Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Delano

Reality vs Perception

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Delano said:

How do you tell the difference? 

 

You can't tell the difference.

 

Perception is reality.  Any changes in one's perception must come from external sources, provided one is open to receiving new information

 

Here is the video Del linked to 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, interesting question. I like the parking lot example in the video but still, as @Troy said, I don't think you can tell the difference, at least not right away. For example, if someone is taking advantage of you, it's not easy to be sure that this is true, right away. I think sometimes 'the masses of common people' have been conditioned by the government to NOT believe that things are bad, when in fact, it is bad and by the time we see the truth, then we, the masses, go from being like in a stupor to being aggressive. We've been given a false 'perception' and conditioned or 'dumbed down' to NOT perceive things as being bad and this only makes it worse. So when the reality kicks in that we've been 'had' by the government, they have consistenly been putting out more false perceptions by-and-by so as to ensure that when some of us do come to the REALITY we will be re-routed to attack other sub-groups, while the small group of 'leaders' sit back and continue to have a comfortable lifestyle. This is what I think about regarding this topic.

 

I remember how, the movie, 'the Wizard of Oz' was aired, in color, so as to give the masses the perception that things were good, all the while, people were lined up in bread lines. And board games like Monopoly became used as a ploy to help people perceive that all was well during a time of crisis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Troy said:

You can't tell the difference

what about object vs subjective reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perception is real, whether what you perceive is accurate has to involve a consensus of other witnesses.  

 

9 hours ago, Chevdove said:

I remember how, the movie, 'the Wizard of Oz' was aired, in color, so as to give the masses the perception that things were good, all the while, people were lined up in bread lines. And board games like Monopoly became used as a ploy to help people perceive that all was well during a time of crisis. 

The Wizard of Oz  came out in 1939 at the end of The Depression, and it doesn't turn into technicolor until Dorothy wakes up in OZ where the tornado has blown her.  The movie starts out in sepia color.   I saw the first release of it in 1939 when i was a little girl.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Cynique said:

Perception is real, whether what you perceive is accurate has to involve a consensus of other witnesses.  

So a magician is really sawing a woman in half. Since that's what the audience sees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, a man dresssed as a magician appearing on a stage is performing a trick.  If everybody in the audience perceives this, then this is really happening.  🤩

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Delano said:

what about object vs subjective reality

 

That is the same as asking, "what about objective perception vs subjective perception." Again, there's no difference; is is the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy replied to Delano's topic in Culture, Race & Economy

Del for the most part in our daily lives there isobjectivereality. 2 + 2 will always equal 4. People who refuse to accept that 2+2=4 because they believe it could be equal to something else, despite evidence to the contrary are going to have problems dealing withreality. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My position has evolved. Everyone's reality is different. For me 2+2=4 is objectively and subjectively true. 

 

For you, this may not be the case. If you believed the answer was 3 that is your reality, both objective and subjective

 

From my perspective, the answer of 3 is your subjective reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cynique said:

The Wizard of Oz  came out in 1939 at the end of The Depression, and it doesn't turn into technicolor until Dorothy wakes up in OZ where the tornado has blown her.  The movie starts out in sepia color.   I saw the first release of it in 1939 when i was a little girl.   

 

That's it! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality is the object and perception is simply a perspective OF that object.

We can't say all perceptions are reality because some perceptions are erroneous and based on a mind that could be impaired by drugs or mental illness. Other misperceptions are based on false or limited information.
For millenia many people believed that the Earth was flat. That was THEIR perspective of the Earth based on their limited information, despite the reality being much different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality doesn't have to be an object; it can be an intangible fact that is deduced from mathematics. Perception is an impression that originates in the mind's eye.  IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer to the people who perceieve the world to be flat how does that effect their objective reality? I dont think it does.

 

Eveything is realtive. Including what we call reality. Even the very passing of time is relative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore, if we really want to observe ourselves and find out what we are, we are really beings of energy and vibration, radiating our own unique energy signature -this is fact and is what quantum physics has shown us time and time again. We are much more than what we perceive ourselves to be, and it’s time we begin to see ourselves in that light. If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void. The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter

The above is from this page 

 

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/09/27/this-is-the-world-of-quantum-physics-nothing-is-solid-and-everything-is-energy/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Delano that article is the reasin why the internet is like the wild west. People can say and do anything.

 

Quantum physists do not say the the marco world, the one we can see with our eyes, behaves like the quantum world, nor do the say any of it has anything to do with consciousness. 

 

People like ones who wrote that article are making things up and misleading people.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Troy said:

 

Quantum physists do not say the the marco world, the one we can see with our eyes,

What part of the quote ,implies or makes that statement? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

Everything is relative, but reality does not and cannot agree with EVERY individual's perception of it.

Take the law of gravity for example.....
If a man jumps off the Chrysler building it doesn't matter whether or not he perceives it or doubts it's existence. If he doesn't believe in it he is clearly WRONG and the REALITY of gravity will have an effect on him in just a matter of seconds despite his misperception.



Del

If I were you I wouldn't take Caucasian scientific gibberish too seriously, lol.
They put some of this shit out here simply to confound you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Delano said:

What part of the quote ,implies or makes that statement? 

 

It is in the article you shared, which I assume you read in its entirety. If you did, you would not have needed to ask that question

 

@Pioneer1 again I say it is relative.  If you put the building on the moon the result would be different -- even though the "law" has not changed. 

 

We can define narrow conditions in which possible outcomes are limited to the point that one simply cannot imagine a different outcome.  You call this reality. 

 

To the other extreme others have posited an infinite number of universes with different physical constants were the incomprehensible can take place this too is reality, albeit one may may never experience.

 

What is real is what we can perceive -- the example of the mentally disturbed man you  provided aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troy said:

 

It is in the article you shared, which I assume you read in its entirety. If you did, you would not have needed to ask that question

No I stopped at the relevant bit for my argument. In the future I will neither ask nor give further clarification from/to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you not read the entire article @Delano

 

When ever someone posts something from another source, if it is a subjects that interests me I always go to the original article.  If that article referees a source (if it i an article about another article which makes up so much of the stuff on the web nowadays) I'll check out the original source

 

More often than not, I'll discover that the person (and I'm not just talking about you) is sharing something that is actually not supported by the original source.  

 

When 45 asserts that "the news is fake," he is wrong the news generated by journalists is pretty good.  The problem is that we have so much less of this and much  more of what you find circulating around the web and social media: uninformed opinions on opinions or events masquerading as "news." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

again I say it is relative. If you put the building on the moon the result would be different -- even though the "law" has not changed.


I never said it wasn't relative; but relative is just an individuals position with or perception of an established reality.
How you RELATE to an object or subject doesn't change the reality of that object or subject.
Like you said the law of gravity did not change simply because HE changed environments. It still IS what it is and if he comes back to THIS atmosphere he'll have to face it again.  The moon's and Earth's atmospheres are still part of the SAME reality.

 

 

 

To the other extreme others have posited an infinite number of universes with different physical constants were the incomprehensible can take place this too is reality, albeit one may may never experience.


You said others have POSITED...and that's a key word.
This is the multi-verse theory, but has it been proven?
We can sit here and entertain theories all day long, but certain laws of THIS reality are constant and they rarely if ever change regardless as to how you relate to them or what your perspective of them are.

 

 

 

 

What is real is what we can perceive -- the example of the mentally disturbed man you provided aside.


Are you suggesting that a person who doesn't perceive that they are sick can not have a disease simply because they haven't acknowledged it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Are you suggesting that a person who doesn't perceive that they are sick can not have a disease simply because they haven't acknowledged it?

 

Lets not convolute things any further with mental illness.

 

I don't think the multiverse theory can ever be proven.

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I never said it wasn't relative; but relative is just an individuals position with or perception of an established reality.

 

Well that is basically my point man. an individuals perception is "their" relativity.  The perception IS their reality.  In addition there is no objective reality.  You speak about gravity, but like the multiverse it too is a theory and it is very likely to change.

 

People used to believe Newton's laws which implied and invisible force between objects, that was later rejected in favor of a warping of space, but our current understand of gravity fails at the quantum level and does not explain the accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

So you are using gravity to prove an objective reality, when we really don't have a clue what 95% of the observable universe if made of.  

 

Gravity as you understand it Pioneer may not be "reality," but a story we tell ourselves to make sense of the universe.  Future generation will wonder how we believed such a thing in much the same way some believed the world was flat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Troy

 

 

Lets not convolute things any further with mental illness.


Ofcourse not....lol.
Why introduce factors that support what I'm saying while disproving your assertions?

Because experts have agreed that severe mental illness DISTORTS a person's perceptions to the point that their beliefs about reality are clearly false; if follows that reality CAN NOT simply be basd on each individual's perception of it.
If it were, the concept of someone being mental illness wouldn't exist because they would just be in alignment with their own reality.




 

I don't think the multiverse theory can ever be proven.


If it is true (and I believe it is), I think it could atleast be proven on an INDIVUAL basis by each individual verifying the existence of other universes for themselves.

 

 

 

 

Well that is basically my point man. an individuals perception is "their" relativity. The perception IS their reality.
 

No no no....it's their relativity but NOT "their" reality.
That reality is not theirs exclusively but is shared.
They....we...are in the SAME reality but with different perceptions of it based on our relativity to it.

 

 


So you are using gravity to prove an objective reality, when we really don't have a clue what 95% of the observable universe if made of.
 

Unless or until you can PROVE that whatever that 95% consists of actually CHANGES the reality and function of gravity....it's a moot point.
You are using too much speculation to defend your position that reality is subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Why introduce factors that support what I'm saying while disproving your assertions?

 

If that is the case what is stopping you from saying any old crazy thing just to make a point... ah nevermind in your case their nothing stopping you LOL!

 

6 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

No no no....it's their relativity but NOT "their" reality.

 

What? Are you confusing reality with relative LOL!  We agree that perceptions are different. I'm saying perceptions are reality. Therefore reality is relative to the perceive.  What you believe is a objective relativity is just your perception.  You are just egotistical enough to believe it THE only reality and that everyone else is delusional (or mentally ill).

 

10 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Unless or until you can PROVE that whatever that 95% consists of actually CHANGES the reality and function of gravity.

 

That is just the point no one can "prove" it. They just know our understanding of gravity does not explain it.  This is true for the quantum world too. 

 

Man if it were not for books you'd be running looking for a virgin to sacrifice to placate the Gods who have brought cold weather to your area.  What do you know really know about reality?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Troy

If that is the case what is stopping you from saying any old crazy thing just to make a point... ah nevermind in your case their nothing stopping you LOL!


Regardless as to how crazy it sounds, if it supports my point and you can't dispute it.....then it's valid.
Do you disagree with all of the psychiatrist and psychologists who say that mental illness is a DISTORTED perception of reality and now make the claim instead that schizophrenics are not sick but simply live in another world with another reality?


 

 


We agree that perceptions are different. I'm saying perceptions are reality. What you believe is a objective relativity is just your perception.


Again, PERCEPTION is not the same as REALITY. It's an INTERPRETATION of reality based on one's physical senses and intellect....or lack there of.
Again, another example............

If I place a rock infront of you while you're walking,  that rock IS infront of you whether you SEE it (perceive it) or not.
Just because you don't perceive that rock it doesn't mean it's not there nor does it mean you won't stumble over it if you aren't careful. 
You, me, and the rock are all in the SAME reality despite YOUR perspective or lack there of.

 

 



They just know our understanding of gravity does not explain it.


OK?
Different understandings or even LACK OF ANY understanding of gravity doesn't change the laws of gravity or the fact that it exists.
It just means that the original understandings may have been wrong.

Reality doesn't change UNLESS a new factor is introduced.  But a change in PERCEPTION of that same reality would allow you to see it from a different perspective and thus gain knowledge and insight of that which already existed.

 

 


The bottom line is, perception isn't YOUR reality....it's simply YOUR perception OF reality.
Outside of the multiverse theory....reality itself is CENTRAL and various perspectives and perceptions revolve around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer's belief that he is right, is a perception. His inability to convince me he is right, is reality.   

 

11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The bottom line is, perception isn't YOUR reality....it's simply YOUR perception OF reality.
Outside of the multiverse theory....reality itself is CENTRAL and various perspectives and perceptions revolve around it.

This is the bottom line. Since you haven't proved that multi-universes don't exist, your conclusions are meaningless.  And, puleeze.  If it's your perception of reality, it is your reality. There's no difference between the two. In reality, i agree with Troy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cynique said:

This is the bottom line. Since you haven't proved that multi-universes don't exist, your conclusions are meaningless.  And, puleeze.  If it's your perception of reality, it is your reality.


So if a person has a tumor but they don't perceive it......is that tumor not part of their reality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right @Pioneer1. If one can't perceive something, and has not learned of it in any other way, that is the very definition of what makes it part of one's reality.

 

It is really quite a simple concept; I'm not sure why you are struggling with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Troy said:

That's right @Pioneer1. If one can't perceive something, and has not learned of it in any other way, that is the very definition of what makes it part of one's reality.

 

It is really quite a simple concept; I'm not sure why you are struggling with it. 


When you say "that's right".....are you saying that if a person has a tumor but doesn't perceive it then it's NOT part of their reality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you're confusing reality with AWARENESS.

Just because something isn't part of a person's awareness, doesn't mean it's not a part of their reality. They just aren't aware of it because they don't perceive it.

A person can be sick and not know it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a person is not aware of his tumor, then how can he perceive it.  Perception is a part of the equation under discussion.   you are mixing apples with oranges.                    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the tumor is reality, it is not his reality until he realizes he has it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Well, let's go to the Oxford Dictionary.....

 

See there you go again running to the white man book LOL for validation!

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The state of things as they actually exist

 

As Cynque says you are mixing apples with oranges and resorting to you old tactic of moving change your argument.  You started with gravity and when I explain that gravity is not reality but a story well tell ourselves until we learn more. Now you are on to a tumors -- what else is next?

 

Dude what do you know about what actually exists or real  -- other than what someone else has told you? You decide what is real and was is false.  We all do it.  I tell you the dress is blue and you swear it is gold.  Some believe the end of the world is upon us and others think that is utter nonsense.  One Dr. says it is a malignant tumor and another Dr. say it is a benign mass.  What is the reality?  Flip a coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lurkers:
I know.....
But I'm not expecting concession, or even agreement.
At this point, it's just entertainment.....lol.



 

 

Cynique

the tumor is reality, it is not his reality until he realizes he has it.


If the tumor is reality, then WHOSE reality is it before he realizes it?




Troy

 

See there you go again running to the white man book LOL for validation!


Well hell, the White man INVENTED the word "reality" so ofcourse I'll go to his dictionary to find out the definition!
Now if we discuss a word YOU or another Black man invented, then we'll go to the Black man's dictionary ....lol.

 



Dude what do you know about what actually exists or real -- other than what someone else has told you? You decide what is real and was is false. We all do it. I tell you the dress is blue and you swear it is gold.
 

OK.
Then will you finally agree with me that RACE is real and exists even if it's not a part of your personal reality?

 


Something tells me that you don't take this same attitude about the fluidity of reality when it comes to your personal finances, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If the tumor is reality, then WHOSE reality is it before he realizes it?

Perception is an individual's subjective view of reality. Nobody possesses reality.  It belongs to itself.  A person's perception of reality belongs to him.  If this perception coincides with reality, then the perception that is his, becomes reality.   😮   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...