OK! Now we are going to ask how many angels can dance on the tip of THIS needle. This idea comes to me from Aniko. I think she has a fine mind, a curious and fun mind.
My question - Can we imagine reality?
I guess I must (Thanks Michael A.) define my terms.
Can - ability
We - human beings (Homo Sapiens sapiens)
Imagine - form a mental picture of
Reality - Wuff.
I guess I need help defining the terms. Then I can get on with the rest of the post.
Anybody?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 78
.......and nothing to get hung about........
Now reality is also used as a term to denote the entire essence of an existing thing. I form mental pictures of reality everyday--like a tree, a mountain, a person's demeanor or a rock. Perhaps this is not the "total" reality, but it is good enough that what I have in my head is something of this total reality. My guess is that "totalized" reality of a thing is always unimaginable. Try to imagine a tree flying through space at 1/4th the speed of light. You may get a mental picture by combining things that look like they are moving with a tree--or perhaps you have some mechanical insight (through mathematics, logic, experimentation, etc) into how something would appear in certain circumstances. In short, even such an image would be incomplete--even a moving picture in your head via a dream is incomplete. Perhaps it is possible to imagine reality, but not possible to fully comprehend or explore all facets and moments of "reality" in one or several (or even an infinite) number of images. For an image is indeed an image, like a groove on a record compared to the sound reproduction caused by the needle reading the record. Reality, in this sense, will always transcend the image.
Others might argue that our way of perceiving is the totalization of reality in each moment, that our DNA and organic structure somehow pre-figures our images and thus defines the total reality, regardless of what is external. Some have even said that the present moment is the complete reality. In that stance, any image would be a mere photocopy of a past moment.
That's all I have to add for now. My answer is tenatively, "yes."
Now,if we are put before doors behind which is the cruel reality of the ultimate truth waiting, do we open it or hesitate? If we could read on the door: "Once through this door you will find out the truth about God.” To be or not to be. This is the question! Do we really want to know? It is an accommodating question. What is real and what is made real because we just want it that way...?
Without the Universal on the throne of our consciousness, the particulars are misconstrued. . .
In the beginning, God. . . is the sole foundation of reality.
Let's get real,
-Mark
Within our awareness, there are two sorts of "things"; What we sense, and what is generated by the mind, through its memory systems. That's the entirety of what we are aware of. Reality is what is not generated by our memory systems, which is to say, what we sense. That's what the word means.
The fact that we can be confused about which is which, changes nothing. If you didn't imagine it, it is real.
"The reality that Mark and John do not have the capacity to imagine beyond what they think they know is not just my imagination."
Well, what is it then? Are you claiming you can see over vast distances and times and read the hearts and minds of REAL people?
I have not defamed imagination, it is an amazing, indeed miraculous thing. But to believe it is a little window on some ultimate reality, is foolish. We know it's not, really ; )
" . . . but a closed mind, one lacking imagination, is prone to rejecting things it could never imagine."
Correct, a "closed mind" would be prone to accept only what it generates . . . that's why we might say it is "closed". The rest of what you say just does not follow from that. An open-mind, would be one that can accept what it sees, but did not generate itself. It's got nothing to do with what it "can't imagine", but what one can't accept.
I believe you begin to see a "problem" which arises due to "loose" semantics. There is no relationship whatsoever, I say, between the ability of one to imagine things, and open-mindedness. A person that is very close-minded, might very well be going by imagination more than another, that is open-minded. In fact, I would say that almost has to be true, since the mind is pretty much always "looking" at something, and if a person ain't able to accept reality, they must be staring at imaginary stuff instead . .
I think what may have happened in a subtle sort of way, is that we hear about how vastly important imagination is, from artists . . . of course. Those whose self identity revolves around something, are very likely to exaggerate it's importance in a general sense. Those best at inspiring folks about imagination, naturally tend to romantisize it (and so themselves indirectly). I don't believe that being an artist actually renders one an expert on imagination, but just the imagined . . . so to speak.That's what they've been dealing with, not the reality of what and how imagination functions or plays out in consciousness.
I think that would be a safe assumption ; )
I believe reality exists independently of our ability to understand it. Whatever is, is--yes, of course the tree fell whether anyone heard it or not. If you walk there now, look out, or you might stumble over it. The fact that our understanding of reality is limited or that different people form different ideas and recall different things doesn't mean that reality itself is multiple. Nor does it mean that all ideas have the same relationship to reality and therefore the same level of validity. The germ theory of disease seems to work a lot better than the evil eye theory, for example, and if there's a ticking bomb in Emme's room, the person who recognizes it as such is better off than the person who thinks it's a toy. Reality has real consequences outside our minds.
Are there things we should be close-minded about?
-Mark
" I believe reality exists independently of our ability to understand it."
Are you religious about this assumption or are you willing to imagine other possibilites?
-Mark
Could be. . .
How are we to navigate this reality then without reference to some Fixed Point. . .some Polestar?
-Mark
Only what one sees?
What if you have failed to see it? What if your imagination wasn't quite expansive enough or wasn't the right 'tool' (to put John's term to work) for the task at hand?
Em says: "If my net can't catch it, it ain't fish. . . "
Pretty close-minded, I'd say. . .
-Mark
"Only what one sees?"
Percieves, is aware of, impacts the senses, whatever.
"What if you have failed to see it?"
? . . ? Well, then it ain't an "it" to me . . . is it?
"What if your imagination wasn't quite expansive enough or wasn't the right 'tool' (to put John's term to work) for the task at hand?"
? . . ? . . ? This does not compute ; ) My imagination does not "grasp" things, it generates images . .
Don't you mean; "takes in nothing" ?
I'm pretty sure closed minds generate all sorts of things ; )
Please think carefully about this;
" . . and therefore, we've witnessed what his mind generates."
Is it not true that what we might have witnessed, is what our minds generated? You're not actually thinking you see into Mark's mind, are you? You're not thinking that whatever your imagination generates upon seeing his words IS the same as what he experienced?
And, in a similar way, do you realize that the fact that you imagine the Book has no solid basis in original artifacts, does not mean that is really true? Such artifacts do exist, and it is from them that any decent version is derived, not some copy of a copy of a copy sort of thing. Now, you may not believe that, but you do understand that it could still be true, in the real universe, yes?
I agree with much of what you said . . . and I believe that if one is careful to keep the perceived, and the "imagined", distinct to the extent possible, practically speaking, one has a greater chance of discerning what is reality. I think we, as a people, have been indoctrinated to do something far different, unfortunately. It can be "seen", I feel, in the failure of those speaking of what they "imagine", as what they imagine, but rather speaking of it as if facts in the external reality. Essentially mixing the perceived and the imagined arbitrarily, for . . . personal reasons.
Over time, that which is then declared true, becomes more and more difficult to "dis-member", and becomes a form of "contaminated" evidence, to the reasoning mind itself. Thus, the very "equipment" we are provided for figuring out what is really going on, becomes it's own undoing. The total intelligence we are a portion of, has no way to operate free of distortion introduced by the mixing of the perceived and the "conjured". After many years, there's very little "original" input left, to work with. And eventually, intelligence becomes almost pointless, if this habit of mixing is not overcome.
Of course each must "interpret: what the Book says, as with any other input. The difference, from my point of view, is that the words are still sitting on the page . . . and I can reaproach them, many times. I believe that is the prime reason God provided them to us in that form; to bypass the very pitfalls we have been discussing with regard to our less than reliable processing of input.
No writing is beyond being confused or misunderstood, of course, and that is just part of the general "deal" for us. Something "solid" is better than nothing . . . So, there is no rational reason I can see, why God would not "send" such a "message" to us, through time and space, in a manner we could relate to, in a manner we would be accustomed to.
Do you believe God?
-Mark
This woman didn't but believed that she had the power to perceive and discern reality all by herself. . .
-Mark
-Mark
-Mark
"This woman didn't but believed that she had the power to perceive and discern reality all by herself. . ."
But, what makes you think she didn't "have the power to perceive" reality? Did not God give her eyes, that could clearly see the real things He made, through the light He created? Of course He did, and she could see the real (really ; ) but, what exactly did God call the tree she consumed the product of? Certainly not apple, or persimmon . . . but rather "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".
In the Hebrew, that word we render 'tree', does not just refer to the kind with leaves and roots in the ground, but anything that branches or supports . . It must be some aspect of the mind, I say, for it to be a tree of "knowledge" . . .
Good and evil there, simply means what will do one good or harm . . So, it is something having to do with eventualities. Something one would need to "imagine", but could not directly observe. Simply put, I think it is fairly clear, that God was speaking of believing what one merely imagined to be true. Consuming as if real input, that which is actually ones own output. The product of the mind attempting to determine what is reality, accepted as if reality. Mixing the perceived, and the "figured".
Once begun, that habit will destroy intelligence itself, naturally, I think God is warning us. The equipment just won't work that way.
She did John, but not without the help of God's Word. We must first attend to what God has revealed and then proceed with our logic and perceptions. God told her in no uncertain terms that if she ate of that tree she would surely die. . .
Now Satan had another hypothesis - you know the details - "You will not surely die - God is simply afraid to let you eat because when you do you will be a god like him. . . "
In essence, he was saying to her - "God is lying to you." or "You have the right to experiment with your five senses and decide this matter for yourself - after all your mind is autonomous and needs nothing from this God."
This is still Satan's MO today and the fact that we see it going on all around us - decisions with no reference to God or what He has revealed brings home the literal truth of the passage. . .
-Mark
You write:
This means that I won't close my eyes or mind to a possibility that COULD be true... I never rule anything out. . .
Is there a possibility in your mind that God has lied? If so, as the Eagles once crooned, "you're already gone" . . .
If our lives are set by God's will, then by logic, Man is not in control of what he does.
Perhaps, but man is still responsible for his actions and culpable before a just and holy God. . . If a man shows up to his job drunk and due to a lack of control on his part causes a loss of life and/or property - is he still responsible for his condition and negligence. Did God cause him to quoff a fifth of Jim Beam before he clocked in?
You need to jettison logic at times when you're talking about the sovereign God. He is above it and not held to its constraints. He is sovereign and man is responsible - this is the clear revelation of scripture. . .
-Mark
""You have the right to experiment with your five senses . . . ""
No Mark, Satan said no such thing, you imagined that. As you rightly mentioned, we ought to start with Gods's word, and reason from there. This is what Satan said to the woman;
"Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil"
It's all stuff she CANNOT detect with her senses. It's all stuff she can only see in her mind's eye. He clearly invites her to imagine, and believe what she can see in her imagination, as if reality itself. And she did.
I like your style brother - I've always liked your style. . .
-Mark
I am humbled by your action. It's one thing to speak of being open-minded, and quite another to be.
"I truly DON'T know if what I believe is correct, but I am ready to accept the truth if I'm ever meant to know it. This means that I won't close my eyes or mind to a possibility that COULD be true . . "
I believe that is wisdom, and commend you. (And it ain't just me ; )
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it,
it is folly and shame unto him
What I don't see in this narrative is an open-minded god. I see man yielding to his destructive (and rather superstitious and ritualistic) lower nature and calling it "god."
"All this talk about being open-minded with respect to the existence of a supreme deity--what about the open-minded Abel? . . . "
Your question is without meaning, to me. What about them?
"What I don't see in this narrative is an open-minded god. I see man yielding to his destructive (and rather superstitious and ritualistic) lower nature and calling it "god." "
That would be what you see in your imagination, wouldn't it? The narrative certainly does not speak so.
You are ever so clever in how you dump your grand conclusions on folks (including yourself), without any way to actually engage in any meaningful discussion, it seems to me. Are you proposing it would make sense for God to only do or speak things that are easily grasped by a human mind? Don't you kinda expect such a Being would be a bit beyond that? Don't you think that would be kinda limiting?
He ain't raising vegetables, Mike. Are you ever so familiar with the process of generating independent intelligent beings, that you feel qualified to casually criticize His work? You could do it much better, you feel, one gathers. You'll have to forgive me, if I'm a bit skeptical ; )
If one STARTS with fully developed independent intelligent beings, no doubt the process is far easier. (You're rather funny to me ; )
Are you religious about this assumption or are you willing to imagine other possibilites?
There is only one other possibility, that reality doesn't exist independently of our ability to understand it, and I am not only willing to imagine that, but have done so before in discussions with John and others. I imagine things fairly easily, but then I have to state the consequences that become apparent when I do. If there is no objective reality, all of this discussion is not only pointless but meaningless, including your question, Mark. Any question or statement presupposes a belief in an objective reality, even if the speaker denies this. "There is no objective reality" describes an situation that the maker of that statement believes to exist objectively.
So, can we be certain objective reality exists? No, but the assumption that it does is necessary for us to say anything else about anything, and therefore--not surprisingly--it's an assumption we make instinctively.
The next part of my intended direction with this post is to explore our ideas about what happens in our brains.
S 1 The universe exists outside of human ability to perceive it.
S 2 Human perception is a product of chemical reactions in the brain
C 1 Our ability to perceive is proof of existence
On the physicalistic models, dependencies and such:
Human perception may be mediated by chemical reactions in the brain; I also believe that our choices, immediate views, and actions affect those same chemicals. This should give an answer concerning the "proof" of existence--unfortunately, for us, the notion of "proving" presupposes what we are trying to prove. So much for the proof, which is a jackhammer for a tack--we may only need a tack-hammer for that job.
Lets do a bit of reductio: assume the universe does not exist aside from the human ability to perceive it. Then all of the changes--i.e. natural history of the world--depend on human perception--if a human being does not see it, then any version of history or time locked into matter (i.e. a stellar object, fossil, or archeological find) is a direct contradiction with respect to its being. Without reality independent of particular observers, we have no way to determine the reality of a thing that we observe. It doesn't just become meaningless--it is a veritable impossibility. Reality, observed or not, implies some field of change and time. Even God himself cannot "perceive" the universe aside from a differentiae of what he sees, and doesn't see. Therefore an omnipresent, omniscient deity cannot have any experience. Consciousness, in this sense, is dependent on a figure and ground of perception. What we don't see affects how we see other things...if all of existence was visible to our immediate temporal perception, we would apprehend nothing.
An omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being doesn't do anything. To "do" something requires a choice in a field of possibilities. But our universe (as well as other universes) unfold all possibilities simultaneously (in the sense of parallel worlds). So each universe for each omni-god making finite choices at each moment.
And yes, I do require that God be intelligible to human beings. We, after all, have found a universe very much intelligible and even subject to our actions. Placing God beyond human intelligibility is just a tactic to hold on to the "god of the gaps" -- human science realizes its failing and through trial/error experimentation, and revision, we come to a better understanding. If God is permanently beyond human beings in comprehension, then he is most certainly irrelevant to the world as we continue to uncover mysteries now that are beyond the imaginings of previous ancients, gods.
As far as God speaks intelligible things to man and man responds in action to imprint the reality of their "devotion" in the world (in the form of deforestation, overpopulation, war and destruction of sustainable ecological domains), so too we see the results. So what remains intelligible and comprehensible of God's domain of actions and human responses is terror and torture of sentient beings. God's law (in a mostly comprehensible yet contradictory book) terrorizes man into making the either/or decision. Every moment in a man's guilty life is dependent on paying off the mortgage of original sin.
To recap: what is intelligible for us is nonsensical slaughtering and wonton destruction of innocents--the rest (i.e. the "unintelligible," "mysterious" part) might not be much better. But human beings do not make decisions (i.e. like throwing their deity into the trash along with the rest) based on the "unintelligible" and "incomprehensible" god. No one would trust a burglar who destroyed your house, locked you inside with a bunch of thugs, and then said "well, if you sit tight and let yourselves die in this house, I'll come later like a thief in the night and rescue you from this predicament--don't worry if you run out of food, or a few of you kill the other, just remember that I was the one who did this and will later remove the problem." Would any responsible, respectable, and good human being put their trust in such a being?
So I don't think it's too much to ask for God to be intelligible--as of now God is behaving like a psychopathic murderer (kind of like the one in the movie "SAW")
"An omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being doesn't do anything"
Well, that pretty much wraps up any inquiry into what such Being might be doing, don't it? And the basis for this grand declaration . . . ?
To "do" something requires a choice in a field of possibilities. But our universe (as well as other universes) unfold all possibilities simultaneously (in the sense of parallel worlds)."
Oh, you know that, eh? Just know it?
I tell you the truth, in THIS universe, there is a distinct possibility that you are suffering from "delusions of grandeur" in a big way.
Let me back up a bit and be clear:
I am trying to imagine what it is like for a being with the following attributes...
Omnipresence: Everywhere at once (and all the time)
Omniscience: Knows everything as it happens (and does not happen)
Omnipotence: Has power over all things
... to "do something?" For us, to "do something" means to engage with reality. God supposedly created all of reality--and by definition continues to engage in reality. But this is a problem isn't it? Take man out of the universe--or just take all sentient beings out of the universe (except presumably, God). What does it mean for God to do something for Himself ? Did God create man out of necessity? God is everywhere and knows all, so what does it mean for God to make a choice? If you continue to apply human traits to God (i.e. like "thinking," "acting," "making choices" etc,) then I have every right to apply the derivatives of these notions to the same. Otherwise, you'll have to give up using these terms--because they no longer have meaning.
Keep the following omni-traits above in mind, and ask yourself these questions--compare them with our usual human notions:
(1) What does it mean for God to think?
(2) What does it mean for God to be aware of something?
(3) What does it mean for God to decide something?
(4) What does it mean for God to act ?
Omniscience should mean that God doesn't have to think.
Omnipotence should mean that God never needs to make a decision.
Omnipotence should trivialize God as a acting being--everything in the universe as it happens is an "act of God."
That's basically my point in a nutshell--I am sure others can add more examples.
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.
Isaiah 55:8
(2) What does it mean for God to be aware of something?
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 6:5
(3) What does it mean for God to decide something?
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Genesis 1:26
(4) What does it mean for God to act ?
I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.
Isaiah 46:13
The Living God is personal. . .
He thinks, feels, and acts just as we, who were created in His image, do. . .
It is we who are derivative of Him just as the toy water pistol is of the Fountain of Living Water. . .
-Mark
Let's dissect this analogy--toy water pistol and the fountain. Both spew water--I got that part. The first part is that water pistol which apparently means "finite" fountain, whereas everyone knows that the dumb kid is going to run out of water and need to refill their pistol from the (infinite) fountain--alright--I got your metaphor. So that must mean that the handle for the great fountain is something else. Perhaps God is this fountain, and the pistol is us--we all are just a bunch of water spewers.
Now what you are saying, in effect, is that we are just a finite version of God? Is that correct? So far as we are finite, we are different from God--if we had God's omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, we'd be God.
But wasn't God aware of the potential evil his creation as in Genesis 6:5 when he pronounced his creation "good?" Or did God, in his infinite wisdom, knowledge, presence and power, discover this "evil" later? For example: "Discover" in the sense that you discover your face is covered in shaving cream in the morning--someone played a prank, etc. Can you give an answer to this question without making God the author of evil? God is at least patient with "evil"--he decided that this was the price to pay for an "eventually good" creation. Or perhaps he didn't care--either way there must be a satisfactory answer to this question.
(1) God didn't know (then God is not omniscient)
(2) God knew but allowed Genesis 6:5 to occur anyway for the better good.
Let's not forget the children who died in Noah's flood--innocent children (oh, geeze, I forgot about that whole "original sin" thing--nevermind).
I am not just shooting at the fountain of life--I am saying that the fountain (as told in the Bible) is a non-existent entity. I don't doubt the existence of some absolute order in nature--but nature is anything but "personal."
With all due respect, who cares what you say?
The only thing that matters is what He says about Himself. Who else is qualified to pass muster on Him, who else could know. Will the flashlight deny the sun of which it is derivative? Will you saw off the branch you stand upon? You fire your toy cannon all the while denying the very ground that supports your artillery!
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
Exodus 20:2
Sounds pretty personal to me. . .
-Mark
If I had a wooden ________, would I be Howdy Doody?
He is the Creator and we are creatures. . .
Our thoughts, feelings, and creative urges are analogous to His but we are not the same 'stuff'. . . This is what the Greeks thought and they were wrong. . .
-Mark
To even posit this question suggests you have rebelled against the revelation of God's omniscience. . .
Wasn't the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world?
Revelation 13:8
Doesn't it occur to you that nothing has ever occurred to God?
God uses evil, God even 'creates' evil, but Satan and his minions are always the agents of evil and, thus, responsible for it. . .
Consider the Book of Job. Satan comes and requests permission from God to persecute Job. Even so, Job, in his discourse with his wife, confesses the Source of both weal and woe. . .
But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
Job 2:10
-Mark
Thanks--I think you've adequately answered my question :)
Keep the following omni-traits above in mind, and ask yourself these questions--compare them with our usual human notions:
(1) What does it mean for God to think?
(2) What does it mean for God to be aware of something?
(3) What does it mean for God to decide something?
(4) What does it mean for God to act ?
These are excellent points, Michael. The omni-traits are self-contradictory. It is of course possible to argue that they only appear so to us, and God (supposing he exists) is not bound by the same constraints. But that would mean admitting that we can't understand God at all, and anyone who claims they know anything about what God wants/thinks (for want of less humanly limited vocabulary) is just blowing a whole lot of hot air. And of course, the Bible, which presents God with very human-like intentions, preoccupations, and even emotions, could not be anything but a collection of myths made up by those whose psychology is reflected in them.