Our eyes Deceive us of the truth of reality

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Sven One wrote: I really do want to reach out to what modern science says is impossible...

Seriously? Science has NEVER said anything is impossible.

Agreed. Anything we think is impossible or that is currently not in the realm of scientifically achievable just means we aren't there yet or have lost that technology.

"Magic is just science that we don't understand" -- Somewhere in the Thor movie. ;P

Sounds like Biocentrism.

I read a book on this topic and it's technically true. The old Zen koan for example: "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?"

Sound is defined as many things combined with the vibration of the eardrum. So, if no one's around with an eardrum, technically, the tree does NOT make a sound.

Streen wrote: Sounds like Biocentrism.

I read a book on this topic and it's technically true. The old Zen koan for example: "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?"

Sound is defined as many things combined with the vibration of the eardrum. So, if no one's around with an eardrum, technically, the tree does NOT make a sound.

Of course it still makes a sound. The tree falls and transmits vibrations through the air even if nothing is there to receive the vibration. What your trying to say is equivalent to saying the tree does not exist if no one is there to see it, but photon particles coming from a tree and hitting an eye have no effect on whether the tree exists or not either.

I offer this in with yours ... not in conflict. No contest

If you don't hear it ... it still makes sound . If I don't see it , it still happens.

If I don't hear it and it is my choice to not call it a sound then that is ANOTHER view.

Deer small and large woodland creature , the river the other trees hear a sound .. and will react.
That is just another way to see things in a different light way idea ... choose your label.
Absolute can play a very small part in nature and it often does. Science , true science , can have CAN ... be very absolute. Nothing wrong with that! Not my cup of tea, but hey some folk don't like tea either , hot or cold. Doesn't make tea ... not a drink or even not real just not real for some.

There's sometimes bigger pictures. Science , true science, likes explanations for everything and if that's your cup then explain away. Not every ones alike and that's ok too!
May the Force be with y'all as all seek it!!


Edit : truly at times our eyes influence our thoughts. Nothing wrong with that at all. Just another light to shine just another way to think another path way to share another idea one of many.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Streen wrote: Sounds like Biocentrism.

I read a book on this topic and it's technically true. The old Zen koan for example: "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?"

Sound is defined as many things combined with the vibration of the eardrum. So, if no one's around with an eardrum, technically, the tree does NOT make a sound.

Of course it still makes a sound. The tree falls and transmits vibrations through the air even if nothing is there to receive the vibration. What your trying to say is equivalent to saying the tree does not exist if no one is there to see it, but photon particles coming from a tree and hitting an eye have no effect on whether the tree exists or not either.

Here...to me...as I tried to explain a tad earlier...is how these events are enhanced with each and every sensory reception we experience them through. In our intimate reality, if we do not hear it fall, it does not make a sound. But even when we hear the sound of a tree falling in the woods, our understanding is limited to our hearing only. Whereas if we see the tree fall and hear the sound (consider what you might perceive between darkness and light of day), then our understanding of the impact is increased. If the tree falls close to us, and we see it fall, then maybe we also have the opportunity to see it, hear it, and feel it...which takes our experience to a different level (and from my experience in such a situation, a somewhat nerve heightening one). Yet we still lack the ability to "taste" or "smell" the falling of a tree...perhaps unless we are so close to the falling tree that some of the dust and debris from its fall gets into our mouths/sinus...while this is not exactly "tasting & smelling"...it is rather close.

I've heard trees fall in the woods.
I've seen trees and heard them fall in the woods.
I've watched, heard, and felt trees as they fall in the woods.
I cannot say I've tasted or smelled them though.

But with each added sensory experience, my understanding of the falling tree in relation to reality is increased 10 fold.

I wonder what it would be like to experience all five or six senses as a tree falls.

Still...as I offered previously also...the argument that because I do not hear it means it does not make a sound would support the notion that if I never met, heard, saw, touched, or otherwise knew of another person...then they equally would not exist. This line of thought, in a religious context, leads to the notions of faith and belief...where we can understand the truth of things even without intimate experience or knowledge of those things actually existing or occuring.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: If I don't hear it and it is my choice to not call it a sound then that is ANOTHER view.
.

Well, no its really not. Sound is a set phenomena that is defined by very specific parameters. Now if a tree fell in outer space you could make the claim that it made no sound but to do the same thing for a tree that falls in the forest is just an attempt to redefine those otherwise agreed upon parameters which don't necessarily include the reception of that sound. If a person blows a dog whistle you cant hear it right? But does it make a sound? Of course it does and to deny this is unproductive and only leads you away from objectivity. Once this is done, its a short path from truth to falsehood. That only serves to stagnate progress for us as a species as it relegates us to superstition.

Sam Thrift wrote: Still...as I offered previously also...the argument that because I do not hear it means it does not make a sound would support the notion that if I never met, heard, saw, touched, or otherwise knew of another person...then they equally would not exist. This line of thought, in a religious context, leads to the notions of faith and belief...where we can understand the truth of things even without intimate experience or knowledge of those things actually existing or occuring.

I would argue that its unreasonable to use faith or unjustified belief as foundations for knowledge. You actually have knowledge of other people existing not because of faith but because of evidence and direct experience. You have known of other people and have encountered others that you did not know existed until you met them and other people have told you they exist. So its reasonable to come to the conclusion that others exist even if you have no direct experience of them. This is because there is ample anecdotal evidence for this and so you accept their existence with out to much dispute. If I tell you I have a sister, you accept that because its a reasonable claim. However if I told you that I know Superman, you would not accept that because that is an extraordinary claim that will require much more proof than just my say so.

An important factor missing from this conversation is a definition of "reality". Science has an idea of what constitutes reality. Many of us have an agreed upon set of things that we all consider "real". This, however, does not address that as sentient beings we still each create our own "reality" based on our own personal experiences. Our eyes are not deceiving us. We deceive ourselves by inventing "truth" that matches our own experiences. A blind person might die walking off a cliff, but that doesn't mean a "cliff" exists to him. His experience of the event might tell him the entire Earth beneath him disappeared and he landed on the moon. Truth? No. Reality? Possibly. It was "real" to him.

Another more practical example. If I am a Native Inuit living in Alaska, I might have a hundred words for snow that each represents something very real, but to a person living in North Africa in the Sahara Desert, this "snow" might as well be a myth. Sure, he could take the word of others who tell him snow exists, but it is still up to him whether or not he incorporates this information into his reality. You can throw all the scientific evidence you want at someone, but if for some reason they are unable to accept it, it isn't "real" in their experience or in their mind.

There are a whole bunch of people who believe the Earth is flat despite all of the scientific evidence. They refuse to accept the reality of science and the reality that the majority of Earth dwellers agree on. Their "reality" is different from mine. Despite sound waves moving through the air following the collapse of a tree, if I'm that guy in the Sahara Desert, I've never even experienced a tree, let alone the sound of one falling. I might think it is God yelling at me. And that would be my reality, no matter how crazy that is to others.

This is how people in power can project their "reality" on people who blindly follow despite plenty of evidence that this reality is false. Religious prophets have seen burning bushes and spoken to God and angels. Was that real? It was to them. Or these are stories meant to manipulate people into following a certain religion. Does that make the stories less real to those that follow these religions? It all depends on each person and the reality they choose to accept.

If you want more evidence that we all create our own reality, just watch the news in the U.S. At any given moment there are at least two very "real" and distinct group "realities" happening that are directly opposed to one another, so how can they both exist at once and be "real"? And then there's Trump who just makes up "reality" to suit his needs.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Sam Thrift wrote: Still...as I offered previously also...the argument that because I do not hear it means it does not make a sound would support the notion that if I never met, heard, saw, touched, or otherwise knew of another person...then they equally would not exist. This line of thought, in a religious context, leads to the notions of faith and belief...where we can understand the truth of things even without intimate experience or knowledge of those things actually existing or occuring.

I would argue that its unreasonable to use faith or unjustified belief as foundations for knowledge. You actually have knowledge of other people existing not because of faith but because of evidence and direct experience. You have known of other people and have encountered others that you did not know existed until you met them and other people have told you they exist. So its reasonable to come to the conclusion that others exist even if you have no direct experience of them. This is because there is ample anecdotal evidence for this and so you accept their existence with out to much dispute. If I tell you I have a sister, you accept that because its a reasonable claim. However if I told you that I know Superman, you would not accept that because that is an extraordinary claim that will require much more proof than just my say so.

I feel like we are arguing the same point then...and not arguing against each other at all. I simply pointed out that this is where the line of thought leads...towards the introduction of the "faith" concept...

...but, as under your example on reasonable conclusions from information we receive from others about the existence of further peoples, we should also be reasonably aware of the likelihood of a tree falling in the woods. So whether we are there to hear the sound of it falling or not does not detract from the fact that when they do fall, as they are prone to, they also make sounds...since we are not in outer space (would a tree fall in outer space?). Yet the question of what this means to our intimate reality remains...but Senan seems to have touched on that quite thoroughly in the ensuing post.

Thank you Carlos, I enjoyed seeing that little video. I just recently listened to an audio of the Taoism it was enjoyable. I would like to start studying more about this Chi Power. Perhaps this will be a good starting place.

I think sound implies reception ie measurement, being the association of meaning onto a phenomena.... and therefore the use of the word noise (being the same effect without the association of meaning to its form) could be more apt. So maybe; does a tree make a sound if nothing hears it - no, does a tree make a noise if nothing hears it - bloody likely, but what is the point of asking! I'd say the point is explore concepts of emptiness which are so replete in various Buddhist doctrines. Just to view it from a perspective of the evolution of raw data into useful information.