TED Conversations


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


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.