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 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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.