[Lerkfish]

I know we have some philosophers lurking on these boards, and I wanted to hear them unravel some mysteries.

I propose to start this thread off with a philosophical pretzel:

If what we perceive is reality, how much of reality is produced by us as we perceive it?

Or, as a secondary thought: is the nature of thought reproducible or hardwired into the form, or is it a separate construct from the corporeal?

there ya go....(I'll pop in with my own thoughts later, don't want to unduly muddy the waters of inspiration)

[Timo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Or, as a secondary thought: is the nature of thought reproducible or hardwired into the form, or is it a separate construct from the corporeal?

Mind/body, Lerk? The evidence has been against cartesian dualism for awhile, but nevertheless those folks who think we're all hardwired and that's all there is too it probably, IMHO, have a too-reductionist take on things. There is some mystery in the wiring: not just the mess of neurological impulses, but (alluding to your first querry) how that mess sees the world. Importantly: what the wiring thinks is possible in the world.

As we all know, what is deemed possible often is.

Interestingly, this morning NPR had a bit about a study that suggests human beings are hardwired to detect cheats.

A study of the Shiwiar people of Ecuadorian Amazonia suggests that humans appear to have a special brain mechanism that can detect if someone is cheating on an agreement. The study backs the findings of another paper, also published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. NPR's Michelle Trudeau reports.

See here.. Whaddya think?

[Ca$h68]

Maybe if I was stoned I could have a conversation about this.

- Ca$h

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:


Mind/body, Lerk? The evidence has been against cartesian dualism for awhile, but nevertheless those folks who think we're all hardwired and that's all there is too it probably, IMHO, have a too-reductionist take on things. There is some mystery in the wiring: not just the mess of neurological impulses, but (alluding to your first querry) how that mess sees the world. Importantly: what the wiring thinks is possible in the world.

As we all know, what is deemed possible often is.

Interestingly, this morning NPR had a bit about a study that suggests human beings are hardwired to detect cheats.


See here.. Whaddya think?

Very interesting link. Hm. (although I detected an agenda in the "about the org" page).
I guess that there is an implied correlation, but I'm not certain that its accurate that hardwiring is the ONLY method. For example, my first wife was a stroke victim. Many stroke victims' brains bypass damaged portions and start using unused parts of the brain in new ways, or coping with the injury. This implies to me that the functionality of the grey matter is more flexible and malleable than strict "hardwiring".

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If what we perceive is reality, how much of reality is produced by us as we perceive it?

It seems to me that our reality is constantly being influenced by our perception of the events surrounding us. That is not to say that we define reality though. If reality were subject to our perception of it to exist than when we cease to exist so would reality. That would men that apart from our interaction on this board you are not reality, because my perception of you is that of a poster on a board answering to the name Lerkfish. I'd guess that if someone at the bank called you Lerkfish from across the lobby you probably wouldn't even notice.

So I tend to think that there is a greater relaity than we know, and maybe greater than we can concieve, that exists independant of our own lives. Just as our reality (or perception of it) floats through time and space and occasionally bump into each other, so does this greater reality we are all in. We will see and sometimes understand parts of whole of each others perceptions, and the larger reality we are all in.. we may never see or understand the whole anothers perseption, or the whole of the larger reality we all exist in.

IMHO, being a novice to philosophical thought.

[zigzag]

I don't mind saying that the older I get, the more reductionist I get. I think we're hardwired.

I should add that "hardwired" does not, IMO, mean absolutely predictable or inflexible. I think we've developed a wide range of neurobiological patterns, and that we act somewhat predictably within that range of patterns. People pretty much keep doing the same stuff over and over, generation after generation, but with different technology and hairstyles.

I should also add that this doesn't, IMO, mean that I'm diminishing or missing out on life's wonders and mysteries. I'm as impressed (and, in some cases, dismayed - think "Yentl") as anyone by the human imagination. I just think that what you see is essentially what you get, with variations.

This, of course, is subject to the limitations of our senses. Dogs perceive reality differently than we do and can sense things that we can't. But I think we're still operating within the same basic realm.

[sambeau]

I find the idea that we are born with all our thoughts pre-wired quite disturbing. But there is some serious scientific (as well as philosophical) suggestion that it may be the case.

An example is someone who has had a section of their brain damaged and has lost a section of their memory. They cannot re-learn the lost memories as the cells pre-wired to hold them have gone. There have been examples where this looks to be the case.

This paves the way for the idea that if something truly extraordinary occured we would be unable to experience it.

We can accept this easily (ish) when the experience suggested is a colour or sound that we don't have the peripheral hardware to sense. But if it is an experience that we don't have the software to interpret, would we actually notice it?

Although I still have difficulty accepting that I was born with all my memories already there waiting to be ticked off as seen (and those that I don't crossed out and allowed to wither).

Granny serving tea in flowery dress as I eat chocolate easter egg (tick)..

[MikeM33]

I can only interject my own philosophy here, although I've never studied philosophy per-se.

To me the notion of "reality" is very much up to ones interpretation and perception most of the time, and at other times there is a sort of "universal reality" which most can agree upon.

For me to look at a painting and interpret it's meaning, is my own perception of that painting, but OTOH I will agree with someone who points to a car and asks me "Do you see that car?". I know it's a car.

I once had a boss tell me during a meeting where I was being reprimanded that I "have to see things the way they really are". Now, of course, I was being reprimanded and didn't want to rock the boat, so I said nothing to her in return just so I could keep my job.

Upon thinking about the situation later it occurred to me that I was "seeing things the way they really are" from my own point of view. Her perception of "reality" and mine were two different things. In fact hers contradicted mine so much so, that I had to quit that job.

I believe that reality is more perceived where situations and circumstances are concerned. Reality is fairly universal where physical objects are concerned (but not ALWAYS).

I could look at the way someone else lives andthink it barbaric or disgusting. That very same person may be perfectly happy living like that, and even find it luxurious. That kind of reality is perceived. Alot of our social interaction is simply based on perceived reality. It also results in perceived reality.

I definitely don't believe that reality is completely hard-wired or completely universal.

MikeM32

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
Maybe if I was stoned I could have a conversation about this.

- Ca$h

Don't worry; there are threads here about Neons that you can probably handle!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
I can only interject my own philosophy here, although I've never studied philosophy per-se.

To me the notion of "reality" is very much up to ones interpretation and perception most of the time, and at other times there is a sort of "universal reality" which most can agree upon.

For me to look at a painting and interpret it's meaning, is my own perception of that painting, but OTOH I will agree with someone who points to a car and asks me "Do you see that car?". I know it's a car.

I once had a boss tell me during a meeting where I was being reprimanded that I "have to see things the way they really are". Now, of course, I was being reprimanded and didn't want to rock the boat, so I said nothing to her in return just so I could keep my job.

Upon thinking about the situation later it occurred to me that I was "seeing things the way they really are" from my own point of view. Her perception of "reality" and mine were two different things. In fact hers contradicted mine so much so, that I had to quit that job.

I believe that reality is more perceived where situations and circumstances are concerned. Reality is fairly universal where physical objects are concerned (but not ALWAYS).

I could look at the way someone else lives andthink it barbaric or disgusting. That very same person may be perfectly happy living like that, and even find it luxurious. That kind of reality is perceived. Alot of our social interaction is simply based on perceived reality. It also results in perceived reality.

I definitely don't believe that reality is completely hard-wired or completely universal.

MikeM32

If I understand you:

Perception is Reality

And, when a perception is shared by more than one person, it becomes a slightly more "universal" or greater sphere of Reality.

Are they really different? I don't think they are.

I guess what is coming up in this is the age old question of whether or not anything actually exists beyond our perception (personal or communal). Allegory of the Cave anyone?

[yield2apple]

Many studies have shown that people who are depressed tend to take in more negative aspects of the world around them, and actually block out positive things, or refuse to see them.

Imagine this, you are at a pub and someone gives you a dirty look, and you focus on that, feeling upset and block out the cute girl who just gave you an inviting glance.. You don't go talk to her, you don't start dating, the two of you don't get married and live happily forever after.. In a sense, your perception has changed reality, because reality is not a permanent constant thing... It is always in motion, always moving forward.. In a sense reality is always and completely produced as we percieve it, along with all other variables.. The way a whole lot of people percieve their surroundings is what determines the future surroundings but it never solidifies a reality.. Reality can't be drawn because it is permanently changing..

does that make any sense?

[shanraghan]

Too late.

Warning: This could easily take the form of a semi-choerent rant.

Alright... so this seems to be two vaguely related issues in one: is reality objective or not (or rather, is it part of the shared, physical world, or somehow detached), and likewise, with the mind, is it simply the physical, hardwired, scientifically explained physical brain, or does it have a metaphysical, detached component?

If my interpretation of your question is accurate, then I shall say the answer to your pretzel is the pretzel.

Let's take the reality: objective versus percieved question first. It seems to be a tenant of many schools of thought that there is a single, ultimate reality, which exists independently of us, which we can only percieve in a rather insufficient and flawed manner. Others take the opposite view, in which reality is simply created by that which percieves, and does not exist independently at all. Thus, two persons representing each school would likely answer the following question in rather different ways: is a red chair really a red chair, or is it really just a collection of atoms and molecules that we precieve as a chair? It is obivous how each school of thought would answer, however I would say that both cases are true. (Indeed, I imagine many of you would probably answer similarly.) Although the seemingly objective, phsycial makeup of the chair appears to be the most universal representation of the chair, reducing it to such does not capture the essence of the chair. It completely ignores the fact it is seen, used, and for all purposes is a chair. Its composition is in no way a more fundamental or real truth than our seeing it as a chair. It is simply another way of seeing it, and thus another facet of the truth. One who lived in a world where chairs were mere atoms would no doubt be fascinated by the very deep idea that such a thing could be considered a chair and sat upon. Likewise, seeing it as a solid composed of certain molecules and atoms seems deep to us because we are used to seeing it as a chair. It is only when we can see it as both that we truly gain a deeper understanding of the chair. Indeed, even the understanding of its physical composition, function and identity can be considered a relatively shallow understanding of the chair because it excludes other facets of the chair's reality. It could have been an important gift with memories attached, or have various other meanings and significance that one must recognize to have an even more fundamental understanding of the chair. Thus, it goes to say that, generally, all perspectives contain a facet of the truth, and thus the search for truth is not the search for a single, arbitrary perspective but instead the understanding of all perspectives.

As for the mind... if you ask me, a similar principle goes. We cannot deny that there is a physical aspect to our minds, the brain, without which our minds most likely could not exist. However, there is another aspect to it as well, one that is hard to describe because we feel it simply is. Indeed, I imagine it is easy for some to overlook this aspect of ourselves and simply consider the mind to be some sort of neurological automata as it can only be described, simply put, as ourselves from our perspective. It is a property it seems we cannot logically have: what exactly about this collection of neurological impulses should necessitate that WE, as we feel ourselves, must exist? It is such a fine and fundamental connection that we cannot find any mechanism that makes it so: it can only be considered a fundamental property of the brain. Or rather, it could be seen as another facet of the brain, very much entwined with the physical but at the same distinct from it. In short, the metaphysical, what makes 'us' us, and the existence of which justifies spirituality. Strangely, when I first thought of this, it also occured to me that if something as complex as the brain had a metaphysical aspect to it, then this also had to be a fundamental property of simpler systems, patterns, matter and energy, meaning that even the most simple atom or molecule had something about it that resembled consciousness, except far more primitive. Perhaps it could only be described as existence, pure and simple. It seems that the Buddhists may have been correct when they said that all things have a spirit.

As for the predictability of the mind... I tend to believe that while much of us follows a pattern, there is some, perhaps small part of us that is completely unpredictable, and, at that, undeterminable. I realize that science, reason, etc are against me in this matter, however I persist in believing this. The reason for this is that I feel that I can change things, that I have free will, and that I could as easily go one way or another. Not only that, but even if this does not exist, it appears we cannot live as if it does not. Thus, it is perhaps my only truly religious belief.

Phew... well, I promised a rant, and I delivered. I must say this has been rather enjoyable... been a while since I've seen a thread like this. Hope to hear more about what you all think... though I must admit, not all of it makes sense. >.^

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by shanraghan:
Too late.

Warning: This could easily take the form of a semi-choerent rant.

(snipped for brevity)

I don't know if I'm tempted to think this is a monumentally great post because it is (hardwired) or if I think that because I agree with it (free will).

You have more eloquently stated the gist of what I believe as well. I believe there is a common (in the sense of universally accessible to everyone) world, which consists of obdurate matter, and there is a shadow world which may or may not be based on the obdurate world, but which either is created by or is accessed by the perceptions of the viewer. These two worlds interact and overlap in a variety of ways and differently for each person. For example, a sighted person will enter a room and absorb what is perceived visually, and only in a substandard way notice the other parts of the room. A blind person would more readily assimilate touch, sound, smell, and even differences in air pressure. Same room, but divergent perceptions of what the reality of the room is, based on perception.

I used to use the sig "Perception *IS* reality" though I didn't mean that absolutely, I meant that our only interface with reality is perceptive in nature, which then is extrapolated or collated in our thinking to recreate a simulcrum of that reality based on those perceptions. In other words, our understanding of the world around us is derived from a working scale model from the data our perceptions deliver to us -- but it is inherently a copy, or a cyber construct of the actual. A good example of this would be color. No object is truly colored. Instead, its surface selectively reflects back certain wavelengths of reflected or projected light that our rods and cones in turn re-assemble into a color.
I think this is a microcosm of how we understand reality...Because of how we perceive it, determines the shape of it to us.

now on to the next question, is the brain what determines our thinking by its structure, or is thought independent and merely utilizes the structure of the brain like a RAM disk to temporarily house the thoughts and concepts. For example, an abacus is just a bunch of beads on sticks, until a mathematician comes along that knows how to use it to calculate. Yes, the mathematician would have trouble calculating without the abacus, but without the mathematician the abacus would be inanimate and incapable of calculation. This is how I view the relationship between spirit (mathematician) and the brain (abacus). Because this is my view, the studies which say that the brain is hardwired for specific functions does not negate in my mind the concept of an independent spirit which utilizes the brain. The brain or abacus must be constructed in a certain way to work at peak efficiency, but the spirit (mathematician) is what moves the little beads around.
I go back to the instance of stroke victims, which utilize new parts of the brain that others don't as a bypass around the damaged portions of the brain. This is like the mathematician found the abacus broken in one part, and simply accounts for and compensates for that when using it. If the abacus were without a mathematician, it would simply remain broken. But since someone needs to use it, it repairs or is reconfigured to adapt to the new situation.
I realize these analogies are imperfect, but hopefully you understand my main points.

The other thing that convinces me there is a mathematician instead of just an abacus is because we are fascinated not just with meaning, but the meaning of meaning. The meaning of meaning is unnecessary for the abacus to function. It only requires meaning. But man has historically sought the meaning behind the meaning, ontology, metaphysics, and I personally think this is because we on some level know or feel that there is something to us besides the abacus.

[Timo]

The meaning of meaning is a good point, a fascination often developed in many different ways.

Some folks, when looking for the meaning of meaning, try to go back to a perceived origin, the idea being that an ur-example is pure and not tainted by the cultural and philosophical layers accrued to it later. Hence, some of the fascination with word histories, Greek and other ancient cultures, or archeology. This can turn into a search for the Real (using a capital "R" I differentiate it from the "real" of perceived reality). I personally think such things can also devolve into a wild goose chase, so I tend to concentrate on little 'r' reality, which is plenty real for me.

by Lerk
and I personally think this is because we on some level know or feel that there is something to us besides the abacus.

I am open to this idea as well, though I do remember a time when I was younger and it was a considerably less-troubled thought.

***

I want to touch on the hard-wiring angle. Though it is clear that the brain, our abacus, faciliates all kinds of operations, it is not the only limiting factor on our sense of the world, and hence on our sense of reality. The idea that we are either robots or agents of free will is, IMHO, a false duality...we are, in an odd way, both.

For the robot side, speaking now only of 'reality' and putting aside for the moment any spiritual questions:
1. We are constrained by our bodies and our bodies' perceptions of the outside world. Too often if we can see it or sense it, it doesn't exists. Conversely, we trust phenomenological information explicitly: if we can see it, it must exist, though the trick is often in knowing how it exists ("how does the sun rise?").
2. But also, and more importantly in my understanding, is that we are constrained by bonds of society. I think too many people discount this, because it isn't obvious or easy to see, but what you think is possible (especially as you grow older) is more and more governed by social position vis--�-vis other person's social positions. I'm not speaking strictly of income level or level of education, though these are factors. I'm thinking more about one's sense of who one's peers are, and what one's place is with these people.
3. These ideas are very "real" (in the Lerk "perception is reality" sense); that is, they can be more real than many phenomonological examples. The philosopher Georg Lukacs once pointed out that for some people in society the idea that money bears interest is more real to them than the idea that pear trees bear fruit. They've seen the interest grow, but they've never seen the pear tree.
4. I believe that the very real inequalities between peoples or individuals in society or societies are often represented as a "natural" thing, when in fact they are of social origin. Just as interest starts to look like a pear (that is, "natural"), inequalities social in orgin (the job ladder as diferentiated by educational level or branding) are held up as "natural." One example that springs to mind is the prevalence of tracking: kids are tests and then literally graded (in an FDA kind of way), and put on tracks that reinforce the initial grade: smart kids, regular kids, shop kids. Now I'm not saying that kids are totally automatons and are interchangeable in the pecking order of schools: but I am saying that ability and grading are non correlated one-to-one, and this fact is consistently and persistently obscured.

OK, with all these restrains, we're just robots, right? Nope. Free will does play a part:
1. Our "free will" consists of either playing within the confines of what we've got (the brain, our social position) or transcending them. I cannot speak of material transcendence, though I do hope it exists.
2. A favorite philosopher of mine (Pierre Bourdieu) once likened this constrained free will model to a soccer game: you've got society, which makes the rules of the game (the rules origins may or may not be important). You've got a field, which is where the action takes place: this field is bounded, and some other kind of game happens off field than on. Finally, you've got players, and competition.
3. What's interesting about the analogy is not how accurate it is, but how it addresses a specific, phenomenological question: how do we play? You see, the rules describe what cannot happen, but they do not perscribe what must happen. Here's our free will, in how we play. But more interesting still, is when we play well, we score goals or go on power plays or what not. How do we play well? Bourdieu often asks this question about having a "feel" for the game: and suggests that those persons who are in tune with their social surroundings "get it" better and make it work. They know when so-and-so has the ball to set down field, even though that isn't anywhere in the rule book.
4. This knowledge is all about sensing what is possible. The meaning of the meaning in this case is asking: what are the rules of the field? Are there different fields, with different rules? Of course. Surely everyone agrees that a banker and an artist will function in radically different ways: in competition, in relaxation, in consumption, in their very sense of what is real.
5. Free will is intrinsticly tied to the question of the meaning of the meaning. Once you starting asking, it's possible that many constraints can fall away. For example, seemingly self-evident pheonomenon, like the sun rising, is problematized upon reflection and additional knowledge about the earth. Similarly, and hopefully, societal restraints can also be worked: never abandoned, but hopefully and more properly understood.

Phew.

[ringo]

Wow...reading all of that made my head spin.
I don't have the background to back up my beliefs so as well...but here's my take on your question...

1) Reality...I always felt that each of us have a personal reality...that there is one consistent reality, but that no one can truly "know" that reality because we have a limited set of tools that let us interact with it (Our senses) that are in turn influenced by other personal variables like brain chemistry, emotional state, core beliefs, etc. We can only speculate about what the true nature of reality is because we are unable to seperate ourselves from our senses and influences. While my reality (seeing in color) may conflict with someone else's (Colorblind), there's no real difference because we're both interperting the same universal reality.

So...what we perceive is not Universal Reality. It is just our personal version of Universal Reality. No creature could hope to see Universal Reality because they have to interact with it through their senses as well. The only entity that could really "Know" Univesal Reality would be a diety (if such a thing exists) that can coprehend dimensions beyond our capability...or Universal Reality itself (should it have self-awareness).

2) Nature of thought. By thought I'm assuming you mean the ability to make judgements based on our perceptions, reactions based on past experience, self-awareness, the ability to be creative.

I do believe that this is, in theory, reproducible...but that we don't have the technology or conceptual background to reproduce it at this time. The brain is still, more or less, a biological black box. We can control states by introducing chemicals and have a limited conceptual model of how variables efect performance, but still lack a true understanding of how and why it performs as it does.

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I know we have some philosophers lurking on these boards, and I wanted to hear them unravel some mysteries.

I propose to start this thread off with a philosophical pretzel:

If what we perceive is reality, how much of reality is produced by us as we perceive it?

Or, as a secondary thought: is the nature of thought reproducible or hardwired into the form, or is it a separate construct from the corporeal?

Well, I'd argue that there is one reality. The universe, ever there whether we humans are around or not. It was here a million years ago, and will be a million years hence when we're not. We all have access to the same reality via our senses.

Now, at this point I say that the way we interpret that sensory information will differ from person to person and give each individual a unique perspective on reality. This is basically the same argument others have made, but simply abstracted differently. I don't think we change reality by perceiving it, I just think we notice and give importance to different things depending on who we are.

I'll take the sad guy at the bar example. So he was depressed and didn't notice the cute girl smiling at him. Has that changed his reality? No. The girl was there, whether he noticed or not. Maybe if he had been happy, he'd have said hi, had kids, and so on. All ifs, however. He simply made a choice based on his emotional state at the time and chose one direction over another. To say he "changed" reality implies he changed it from something to another. What was it before? This all leads into the second part of Lerk's question...

I don't believe that we're heard wired for particular memories, as another posted. I think our brains are designed to store information, in particular the sort of information our senses are capable of receiving. So yes, if we have some ground-breaking event, like god talking to us, but it happened at at 40 kHz, we'd be out of luck w/o some AV equipment.

Does this mean we don't have free will? I don't think so. I think the computer analogy is a good one...we are hardware, equipped to run software. What kind, that's up to us.

Sorry this wasn't more coherent, but I'll answer any q's. Cheers...

--Josh

[denim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If what we perceive is reality, how much of reality is produced by us as we perceive it?

All of it. Just call me Mr. Solipsist, and hope I don't take too much aspirin.

[Xaositect]

A few ramblings...

Subjective reality - a collection of memories of interpretations of perceptions of our senses we decide are true.

Subjective illusion - a collection of memories of interpretations of perceptions of our senses we decide are false.

Objective reality (humanocentric) - an interpretation of the combination of several seperate subjective realities.

True Objective reality - something we believe exists, but cannot yet prove, which forms the base we percieve to create our own subjective reality.

Now, as for hardwired thought process, it's really simple: think of repetitition. The more often we repeat something, the easier it is for us to do, thus the more likely we will do it again, making it easier and thus more likely to be done yet again. You can, if conscious of this phenomena, use it to your advantage. If you don't like one thing you always find yourself doing, choose a new reaction to the situation and create a reminder (or multiple reminders) and keep them handy. As you start doing what you chose more often, it will get easier, thus be more likely to be repeated, thus become easier and you will have CONSCIOUSLY chosen the new course.

Or, more simply, you follow your own program, and can rewrite it if you want and know how.

I think I'm up to 3� now, so I'll see more responses before continuing.

[zigzag]

I'm going to bore everyone by expanding upon my previous post and repeating some things. The reason being that, in my first post, I refrained from talking about metaphysics and spirituality and such because, although I suspected they would come up, I wasn't sure if that was what lerk was after.

With regard to reality/perception of reality, I agree with those who say that there is a "fixed" (for lack of a better word) reality, and that we all (and by "we all" I include the animal world) perceive it differently based on a variety of functions: (a) the range of our physical senses (a dog's range being different than a human's); (b) our emotional disposition (some things are more important to us than others); (c) our intellectual disposition (ditto); (d) our relationship to the object/environment (i.e. humans and dogs and spiders all have different uses for the same chair).

I think of it as all living things occupying different spheres within the same universe. My human sphere is somewhat different than your human sphere (I might be colorblind, live in a different state, speak a different language, etc.), and both of our human spheres are quite different from a dog's sphere. But the spheres all overlap and interact, to varying degrees, within the same universe.

Also, by "fixed", I don't mean to suggest that the universe isn't dynamic. I just mean that it exists independently of us, and we move around in it and perceive it in differing ways. It goes on after we die.

As for consciousness, I still believe that we are essentially hard-wired, but that the hard-wiring provides for a wide range of variation that we like to describe as "free will" and "spirit" and "imagination" and so forth. In other words, the brain is a tool, like our hands. We aren't wired to make chairs in particular, much less red chairs, but we are wired with the urge and intelligence to conceive of artifacts like chairs in order to adapt to our environment. And we are wired with the urge to make infinite varieties of chairs. But, apart from having what we regard as cooler chairs, we aren't essentially different from our ancestors. We're wired to go through the same basic life processes, re-enact the same patterns of behavior.

So, we have something resembling "free will", but it's constrained. We're still stuck with the same old bodies, the same old emotional needs, the same old physical needs as our ancestors, the same urges and conflicts. We have a degree of control, but only within a larger sphere that nature has defined for us.

To use the soccer game example: Nature provides that we're born with different aptitudes and dispositions. Given the idea of a soccer game, with its rules and boundaries, different people will respond differently. Some will adhere to the rules and others will flout them, some will play well and some won't. Some will invent new rules, some will work harder and develop better skills. This could be described as "free will", and it is to a degree, but I think that what we think of as free will and human unpredictability is just nature's way of creating variety, variety being important to the adaptability and survival of any species. Within certain boundaries, nature provides that we will make free, conscious decisions, but the larger boundaries are still there. And even those seemingly "free" decisions can have subtle, subconscious motivations that are more or less hardwired (I say more or less because we all have a different genetic make-up and we also have to respond flexibly to our environments).

Our urge to create, IMO, is an extension of nature's interest in variety and in the adaptive benefits of trial and error (or survival of the fittest, as it were). Sometimes we come up with a better chair (or house or engine), sometimes we don't, but either way it enhances our adaptability.

My own sense is that concepts like "spirit" and "soul" are fancy, romantic ways of describing complex emotions and urges. Something about the human imagination seems to compel it to invent supernatural explanations for things that just are, despite the fact that eons of history have offered no proof of any supernatural forces. I suspect that they are mostly coping mechanisms - nature can be cruel and inscrutable, so our imaginations create all kinds of fanciful ways of dealing with and describing it.

I'm not a religious person but I share one idea with those who are: we are not in control as much as we like to think. As smart and rational and free as we think we are, there will always be Hitlers and Stalins and Saddams and Oswalds, even the best of us will do inexplicably stupid and cruel things, and although we will struggle with and occasionally overcome our limitations, life will ultimately have its way with us. The difference is that while a religious person might ascribe this to a supernatural being, I ascribe it to natural forces. Nature insists on variety of both the good and bad kinds.

My thinking stems partly from having grown up in an era when faith in rationalism peaked. It was said that we were tabula rasa, that if only everyone were sufficiently educated and fed and loved there would be peace and prosperity; that there are no innate differences between males and females; that it's merit, not personality or status, that matters; that proper planning would save our cities; that human behavior could be predicted and managed, etc. It seemed very promising but it didn't take long to figure out that these were conceits and that nature tends to have its way. Nature provides that, within certain boundaries, we be unpredictable, and that we overcome limitations, because it's important to the adaptability and survival of the species. We think of it as "free will", but I think of it as variations on an essentially hardwired theme.

As I said earlier, some might accuse me of being hopelessly cynical, of taking all the romance out of life, of demeaning humanity, etc. To the contrary, I think that life is as remarkable and beautiful as anyone. I think the difference is that I see beauty and wonder (as well as cruelty) in nature itself, and I regard human consciousness, like a dog's or a dolphin's, as just one more fascinating aspect of it, not superior to or separate from it.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[BlackGriffen]

Reality... What is it? What could that nebulous term mean? The first time I seriously questioned the nature of reality, consciously (I recall when I was 4 or so thinking that the water that comes from the faucet must be created by magic ), was reading 1984, by George Orwell. I found the "interrogation" of Winston to be particularly instructive. I remember cheering for Winston at every scene, my heart sinking a little at each defeat. I found myself wondering what I would have done in his shoes. What sort of simple proof could I give that reality was objective, and not subject to O'Brien's will. When does reality effect consciousness directly, without need of perception? The answer was gruesomely, grimly, simple: when you die. I imagined myself pointing a gun at O'Brien, and saying, "You may be able to make me incapable of perceiving the fact that I have a gun in my hand. When I pull this trigger though, or just move my finger back, it'll blow your fu�king head off and no amount of talking will get you out of that." In short, to quote Tank from The Matrix, "Believe it or not, you piece of ****, you're still gonna' burn!" Ultimately death instructs life how to perceive reality. When perceptions are inaccurate, death generally claims those effected when reality intrudes.

Another simple proof I offer for an objective reality is, well, insanity. If reality was simply as you perceive it, then there would be no need for loony bins. Only a masochist would perceive themselves in to such a situation, and only a real sadist would perceive others in such a situation.

Thus, I define reality as the realm of ultimate consequences. Reality is where you die.

The line of inquiry ultimately goes much deeper. Ultimately down to what, exactly, that reality is. Along the way, questions about the nature of time (determinism vs an uncertain future), life (dynamism vs stasis and the delicate balance life strikes), death (change and its necessity), and even how much sense the very term "I" makes.

That's all for a later time; hopefully by then I'll understand all of those questions better .

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
The reason being that, in my first post, I refrained from talking about metaphysics and spirituality and such because, although I suspected they would come up, I wasn't sure if that was what lerk was after.

I purposely tried not to muddy the waters in the beginning because I was interested in everyone's views. Simply because mine tend more towards spiritual does not mean that's all I want to read.
The very nature of the questions reflect on whether there is a metaphysical reality or not. "or not" is an acceptable point of view and adds a great deal to the discussion. I hope I didn't give the impression otherwise.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


I purposely tried not to muddy the waters in the beginning because I was interested in everyone's views. Simply because mine tend more towards spiritual does not mean that's all I want to read.
The very nature of the questions reflect on whether there is a metaphysical reality or not. "or not" is an acceptable point of view and adds a great deal to the discussion. I hope I didn't give the impression otherwise.

No, not at all - I just wanted to be careful not to inadvertently steer the thread towards another circular argument about the relative merits of [insert name of ********* sect here]. So I tried to make my case without making any specific references to spirituality and metaphyisics and the like, since ideas about spirituality and metaphysics invariably coincide with ideas about ******** (using code so as not to attract the wrong kind of attention ). So far so good.

[UR-20]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
Maybe if I was stoned I could have a conversation about this.

- Ca$h

Can you O.D. on marijuana?



God I hope so.

[funkboy]

The brain being a tool to a higher consciousness that one is (their consciousness/creativity/whatever) is a very interesting idea. As people age, it seems their skill at using this tool decreases. Could it be because the actual grey matter is no longer a sufficiently-capable tool, that it has somehow physically deteriorated over the years? Is the consciousness uninterested in using the tool and wants to move onto something else?

I'm going to have to relate my own life to this idea to try and come to a conclusion:
--
When I was younger, about five or six years ago, I wrote a column for the city newspaper. It was a monthly column I wrote for about three years. When I first started I had all sorts of ideas to expound upon. As the months went by, I started putting off the articles, leaving them more and more to finish at the last minute. However, I usually pulled off a successful article each month, and got many complements from all sorts of different people (those who would not have had to say anything, so they probably meant it) saying, "Nice article!"

Since then, I have somewhat lost interest, and in some ways the ability, to write like I did then. Before I used to be able to pick any topic, as random as possible, and talk about it for 800 words using a variety of language, ideas, and humor to get some point across that I would usually come to just as I finished writing the article. Now, however, my brain has a hard time simply creating humorous, off-the-cuff, carefree writing.

I somehow think either my own person has gotten uninterested in writing carefree and creatively (even though I'd like to be able to do it, I feel no urge to do so) or that my brain (my tool) has become incapable of doing this, either from being rusty by not doing this for awhile (I took a break from writing altogether for awhile) or because my spirit/consciousness simply doesn't get near to pushing the buttons that would make me write creatively. I know I possess the ability - I used to do it - but I no longer do it too much. And not because I don't want to.

--
Boy, it's late, I think it's sleep time. See if someone can pull some conclusion or idea from those paragraphs, if not, I'll stay away from discussions like this until I really come up with an interesting point (again, something I've had a tough time of doing recently!)

[MikeM33]

funkboy, I'm not certain how that fits into the topic at hand, but I cn totally relate to what you're saying. As a younger artist I seemed to be over-flowing with ideas for paintings or drawings or other visual art related projects. As I got older I just sort of lost it.

But I think the thing you and I are talking about is more akin to inspiration. It's true that inspiration must fit into some area of reality, but I'm too tired right now to really get into it.

MikeM32

[shanraghan]

Losing the ability? Nah, you're just getting tired. Then again you're looking at one who's hopelessly optimistic about his mental acuity at advanced age... and is, for that matter, only seventeen.

[thunderous_funker]

I doubt the existence of Objective Reality. It doesn't exist beyond our perceptions of it (personal or common).

If all humans die, the Reality that they all perceived ceases to be because it is no longer perceived. All that remains is the sphere of Reality shared by other life forms, plant or animal or mineral.

That isn't to say the emperical world. I do believe in perception outside of the so-called 5 senses. How we know is very different than what we know.

In some of the ancient traditions of Free Masonry I came across the concept of The Pact As God. Simply stated, where two men enter into a secret, the third is God.

The two create something "independent" of each individually, but it's not indepedent of them both. When they cease, it ceases.

Whatever you might ascribe to the Universal or Objective Reality, it's nothing more than the entity created by all of those who perceive it together. God (Objective Reality, The Universal) is simply the idea of all of us thinking of it.