What Forms the Basis of Perceptual Reality?

Question

Conceptually speaking, from a purely materialistic standpoint, "objective reality" seems true enough, that we should not question it; but in truth, our objective realities are merely virtual reality creations of the mind and are actually subjective reflections, or shadows, of an ostensible *absolute world* beyond our senses. The only verification of this absolute reality is via consensus with other minds. Hence, the objective reality becomes an assumption, which relies on the confirmations of other observers. That means that in accordance with the scientific method, our objective reality, cannot be proved to be an independent absolute - only inferred to be an absolute, as possibly playing a particular role, in accordance with the statistical status quo.

We then come to the reductive realization that our ostensible - concensible objectification, assumes there exists a separation between object and subject, - "perceived and perceiver", but in truth, there isn't any separation. The only reality that we can ever know is the reality of perception, which is the reality of mind. Of course you may stub your toe, pronouncing to yourself that "it is satisfactorily refuted thus!" But pain is also a perception of mind.

All objects of perception require a uniform logically consistent substrate OF perception, meaning that all objects of perception require a uniform[consciously aware] mental template of subjectification. Thus if the objective world stability is perceived as it truly is, then the stability of the subjective is the same as the stability of the objective. Ergo, the objective and subjective reality forms a duality, reflecting the two sides of the same coin called awareness or consciousness. Raw awareness and consciousness forms the most basic aspect of reality. Pure existence becomes pure thought/consciousness.

Answer 1

u seem to be at peace to discuss at length virtuality, becoz u r easily able to fill ur belly ,try growing ur self what u eat then we will understand what u lost cases preach

Answer 2

Allow me to answer this very good but speculative question from a Buddhist perspective if I may.

It is really pointless to suppose whether or not the reality we see and experience is either subjective or objective unless there is some underlying reason to use the data thus formulated from theory in our own lives to assist our own thought process in forming a truth of the reality we thus perceive, thus proving to ourselves through observation those theories we have speculated upon.

From a Buddhist's perspective the observable then becomes the reality upon which we either can or cannot explain by deductive and observable phenomena within our own experience of the way we think about these phenomena.

As explanation of observable phenomena , take a pretty flower. As choice of theory, take our own consciousness and how it relates to the beauty of the flower, consider that our consciousness places a false condition on the observable beauty of the flower and attempt to theorise otherwise. The premise is that we place a condition of permanence on the beauty observed in our consciousness, yet through observation, the beauty will fade over time. Not only this, but through experience, a false decision will take place based on this perception, thus proving the theory that we have perceived falsely.

We see a flower, we note in our consciousness the beauty thus observed. Generally we say to ourselves.."Oh, what a nice flower..". This our observation and our experience...is it not...?

A week later we observe the same flower, yet the beauty of the flower has faded. It can be observed that in most cases a person will say to themselves.."Oh, how sad, the flower has faded..." Is this not generally so...?

The case for ..has thus been proven by observation and experience. A condition of permanence has been placed on the beauty of the flower. This is because on the second observation, a constant condition of beauty was expected, yet was not observed. This condition of permanence in the consciousness has caused our Mind to expect the beauty of the flower to remain so over the week. When we observe that the beauty has faded, we then deem that there must therefore be something wrong with the flower and deem the sight to be therefore sad.

Ergo, proving, albeit in general cases, that the consciousness has placed a precondition on the experiences we physically observe, that being permanence.

This can be useful data. Knowing that there is a possibility that what we see and how we perceive that same phenomenon can be different, in fact it can be completely incorrect, we can use this information to modify our perceptions so that they in fact match what we observe in our experience. If what we observe does not match what we perceive then this should cause concern and a rethink about what we have perceived and therefore the way we think about what we see.

A Buddhist perspective on perceptions....

Answer 3

I suspect that I may only see your question as a figment of my imagination, because you're one of the few other people on here that I've seen who uses "ostensible" in a sentence and one of the few outside the Chemistry and Biology section who uses "substrate." However, when I saw that you had used the word "consensible" as well, I started to believe you were NOT originating inside my mind, as I didn't know that was a word until you used it.

Another interesting thought along this line is the apparent phenomenon of children seeing and talking to entities parents cannot see (and subsequently convince the children of the unreality thereof...), and apparent abilities of the very young of telekinesis or "flying." They are taught by parents and older siblings or friends that these things are not normal or are imagined ("kids' stuff") and thus they don't persist into a normal childhood. The question is are they real phenomena that the children "unlearn" because of the lack of acceptance as part of collective reality, or are they an imaginative fancy that simply becomes irrelevant as the child ages, since no older folks reinforce it?

An interesting experiment would be to place observers in front of a cluttered scene and ask first "what is there?" and then "what is NOT there?" Not every observer will see every object, but this is not so telling as what he or she expects to see and doesn't. There are certain learned "normal" scenarios, and we know by repeated exposure what should be in a scene once it is categorized properly. This cultural expectation I find to be one of the major weaknesses of the MMPI, which persists (as of the last time I took it, which was actually long ago) in retaining the question "I have never played Drop the Handkerchief." with the true/false designation at the side. Well, I had never played Drop the Handkerchief, and prior to the MMPI, I had never HEARD of the game. I fill in True, and I get a point for LYING! I look up the game and find it to be like Spin the Bottle, which I have played, and thus the level of obfuscation inherent in an irrelevant test question is revealed. And they use this test to evaluate mental stability! Thus is quantification of "objective" vs. "subjective" reality rendered absurd in particulars.

I really don't know where I was going with this, but I'll leave it as a typical Spacebunny ramble o' the morning, as I must do my morning feeding of my pink elephant and unicorn (it is invisible and pink (so it tells me), so I just put the food out for it and make sure it's out of the path of racing four-wheelers). Happy Absurd Friday!

Answer 4

No, no, no. There is no duality to consciousness, it is purely subjective. We exist entirely within a virtual reality, constructed from our best guess at what our sense data means. The only question is the source of the sense data.

If we accept Empiricism, objective reality is perceived 'through a glass darkly' via our limited senses.

If we accept Rationalism, the data feed is from a collective consciousness, God or Mr. Smith the angry computer program.

Toe stubbing implies Empiricism only because we are uncomfortable with paranoia, user hostile programming, or the idea that God might be a sadist.

Answer 5

While the content of any particular ego-illusion does not matter, it's correction is more helpful in specific context. Ego-illusions are quite specific, although the mind is naturally abstract. Part of the mind becomes concrete, however, when it splits. The concrete part believes in the ego, because the ego depends on the concrete. The ego is the part of your mind that believes your existence is defined by separation. Everything the ego perceives is a separate whole, without the relationships that imply being. The ego is thus against communicating, except insofar as it is utilized to establish separation, rather than to abolish it. The communication system of the ego is based on it's own thought system, as is everything else it dictates. It's communication is controlled by it's need to protect itself, and it will disrupt communication when it experiences threat. This disruption is a reaction to specific person or persons. The specificity of the ego's thinking, then, results in spurious generalization which is really not abstract at all. It merely responds in certain ways to everything it perceives as related. In mind, is there really a difference between having and being?

Answer 6

I'm going to print this up and get back to you on it! Not much time right now.
\

Okay, that took a glass of wine to go down with any sort of clarity. Boy, I loved where you led me.

Yes, we're physically limited in perception/awareness but then to jump off of space antennie whos really not an airhead. Together in a room, where your perception is just an aspect. All perceptions create the room as a whole.

This is where we go beyond personal experience and start to see the room as a whole instead of staying in personal perception. Where "You" as an individual stand out of the way and allow all the information to be absorbed. Becoming a part of a broader view.

So, how big does that room get?

With this type of co-operation, we'll see endlessly into any room.

Yes, we are always unfolding our awareness. But our physical bodies filter through our experience. Collective agreements are the norm. Singular memes always start at one point, then grow through those agreements.

Now, are the points in the room, created because we see them or are they already there and it's up to us to see it?

Are we only perceivers of reality or reality creators through perception? Or both?

Answer 7

Exactly !
Then, we are logically driven to the only possibility of looking at the very levels of perception.
Nice way the question is narrated. In eastern ancient times, that is in India, a whole science was evolved using just the 'negation' (called 'nethi, nethi... meaning not that , not that), and then this process of elimination, led to the need for looking at the very root of perception, its levels.... It was a very tough but a sure way for the 'intelligent' and 'logically' oriented seekers. The beauty of the system was they had perfected 4 predominent paths for persons, whose basic energy was more strong in any of those 4 paths. Hence the basis of Gnana Yoga, Karma Yoga, Bhakthi Yoga & Kriya yoga.
So, to sum up, the basis of perception would be the level to which the perceiver has evolved ! There is a possibility (though just a possibility) for a 'human' being to transcend the sensory levels of perception.

Answer 8

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking for here, but here goes...
We are standing on opposite sides of a table. The table exists, because we agree that there is a table, so it is part of "reality" because we agree it exists, and invest energy in it's existence. It's possible that the table is part of your reality, but not mine, and I have been motoring along until you say "look out for that table!" Suddenly, a table appears in my reality. By then I have run into the table, bruised my hip, and finally had to acknowledge the table as part of my reality (LOL)
From your side of the table, you perceive that it is oak, so for you it is an oak table. From my side, I perceive that it is victorian, so for me, it is a victorian table. From your side you perceive it is heavy, so for you, it is a heavy table. From my side, I perceive it has a cigarette burn, so for me, it is a damaged table. You see a "second hand" table, I see an "antique" table. You see a place to have dinner, I see a place to write a novel. Although we have both seen the table, we have not seen the same table. (and I have a bruised hip from not having seen the table at all, at first:) Which table you perceive is based on such things as your previous experiences with furniture, you mood at the time, your various interests, and likewise for me. You may be in a good mood, and say, "Boy,what a great table, I want to buy it and take it home". I may be in a bad mood and say "Boy, what a piece of junk!" Between us, we have established a reality that includes a table in the middle of it, but from our respective points of view, each of us has constructed a unique table with it's own reality from our own thoughts.....
Edit: Then a week later we discover the table was infested with termites, and became impermanent, and no longer a part of our reality, and we need to find somewhere else to sit down and have lunch together.. (LOL)

Answer 9

ALL perception is colored by emotion and subject to one's realm of prior experiences, therefor, the basis of perceptual reality is emotion and experience AND always differs from one person to another to some degree.

Answer 10

Sounds like you would appreciate a neutral monist sort of position such as that defended by David Chalmers.