reality and truth

[fela fan]

Reality: the glass is half full
Alternative reality: the glass is half empty

Truth: Both are true.

Only true for a fleeting passage of time until evaporation begins its process. Therefore not to do with truth.

And of course, there's a large difference between what is true and what truth is. Something that is true, or not, belongs to the human world and human construct of knowledge.

Truth is timeless and a non-human construct. Reality is human.

 

[fela fan]

Reality is simply a perception.

Reality and people's perception of reality are always two different things - which is why we have so many arguments and why some people cannot accept the truth.

The truth has to be measured in terms of what's right and what's wrong in life.

According to my reasoning, truth cannot be measured at all. It is unmeasurable, undebatable, unchangeable. Nothing can be done with it all, we can only understand it. It is a constant that is not subject to the ravages of time. It is timeless and thus cannot be measured! We can only measure things according to time or space. Truth takes up no time and no space.

I'd agree though that reality is perception. Do you agree with my assertion that reality is a degree of truth (a degree that is variable)? If so, when we achieve periods of time where we are tuned into truth, then our reality has become 100% degree of truth, and therefore is no longer a reality, no longer a perception, but simple truth.

Or to put another way, when we're thinking we're perceiving, when we're not thinking we're in truth. And therefore i'm going to go a stage further with a thought i didn't discuss with my mate the other night, and one that's just come to me, language denies us truth. Language is the barrier that prevents us from accessing and coming to understand truth.

"Reality and people's perception of reality are always two different things"

No mate, i'd say that reality is perception, and thus it is just the one thing. For one person. We all have different realities and thus we can have arguments. I think you're mixing up what is true (ie knowledge; measurable) and what truth is (existence, the world as is; unmeasureable).

If we sit down together in a state of truth, maybe supping a beer and looking at the mountain, it would be impossible for us to argue or to philosophise. As soon as we do that, we are out of truth and into reality.

 

[fela fan]

I'm about to do a spot of work, but i'm now wondering if reality is a degree of truth. My mate said it wasn't but i said it was.

I'm now wondering if it is just one or the other. Either we have our reality, or we are in truth. Maybe we cannot combine the two. I need to think over this one.

Can anyone delve into this aspect: ie is reality a degree of truth, or something that is different entirely?

 

[Jessiedog]

If we sit down together in a state of truth, maybe supping a beer and looking at the mountain, it would be impossible for us to argue or to philosophise. As soon as we do that, we are out of truth and into reality.

Ummmmmm.

Hi fela,

Maybe it all depends upon whether we (humans,) are, in fact, apprehending or tapping-in-to the "truth", or rather, are actually, in fact, literally creating the "truth"?

Could not your description here (and throughout the thread,) of tapping in to the "truth", be equally accounted for as, say, being a "state of being" or "state of conciousness", or "state of awareness", even, may be a nice descriptor?

If so, then it must be asked whether this this state of awareness maintains, once brain activity ceases - is there "awareness" after death?

If so, what is this individual "awareness" after death? How does it differ from that of life? How does it "feel"?

And, can two or more individual human conciousness' share the same "state of awareness"? During life - (telepathy?)? And after-life?

If not, then there cannot be "truth", since "truth" would depend upon human conciousness, or at least would alter, would change to some different "truth" after humans are gone, constructed by the sum of the conciousness of remaining creatures perhaps? "Truth" would, therefore not be fixed and universal, but rather fluid and local.

But then, to what extent does a dog's "awareness" coincide with that of a human's, both understand "food", after all, and just take a look at a human and a dog racing each other to catch a thrown ball, both focussed, both "going for it", both loving the competitve fun? Shared awareness?

To what extent does all dogs' awareness (doggie truth) correspond to all humans' awareness (truth)?

Does doggie awareness survive death in any form?

Can dogs and humans have moments of "shared conciousness"? In life? After-life?

Oh God I'm confused now.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Or maybe we are really just describing the feeling we have when we use those generally "lesser used" or "lesser developed" senses that we all know we have, to interface with our external reality.

When we "still" ourselves and tune in to our "intuition", our "inner voice" our "sixth sense" we feel a certain way. A way that feels somewhat differently to our normal state of "engagement", and yet is reliably, replicably and recognisably different. And we have that different feeling we get when we are (to a greater or lesser extent at any particular time, as per your 0/100, 50/50, 10/90 scale,) using those "other" senses to apprehend "reality", we describe it as the "truth".

And all there actually is, is "reality", and what we call the "truth" just depends on how, and with what balance of our senses, we engage with and interpret "reality".

Maybe.



Woof

 

[fela fan]

jessie, i'll reread your posts at another time coz i need to mull over what exactly your saying.

But in case this is a related answer to you, i'll say that watching animals, or looking at nature is 'seeing' truth.They do what they do because they just do it. Flowers and trees do what they do because that's what flowers and trees do. Same goes for the sun and the moon.

Humans think and philosophise and can and do alter their behaviour. We have a past and we talk/dream of a future. We go outside of the present moment. Animals and nature are always in the present moment. It is being in the present moment that allows us to be in truth.

So it's not about creating a truth. It's just about living it. What this thread is doing, or trying to do, is to gain an understanding of what truth is via the use of language.

We create facts and knowledge, but we cannot create truth. If we could that would me that we have created animals, trees, flowers, the sun, the oceans...

[On a tangent, is God supposed to have created all of this, or just humans? I have a feeling he's supposed to have created the whole lot, which according to this erroneous belief/faith means that he is the truth! Which if i think about it seems to confirm my claims about what truth is compared to reality.]

 

[fela fan]

And all there actually is, is "reality", and what we call the "truth" just depends on how, and with what balance of our senses, we engage with and interpret "reality".

Maybe.



Woof

Maybe. But i think not!

With or without me on this planet, birds will still be flying, the oceans will still have tides, flowers will still bloom, trees will still shed their leaves, and the grass will still grow. And human babies will still cry.

This is truth. It is what happens because it happens, and it is because it is.

One of life's great masters used to say that often in the morning he'd sit down in the garden and let the grass grow...

 

[forked brain]

There is no reality.

There is no truth.

There is only now.

 

[Jessiedog]

There is no reality.

There is no truth.

There is only now.

But fela's argument is that "now" is the "truth".



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

jessie, i'll reread your posts at another time coz i need to mull over what exactly your saying.

Please fela. I think there may be some kind of argument in there somewhere.

But in case this is a related answer to you, i'll say that watching animals, or looking at nature is 'seeing' truth.

Including watching human animals, of course.

But it is only "human" truth. How do we determine if "doggie" truth (when a dog watches animals, or nature, or human animals,) is actually a better interpretation/representation of the "truth", or a worse one - 'cos for sure it'll be somewhat different. Which one is more "the truth"?

Humans think and ...... can and do alter their behaviour.

So do dogs. Dogs may not philosophise, but the smarter ones certainly have the same higher order faculties as a four year old child.

We have a past and we talk/dream of a future. We go outside of the present moment. Animals and nature are always in the present moment. It is being in the present moment that allows us to be in truth.

Dogs have memory too and can conceptualise a limited future (four year old child stylee). Dogs have a "language" and can easily learn human language too - although not speak it.

Non-human animals do not always live in the present moment. They can learn, plan, wait, predict, etc. Perhaps not to the same extent as humans (well a four year old). But again, when other animals are in "the zone", in "the present", why should our "truth" be any more valid than their experience in those moments, their "truth".

So it's not about creating a truth. It's just about living it. What this thread is doing, or trying to do, is to gain an understanding of what truth is via the use of language.

And I think I do understand, through your language, what your are describing as the "truth". I'm merely postulating that "truth" is self-created and it seems to me that this explanation/description (given that dogs can think) apprehends the "truth" equally as well as yours, perhaps even better if your explanation hinges upon non-human animals always living in the "now" - they don't.

We create facts and knowledge, but we cannot create truth. If we could that would me that we have created animals, trees, flowers, the sun, the oceans...

I'm arguing that what you are describing as the "truth", is, in actuality, perhaps, merely a feeling of "stillness", or "oneness" - a shift in "conciousness" or "awareness" and not any objective "truth".

I'm open to the possibility that this "altered awareness" - in it's shifting complexity - may survive "life" - it may not, it may depend upon brain activity, I think it probably does.

[On a tangent, is God supposed to have created all of this, or just humans? I have a feeling he's supposed to have created the whole lot, which according to this erroneous belief/faith means that he is the truth! Which if i think about it seems to confirm my claims about what truth is compared to reality.]

My "truth" includes no "God" in any Christian (or other "religious") sense. Not one that has a volition of its own.



Woof

 

[kyser_soze]

Reality is what happens in the world we interact with physically

'Truth' is a many and varied window throught which we attempt to explain how and why things happen in that reality, is not absolute by subjective (e.g. Blair as a war criminal is a subjective truth; Blair ordering UK troops into Iraq where they have killed civilians is the reality)

This is why we should all be suspicious of anyone, thing or system of belief that claims to be 'the truth'.

 

[NoEgo]

I'd agree though that reality is perception. Do you agree with my assertion that reality is a degree of truth (a degree that is variable)? If so, when we achieve periods of time where we are tuned into truth, then our reality has become 100% degree of truth, and therefore is no longer a reality, no longer a perception, but simple truth.

Or to put another way, when we're thinking we're perceiving, when we're not thinking we're in truth. And therefore i'm going to go a stage further with a thought i didn't discuss with my mate the other night, and one that's just come to me, language denies us truth. Language is the barrier that prevents us from accessing and coming to understand truth.

"Reality and people's perception of reality are always two different things"

No mate, i'd say that reality is perception, and thus it is just the one thing. For one person. We all have different realities and thus we can have arguments. I think you're mixing up what is true (ie knowledge; measurable) and what truth is (existence, the world as is; unmeasureable).

.

Yes reality is a degree of truth as you say or you could say that the truth is simply what IS.

Not sure I agree with your 2nd statement. I really do think that reality and someone's perception of reality are two different things. We are bounded in a physical world which is bounded by rules e.g. physical or economic ones - I know people who are so far removed from reality that I think they are living in cloud-cuckoo land!

I think we all find the answer as we near death or are about to die, so in my opinion it is best to make the most of life because life is but a blink of an eye. Life is for living because one day it all ends!

 

[kyser_soze]

Do you agree with my assertion that reality is a degree of truth

Truth is a degree of reality.

Does a non-human animal have a concept of truth? I'd argue no it doesn't - it exists in a realm of the sense where the need to create such a subjective position to interpret reality is unecessary. 'Truth', as far as well know, is a human construct that enables us to interpret physical reality and the events that happen in that realm.

 

[NoEgo]

Truth is a degree of reality.

Does a non-human animal have a concept of truth? I'd argue no it doesn't - it exists in a realm of the sense where the need to create such a subjective position to interpret reality is unecessary. 'Truth', as far as well know, is a human construct that enables us to interpret physical reality and the events that happen in that realm.

Yes but if its just a small degree of reality it can't be the Truth! You only have part of the truth. Limitations to human experiences and perception ensure that we generally only a small part of the puzzle to life.

Only one who is omniscient really has the Truth (note capital T). Since no-one is omniscient, it does sort of goe round in a full circle to what fela was saying.

But in an argument where you have 2 people with polar opposite views, the one who has got the bigger picture is at a definite advantage of seeing the truth over the other. Hence knowledge is power.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yes but if its just a small degree of reality it can't be the Truth!

Read my first post - 'Truth' with a capital doesn't exist as some kind of absolute since it's entirely defined and constructed by whomever is describing the reality they are observing (the Blair example for instance). You're right that someone with greater knowledge could have a better handle in gaining an understanding of how cause and effect worked to create X or Y event/sitauation. Even an omniscient being would bring their perspective on events to create their 'Truth' - the difference being that they would have a perfect understanding of how cause and effect created a situation.

This idea of 'truth' being some absolute that exists outside of human perception and intperpretation is bollocks.

 

[NoEgo]

This idea of 'truth' being some absolute that exists outside of human perception and intperpretation is bollocks.

Yup but it still doesn't change the fact that it might be there. To say that it's bollocks, is just.. well, bollocks!

Presumably you just mean that any interpretation of the truth is bollocks? You do accept the fact that it might exist yeah?

 

[Jessiedog]

Maybe. But i think not!

With or without me on this planet, birds will still be flying, the oceans will still have tides, flowers will still bloom, trees will still shed their leaves, and the grass will still grow. And human babies will still cry.

Maybe not. (Scrap the babies for the sake of this one.)

Your perception of birds flying, oceans, etc. will be different from a dogs perception, similar to quite a large extent (more similar than an ant/human difference in perception,) but different. Other animals perceive the tides, for example, in a very different way than humans and, use very different senses to apprehend "tides".

If all humans were dead, therefore, (assuming that any kind of awareness is dependent upon life,) we could rightly say that there was no human awareness of the "truth". There would, however, still be doggie ( ) awareness of the "truth" - the birds and the oceans, tides, flowers, trees, etc. as apprehended by doggies in their (to a greater or lesser extent,) "zone moments".

Seeing as any human awareness of the "truth" no longer exists under these circumstances, the "truth" must, therefore, be somehow different to that which prevailed in human awareness. This doesn't impact upon the "reality" of trees, but it does impact the "truth" of trees.The flowers, trees and bees still exist in "reality", but any possible "truth" about them has inevitably changed with the passing of humanity.

This is truth. It is what happens because it happens, and it is because it is.

But your interpretation of this "truth" is dependent upon humanity - it is not absolute. And it is different my my interpretation of it (as a dog ).

One of life's great masters used to say that often in the morning he'd sit down in the garden and let the grass grow...

And one of my gurus would intimate that if one sits on the lawn in the morning and stills oneself, and then one allows the world to enters ones olfactory senses without judgement, then "truth" may be found in the shifting mix of aromas emmitting from the grass - but then she had a nose for that kind of thing.



Woof

 

[kyser_soze]

Yup but it still doesn't change the fact that it might be there. To say that it's bollocks, is just.. well, bollocks!

Presumably you just mean that any interpretation of the truth is bollocks? You do accept the fact that it might exist yeah?

You've completely got the wrong end of the stick.

'Truth' is a construct that humans create to make sense of cause and effect relationships in reality. It is not some kind of separate entity that exists in and of itself.

*slaps face for only just noticing that this is ancient Greek stuff*

Realty exists - 'truth' is like an item of clothing we put on it to make sense of an unfathomably complex series of interacting cause and effect events that make up reality. It's not some kind of physical thing that is 'out there' - truth is created by humans to explain reality.

It has to be said it's nice to see fela resurecting 2500 year old ideas (and remixing past threads) AGAIN in his discussions about reality and (inevitably) language (which as ever is imperfect for what he will try to say and as such he can't be argued with)

Good example (esp with ff in mind) is 9/11. The reality (ie the physical events) is that 2 planes crashed into the WTC causing fires etc, and that the WTC collapsed.

The 'truth' could be that the planes were flown into the buildings by terrorists, and the resulting structural damage and fires caused the buildings to collapse. Another version could be that it was caused by the USG directly. ANother version is that it was caused by the USG indirectly by funding the Mujahaddeen in Afghanistan and helped create the radicalised Islam that led to the attacks on the WTC - in both examples the 'truth' is that the USG caused the attacks but that the cause and effect chains are very dfferent.

Consipracies are actually a really interesting example to use in discussions of truth and reality because they demonstrate the need to create 'truth' about events that are too momentous/complex to be easily explained, so therefore what happens must be...a conspiracy (I'd suggest looking at the old thread on the money system by some forgotten dude from a while back, or indeed dwyers thread on rationally prooving God's existance for more examples of a need to impose a truth on things to make them palatable for human psychology)

 

[Jessiedog]

Reality is what happens in the world we interact with physically

'Truth' is a many and varied window throught which we attempt to explain how and why things happen in that reality, is not absolute by subjective (e.g. Blair as a war criminal is a subjective truth; Blair ordering UK troops into Iraq where they have killed civilians is the reality)

This is why we should all be suspicious of anyone, thing or system of belief that claims to be 'the truth'.

Surely "reality" is not objective either?

Without humanity, "reality" is perceived differently by that which remains and there is no human "reality". "Reality", therefore, has changed.



Woof

 

[s.norbury]

the truth is we all have different realities, apart from that, imo, nothing is truer

 

[Jessiedog]

Yes reality is a degree of truth as you say or you could say that the truth is simply what IS.

How can you and I agree what "is", when I am a dog and you are not and I live in a world totally dominated by smell and you don't even know how to smell properly?

Not sure I agree with your 2nd statement. I really do think that reality and someone's perception of reality are two different things. We are bounded in a physical world which is bounded by rules e.g. physical or economic ones - I know people who are so far removed from reality that I think they are living in cloud-cuckoo land!

Well, they probably think the same about you!

I think we all find the answer as we near death or are about to die, so in my opinion it is best to make the most of life because life is but a blink of an eye. Life is for living because one day it all ends!

Sheer, humanistic sentimentalism!



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Truth is a degree of reality.

Does a non-human animal have a concept of truth? I'd argue no it doesn't - it exists in a realm of the sense where the need to create such a subjective position to interpret reality is unecessary. 'Truth', as far as well know, is a human construct that enables us to interpret physical reality and the events that happen in that realm.

Yes.

If "truth" is a construct (and I think I think it is), then it will depend entirely upon who (or what) is constructing it.



Woof

 

[kyser_soze]

Surely "reality" is not objective either?

Without humanity, "reality" is perceived differently by that which remains and there is no human "reality". "Reality", therefore, has changed.



Woof

OK, lets look at this as an example:

'The Universe Existed Before Humans'

If you accept this statement as 'true' then you are accepting that there was a physical reality in place before humans existed. We can bring in the evidence to support this by arguing that the world existed before me - my parents had to be part of it, and so on.

Physical reality is objective - if a dog and I look at an apple it will still have the same number of ordered atoms. That won't alter regardless of who is observing it. What is different - while on some level both the dog and I will perceive it as edible, my truth of the apple is that it's an acidic, sugary fruit that comes from a tree.

Humans NEED truth because it fixes reality in a way that helps us make sense of everything that happens around us.

 

[Jessiedog]

'Truth' with a capital doesn't exist as some kind of absolute since it's entirely defined and constructed by whomever is describing the reality they are observing (the Blair example for instance).

"Reality" with a capital doesn't exist as some kind of absolute since it's entirely defined and constructed by whatever is describing the whatever they are observing.

Humans see. Dogs smell. Each will perceive, apprehend and describe reality in a different way depending upon the tools (senses) used to perceive, apprehend and interperet reality.

This idea of 'truth' being some absolute that exists outside of human perception and intperpretation is bollocks.

This idea of "reality" being some absolute that exists outside of human perception and intperpretation is bollocks.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Realty exists - 'truth' is like an item of clothing we put on it to make sense of an unfathomably complex series of interacting cause and effect events that make up reality. It's not some kind of physical thing that is 'out there' - truth is created by humans to explain reality.

"Reality", in the sense that you mean, only exists if humanity exists.

In the absence of humanity, who can say what is "reality"?



Woof

 

[s.norbury]

is the future real?

 

[kyser_soze]

This idea of "reality" being some absolute that exists outside of human perception and intperpretation is bollocks.

No it isn't - humans have difficulty processing a lot of stuff about reality (ever tried thinking about interstellar distances in a physical rather than abstract sense of the universe simply being 'big' - you can't. The reality is that the size and age of the universe is something that humans can't comprehend outside of abstraction.

It's not a bad or good thing - it's just the way humans evolved to deal with the physical world we find ourselves in.

 

[NoEgo]

How can you and I agree what "is", when I am a dog and you are not and I live in a world totally dominated by smell and you don't even know how to smell properly?



Well, they probably think the same about you!






Sheer, humanistic sentimentalism!



Woof

They do think the same about me but hey, Im the one who's happy and they are the ones who are negative and miserable!

I do think that where you have 2 people with opposing views that one side could be closer to the truth than the other, I and really don't know where I stand and nor do I care! I simply go on doing what I think is right at the time, if I was wong, it will be shown to me and perhaps I'll have to correct it.

Big smiles! xx

 

[kyser_soze]

"Reality", in the sense that you mean, only exists if humanity exists.

In the absence of humanity, who can say what is "reality"?



Woof

Do you accept that the universe existed before humans, and that we are part of that universe?

If so reality existed before humans.

 

[s.norbury]

Do you accept that the universe existed before humans, and that we are part of that universe?

If so reality existed before humans.

When does your reality commence?