The Boundaries of Experience

[_stemelbow]

If those who profess belief are able to demonstrate the need for the spiritual, or rather, the reality of a spiritual sense that demonstrates reality, we'd be set.

love ya tons,
stem

[_sock puppet]

Simon,

When you are in a room and want to sit somewhere in that room, do you look for a chair? Do attempt to sit where you do not see a chair? If not, why not?

I might, but what am I really looking for? A set of geometrically connected shapes that resemble "chair-ness," a collection covalently bonded atoms? If I do not see a chair, does that really mean a chair does not exist there?

When you see a chair, sock puppet, does language play a part in your interpretation of that object? Do you think in your mind "that there is a chair!"

I don't have conscious thought about it or think in verbiage about it, but my subconsciousness processes the visual data from the my eyes, assesses whether there is a place above the floor that looks adequate to hold my weight and with that data I sit down on the chair.

I'm not looking for what isn't there--unless I am watching an illusionist (magician) do his tricks. Is that what your god is, an illusionist (magician) doing tricks?

[_OSWIT]

I'd like to sit down...

Science says "here's a chair, go ahead and sit on it".

Faith says "it may look like there's no chair, and you can't sit on it, but you can feel good believing it's there".

I tried hard to make the faith way work, but eventually found I liked sitting on an actual chair more.

[_brade]

I'd like to sit down...

Science says "here's a chair, go ahead and sit on it".

Faith says "it may look like there's no chair, and you can't sit on it, but you can feel good believing it's there".

I tried hard to make the faith way work, but eventually found I liked sitting on an actual chair more.

I think faith says something more along the lines of "Don't sit at all, and if you manage to not sit for the duration of your life, then after this life you'll be rewarded with the most comfortable chair possible. Then you can sit.".

[_Simon Belmont]

I don't have conscious thought about it or think in verbiage about it, but my subconsciousness processes the visual data from the my eyes, assesses whether there is a place above the floor that looks adequate to hold my weight and with that data I sit down on the chair.

That is exactly correct. We do not have a conscious thought about it because of its familiarity. Perhaps the chair is in a room with other furniture, perhaps we have witnessed others use it as we were growing up, or perhaps our parents simply taught us about the object and its function.

But what if you've never seen a Lovesac before, and you entered a living or family room with a television, some end tables, and no chairs. There are, however, roundish objects which resemble giant pillows. Would you know their function without observation or instruction? Blahnik states that this produces a cognitive dissonance.

Seeing the object [bean-bag chair] has caused a certain cognitive dissonance i.e. a disruption of our experience of the objects constituting our world as already understood or accounted for.

[_sock puppet]

I don't have conscious thought about it or think in verbiage about it, but my subconsciousness processes the visual data from the my eyes, assesses whether there is a place above the floor that looks adequate to hold my weight and with that data I sit down on the chair.

That is exactly correct. We do not have a conscious thought about it because of its familiarity. Perhaps the chair is in a room with other furniture, perhaps we have witnessed others use it as we were growing up, or perhaps our parents simply taught us about the object and its function.

But what if you've never seen a Lovesac before, and you entered a living or family room with a television, some end tables, and no chairs. There are, however, roundish objects which resemble giant pillows. Would you know their function without observation or instruction? Blahnik states that this produces a cognitive dissonance.

Seeing the object [bean-bag chair] has caused a certain cognitive dissonance i.e. a disruption of our experience of the objects constituting our world as already understood or accounted for.

But I'm still not trying to imagine a chair that isn't there, now am I?

[_Darth J]

Simon:

Is the existence of a vast pre-Columbian civilization of Hebrew Christians objective or subjective?

[_Tchild]

Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.

Intro to A Course in Miracles

Careful there Lucretia, those are words that show religion as the misty fog of illusion that it is.

[_msnobody]

You posted, "If reality is the summation of our experiences and perceptions,..." I would suggest that reality stands alone from the summation of our experiences and certainly would stand alone from the summation of our perceptions. I think we perceive and draw conclusions from our experiences, with those conclusions sometimes consistent with reality and sometimes those conclusions are inconsistent with reality.

One definition from merriamwebster.com for the word reality is,": something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily."

I believe the same can be said for truth. Something is either true, untrue, or a partial truth. If a partial truth, then I do not think one should consider partial truth as truth itself.

[_karl61]

If I remember right color is just a thing created in the mind/brain. In reality if you were to see things as they are you would not recognize it - it's all black and white and crazy.