one holds can be a challenging proposition especially when them beliefs control what we think/feel/say/do. It is possible to choose what to believe (though it's highly unlikely that individuals will actually choose to do the work involved especially when certain they hold certain beliefs). The freedom of being able to choose which beliefs to hold opens many possibilities and changes the reality individuals experience, still it can be complicated to give up what one likes to hold to be true. I learned that it is possible by experiencing it myself. I was also able to share this experience on a 121 live encounter, and even there the other was quite reluctant to recognize the shift from ' identical copies not exiting into existing' ... in fact even after conceding in practice they insisted on continuing to oppose the idea... Kind of funny from a particular perspective.

    Maybe other who come and read this will have an eureka moment and get to experience what I experienced and realize that identical copies not exiting is just a belief for in reality identical copies can exit...

    Thanks to all who participated... may you have divine insights from now on...
  • Dec 20 2013: Esteban !
    "... are you sure I will never succeed in knowing what reality is? "
    By 'you' i meant 'we' :)
    Are we talking about ultimate reality ? Harald's quest was for something really real, independent from perception, something which is not illusion or dream...something that exists whatever.
    The only word that i think may fit to the description of that undefinable something is ' eternal '.
    Erroneously we think , that eternity is something that lasts infinitely long. But it's not the case, eternity has no duration at all, it's where time stops.
    Shall i continue ? :) Maybe i would like to , but my/our mind can't enter there.
    • Dec 20 2013: Indeed I was referring to ultimate reality which includes what we think is real and what happens to be real (independent of what we may think it to be). I can think of many many worlds that fit to the description which are both undefinable and definable 'eternal'. I am aware of 'the limitations' of talking about the infinite using limits still when one has zero limits or infinite ones one approaches the understanding of what be infinite... besides what is impossible for us to do/understand becomes possible for us to do/understand with the help of Him that can do/understand everything! I do understand of the incongruence of talking about eternity in terms of duration, as well as the incongruence of talking about the before and the after of the existence of time. Even talking about what was before the singularity beginning that created everything that be in the universe can be quite incongruent ... In other words first came to be something and that something eventually included nothing and everything else... The enduring now exists within and outside of time...

      Again I ask: ... are you sure one will never succeed in knowing what reality is? are you sure an individual mind can't enter there? From where I stand it is not only possible it is actually inevitable! Each instant we set for once and for all what will be from now on ... so each ought to be wise as to what it is that they choose to create/recreate and bring into being... that includes thoughts/feeling/actions and a bit more. I think it was you who said that what each dreams inevitable impacts to some degree everyone's dreams... it is the same with reality what each does impacts to some degree everything and everyone. So please be nice to yourself and others :-)

      I realize that the timeframe for this conversation is about over and you may be unable to respond through this conversation... still your response is dewily noted and recorded in other ways. I think you know that!
  • Dec 19 2013: Natasha made a comment about "mind is a transparent medium. What you are dreaming influences my dream inevitably"...that lead me to state:

    In the dream there are no others in reality there are others... what each does and dreams influences everyone and everything so indeed dream and do something great please ! :-)

    Considered relevant to restate it at the top of this conversation...
    In what we think there are no other (only our representation of others)
    We can think as others think and get to perceive as other perceive if our representation corresponds to their representation.
    The same goes for experiencing reality we can think as it be and get to perceive it as it be if our representation actually corresponds to what be. Notice how this relates to the topic of this conversation " reality... individual, shared, collective, and actual realities"!
  • thumb
    Dec 16 2013: Vera, Somewhere in time I had explored fractal nature to gain an understanding of how all this had come to be. To look at a snowflake with the smallest of understanding and grasp what is associated in the wholeness of it's creation is simply beyond words. I live close to the equator so it's easy for me to say. I might think differently in the middle of a blizzard.
  • thumb
    Dec 15 2013: I do have a very rare Japanese book with quite fantastic photos of snowflakes, representing immense range of their characters and their "architectures", as well as their different "moods". Snowflakes cannot be symmetrical as many believe. Thank you for bringing this up.
  • thumb
    Dec 15 2013: Larry, I trust what you are saying needs to be taught in every elementary school. Not only our vision is activated by the natural "motor" of constant Comparison but we have to keep Comparing all our sensations as well. When we slow down or stop comparing sensations, we loose our memory and die. No one wants to notice that screaming fact.

    This is the most fascinating natural law of perceptions which we explore in every instant. Unfortunately this very nature's law, governing our whole existence, is absolutely ignored in our everyday life, in communications, lawmaking, sciences and especially in math and religious beliefs.

    If we cannot see the world as it is, as well as ourselves as we are, we have to somehow comprehend this unavoidable fact, and be aware that this very nature's law is after everything we can experience, discover, measure, feel or understand, including any research, and all physical laws we "explore".

    I truly believe that if a scientist, or politician, or economist would be able to understand these very fundamental laws, revealing our great limitations, that, on a positive side! (no one wants to notice this side), when limitations actually stimulate our sense of comparison and inborn creative abilities for the sake of our life and survival in our natural environment, our society would become wiser, and people's interactions - more ethical. There is nothing can be exactly repeated, no one can be exactly the same as someone else - this elementary knowledge would be good enough for people to discover how stupid our monotonous colossal manmade systems are, serving no real person, but a non-existing collective prototype!

    I'm involved in Ted's talks (sometimes) looking for someone like you, a rare intuitive person, who gives me a little hope…for a real thoughtful change. Thank you.
    • thumb
      Dec 17 2013: Vera, Unbridled energy set forth gathering contrast with no direction, that's my youth anyway and still present in today's youth. Perhaps it would make a difference if starting out we were taught what it means to be a human being. Help to pour the foundation of a real self instead of empty shells of non-existing collective prototypes! That's no life.

      The laws of perceptions must be followed or pay the price.

      "If we cannot see the world as it is, as well as ourselves as we are, we have to somehow comprehend this unavoidable fact." Prior to reading this I had thoughts about it. I did not have an issue with comprehension my problem is accepting the fact. Avoidance will not save me from myself, my surrender to the fact is required.

      Our limitations would seem to be nature, she rules us. The more responsible and the greater our affinity to our true nature the more the limits seem to extend.

      Hope: To place confidence in, with the belief it will be obtained. Next step Faith, Hope in action. Just be careful what you hope for as I am sure you are. I will follow your suggestion and keep moving, the contrasting alternative of loosing memory and death do not look good at this time. But who knows, time changes everything. Thank you for extending yourself, you are appreciated.
      • Dec 17 2013: Larry,

        I liked what you stated in particular "Hope: To place confidence in, with the belief it will be obtained. Next step Faith, Hope in action. Just be careful what you hope for ..."

        Remember that even when we may only be able to see the world through what we think, we may think to be accordingly to what be; thus becoming able to see the world as it be.

        Could you elaborate on what you meant by the laws of perceptions.
        • thumb
          Dec 17 2013: Esteban, To briefly elaborate on governing forces of perception I would believe that:
          1. What I "see" are projections of mind onto the outer/world should there even be a world out there.
          2. Perception is something given in installments through the appearance of time.
          3. Perception is taught and learned, dependent on the minds of others.
          4. My perception is describing my perception.

          Therefore the eyes are not the cause by which the real world can be seen, for the illusions that they look upon must lead to more illusions of reality.

          The world as it be or again a different form of the world you think it be? If I dream a different dream, I'm still dreaming, hopefully better.
      • Dec 18 2013: Thanks,

        While what I see are maps of the territory and not the territory itself with the appropriate map one gets an accurate glimpse of the territory... tough one only looks at the maps one has constructed oneself...

        again thanks for elaborating what you meant by perceptions... and yes if one dreams to be awake one still be dreaming just as if one be awake and dreams one still be awake...
        • thumb
          Dec 18 2013: Well thank you, when you are saying map of the territory if I am understanding correctly you are saying mental associations from which energy flow is derived. With that knowledge in mind you can become aware of the power flow of your natural motor. That could be done quite well from a state of equilibrium. In stillness the energy of mind becomes discernible and determinable.

          Perhaps what is left to do is dream on in Good Orderly Direction.
      • Dec 19 2013: "Perception is taught and learned, dependent on the minds of others."

        There are no 'others' , mind is a transparent medium. What you are dreaming influences my dream inevitably.
        Dream something great , please ! :)
        • thumb
          Dec 19 2013: Natasha, Resubmitted with my dark humor removed in accord to the guidelines, no offense was was intended hopefully non taken.

          I dream of others in my dream, that makes a great dream.
        • Dec 19 2013: Natasha,

          In the dream there are no others in reality there are others... what each does and dreams influences everyone and everything so indeed dream and do something great please ! :-)
      • Dec 19 2013: Larry !
        I saw your deleted comment :) No worries, it was fun !
        Someone said " The story about a person you don't know is your story you don't know about"

        "I dream of others in my dream, that makes a great dream."

        How could i ask for more ? ! :)

        Thank you !


        Esteban !
        ( there is no reply option on your comment )
        You say : "In the dream there are no others in reality there are others.."
        Somehow we got to this place without answering the question what reality is.
        How do you know what is there and what is not ? :)
        The important thing is not to know what reality is. You'll never succeed. There are no words for it. The important thing is to drop the labels.

        May i suggest you to start with this one " Reality is not a dream; dream is not reality " meaning they are two opposites.
        Drop it ! :)
        • Dec 19 2013: Natasha,

          if need be just reply at the top... Yea the question about what is reality that this spoon off from finished without a shared answer to the question what reality is... and that conversation had over 900 comments! I agree with you, the important thing isn't to know what reality is, the important thing involves what to do in reality... whether that involves dropping the labels or using the labels in a particular way could become an interesting dialogue. I sort of have been in a quest to drop all dualities and move into a singularity where 'opposites simply vanish'... it is what it is independent of the distinction used to label it!

          To answer your question "How do you know what is there and what is not ? :)" it boils down to what one chooses to believe, what happens to be and the correspondence between them that happens to be. BTW are you sure I will never succeed in knowing what reality is?
        • thumb
          Dec 19 2013: Natasha, My intent was to have fun and a laugh with you. Perhaps I have posted one too many times on the reality question. Ted.com informed me I was out of the guidelines, may have reignited the cold war and had torn a hole in the universe in which reality is slowly leaking out. Those weren't the exact words. I was informed they would not post but they posted anyway and so I resubmitted. I am glad it was received in the nature it was given. It's a good heads up for me, could as well not been received as given. The name Natasha flashes memory of old cartoon friends of childhood, Rocky & Bullwinkle, Boris and Natasha. Somewhat my call to playtime.

          I like your quote: For me it's all the same story the difference being the diversity of experience and words. The truth for me is when I discerningly look upon the energy. That is why I avoid looking at peoples profiles as much as my curiosity prods me to. You posses wholesome energy.

          I can agree I can not figure out reality although I believe that absolute reality does exist. I just can't see it, I'm a blind man in a dark room trying to sense my way. I must settle for something that will lead me through this life. Although we seem to have many choices in life there are only two. A hostile or friendly universe, God or the ego, God or the devil, Love or fear all different words but still one choice call it what you want. By asking the question was the universe created from Love or fear I would have to say Love. Fear is not supportive of life. Therefore I make my one choice Love, God, Love of God that will lead me through this world of illusions and dreams. Label it as you will, the label means nothing. Reality is not of this world although it can extend to it and hopefully I can extend it in the form of the Love that I was created in. I believe there is only ONE all encompassing reality. And it ain't me.
        • Dec 20 2013: Larry,

          I believe you are a part of that one all encompassing reality ... BTW the room is actually filled with luminous light! In other words it isn't a dark room it's just that the blind see it as a dark room! Of course who actually knows if its a dark or luminous room? I just prefer the idea of it being a luminous room... and someone knowing what actually be going on... caring and lovingly ensuring life endures ...
  • thumb
    Dec 6 2013: What about this nagging little creature?
    "Genetically Identical Clones"
  • thumb
    Dec 3 2013: From what I have been informed (true or false) collectively all of mankind through all of our time we are running about 4% of total consciousness. What am I in possession of as an individual? Enough to make me feel as small as I am. Reality is happening faster on a much greater scale than I am designed to see from my current state of existence.
    Seeing Beyond: The James Webb Space Telescope .
    • Dec 3 2013: I think that that 4% is actually way way exaggerated and wouldn't be surprised at all if 'in actuality' that turned to be infinitely smaller. Just as we keep discovering further and further objects out there we keep discovering further and further 'objects' at the smaller levels. I like to think that at any particular 'level' there are infinite greater and smaller ones... and that's just looking at the material side of stuff... then there be the immaterial sides ... and the combinations and permutations involving some and all of them stuff.

      Its difficult for me to imagine how some individuals seem stuck with certain limiting conceptions especially when it is based on a particular 'demeaning' notions.

      Before I accepted that 'identical copies can exist' I was bound within a limiting belief system that kept me from seeing stuff (was bound to just one single belief). Afterwards I accepted the notion I was free to move from one belief system to another and could explore quite a bit more. In a way it was like moving from seeing with one eye to two eyes and shifting to a deeper perception of stuff.

      I initiated this conversation on Ted to share that experience with whomever wanted and dared to partake on the adventure... of course implicitly in that is reliving the shift that enables a deeper vision into what each one sees. Also implicit in that is experiencing how the belief one holds on identical copies ends up determining how one sees them identical copies. Some can choose the beliefs they hold: in theory and in practice. Some are sort of bound by the beliefs they hold... unless they choose to incorporate a new belief ... which likely they wont do because the beliefs they hold wont allow it. Of course the individuals think its because of what they themselves choose to freely do (not because they are doing what their beliefs dictate them to do). Hopefully this conversation enables individuals to freely choose what to believe, at least in relation to identicality
      • thumb
        Dec 3 2013: If I give you a two dimensional A to view at eye level and you go around 180 deg. to the backside what do you see. I left out depth to avoid an argument. Relax watch the world smallest movie. A boy and his atom.

        • Dec 3 2013: Well an "A" is "A" ... Though if you had used a "b" i could had seen a 'd', 'p' 'q' 'b' from looking at it--- and that is just from taking a look at one side!

          You really must be quite intuitive and empathic to have left out 'the depth' ... Have little idea how you perceived that I normally don't perceive depths just the contours and relative sizes...

          Nice movie... amazing what some can now do.. . of course in a few years time others will be doing something similar at a smaller scale ... :-)
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2013: "B" does not appear to be a workable plan. Relative to a 180 deg. position the backside appears different to my natural eye. "A" would seem to have the characteristics that would allow the possibility of exact copy. So far I belief that an identical copy can exist from original. First we would have to agree that front and back of 'A' appear exactly the same. May I suggest we not embellish with "B'". Although we agree on "A" & "B". The question now becomes the means of making the copy. I'll have to ponder out yonder awhile.
        • Dec 4 2013: Wow! Thank you for clarifying that you where seeking to convey and present an example pro identical copies existing. Did originally see that "A" would be seen as "A" from both sides; what I evidently missed was the notion that this could be an instance of 'identical copies' each side being equal to the other side while evidently still being singularly different sides. Now I think I get what you meant to say...

          The reason that I proposed 'b' (do note it's lower case else the intended plan doesn't work) was the fact that it is basically the same figure; reflected vertical and horizontal "bdpq". In a numerical sense the example would involve the '6' and the '9' thought here the figure is just rotated rather than reflected. (the 2 5 sort of involve a vertical reflection ) My comment also sought to point out that some people 'see' a singular object where others see four different objects; which depend on how they look at it rather than the actual object itself. It seems to me that some 'see' abstract figure rather than the letters most perceive.

          I am glad you can recognize that an identical copy can exists, I would venture to say that you also can recognize how identical copies instances are singularly unique while identical to others. It seems that choosing what to believe is more difficult going in one direction than the other. For example those that know the truth can easily shift into not knowing the truth where as those who don't know the truth have a harder time shifting into knowing the truth. To use a slightly different example those who believe in God can easily switch and consider not believing in God; where as those who do not believe in God can't easily switch and consider believing in God.

          I liked the example of the 'A' from both sides though envision a subtle alteration between left and right side which may or may not lead into complications.
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2013: Thank you for stopping me at the point of simple understanding. I did not expect that from you. I knew something was there I just did not know what. I see the "bdpq" "69" and the 2 5 sort of. The view of "A" brings the others to the understanding. In applying light to the "A" you could derive some interesting shadow copies produced from alterations of reference points. OK, I am of my opinion that identical copies can exist. That is only my opinion and is not set in the stone. Until a better idea comes I rest.
        • Dec 4 2013: Was just returning the favor :-)

          The thing about considering the notion of identical copies existing opens the door to a universe of possibilities. For once it may lead to wonder if two copies are identical ? or considered identical? Allegedly "An often-repeated mathematical joke is that topologists can't tell their coffee cup from their donut" for these two are homeomorphic variants belong to the same shape.

          The notion of identical copies also enables one to work to ensure that one's copy corresponds to the other's copy... or that what one think's to be corresponds to what actually happens to be. or that the map and the territory are 'identical' ... Of course from there we can move to produce all sort of alternation and variations. How the 'zero limits' and 'infinite limits' point to an idea outside the 'limits' using and resorting to limiting ideas to explain the eternal infinite expanses.

          Its rather curious how often we know something be there one just doesn't know what it is nor what one can do with it... and one just ignores it being there rather than investigate and see what may result from it.
      • thumb
        Dec 5 2013: What happens when I use a non opaque perfectly radial zero "o". Add the third dimension of depth. That would appear to adorn the copy by eliminating a fixed reference point. I can see that as being free from my own fixed perception. FREEDOM!
        • Dec 5 2013: Larry et all

          Are you talking about a cylinder ? or maybe a torus, something like a ring-shaped doughnut? or a sphere, which is sort of a point as seen from certain distance away?

          I been told that I go round and round in circles... it is likely that there is a reason to go around and around the point.

          To be free from one's own fixed perception one needs to incorporate into ones own perceptions someone else's perception, that is recreate within us what exists within others... create an identical copy of their perceptions inside of our perceptions. Of course the tricky part involves doing this using our perceptions and the perceptions of others to actually conform the shared identical copies within ... in the process we may get sidetracked into constructing a perception independent model that happens to correspond to what be... and with this get to think what is as it is. Then we can get to the stage of what can be done with such stuff :-)
      • thumb
        Dec 5 2013: I would like a perfect non opaque radial sphere powered by dual torus photon energy http://cosmometry.net/the-torus---dynamic-flow-process. The more light the better. Wherever I am is my point, changing positions will not avail a better view. I become translucent, I see through myself by the minds of others thus I see through others with that same understanding.

        I have observed in the other reality debate Charlie Brown going in the circles and calling it multiple perspectives. Lucy follows crying stop, stop Charlie Brown your making me dizzy. Charlie speeds up and Lucy cries louder, although she must love it. In the end she falls down dizzy and blames Charlie. I watch and smile. Perhaps if Charlie slowed down and listened to Lucy heart to heart he wouldn't get blamed for what she does to herself. A circuitous route is abandon in favor of more direct communication. I see that in the works.

        By our application and understanding what we learn will follow us wherever we go. What becomes of it is not for me to say.
  • thumb
    Dec 1 2013: I want to focus on your question, "Does every living form have a to be Limited to their own perceiving ?"

    I think it's most crucial to understand the role of consciousness for the existence of any reality. There's no real-time reality without consciousness. To see my statement's validity, I shall ask a question in the opposite direction to your question above. What is the reality for a dead person ?? Is there any real-time reality for a dead person ?? As far as we can get today, reality as we perceive and perhaps even far more than that, is completely irrelevant for a dead person. The same is true with a deeply dreamless sleep. In such a sleep, there's no reality for the sleeper himself. The reality comes back to him after he wakes up including how he recalls his deep sleep.

    The same question can be asked in alternative form: What is the reality for a stone ?? Is there any reality for a stone ?? Please note that it's not about the reality we perceive about the stone. If the stone get's eroded by time and we see it, it's the reality about the stone as WE perceive it. But for the stone it's not reality -- it's absolutely meaningless for the stone.

    So we see that a consciousness is the sole entity which gives any meaning to the existence of any reality. Consciousness in any form, from the most primitive germ to the greatest human mind, is the only mirror which reflects the diverse faces of reality.

    BUT, as soon as there's a consciousness, it brings in also what we call intelligence. The intelligence allows the consciousness to communicate with another consciousness and exchange their exclusively subjective experiences in symbolic forms called signals (simple consciousness) or views (developed consciousness) about the reality as that specific consciousness experiences. Thus is created what we call Shared Reality. The Shared Reality is based on the assumption// belief that we all experience the same reality due to the similarity in our reactions.
    • Dec 1 2013: Yubal,

      Evidently what you said depends on the notion of 'consciousness'. Furthermore I see that you invite us to go into unknown terrains as if certain that we know what happens there is what happens there. How are we to know about the reality for a dead person? For that matter how are we to know about the consciousness of a stone? As you said "Please note that it's not about the reality we perceive about the stone" It is about the actual reality about the stone's consciousness. In other words lets not project what we think to be unto what happens to be; instead lets project what happens to be unto what we think to be. Unfortunately sometimes we just don't know for sure what happens to be.

      Take for example the falling tree in the forest making a sound when there is no one to perceive it. How is someone to test that hypothesis? All they can do is assume that it will happen (or not) but there is no way to test it out. What I am stating is that maybe the rock actually has a conciseness that we know nothing of. I heard that water has a memory and retains within its structure a history of where it has been, I see feasible that a stone can have memories within its structures. For the record these are just consideration put for to jointly explore. Like you I too consider that a rock consciousness seems a ludicrous notion, then again I am open to consider many possibilities even some that may seem ludicrous notions.

      I do believe that a consciousness gives meaning and sustain all realities. Personally I believe in God. I also know of some who believe in the existence of the Akashic records which allegedly contains a complete accurate history of recordings that includes everything in thought and action. In a way that could be considered the true reality.

      Liked and concord with what you said about exchange their exclusive subjective experiences creating shared realities... I wouldn't attribute signals the status of being conscious of what they carry. still I like it
      • thumb
        Dec 2 2013: Exactly !!!! If the stone has a consciousness, then it has its reality. So your analysis just approves my theme. We don't know whether a stone has any consciousness. If it has, then it also experiences its own reality. If it doesn't, the stone has no reality in the sense that any question about reality is absolutely invalid for the stone. Exactly this is my point. My point is that a reality is inseparable from the EXISTENCE of any sort of consciousness which experiences such a reality.

        Suppose the whole universe exists without any single consciousness of ANY type. Not even any supernatural, not any universal of any sort, not any dormant, any whatever. It means there wouldn't be validity to any question about reality.

        The example of a tree falling in a forest when nobody is there to listen, is also a good example, but it should be analyzed in the right way. As long as nobody heard or saw or whatever, that a tree had fallen, nobody's consciousness is aware that a tree has fallen, and so the tree's fall is NOT a part of anybody's reality. Now suppose that it's a very hot summer and the tree while falling, sets a big fire in the forest. Now if there's a village near the forest, the people there will see the fire, and they might start guessing about the reason for this fire. They might infer by their previous experience that some tree has fallen, without their knowledge of it, which caused this fire. Only then such a falling of a tree would become a part of their reality. But now suppose there's also a cat living in the village who also did not hear nor see that tree falling. Now, this cat also sees the fire. But it might never guess that the reason for the fire was a tree falling. In this case, that tree's falling would NEVER be a part of that cat's reality.

        I never meant that signals are conscious. Signals by themselves are lifeless. Our consciousness gives meaning to the signals by interpreting them as something symbolizing the reality.
        • Dec 2 2013: Yubal,

          I think that there is a subtle distinction related to reality that ought to be clarified; this distinctions hast to do with distinguishing what 'someone' thinks to be and what happens to be, for each impacts 'reality'. Statements such as "the stone has no reality" and/or 'the individuals reality' can easily lead to alternate meanings. It gets more convoluted when what 'someone' thinks to be determines to some extent what happens to be and the individuals reality involves both what they think about and what surrounds them. I understand that some claim that 'the individuals reality' only involves what they are aware off; which would imply a focus on what the individual thinks to be. Still it also seems quite evident to me that 'the individuals reality' also involves what surrounds the individual regardless of the individual being aware off it or not. For example lets consider an individual with cancer who does not know they have cancer. 'The individuals reality' is that they have cancer and that the individual is unaware of what they have.

          I hold to understand the point you are making about "a reality is inseparable from the EXISTENCE of any sort of consciousness which experiences such a reality" and I think that it erroneous. Lets focus on the example you put forth to see why. "Suppose the whole universe exists without any single consciousness of ANY type". Any question about reality would depend on the statement and what happens to be. Put differently the validity of a claim stems from what is claimed and what happens to be.

          The example of the tree seems adequate because of the multiple subtleties involved "what is mean by 'make a sound'"? Does that mean generate the vibrations that travel through a medium? does that involve the vibrations being heard?

          Do note that asking a question for the stone to respond seems a bit like asking what does some word mean? Do words actually have meaning? Seems to me individuals associate meanings to words!
  • thumb
    Nov 26 2013: The identical copies are only seemly "identical" as you mention "when we look" ! This means that we are tricked by our superficial "impressions" made-up by our extremelly crude perceptions.

    What I personally have discovered for myself is that we only may perceive if we COMPARE. This is crucial if we see 2 seemly "identical" objects in their own places we must compare them in order to see 2 subjects in DIFFERENT places. In order to see the DIFFERENCE in their places we MUST COMPARE the difference.

    Our age has not produced any great thinker yet as far as we know. Most of the postmodern conclusions that are widely publicized (promoting certain names) are simply helpless and laughable. :) Very sorry about that - but it is not just my personal opinion.

    Would you like to read a lively book written by this superb philosopher and historian, who took a great effort to keenly observe the hisory of wisest human thought ? "The Story Of Philosophy" by Bryan Magee. In this updated guide to philosophy, Professor Bryan Magee expertly guides us through the history of ideas and thinking, tracing over 2,500 years of Western philosophy from the Ancient Greeks to modern thinkers.

    Discover what philosophy is, how philosophers have questioned the fundamental principles underlying all knowledge and existence and address life's big questions, such as "What is being?" and 'Can the existence of God be proved?'

    Covering every major philosopher from Plato to Popper, via Saint Augustine, Locke and Nietzsche, explore these great thinkers in their historical context and learn the influences that shaped their lives and work. An essential guide to this fascinating subject."

    I think you can buy it in a good bookstore, or on Amazon.co.uk. Superb book everyone must read. Let me know if you like it.
    • Nov 26 2013: Vera,

      For now I would like to focus on the topic at hand related to jointly exploring the identical copies adventure. Did you read the last post to Christopher the one that ends with the word 'sendback'? I am right now on the lookout for what you and Christopher send back that you received. I know that at this stage its practically impossible for either of you to actually perceive and determine that what you got corresponds to the message I sent, in fact at this state its impossible for me to know that you even read it. Thus, to put it bluntly at this stage your comments would be on what you think to be rather than what happens to be. At a later stage your comments would still be on what you think to be with the added notion that it has been validate to correspond to what happens to be. Evidently commenting on what you think is the message rather than on the message itself can be a valid sideline to jointly explore. So long we realize we left the path we where on and taken a detour...

      From what you wrote:
      On what do we base the conclusion that the identical copies are actually only seemly 'identical'?
      How do we know that we are NOT being tricked by our beliefs?
      How does B know if B got the message A sent? (in other words what does B compare the message B got to?)

      How do you differentiate:
      - what seems to be because it be
      - what seems to be because it seems 'identical' to what be
    • thumb
      Dec 14 2013: Vera, "No two snowflakes are alike" or so it may seem. With your experience in thermodynamics perhaps you can shed some light on the process and associations of the changing forms of water required to see a snowflake. What I find odd with snowflakes is they seem to share the design of the hexagon. How can I possibly say one way or the other "no two snowflakes are alike".


      Your comment 'In order to see the DIFFERENCE in their places we MUST COMPARE the difference'. Without contrast the human eye does not see.
  • Nov 25 2013: An objective reality does exist. If it didn't, science would not work. But it does, thankfully.

    Our perception of reality is governed by two things: (1)The raw data obtained by our senses, and (2) The way our brains have developed to process that information.

    People are like snow-flakes: No two people have had the same experiences, ergo no two people can share the exact same perception of reality.

    In order for two people to share the exact same understanding/perception of reality, they would need to have the exact same experiences and learn to react to those experiences in the exact same way. This is impossible.
    • Nov 25 2013: Christopher

      I initiated this conversation with the intention to show someone an adventure I have had; which related to shifting from A to B . I realize how the belief 'A' or the notion thats just impossible an absurd, can get in the way of perceiving the objective reality. I would invite you to join me and have this adventure. If all goes well by the time we reach the goal-line you will embrace the notion that its possible to have identical copies and will have the freedom to choose between A and B at will. As is now you are bound to 'A'. ( I say this based on your response)

      if you choose to accept the challenges of this mission - mission impossible of identical copies /possibilities / entanglements I believe there will be abundant enriching ramifications. Either way let me know what you choose so that I may know what you choose.

      BTW I too hold that - An objective reality does exist and am thankful that it does.

      In relation to the rest of what you stated lets just leave it at the notion that what one choses may influence what one experiences, what is experienced by others, and what happens to exist. To have depth of vision one needs to integrate separate viewpoint... to have depth of understanding one needs to integrate a bit more :-)

      FWIIW - people can share the exact same perception of reality... though most of the time each each is contempt to live within their own perceptions of reality.

      A- holding that identical copies can not exists to B- holding that identical copies can exists
      • Nov 26 2013: You're eloquent, I'll give you that. But you haven't given me any reasons to believe that two people can share the exact same perception of reality. I gave you two reasons why they can't. (1) No two people can experience all of the exact same sensations (raw information) and (2) No two people can process that information the exact same way.

        Feel free to present reasons for an alternative view, or criticisms of my current view. So far, you haven't provided an argument. You have succeeded in grabbing my attention, so now's your chance.
        • Nov 26 2013: Christopher,

          I am following a heuristic tool I developed to ensure that shared communication actually takes place. The first stage involves inviting and accepting to interact. The second stage lays down a fundamental rule to use. The thirst stage involves presenting the case. The fourth and final stage is where you evaluate the case and respond.

          The fundamental rule is rather simple : I must validate to you that what you understood I said corresponds to what I said. Think of it as a double look flow that ensures that perceived meanings corresponds to intended meanings. During the first loop I send and you receive while on the second loop you send back what you received and I compare what I received with what I have and validate or clarify. Once the validation happens we can be certain that what you analyze and respond is based on the actual case I sought to present. (I will assume to have your consent to proceed and proceed into the adventure)

          A while back I got interested in knowledge management (KM). Joined a forum on KM. Asked where does knowledge reside? Postulated knowledge ONLY resides in the mind ( I thought that the field missed how different individuals learn and focused on document management) Got into an extensive debate that basically boiled down to individual beliefs. Postulated that it isn't what individuals choose to believe it is what it is, so lets discover where knowledge reside independent of what we choose to believe. My plan was to create a shared language where all beliefs coexisted and then use that language to force the other to change what they believed based on a shared belief we happened to share. The pivotal belief was 'identical copies' and was linked to the others starting position. Everything proceeded as planned until I wondered about the certainty of the identical copies impossibility and actually considered as possible. That was a turning point I could freely choose between considering them possible and impossible.

      • Nov 28 2013: Woo-woo. That's all you've given me.

        I would like an argument that clearly presents your case, please.
        • Nov 28 2013: Well the adventure was meant as a conversation and a dialogue where you would reach a point where you see what I saw and then comment on it ... Then you decide for yourself wether to accept or reject this or that belief.... Well its more like accept to be able to choose amongst the beliefs or remain bound by the belief you choose to hold (actually it might even be more like remain bound within the belief that happens to hold you prisoner by convincing you that it's your own choice to hold that belief...

          Do note that by the point where you see what I saw we would have stepped into the territory of identical copies, for in essence for you to understand the notion I understand we require to have identical copies of the notion (else you will be talking about one thing while I talk about another) . Also do note that at such a stage the dialogue and communication has just reached a shared starting point required to proceed to the next stage that involves actually sharing what each one thinks about 'the notion/place/adventure'. It seems that some think that clearly understanding what the other states involves accepting what the other states as true rather than recognize that clearly understanding what the other states is just part of the process of focusing on the same thing. I venture to say you know of one or two cases where what tends to happen in 'communication' (actually miscommunication) is that someone will be talking about one thing while somebody will be thinking and talk about another in each other company. I highlighted miscommunication (or 'communication') because communication implies both actually understand each other. I see that 'terms' /'Wordds' in communication involves at least three meanings... the intended meaning the perceived meaning and the shared meaning... note that when communication takes place these identical copies can be reduced to just one meaning (doesn't matter which one one picks they are identical). When miscommunication takes place..
        • Nov 28 2013: ... one of the three meanings becomes more relevant depending on the circumstances. For example the boss or teacher doesn't really care about the perceived meaning other than to ensure that the other understood the instructions. Another example is when one gives a gift, here it's not about what one wants to give its about what the other wants to get. Then there are those cases when it's not about what one said or what one understood its about what be shared.

          I hope that by now you see the relevance of identical copies, without them we can't communicate nor share what each knows and perceives. Of course there are a lot more details underlying this adventure that we could jointly explore. I thought succinctness and brevity would be appreciated.

          BTW in my original adventure something that seemed self-evident was the futility of arguing over beliefs one chooses to hold ... its like arguing about what one likes... The whole adventure originally was to jointly discover where knowledge resided. I held that it only resided within a mind and that knowledge management required to focus on the nuances of individuals acquiring knowledge (recreating it from some arrangement given to them). Others believe that the arrangements themselves contained knowledge. Look up the conduit metaphor for a bit more on this...
      • Nov 29 2013: We do not choose what we believe. Instead we believe what we are convinced of. For example, I cannot choose to believe that my body is made of Jello. Either I am convinced, or I am not. It is not a choice.

        I cannot locate much less follow your "adventure" that I'm supposed to follow. I consider myself a very logical being. So if you could present your argument in the standard Premise(s) followed by a Conclusion, that would be great.

        I would also appreciate it if your comments stayed on point.
        • Nov 29 2013: Christopher,

          In relationship to the belief of identical copies existing or not existing I choose what to believe. A while ago I would had not been able to make that statement (because I only believed that it just was impossible for identical copies to exist), today I can make the assertion that for all practical purposes identical copies do exist and believing that they can't stems from a believe one chooses to hold or reject.

          My intent here is to share with you that adventure and in the process get you to hold the belief that identical copies can exist. (from what I remember you hold that identical copies are impossible). I just had a long conversation one to one in which I managed to accomplish this. What was curious is that the other sort of brushed it aside rather than openly embrace their change in beliefs. Still wondering about that a bit.

          The assertion is that identical copies do exist. In a way its almost self evident that they have to exist, else we would not be able to share our knowledge.

          Lets try this in a premise(s) conclusion format.
          Two separate individuals can have the same idea.
          Given they have two ideas and its the same idea
          it follows that identical copies of said idea exist
          thus is that identical copies do exist.

          As I mentioned above communication depends on two beings sharing the same notion.

          Hope that helps...
      • Nov 29 2013: It is mighty dishonest of you to change your argument after you've failed to convince me. First you claimed that two people can have the exact same perception of reality, now you've changed your claim to "two people can share the same idea".

        That is a completely different claim. By the way, walk with me on the following example that proves that you cannot choose what you believe:

        Suppose I'm attached to a perfect lie detector and a crazy person has a gun to my head and tells me to believe in god or he will kill me. No matter how badly I want to save my life, it simply isn't possible to choose to believe something. Either I am convinced that god exists, or I'm not. Choice does not enter the equation.

        Please, don't respond unless you plan to address your original claim that "two people can have the exact same perception of reality".
        • Nov 30 2013: Christopher,

          Let's consider 'perception of reality'. Consider that 'perception' means "a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression". Consider that 'idea' means " a concept or mental impression". Do you see how 'perception of reality' and 'idea of realty are', can be synonymous of each other? Yea there can be other interpretations of terms that would create antagonisms that lead to disagreements. Question is what do we seek to create?

          We could get into the second part of the statement "what is reality"? To me reality involves everything that be both material and immaterial, within individuals and outside of them including the possibilities that are real and the possibilities that are just possibilities. Note how certain possibilities are just a subset of reality that exists bound within the possibilities that remain as possibilities always.

          I think you introduced the notions of dishonesty, argument, failure to convince as a belief protective reflex dew to the fact that deep down you perceived something that creates a cognitive dissonance which in principle will force anyone to accept that identical copies do exist.

          To me ideas are just part of the reality that happens to be. If two people can perceive and hold the same idea, as it seems self evident to happen quite commonly, each have an instance of said idea.

          Remember that the goal here centers on sharing with you an adventure I had and in the process get you to hold the belief that identical copies can exist.

          In relation to the example you put forth. I am sure that with some time individuals can choose and come to belie in all sort of crazy stuff :-) regardless of the actual evidences out there. Some will be convinced that God does not exist, Some will be convinced that God does exists; and depending on God existing or not some will believe what is and some will believe what isn't. To get the right answer right, one has to choose the right answer--let us focus on goal
        • Dec 1 2013: Christopher,Did you have the time to consider the above response?
        • Dec 8 2013: Christopher Last call. Seems you chose to drop the conversation ...
      • Dec 8 2013: You're trying to divide "perceptions of reality" into groups that people can fall into. I'm saying that even if two people fall into the same "group", they still have small differences that prevent their perceptions from being EXACTLY the same. If you wish to change your argument for a third time, so be it. But so far, you have not been convincing in the least.

        What is reality? We have already agreed that reality is the objective universe. As far as determinism is concerned, I disagree that reality is filled with infinite possibilities. Each event is caused by the circumstances that occurred before it, which leaves no room for chance. Just because we aren't capable of predicting exactly what the future will bring, does not mean the future is changeable. Philosophical determinism, within a linear timeline, does not allow for multiple outcomes. Humans are no exception to this rule, which means free will is just an illusion.

        The only cognitive dissonance I see is your inability to simultaneously understand and apply your own beliefs. If you truly believe identical perceptions of reality exist, you must contemplate the consequences of that scenario. Have you put any thought into how two people could possibly have the EXACT (not just similar) perceptions of reality? So far, you've provided no indication of critical thinking in this respect.

        Two people can arrive at the same "idea" through very different processes and views of the world. I do not equate "perceptions of reality" to "ideas" whatsoever. Do you understand the difference?

        My example with the lie detector is not about god mainly, instead it is about the nature of belief. We cannot willingly choose to believe that our bodies are made of jello because we believe what we are convinced of. Unless I am convinced that my body is made of jello, it is impossible to believe it.

        Do you have any idea what I'm talking about?
        • Dec 9 2013: I am glad you choose to respond. Based on what you said its evident that it would be futile to try to convince you for multiple of reasons. If memory serves me well I have explained to you that my objective was to share an experience I had, where I moved from the beliefs that identical copies where impossible to the belief that identical copies are possible. This isn't an argument nor a debate, it's a conversation and dialog that seeks to share an experience. I realize that you don't see the cognitive dissonance I see.

          I do contemplate the consequences of the scenario of identical copies existing. Yes I have put much thought into how two people could possibly have the EXACT (not just similar) perceptions of reality. I am not sure what you mean by the notion that " So far, you've provided no indication of critical thinking in this respect"

          I do distinguish "perceptions of reality" from "ideas" of reality from the objective reality ...

          The example of the lie detector you used to explore the nature of belief seems contrived to support your belief that we cannot willingly choose what we believe... it is also set up to eliminate a possible delay in choosing to change what one believes. Had they done a lie detector on me about the existence of identical copies before I had the epiphany realization that they can exists I would had failed the notion that identical copies existed now I would have pass it. Yes unless one is convinced about the belief being true a claim about it being true will likely fail a lie test. Yes I do have some ideas of what you are talking about and think that your beliefs/thoughts/ideas do not enable nor allow for you to perceive what I am sharing in relation to identical copies. I also see how you demean and emasculate certain stuff. Not sure why you do it or if you are aware that you are doing it. maybe its just the nature of the beliefs you hold...
      • Dec 10 2013: What did you expect would happen after you shared your "experience"? Wasn't the entire point of sharing this experience an attempt to convince me of the validity of your opinion?

        Again you say you have contemplated the consequences of two people having the EXACT same perception of reality, and yet you AGAIN fail to display your critique. You have provided no reason for me to believe that you have spent even one second in critical thought of your position.

        I am not demeaning or emasculating you. I am simply asking for your reasoning, which you have consistently failed to provide.

        You have made it even more plain that you do not understand my "lie detector" example. The entire point is that we do not choose what we believe. Here's another example: No matter how badly I would prefer to have a second life after my death, I cannot choose to believe there is an afterlife. Either I am convinced by the evidence (or lack thereof), or I am not convinced. Preferences play no role whatsoever in beliefs.
        • Dec 11 2013: In sharing my experience I would expect any considerate rational being to see beliefs as individuals preferences, at least when it comes to the existence of identical copies. Again I reiterate how I consider futile the attempt to seek to convince someone to change what they believe. Not sure why you insist to follow that path especially when I keep telling you that what, I am merely seeking is to share a valid experience in which I changed a belief I held from one stand to a different one. In this particular case I am beyond seeking that someone validate the validity of what I experienced, especially given the facts involved validate what I experienced. To me it's kind of curious and a bit humorous how some believe they can't change what they believe; thus it seems that they can't change that belief, until they change it.

          Why play the game of me proving it to you ? Especially when such a game is used to tip the field towards and argument from ignorance and disbelief. rather than a considerate rational evaluation based on dialogue. Yes you keep asking for my reasoning and I keep abstaining from getting lured into that conversational form for a reason. BTW if the entire point for you "lie detector" example was to point out how we do not choose what we believe It seems to me that I provided you a particular case involving the belief of identical copies existence which would use the lie detector to show that beliefs can be changed . Recall I stated "Had they done a lie detector on me about the existence of identical copies before I had the epiphany realization that they can exists I would had failed the notion that identical copies existed now I would have pass it."

          I am curious why you claim that you cannot choose to believe that three is an afterlife? My stand is that the reality, the objective universe, whatever happens afterlife is whatever happens afterlife (It may be we do have a second life after death just as it may be we don't) I can choose either one...
      • Dec 11 2013: Lets say I wish I was the ruler of Earth. Does that mean I can choose to believe I actually rule the globe? No. We have many preferences that we can't choose to believe.

        If you maintain that it is possible to believe something that is in direct contradiction to what you are convinced of, then you are not a rational being. I challenge you to conceive of a single situation in which you can choose to believe something that is the opposite of what you are convinced of. For example: If you are convinced that gravity is real, you cannot choose to believe that gravity does not exist.

        I did not say that believing in an afterlife is impossible for every person. I said that since I am convinced that there is not an afterlife, I cannot choose to believe in an afterlife. Try to avoid these red herrings.

        You seem completely oblivious to the fact that your change of belief was caused completely by your being convinced. You didn't choose to believe in identical copies of perception, you were convinced by something. What convinced you? Maybe if you shared that information, I might be convinced too. Then I would be FORCED to believe because we don't choose what we believe.
        • Dec 11 2013: Lets consider the case you put forth... and for this please lets us be rather overscrupulous in differentiating 1- what each thinks to be 2- what actually happens to be 3- the correspondence between these. Do note that the number 1 may involves a bunch of instances; one for each participant. Also note that for the time being, I would rather we just consider that an individual can know what be. I realize that some individuals consider that an individual can only know what the individuals think to be. Note that those who consider such a stance can't know what actually be, they only know what they think.

          Ok now lets focus on the case you put froth: Lets say someone wises to be the ruler of Earth. Lets consider if someone can believe themselves to be the ruler of Earth. Evidently a deluded individual could believe themselves to be the ruler of Earth. Said deluded individuals could even be under the delusion that they are not deluded. Do note that there is also the particular case of 'the ruler of Earth' wishing believing and knowing their role as 'the ruler of Earth'. Please note that while you think we can't choose to believe something, I know that in some cases we can choose to believe something or choose not to believe something.

          The if conditional involving a belief determining a beings rationality you put forth mixes concepts that ought to be kept apart. I already presented a case of a situation in which I choose to believe something that was the opposite of what I was convinced of. It was the case of identical copies.

          The fact you are convinced that theres is not and afterlife and choose to believe that there isn't an afterlife... and choose to believe you can't choose to believe in an afterlife hardly determines whether you can or can't choose what you believe.

          The reason for my change of belief was not dew to a conviction, it was dew to a rational followthrough of considerations. Wondering about Why I chose to maintain this rather than that belief?
        • Dec 17 2013: Christopher,

          This conversation time frame is set to end in a couple of days thus lets wrap this up... (or just let me know that as far as you are concerned this conversation will be left unfinished).
        • Dec 18 2013: Was fun to have this conversation regardless of the fact we where unable to conclude it...
    • thumb
      Dec 12 2013: Esteban / Christopher, Compelling evidence that Maldacena’s conjecture is true. The compelling evidence Christopher has been looking for, only it supports Esteban's view. Damn it, don't you just hate it when crap like this shows up when you're arguing/debating with somebody?

      Is The Universe A Hologram? Physicists Say It's Possible.

      • Dec 13 2013: Larry,

        That often depends on which side one be standing on :-) ... something I love about transformations is the simplicity which some solutions can be achieved within a particular coordinate system. Especially when one can translate back and forth between the languages ... and even transcend the languages ... take the complex into the simple back to the complex (or take the simple into the complex back to the simple ... of course assuming one doesn't get lost within the complexities).

        Thank you for providing an interesting twist into the conversation. I wonder where this will take it now...

        note that translate back and forth with the help of a rosetta stone involves two separate languages focused on an identical message ... which allows someone who knows one language to decipher the other language.

        BTW from the link you provided :

        "It provided physicists with a mathematical Rosetta stone, a 'duality', that allowed them to translate back and forth between the two languages, and solve problems in one model that seemed intractable in the other and vice versa."


        "Nevertheless, says Maldacena, the numerical proof that these two seemingly disparate worlds are actually identical gives hope that the gravitational properties of our Universe can one day be explained by a simpler cosmos purely in terms of quantum theory."

        (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/universe-hologram-physicists_n_4428359.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592 )
        • thumb
          Dec 13 2013: I can only hope that Christopher understands the play of my expressions. If reality ain't fun what good is it? I have learned much from the adventure about myself from others. I will try to organize words the best I can to make myself clear and understandable. During the course of the reality debates my mind has changed and perception follows. Today appears new and brighter. I have come to recognize furthering of the gift of life, yours, mine, ours. The dream is recognized as a dream where I have been given authority to see and bend light in accord with will. With that comes the responsibility of what I see. You talk about better, that is the responsibility. I need not concern myself with the afterlife, a dream is forever. The miracle of perception following principles governed by a Higher Authority. I am starting to see what we have struggled so hard for.

          "Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving."
          ~Albert Einstein
  • thumb
    Nov 21 2013: Great Start!
    • Nov 23 2013: So what do you think should be the next step
    • Nov 25 2013: Vera,

      I thought based on what you stated that you wanted to dialogue and delve into this idea of identical copies existence. Apparently from your followups here the reality of the matter seem to be a bit different. My expectations was to have a back and forth interchange of ideas that lead into share understanding as each learned and enriched their viewpoints ideally reaching a point of shared deeper understanding.

      Still hope this interchange takes place, though my expectation now is that nothing else will happen here unless you choose to do something about it... or others are interested. The primary reason for setting up this conversation was for us to jointly explore the issue though at this time I am disillusioned by what has happened (or hasn't happened)... Consider this a dialogue defibrillator sock...
      • thumb
        Nov 26 2013: Dear Esteban.
        I'd like to make a point that it is up to our abilities to interpret the theater of our experiences, whether it is our deep intuitive, or superficial/physical.
        In my case - when in my early childhood I read classic wisdom 'No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.' I was hugely excited to believe that my elementary education should be based upon this Greek Sage Heraclitus concept. (I was born with this overwhelming sense of change empowering instant transformations of myself, my reality.) However, I was wrong about my education - it still ignores basic profound knowledge, and only corrupts our minds, deleting our most intuitive, deepest sensations essential for life.
        (For instance, Math that is based on colossal crudeness of our perceptions of sight, trying to manipulate imaginable units that are presumably having absolutely unchangeable properties, so we can put them back and forth, capturing these in chambers of our artificial equations, based on rules that cannot exist in nature. The violations even in simple logic are "outstanding") The greatest thinkers throughout history have clearly explained that identical copies cannot exist .
        I'd like to find some basic ground for what you're trying to express. Please let me know.

        I can only express my personal thinking on that subject (if you're interested).
        • Nov 26 2013: Vera,

          I too can only express my personal thinking on the subject; with a little help one need not be limited to one's own limitations of interpreting the theater. while the map may contain stuff that cannot exists in nature, nevertheless stuff there can help explore the territory just as exploring the territory may help to 'explore' and develop the map... Many a great thinker has been later shown to have held erroneous models of reality. I am not surprised that they would have explained away the notion that identical copies exist . I myself did just that at one time. Take a look at the post to Christopher a couple of posts above this one. We are just getting started. So join in and the three (and whomever else wants to join can share this adventure).
  • Nov 21 2013: A good rabbit hole might be Frieda Morris's mutual hypnosis.
    • Nov 21 2013: Please elaborate a bit on why you mentioned theta... I assume you are referring to Mutual Hypnosis: A specialized hypnotic Induction technique where the student hypnotizes the instructor who from that state hypnotizes the student... to deal with a difficulty in relinquishing rationality and criticality in the service of the ego...

      I could only find free access to the first page of the article... I would say that in some cases the difficulty resides in a control issue related to relinquishing irrationality that the individuals believes/thinks/feels rational... Twisting the twisted just so the result ends up being straight... as in addictive thinking: the art of self deception points out... to the irrational : the rational is irrational and the irrational is rational... So when one asks them to think rationally they respond that they are already thinking rationally (though thinking irrationally)...
      • Nov 22 2013: I just thought of it reading your conversation. She Frieda Morris did this a great deal at UCLA according to the book. I had read her self-hypnosis book and just happened to buy a copy of the book cited. I do self-hypnosis But this book is different and one needs a partner.
        Frieda Morris married an MD who also did hypnosis and Lord knows what they then did together.
        Isn't that Shared Reality?
  • Nov 21 2013: Vera,

    I am responding to your post in what is reality here because I consider it more related to the topic here.(http://www.ted.com/conversations/21159/what_is_reality_2.html)
    Two ideas you put forth:
    1- No exact copies of anything are possible
    2- Our minds are governed by the same laws of Comparison, Selecting, Composing Focusing and Framing. We absolutely cannot produce images or thoughts, or memory without this mental routine. …..

    My intent here is to share why I hold that identical copies are possible and real while seeking to learn a couple of things,

    To the first point consider a bit of 'a fuzzy notion' where exact identical copies both are singularly distinguishable and uniquely identical. Visualize that 'communication' involves three (3) meanings: the intended , the perceived, the shared. When the three are one and the same the perceiver gets what was intended and both share the same thing. When there are difference 'communication' does not happen each one is thinking of a different thing. Which is the relevant meaning? what was said, what was heard, what was shared, something else? Well that actually depends on the circumstances particularities of what be going on? If one is giving a gift, does one focus on what one wants to give or what the other wants to get? If one is asking a favor, does one focus on what one wants done or what the other wants to do? Sometimes in conversations the resultant shared meaning becomes the relevant thing... that is what one said is perceived by another as something else which leads them both to discovering a whole different concept that neither one had imagined or conceived alone.

    Please elaborate on point 2 so that I may better understand what you mean by it...
    • Nov 21 2013: I see two problems with your argument.

      First, I would argue that if we are talking about communication between two distinct entities, then there are more than just three meanings. Taking just one part of the process, the sending and receiving of a single message; there is the original meaning as created by mind of the message's originator; there is the meaning as altered by the necessity of creating a message capable of transmission (language); there is the meaning as altered by the medium through which the message is sent; there is the meaning as perceived by the receiver on first contact with the message; and the meaning as altered when the receiver finds a place for the message within his larger perceptual reality. There is also the alteration of meaning that occurs with memory over time. All of these would present barriers to the creation of identical copies of perceptual reality.

      Second, I would argue that you create false dichotomies in your questions about focus. Humans are intellectual and perceptual multi-taskers. Gifts and favors are mutually negotiated and individually perceived; and have many layers of meaning and focus.

      In imagining copies that are singularly distinguishable and uniquely identical, I am reminded of the possibility of cloning. If we clone a single-cell organism, so that we end up with an identical organism, does not the fact the original is older than the clone already create a difference that makes them no longer identical? And if we clone instantaneously two copies of the original, so that they are identical copies of each other; to what degree would we have to control the environment so that their identical reality is immediately erased by residence in slightly different aspects of that environment? Once we add any complexity to the situation do we not create greater and greater barriers to identical reality?
      • Nov 21 2013: David,

        Welcome to this conversation... Glad you pointed out that the process of communication involves a bit more than the three part simplified notion put forth. Indeed talking about communication between two distinct entities actually involves a bit more complex process that involves taking an (1)idea (2)encoding it in some form then using that form to (3)arrange something and (4)sensing that something (5)decoding it and (6)using that to form an idea and then (7) validating that (6) corresponds to (1). ( the notion of memory I am leaving a bit on the side because I consider that to be a special case of (3)).

        What I find amazing is how I can think of an idea, actually say it wrong and you hear it wrong and still somehow you get the original idea I thought of (of course its actually just an identical clone to the first) ... of course there are the cases the perceived idea differs quite a bit from the original dew to some of 'the barriers altercations'. We could get into an argument over stuff as we could get into a shared dialogue over the same stuff... question is which does each want to cultivate and promote.

        Which dichotomies did you consider I created ? My intent with the notion of the gifts and favors was just to draw attention that sometimes the focus ought to center on (a) the intended message, (b) the perceived message (c) something else that results from the experience itself.

        Please keep in mind that many of the notions you put forth towards the justification that identical copies are impossible I used to put forth myself. In fact I was going to use 'this evident fact' to make a point which would force the other to give up a belief they chose to hold, and as it turned out I eventually reluctantly ended up giving up the belief that identical copies where impossible. Now I can actually choose between believing they can exists and holding they can't exist.

        My intent here centers on replicating and sharing with others that experience, and learning
        • Nov 21 2013: I think we agree on most of this, but I would say that there is no "wrong" in the process, just change; and that change is inevitable and results in an impossibility of your original idea ever being communicated to another unaltered. We are able to communicate effectively only because our different meanings are close enough, not because they are identical.
          I apologize if I perceived dichotomies where you did not intend them. I read your examples as mutually exclusive opposites, rather than focus or emphasis within other possibilities.

          I can imagine (in a kind of sci-fi way) the existence of singularly distinguishable but uniquely identical realities, but the difficulties are overwhelming.
      • Nov 21 2013: David,

        Though it seems impossible for an original idea to ever be communicated to another 'unaltered' its actually quite commonly done!

        Indeed "We are able to communicate effectively only because our different meanings are close enough, not because they are identical". In principle we could go back and forth refining our understandings till eventually we get to the point where original idea and perceived idea are identical. To use a slightly different metaphor in principle we could go back and forth refining the map (the model / the theory) based on the territory (and/or changing the territory itself to match the map) till eventually we get to the point where the map and the territory are identical while still each being singularly distinguishable as the map and the territory.

        The fixed notion that it can't be done may lead into a self-fulliling-prohecy and not doing what needs to be done. The notion that we need to ensure correspondence between what we think and what be leads into a self-fulliling-prohecy and doing what needs to be done. The notion of identical copies existing after ensuring and validating correspondence provides a way to actually communicate with each other. Assuming that what we understood corresponds to what the other said may lead into misunderstandings that go unchecked and cause all sort of complications. For me accepting the notion of identical copies existed enabled me to make a significant advancement that enabled me to see how the other and me where in 100% agreement while choosing to believe different stuff. It seemed quite humorous... Each maintained "one is right, the other is wrong", each held "I am right, you are wrong", "you are you and I am I"... Eventually I realized that:
        when someone who is wrong
        . tells somebody who is right
        . that somebody is wrong
        . someone is demonstrating their condition and indirectly validating somebody be right...
        now if someone say to somebody they where right....
  • Nov 21 2013: Vera,

    copy pasted edited this to get the conversation started

    Imagine the three spheres you described though inverted! That is your first sphere is at the outside and the third is in the inside... here consider the first sphere at the inside (though it still corresponds to the physical). The others outside of that... curiously enough in a previous conversation, about 10 years ago with someone else, i resorted to a sketch that involved 'three worlds'...( I just went to fetch it to use as a reference now).

    It turns out that in my sketch there are several circles within circles from the out-side-in: spirit, mind, body... there are other labels : at the center is the world, above that is the meta-world and above that the supra-world.

    How about that, almost like you describe it; with different labels and in the same order! Within my sketch there are levels of abstraction that go from 0 to 1 to 2 (but these only exists within the levels of mind-body or the world and the meta-world) and then there are the worlds 1 through 4 ( world 1 being the 'physical' world 4 being the spiritual that contains it all and worlds 2&3 corresponding to separate individuals within world 1)

    I made a distinction of 'containing wold 3' vs 'grasping world 3'. The diagram I am working from originally considered that identical copies where impossible; now days I shifted and accept that identical copies can and do exist.

    The level 0 stuff corresponds to physical arrangements,
    level 1 stuff correspond to abstract integrated concepts and
    level 2 stuff involves abstract separated concepts.

    To use an example; lets look at 'a book':
    The physical arrangement we call 'a book'. at level 0 it consists of a bunch of stuff arranged in a particular way. the stuff itself isn't a book for a book is a concept that only exists in a meta-world. That is the level-1 notion of a book - and level-2 is a book separated from 'the form', so an e-book and a p-book are different instances of a book.
  • Nov 20 2013: Edited to mention The conversation has been approved...

    The conversation is pending approval though I think we can access it and use it with the link provided
    • Comment deleted

      • Nov 20 2013: Edited to remove personal reference given above comment was deleted,

        Well from the fact you seem to have accessed the conversation and posted a response its evident that others (at least you can access the conversation)... It may be that if the conversation isn't approved everything here will be deleted... its also likely that this conversation will not show up on the lists unless approved... This may have something to do with you having special privileges as a host... or an undocumented feature stemming from the way things have been programed... who knows you may even be able to approve this conversation (or delete it)... or get in contact with the moderators to get them to approve it (delete it)... In any event I hope it gets approved and many participate here focused on furthering the interchanges... As far as I can consider it should be approved given that it follows ted's conversational guidelines and others in this community have expressed interested in the exchange taking place...

        BTW I operate on the assumption that everyone has access to know what others are doing... and seek to actually promote ideas worth spreading... of course within appropriate guidelines... and with ideas worth spreading... It will be interesting to see what happens next