Our eyes Deceive us of the truth of reality

I was listening to Watt's Lecture on Perception and Myth recently and I was thinking alot about it this morning. I am not quoting him and you can correct me if you want. But, he mentioned, "Try to explain to a blind person what a Rainbow...do they know what the colors red, green, blue are? no...because they never seen it so therefore it doesn't exist." Take it a step further, "The three elements a rainbow needs to exists water, light and an on looker, if you take away any of these three elements it doesn't exist."

Now, again I may be misquoting that I wonder to myself how often have I believed only what my senses perceived? Chirrut Imwe from Rogue One was blind and yet he saw I believe through The Force. Now, you could say, "Well, now we don't know if he was Force Sensitive or not but, that is a fictional character and it doesn't matter in this subject." But, it does why wouldn't it? Either he was Force sensitive or he had a higher sense in his other senses however you want to believe it...I believe he was the element of the Jedi in the film to make it more starwars other than just Darth Vader at the end.

Moving on, my thoughts are is what we have always known really all there is? I often seek this answer and I was wondering what everyone elses thoughts are. And it can be on anything or to debate my stand if you would like. I hope what I am trying to say makes sense.

I'm pretty sure I've read before that the information from the sensory systems are received by the subconscious first, and then pruned to some extent before emerging in the conscious awareness.

Such that it might be that process itself, along with autonomous bodily functions, which creates the purpose of defining a conscious and subconscious as distinct phases in the brain and nervous systems function!

So then it means we're born with filters perhaps!! Spirituality might be considered engineering of those filters

The problem I have with thought experiments or philosophies like this is that the examples given are always flawed. The rainbow example given is one such flawed concept. Just because you do not see or understand something does not mean it does not exist. A blind man might have never seen a cliff but he would find out to his great harm that they most assuredly exist if he walked off one. Most people have never seen radiation some might not have even heard of the concept but expose yourself to it and you will see how real it is. Our limited knowledge and sensory limits do not stop reality so no we cant depend on them perfectly BUT that does not mean that such things do not exist.

Further yes there can be more then we perceive to the universe out there. But deny your sense of sight and perception of balance to walk off a cliff edge and the results will not be in your favor. It's like the whole there is no way to prove the chair is there argument. Yea sure maybe but if I toss it at you ya better duck and we most likely know that you will. These thought experiments are great to widen the gaze and mind. But take them as a way to live and its also a great step to earning a Darwin award.

I may be crossing my references, but I feel like Matthew Bortolin spoke of something similar in relation to rainbows in his book "The Dharma of Star Wars".

In that discussion, he approached it from more of the life, death, rebirth cycle of the Force, with a rainbow as an example. The conditions necessary for a rainbow to appear being moisture in the air, light, and an observer. When these three conditions are met, the rainbow lives. When you remove one of these conditions, the rainbow dies. Yet when these conditions are present again, the rainbow is reborn.

As MadHatter suggests, just because we may not accept reality, this does not discount whether it is reality or not. Whether the rainbow question is an exercise of "reality" or not depends wholly on our definition of what constitutes reality. Under the same premise that the lack of an observer, or in the perspective of a blind person never having been the observer of the rainbow, thus the rainbow not really existing, we could equally say that any certain individual anywhere in the world whom I have never met, would thusly also not exist, in reality. Perhaps this is so, in MY reality. But that adds a new condition to what we define reality under. Is it a state of existence that continues with or without us? Is my reality different from your reality? Or a rock's reality? Is one more "real" than another? Or are they all equally real without regard to whether we accept them to be or not?

Where I am more interested in your thoughts as I understand it, Sven One, is the application of our senses upon determining what reality is.

If a tree falls in the forest, but no one hears it, does it make a sound?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
There is a chrysanthemum growing in the courtyard.

Krishnamurti took this area of thought to a more complete level (though I cannot remember if it was in the video available through the IP, or in a book of his speeches I read a few weeks ago "Think on These Things" <<RECOMMENDED). Either way. Krishnamurti discussed how we tend to rely upon our most dominant and appropriate sense to experience various things. With a rainbow, we rely on our vision. A warm blanket on a cold night, our sense of touch or feeling. At a piano recital, our hearing. And so on. Rather than limit our experience and appreciation for the world, for reality, by only utilizing one or two senses at a time, Krishnamurti challenges us to engage ALL of our sense in ALL of our interactions. This, he said, was focus.

Can we feel a rainbow, taste it, hear it, and smell it...or do we only see it? Have you tried to use your other sense? Can you? Does our inability to do so make it less real? Or are we just not noticing what is real and what is not real by lacking focus?

I have thought of this challenge and only come up with one experience where I can attune all my sense to it. I don't always, but when I do take notice, it is obvious and easy to experience by engaging all of my sense (perhaps even the sixth one if you think about it). Rather than spoil it, I would be interested if anyone else can come up with an example of something, anything, where we can experience it with all of our sense simultaneously. It is quite lovely when you do...and if it comes down to it, I'll share the one thing I have found it possible with later (if anyone is interested).

Good post brother. Very enjoyable to consider.

Wonderful all of you and thank you. I believe Sam your referencing Watts with the Rainbow part however, I am uncertain whether or not someone else has made such a reference I know when I heard it for the first time I never thought of it in that dimension before in my life and found it to have truth to it. Though, as has been said by Hatter it's also flawed because of his above explanations and others.

Chirrut Imwe, toward the end of the movie while pushing the switch was shortly after killed and he wasn't able to sense that so you could say a storm trooper threw a chair at him and he didn't duck not knowing it was coming but, it was true the bomb existed and it landed near or on Chirrut and killed him so therefore it existed even though he wasn't able to sense it.

I guess my best thoughts are is senses guys...I think...thoughts?

We will never know any possibility till we try. Often times beliefs ... ours and others keep things from being sought. As human beings we have lost many things over time and over conflict of interests. This is never to say we can not find them again or find similarities in other forms. The human element is fantastic. Jedi ism says seek... syncretism says you CAN try without reserve or attachment. The choice is ours to try or not try , to think or not think. Those simple two directions, off and on ( binary really if u think as that) can create unfathomable possibilities. Fiction or not there is always a place most ideas come from.
Silence is often said to be one of the greatest teachers available to ALL man kind. How we use it ... it's our practice. The outcome, a result of our practice. Hence , we are not alike yet, we are.

Personally my senses are tuned to difrent things , if it helps ...like a guitar , in drop d or open g or even just normal play. It can be played with just three or even I've played with just two strings. In a masters hand the Force or the ability can be difrent than most. You are the master of your own wield. Can You tune your senses , yes. Can u re tune them , yes, can u un tune , duh , can u master them ... as many times as you like! Find examples , real life examples. I met a guy who plays guitar with his feet. I know a blind man who plays the same. The possibilities are endless! Which do you choose to try? That's a good one now! Be well and may the Force we share continue to find you my friend! I still believe in you as we walk this life next To or crossing each other brother! Happy seeking !

I agree with you all. Carlos, I think you might have been the closest to what I was trying to articulate. I often find myself meeting amazing people who seem to have very strong abilitit's you mentioned the guitar for example. I am not coordinated well enough to learn how to play guitar...but, could I? With practice and frustration yes it's possible.

I have been to the Astral Planes before seen what it's like it's amazing. I really do want to reach out to what modern science says is impossible and make possible. I believe we have lost things that were originally possible but, due to modern convenience we've lost a part of ourselves.

It is said , now is always the greatest time to start something ! Be well , take breaks and log things aka journal things , I LOVE reading my old entries , real ones I find and I learn a lot from them! Happy seeking , seek happy "knights" for happy days!
All my heart friend !

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.

Sven
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/kjournals/109381-carlos-meditation-journal?start=100#303794


Check that lil video out n tell me what u see ... I put it there for me to think about .

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.