Philosophical Questions: Reality
Aug. 17th, 2024 12:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithPeople have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.
Different people and different organisms perceive reality in vastly different ways. With that in mind, what is real and what is just our perception of reality? Or does every organism live in its own personal reality?
Perception influences experience and ability. For instance, whales live in a world without walls, and sonar can observe through solid objects, so they don't really understand the human concept of "privacy." Similarly a person who can perceive immaterial beings will have a very different life experience than one who cannot, even if they are standing next to each other -- rather like the different experiences of people with tetrachromatic, human-standard, and colorblind vision.
To some extent, organisms can have individual experiences based on their perceptions. But when we share the same planet, and mostly the same perceptions, there's a lot of overlap. However, we can learn interesting things by exploring those unique areas, or by using devices that expand our perceptions.
What is real, in this dimension, is what can be determined objectively. For instance, measuring an object with a ruler will give you objective information about size that does not depend on anyone's opinion.
But there are layers of reality. "Solid" matter isn't actually solid. It's a bunch of whizzing little bits of energy holding hands and pretending really hard to be solid. However, for everyday purposes, these configurations of energy behave as if they were solid; we can interact with them on that basis; and so we consider solid matter to be "real" enough for practical purposes even if we know that, on a quantum level, it is not solid. Sometimes, the illusion is more useful in everyday life than the fact.
There are also other layers of reality, such as the numinous realm of spirit, other dimensions of quantum reality, different bandwidths with different laws of physics (e.g. hyperspace and subspace), other universes altogether, and so on.
For me, well, the parallax is pretty wide. I can perceive a lot of things that most humans can't. I am less good at other things most people do easily, like remembering names and faces. (I had to put the linguistic coprocessor somewhere.) I can travel quite fluently across dimensions, and once in a while, I come across evidence that this is not just woo, there are very concrete facts in there. Sometimes, I write things accurately without knowing them -- or even believing based on evidence that I know exactly why they are not so -- then later find references that explain why things are indeed that way. Worldwalking is a very educational experience, whatever one's perceptions may be. But I still share the same planet, and that creates some common ground.
Different people and different organisms perceive reality in vastly different ways. With that in mind, what is real and what is just our perception of reality? Or does every organism live in its own personal reality?
Perception influences experience and ability. For instance, whales live in a world without walls, and sonar can observe through solid objects, so they don't really understand the human concept of "privacy." Similarly a person who can perceive immaterial beings will have a very different life experience than one who cannot, even if they are standing next to each other -- rather like the different experiences of people with tetrachromatic, human-standard, and colorblind vision.
To some extent, organisms can have individual experiences based on their perceptions. But when we share the same planet, and mostly the same perceptions, there's a lot of overlap. However, we can learn interesting things by exploring those unique areas, or by using devices that expand our perceptions.
What is real, in this dimension, is what can be determined objectively. For instance, measuring an object with a ruler will give you objective information about size that does not depend on anyone's opinion.
But there are layers of reality. "Solid" matter isn't actually solid. It's a bunch of whizzing little bits of energy holding hands and pretending really hard to be solid. However, for everyday purposes, these configurations of energy behave as if they were solid; we can interact with them on that basis; and so we consider solid matter to be "real" enough for practical purposes even if we know that, on a quantum level, it is not solid. Sometimes, the illusion is more useful in everyday life than the fact.
There are also other layers of reality, such as the numinous realm of spirit, other dimensions of quantum reality, different bandwidths with different laws of physics (e.g. hyperspace and subspace), other universes altogether, and so on.
For me, well, the parallax is pretty wide. I can perceive a lot of things that most humans can't. I am less good at other things most people do easily, like remembering names and faces. (I had to put the linguistic coprocessor somewhere.) I can travel quite fluently across dimensions, and once in a while, I come across evidence that this is not just woo, there are very concrete facts in there. Sometimes, I write things accurately without knowing them -- or even believing based on evidence that I know exactly why they are not so -- then later find references that explain why things are indeed that way. Worldwalking is a very educational experience, whatever one's perceptions may be. But I still share the same planet, and that creates some common ground.
(no subject)
Date: 2024-08-17 05:29 pm (UTC)In my not so humble opinion, while differing perceptions are a fact of life, philosophizing from them to different realities generally leads to conclusions that aren't consistent with any actual reality, however much they may align with some people's beliefs.
I'll unhelpfully define reality as that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. AFAIK, no one, human or otherwise, perceives reality with 100% accuracy and 100% detailed completeness. Evolved beings have senses that are "good enough" for survival, breeding, etc. Sometimes they (we) have built-in inaccuracies that are either useful in themselves, or simply side-effects not harmful enough to have been evolved away.
As an example of a useful bias - we often err on the side of "this is dangerous" in cases of ambiguous perception. Better to mistake a stick for a poisonous snake, than to mistake a poisonous snake for a stick, and get too close to it.
In some areas, humans have developed tools that enable us to get closer to complete-and-accurate, but I doubt it's possible to reach 100% on both of these - our wetware has too many builtins that add biases; it also can't handle anywhere near enough detail. I find it hard to imagine an evolved species that lacked similar problems.
Meanwhile, we should probably avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Thoughts
Date: 2024-08-17 06:43 pm (UTC)Huh. Differing perceptions don't necessarily lead to God, although altered states of consciousness are used for that purpose in cultures around the world. Conversely, one can start from any point or type of perception and reach God, if that's the goal.
>> In my not so humble opinion, while differing perceptions are a fact of life, philosophizing from them to different realities generally leads to conclusions that aren't consistent with any actual reality, however much they may align with some people's beliefs. <<
I tend to think of the differing realities like a stack of coasters. They can be in or out of the alignment, but there tends to be a good deal of overlap. Of course, there might also be isolated ones or another stack. But mostly, from whatever layer of reality you are in, there will be other layers that are similar except for a few bits sticking out.
>> I'll unhelpfully define reality as that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.<<
I find that a very useful definition. The challenge, of course, comes in distinguishing between belief and perception. If you don't have a way of perceiving something, and nobody else does at the time, then you can't test for differences.
Suppose you have bongfruit that is toxic when green and sweet when ripe, subtly changing fragrance as it ripens. If one person can smell the difference, it's a useful skill, but other people might be dubious whether that is perception or belief. If you have two such people, however, they can be used to fact-check each other to see whether they identify the same bongfruits as green or ripe. Same if you have a person and any other method, such as a pig or snifferbot. If the person dies, however, then there is no way to distinguish whether they had a concrete skill or just a belief.
>> AFAIK, no one, human or otherwise, perceives reality with 100% accuracy and 100% detailed completeness. <<
Some things can be tested for accuracy, like vision; but that is a narrow subset of human experience.
We do know that 100% detail is an undesirable parameter, because of observing variations in level. Too much detail in observation becomes distracting, and too much in memory eats up storage space better used for other purposes. What we need is a moderate level of detail that allows us to recognize things that are important and ignore things that are not important.
I once read a science fiction novel about AI beings achieving sapience. One of them gave another the advice, "Ignore everything under one millimeter." It's such a brilliant thing, so useful, and yet most humans would never think to say it or program it. It's a part of what humans consider "common sense" but when you are starting from scratch, you have to specify all that stuff. If you try to analyze literally every thing in the environment, it's too much and you never get anything done.
This is one of the distinctions of divinity in many cosmologies: the ability to pay complete attention to everything, either everywhere all at once or within a specific area or sphere of influence, and still be able to act on any bit of information in there as if it was the only thing. It's kind of like how a human might hold a conversation while washing dishes, and not lose precision with either, but increased by many orders of magnitude.
>> As an example of a useful bias - we often err on the side of "this is dangerous" in cases of ambiguous perception. Better to mistake a stick for a poisonous snake, than to mistake a poisonous snake for a stick, and get too close to it.<<
Also consider whether that's a first reaction followed by assessment, or the only reaction. If the former, you can afford to be quite suspicious at first, because you can change your response if you reevaluate; if the latter, you need to be closer to accurate, because you don't get a second chance.
>> In some areas, humans have developed tools that enable us to get closer to complete-and-accurate, but I doubt it's possible to reach 100% on both of these - our wetware has too many builtins that add biases; it also can't handle anywhere near enough detail.<<
Biases, especially unhelpful ones, can be overcome. Accuracy can be improved, although possibly not to 100%. But level of detail isn't something to mess with unless it is obviously set wrong to begin with, because deviating too far causes problems quickly. I don't know of a way to make large, safe changes in that.
You can refine your observational skills to notice things that others don't, but there's a cost to that. One of my odder stunts is an ability to take off the filter and greatly increase what I can observe -- but I lose the ability to interpret any of that. It's only useful for pointing out a bazillion things to someone else, who has to do all the analyzing. I wouldn't want to live that way all the time. I have a hard enough time already because I'm sensitive to so many things that most people are not. This has its advantages -- I rarely get bitten by bugs even though they are attracted to me, because I notice them and swat them. So there's not much wiggle room in either direction that I would be happy with on a sustained basis.
>> I find it hard to imagine an evolved species that lacked similar problems. <<
Level of detail actually is malleable, but it depends on what you're trying to do with that information. For example, a sessile lifeform can afford to devote much more attention to observation, because it has so little to do -- it's not running around to find resources and manipulate the environment. It could use that heightened detail to make the most effective choices from a more limited menu of responses, like paying attention to all the insects and herbivores so as to decide when to increase repellent chemical production. That would be an improvement over waiting to be bitten.
>>Meanwhile, we should probably avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.<<
True. It's why I like that practical definition of reality. Whether or not you believe in climate change, it will go on doing what it's doing, and if you don't respond appropriately then it will bite you on the ass.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-08-18 01:34 am (UTC)Playing Bejeweled or similar game I can "adjust" my vision look at particular colors. It's not that the other colors aren't there, it's sort of like they are out of focus.
I resort to this when I can't see a move. Look at the whites, the reds, the oranges, the greens.. Oh! There's the move!
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-08-18 01:44 am (UTC)I can set my attention to scan for a particular color, shape, etc. but not combine it with strategy. Then again, I have very little of my head for strategy in this life, so that might be why.
interesting idea
Date: 2024-08-18 06:55 pm (UTC)I flat out refuse to speculate about the Divine in any form. I've had quite a tour of Christian sects, in a "believe this or else" upbringing, often with zero warning that we were changing denominations. Because I can't untangle my problems with the organization and the leadership, it's best for me to stop speculating and do my best to live as an ethical, kind, responsible person living in a community that begins with me and eventually includes the whole planet. No one can know what's next, and everything I've been encouraged to think of as real is actually just expressions of faith.
The two ideas connect in very specific ways: if the world is "real" to the extent that we experience it, to the point of encoding a movie scene with two adults screaming at each other in exactly the same way as a real experience, then we --as a species-- have an awful lot more to worry about while we're here. The afterlife can wait. Focusing on THAT instead of cleaning up the world that we live in right now is sidestepping any responsibility for our own actions and the ripple effects thereof.
Is my "reality" exactly like anyone else's? No. There are patterns and predictabilities, but that's half the fun of being alive: we meet people who aren't at all like us, from hobbies to language, right down to the way they interpret the colors they see.
And that's FUN.