Our eyes Deceive us of the truth of reality

Sound is defined as "(a) Oscillation in pressure, stress, particle displacement, particle velocity, etc., propagated in a medium with internal forces (e.g., elastic or viscous), or the superposition of such propagated oscillation. (b) Auditory sensation evoked by the oscillation described in (a). So while hearing is a component of sound it is not required as part of the definition of sound.

Noise then becomes a component of sound that is unwanted or judged to be unpleasant, loud or disruptive to hearing. From a physics standpoint, noise is indistinguishable from sound, as both are vibrations through a medium, such as air or water. The difference arises when the brain receives and perceives the vibration. One is pleasant and one is not.

senan wrote: 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.

This is just a failure in critical thinking. The blind man may have never experienced a cliff before but if he has ever walked up or down stairs or on an uneven surface of any kind he would have knowledge of vertical spacial shifts. Given that, when he did fall off a cliff he should conclude (as he falls I suppose :laugh: ) that he has actually walked off a very large vertical spacial shift. If he were to come to the conclusion that he landed on the moon it does not matter that he believes that, he would still be wrong and in fact the truth of the matter is he walked off a cliff making his reality something that is inaccurate.

If there were any others around when he walked off they would all perceive him as having walked off a cliff. They would all agree to that correct assessment no matter what the blind mans incorrect perception was. His failure in logic does not change the truth that he in fact walked off a cliff, making whats real to him something in error that needs correcting. (hopefully before he splats onto the ground below ).

You're missing the main point I'm making, Kyrin. Logical or critical thinking don't apply to an individual's "reality" unless they choose to apply it. Scientific definitions don't matter unless an individual decides that they mesh with their actual experience. A failure in critical thinking does not make something less "real" to the person experiencing it. Critical thinking will tell a child that s/he is perfectly safe in their bedroom, but when the lights go out they may still imagine terrifying monsters under the bed and be afraid of the dark. It isn't logical or scientific, but it is very "real" to them.

Further, the term "accuracy" is dependent on the tools used to measure something, and if the tool is a human brain, the idea of "accuracy" is entirely subjective. Even if the tool is a measuring tape, you are asking people to believe that the tape itself is accurate. They must believe this in order for the tape to be an accurate measuring device.

Ask five people how many jelly beans are in the jar, and they may all come up with a different number. They believe their guess to be accurate based on their prior experience. In "truth", none of them may be mathematically correct based on our agreed understanding of numbers, but that doesn't matter until the beans are counted. That is when the "reality" changes for each individual based on new information. If any one of them chooses not to accept this new information, their "reality" won't change. Again, this is why people will continue to believe lies from people they look up to even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They refuse to update their "reality" based on new information.

If reality was defined by science and logic, religions and faith would not exist, but they do. Climate change deniers would not exist, but they do. Flat Earthers and moon landing deniers would not exist, but they do. The point is, "reality" will always be defined by the person experiencing it, and that means a tree may or may not make a noise when it falls and a blind person might think they fell off of the Earth when they actually only stumbled. those witnessing him may all agree that the "reality" is he walked off a cliff, but that is because they choose to believe in that "reality", and they happen to all agree because it makes the most sense. None of that changes the experience for the blind guy, whether others believe he is in error or not.

yes actually I do get your point, my friend. People don't always think rationally and that's fine. It makes for subjective experience on their part. But my point is that this has nothing to do with actual reality. In fact reality is a set thing and our interpretation of it can be either accurate or inaccurate. Our goal should be to always be as accurate as possible, don't you think? To do otherwise, to believe things not in evidence or to misinterpret evidence and conclude false things takes us from the realm of reality into the realm of fantasy.

You yourself talk about imagination when you speak of the child's scenario. And what do we do with those children that believe in monsters in the dark? We reassure them there are no monsters by providing evidence and we show them there is really nothing to be afraid of! Should we not also do that for the blind man that walks off a cliff? Get him to understand he didn't land on the moon but in fact fell off a cliff. Landing on the moon is a fantasy, falling off a cliff is reality.

Accuracy in this sense is not subjective, In fact if the man fell off a cliff, then he fell off a cliff. Just because the child is in a dark room does not mean there are monsters there no matter how much its imagination tells it there are. In fact when the man believes hes landed on the moon or the child believes there are monsters in the dark they are inaccurate in their assessment, because these things do not conform with the fact of actual reality. They are constructs of imagination that have been formulated without fact or evidence to form fantasy!

As far as the jelly bean jar, that is not a construct of reality either. It is a construct of opinion. Those people do not believe there are actually as many jelly beans in the jar as they predict. They are making a best guess based on actual reality they have experienced. However once the actual number is revealed they should conform that opinion to the reality of the situation or once again the delve into the realm of fantasy.

I would put forth that religions and faiths should not exist. Faith is an unreliable pathway to knowledge and should never be deployed as a mechanism to attain truth. But yes people put belief in faith all the time, don't they. And what does it cause, genocide, murder, wars, racism, superstition and the stagnation of progress. None of these things are reality just as lack of belief in global warming or that we didn't land on the moon are not reality. They are fantasy. But according to you everyone is entitled to their fantasy. So then I guess it will be OK to teach in our schools that we actually didn't land on the moon and that the govt covered this up and that's OK because its someones reality according to you right? I hope you don't believe this.

What this all means is that even though people believe that a tree falls in the forest and does not make a sound that is not reality but fantasy and its not OK to believe that. So what we should all strive for is the consensus that it does make a sound. If we cant achieve that and people insist on holding an irrational position by believing they are justified in holding beliefs that are not reasonable then we stagnate our progress forward as a species. Of course the tree scenario is a goofy one but if we apply that to the moon landing or to evolution or to belief in a god bent on the destruction of infidels then it becomes much more real.

I definitely see your point better now, Kyrin. Accuracy is based on the truth and it will always be accurate. It is our interpretation of the facts that can be inaccurate, or fantasy as you put it. We should always strive for accuracy in our interpretations, and that is what science excels at.

It would seem the point I am trying to make is not that we should encourage fantasy or that people are entitled to their inaccurate opinions or fantasies. It is that people are in fact doing this whether we like it or not. We should be trying to show them the errors and give them the accurate information, but we also have to be prepared to deal with those stubborn enough to ignore this information. It's the people stuck in their fantasies that cause a lot of the world's problems and stop us from progressing, as you mentioned.

It is true that religion and faith are not logical and shouldn't exist, but how do we pry people out of those comfortable fantasies and get them to accept reality? How do we communicate in a way that doesn't seem hostile to them and their need to cling to these beliefs? I think a lot of it has to do with a fear of facing reality, and a lot of that fear is generated by those who wish to control us. When we are afraid, we are more likely to be illogical and believe whatever our "protectors" tell us. We really need to start teaching our children early that they must be critical thinkers.

Thanks for making me think about this more. My idea of "reality" is more informed because of your responses.

Kyrin, let me restate my topic on that Science says "it's impossible statement" I don't think I was clear in that. I have been to the University of Washington several times and spoken with professors who have told me, "If it's not back up with evidence back by science we simply do not have enough information to prove or disprove and therefore it becomes a theory until, it is prove to either be myth or a fact."

However, for example my childhood bestfriend Chris, he is a Agnostic. His belief is that if it's not backed by scientific it doesn't exist. Now, does that necessarily mean it doesn't exist? No. I am I proposing that it's okay to believe in something that has no evidence or rational reasoning behind it? Not necessarily after all I believe in The Force and compared to a lot of religions we're laughed about more than any religion I've belonged to because we're based off a science fiction movie genre from 1977. Is he wrong for believing that once he dies he gets thrown in the ground and that it's it? Nope not at all but, that kind of sucks when you think about it your just thrown in the ground for something to eat you as you decompose...but, if you had a good life then it might not sound too bad I will die one day and my body will serve a new purpose and my Spirit will return to The Force to be One with it again. If you believe in some sort of deity and find out he/she doesn't really exist one day and another did and you go to hell or whatever well okay good for you too sucks if your deity really didn't exist but, my point isn't to prove or disprove anything.

My point is I believe our eyes are clouded because we have lost a part of ourselves the awareness if you will. Life is suffering. However, I believe and know there is a spiritual realm all around us the Veil of The Force. Interacting with us unaware, I believe that is why we have things within us like a Spirit to give us stuff like "Gut feelings" "I got a bad feeling about this" "Dejavu" and even at times "Super powers" We need to get ahold of that awareness that "Third Eye" experience. We can learn this from ancient writings and we can learn it from Ancient Science and modern as well.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Sound is defined as "(a) Oscillation in pressure, stress, particle displacement, particle velocity, etc., propagated in a medium with internal forces (e.g., elastic or viscous), or the superposition of such propagated oscillation. (b) Auditory sensation evoked by the oscillation described in (a). So while hearing is a component of sound it is not required as part of the definition of sound.

Noise then becomes a component of sound that is unwanted or judged to be unpleasant, loud or disruptive to hearing. From a physics standpoint, noise is indistinguishable from sound, as both are vibrations through a medium, such as air or water. The difference arises when the brain receives and perceives the vibration. One is pleasant and one is not.

I know.... definitions tend to be hodgepodge of shared terms across the widest range of uses, but its not a good approach for defining things, for me. I think mine is better. The other, standard/normal, approach invites ambiguity. Such that what you've said is entirely subjective which is not helpful. We already have terms which can define the experience of sound, as pleasant or not, or harmful or not. It's a waste of useful language to define it in subjective terms just to make things seem easier at a superficial level of 'shorter'. Things become clearer when they make more sense. I'm not so much into popularity obviously, I call it Jedi speak

Get rid of faith? Don't you have faith in the Force?

Yes you’re absolutely right Senan. Not everyone will be accurate in their assessments of reality no matter how much you try to convince them. And I think accurate is probably a better term than fantasy. Fantasy could be construed as aggressive but accuracy maybe not so much. But that doesn’t mean we should ever give up trying to educate people. It is a never ending fight but a worthy one I think. Having conversations like these helps I think. If this causes even one person to question their worldview and that guides them to better perceptions of their world I think it’s worth it.

I see civilizations like Arabia that have embraced superstition and put themselves on a self-debilitating path. At one time Arabia was the height of progress and scientific endeavor. But slowly over time they let religion creep in, often times at the point of a sword but more often through sheer domination, and they replaced enlightenment with superstition. They burned entire libraries, enslaved women, took away freedoms and destroyed ancient historical monuments (something still going on today) in the name of Allah. Education is the enemy of religion and they very well know that so it’s the height of importance to educate ourselves and those around us to be critical thinkers and seekers of accurate knowledge in everything we do.



Sven, I agree with you to a certain extent. Science only deals in what they can prove, but they don’t deal in absolutes either way, meaning it never says something is absolutely true or absolutely impossible. Science accepts what it can prove to be true through testing of reproducible hypothesis. These become Theories. What is does for everything else is rejects the positive claims of anything that can’t be backed up by evidence. This is not an assertion it can’t exist, (i.e. proven to be myth) only that it’s not proven to exist and therefore not something to believe in until it could be proven to exist.

And you are right, that when we die if we are just put into the ground to be eaten by other things and that’s all, that sucks. But if that’s true wouldn’t you rather face the reality of that situation than invent some story there is no evidence for just to make yourself feel better? I for one would rather live my life according to actual reality and face the idea that some things in life suck than live according to inaccuracies and pretend those sucky facts are not real. It only sets you up for the greatest of disappointments.


Adder, I'm not sure how to reply to what you wrote. It makes absolutely no sense?? :blink: These are universally agreed upon defined terms. Are you saying you would rather just make up your own definitions? How is that productive?

Jaedon wrote: Get rid of faith? Don't you have faith in the Force?

Faith is unjustified belief and therefore not a reliable path to knowledge so no, I don’t have faith in “The Force”, especially since I’m not sure what you mean by “The Force”?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Adder, I'm not sure how to reply to what you wrote. It makes absolutely no sense?? :blink: These are universally agreed upon defined terms. Are you saying you would rather just make up your own definitions? How is that productive?

They are agreed upon terms within certain industries because they suit those industries but that does not mean they are the most effective definitions in broader contexts. Organizing information efficiently lends greater power in accessing and using information. I prefer not to live life by what others tell me is correct, but rather make my own determinations, based on available sources of data. Short of my own opinion I'd defer to what ever else is most likely. If it were the best definitions then I'd use them, but often the way things work is things are done for convenience rather then useful integration. So sure having ones own language does create the 'opportunity' to be ambiguous of misleading, lol, but that does not have to equate to not being able to communicate with people of other languages - that would be an unnecessary assumption (but a real possibility never the less). The doctrine used to talk about syncretism, and to me that is about not just being adept but excelling beyond.

Adder, the English language (or any language for that matter) is not an industry and all science does is describe the phenomena behind those language definitions. So they are not really open to interpretation. But what I think you are trying to convey is our subjective experience of those definitions and subsequent descriptions. Meaning if you and I are in the forest and hear a tree fall, I might experience that as one of the most beautiful sounds ever while you might experience it as one of the most horrendously noisy crashes ever. Does that sort of describe what your trying to say?