Most people have the idea that the world, the universe, is an objective reality. It exists independently of us, independently of perceivers. For example, a tree is a tree. Regardless of whether I perceive the tree or an ant perceives the tree, the tree is the same thing. It has its own objective reality which is perceived in different ways by different beings. My experience of the tree is subjective, as is the ant’s, but the tree has a true essence that exists objectively.
I don’t believe there is such a thing as an objective reality. Reality is subjective. Of course, among humans, our perceptual experiences are similar enough in most cases that we can agree on most things and label trees as trees, for example. They have roots, trunks, branches, leaves. They’re trees. But to an ant, a tree is a vastly different thing. It can be an ant’s entire world, something enormous, something that provides endless work and sustenance and shelter. But of course we know what the tree is in reality because ants are stupid, right?
What if a much more advanced race of beings understands more about trees than we do, so we are similarly “stupid” compared to them as ants are to us? This race knows that trees are actually a particular kind of energy source with a particular vibration that they can perceive and we can’t, and they are able to communicate on a vibratory level, telepathically, with the trees? They would think that we’re stupid and don’t know what a tree really is.
So what is a tree, really? Is it an entire world, an unconscious living thing, an intelligent, vibrating being, or something completely beyond our comprehension? It’s all of those things, depending on the perceiver. No one of those realities is any more valid than the other. To us, of course, our perception of the tree is the most valid. But not to the ants, and not to the advanced race.
The point is that the tree is all of those things, and all of those things are equally valid. If there is no perceiver, the tree literally doesn’t exist. I know that sounds crazy…
Everything I’m writing is being perceived through your own lens, which is similar to mine since we’re human. So when we think of the world after we die, we are still thinking of it through our lens. Anything we think of is through our lens – there’s no way to escape it. Even if we imagine that we are an ant, it’s through our lens. The world around us, our reality, is always perceived through our lens. All of our thoughts are had through our own unique lens. Again, our lenses as humans are similar enough that we can agree on most things and coexist coherently. But our lenses as humans are irreconcilable with the lenses of ants, for example. The tree to an ant is vastly different from the tree to us, and there’s no way we can truly understand what it’s like to be an ant, and vice versa because we can’t escape our own personal lens.
This means when we die, our unique lens – and it IS unique – dies with us. Our reality, exactly how we perceive things – and it is a unique perception – dies with us. Our world – our personally unique world – dies with us. It ceases to exist. Of course the world of others and the realities of others persist. But each of us has a completely unique lens, and when we’re gone, that lens is gone. Sometimes our lenses are similar to those of others, but no lens in history has been the same as mine or yours because no one’s life experiences have been exactly the same. Therefore, no reality throughout history has been the same as mine or yours. When we die, that tree ceases to exist because exactly how we perceive that tree is unique, and our perception of that tree ceases to exist. The reality of that tree is unique to us and no one else perceives it in exactly the same way.
Another example is a person. Imagine A’s mother. To A, she is a loving, caring, protective mother. To B, A’s father, she is a passionate lover, a faithful, supportive wife. She is two very different things to A and B. Which one is she, objectively? Well “objectively” she’s neither because nothing exists objectively. Subjectively she’s both. In reality she’s both.
What does this all mean then? Since there is no objective reality, and reality is truly subjective, that means all there is is our own individual realities. Nothing else. And this is fine and great. It’s great because it means we are in complete control of our realities. The stimuli (trees, people, etc) are the same, but what they truly are depends on how we perceive them – how we choose to perceive them. As humans we have the choice to perceive trees as something we cut down to make paper and build houses, something we use to profit financially. We also have the choice to view them as beautiful, ancient, amazing, living beings that convert the sunlight into consumable energy for the entire planet. What exactly the tree is to us is what it is in reality. And we decide what it is to us. We control how we view the world; therefore, we control our reality.
As a last example, consider your own life situation. As humans, it’s natural to want more. It’s one of the few (if not the only) traits that separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. That makes us naturally prone to unhappiness because we feel that we lack what we want, or even deserve. If someone asks you, “How are things?” You might say, “Well, they’re ok. Money’s tight, my boss is being an asshole, and I don’t have enough time or money to play golf as much as I want to.” If you view your situation as that, that is truly the reality of your situation. If, on the other hand, you say, “Things are great. I’m really glad to have a job in this economy and I’ve been able to spend a lot of time with my kids and even fit in a few rounds of golf,” then that’s your reality, even though all of the stimuli and circumstances are exactly the same. How you view the you situation, how you view the world, that is reality. You can make your life infinitely better just by changing how you view things.
I personally came to this realization last fall around the beginning of my own spiritual awakening (or whatever you want to call it). The stimuli in my life, my situation, the world, are not all that different than they were last fall, but because I view everything in a different light, because I’m grateful for absolutely everything in my life, I’m infinitely happier in general. I sometimes catch myself just smiling at the beauty of the world and at some of the things in my life that I now realize are awesome. Of course I still have goals and I still want to accomplish a lot in this short lifetime, but I’m enjoying the ride and loving my situation, no matter how dire it seems or how much I long for more. It’s not an instantaneous thing. It takes practice and persistence, but once you get a taste of a better, happier, healthier mindset about life and this world, you won’t want to stop. I’ll never stop.
Comments
40 responses to “Reality Is Subjective”
[…] others can experience, as is the case with all other personal experiences. I wrote about this here, that reality is […]
[…] readers, that this works. I cannot prove it to you. You can only prove it to yourself. After all, reality is subjective. I hope one day in the near future you try to access universal intelligence in the completion of […]
[…] evolves. Time is not objective or constant. Because time is an important part of our reality, and reality is subjective, time is subjective. Our perception of time is […]
[…] to beliefs that are unfounded or fed to us by others, bad things can start happening. Since we literally create our reality with our mind, and our minds are full of the beliefs we choose, we need to choose our beliefs wisely. Our worlds […]
[…] important and filled with wonder and amazement if you just think about it that way. Remember, reality is subjective, and it’s fun to switch your subjective reality around to different viewpoints to get a sense […]
[…] Going through life being a slave to your emotions is no way to live. You’re allowing the external environment, which is not under your control, to mold your inner environment, and your inner environment, your mind, is your entire reality. […]
[…] to others, and if you believe it to the point where you know it’s true, it will be true for you. Reality is subjective. But the subconscious mind is tough to change, even tougher to fool, so if you consider a belief […]
[…] we can never fully change our perspectives, we can extricate ourselves from them enough to get an idea of what someone or something […]
How are you defining the term reality here? Subjective experience, or perception, and the existence of a perceiver independent external world are not mutually exclusive. If there is no external world what causes the perceptions? Why is it consistent between perceivers or over time or from when a perceiver leaves and then comes back?
You can still believe in an “objective reality” and take your approach to situations. You aren’t changing reality though, just changing how you process information and how you respond to this.
Humans are not separate from the animal kingdom we are very much a part of it and the want for more does not separate us from other animals, they all want more, competition for resources is a large part of being a living organism. What separates us is the abilities afford to us, by our cortex, to actually get more.
Good questions.
I’ve written and rewritten my response several already, so I hope this final revision makes some sense. The ideas are difficult to articulate.
When you refer to a perceiver-independent external world, you are doing so through your own subjective lens, and that world to which you refer is at least slightly different from the world to which I would refer if I were to use the term.
Yes, there is an external world, a smorgasbord of stimuli so to speak, some scant few of which we are able to perceive. We all perceive the stimuli at least slightly differently as they are filtered through our beliefs and past experiences and even varying perceptual mechanisms in order to create our subjective experiences, our realities. In themselves, the stimuli have no reality. Reality is our subjective experience of them.
To use a seemingly objective example, consider a series of electromagnetic waves. Even as we refer to the waves as humans, we are thinking of them, for example, in human terms of visible light and a certain color experience. The same series of waves can cause the experience of green for me, greenish-brown for someone with colorblindness, maybe a grayness for a dog, and something we’re not able to understand for a blade of grass.
We can try to say we are the final authority, that we understand electromagnetic waves, what they are, what they cause, that they are a certain wavelength and frequency. But those terms, those thoughts, are all filtered through our own subjective lenses and tainted for better or worse by our unique schooling histories and life experiences.
It’s possible that some race more advanced than we are would understand electromagnetic waves as, for (a whimsical) example, a love pulse from the living being we simple humans call the sun.
Such an advanced interpretation would render our seemingly objective idea of electromagnetic waves as less than their “true” reality. But if you think of it, even if this race did exist and their idea of electromagnetic waves were “true”, would that mean the experience of a blade of grass absorbing these waves would be less true or valid? I don’t think so.
Each subjective experience of external stimuli is equally valid, although some may be more advanced (determined by cognitive ability which in itself is a somewhat erroneous classification), and those subjective experiences are reality for the perceivers.
There is an external world that provides us with stimuli to be interpreted, but reality is not that external world. Reality is our interpretation of it. How we process the information is our reality.
And even to refer to an external world as something objective that we interpret, as if it exists independently of perceivers as a smorgasbord of stimuli is misleading because we are unable to define it or even refer to it in objective terms. Our scope as humans is much too limited. The external world has more data and is interpreted and experienced in more ways than we can even conceive of.
Maybe some advanced race could speak in terms of an objective external world wherein they’re aware of absolutely every facet of it, but we can’t even begin to think in those terms, and anyway, it wouldn’t make our human realities any less valid.
And with regard to what separates us from the animal kingdom, I think we are in agreement, but just wording it differently. For example, a sparrow is unable to ponder her own existence and further take steps to secure the most beautiful and advantageous perch for her nest, and then consider to make it larger or more comfortable, or to accumulate several nests. She is “content” to be a sparrow and to survive.
We humans almost always want more than we have, and much of the time we strive to achieve more and more even though we’re currently surviving easily. This is how civilizations were built. If we were sparrows, a small house or apartment or tent and enough food to survive would be more than enough and we’d never want or strive for more.
Perhaps if the sparrow had a more similar brain structure to us, we’d see vast civilizations of beautiful, artistic nests spread through the forests with worker sparrows and king sparrows, but alas, they are simple compared to us. At least in my subjective reality they are 😉
First off, thanks for taking the time to give a reply!
Okay I think I see a bit better now, why use the word “reality” though? We have words for what you are describing, words like, perception, subjective experience, or even just experience. Reality is generally used to refer to the outside world. It is by deifinition the outside world as it actually exists as opposed to how we might percieve things, whether we have access to it or not. What is the point of redifining it to mean the exact opposite of that especially since we already have others words for what you are describing?
You do say there is an outside world that causes our perceptions yes? I am not sure that your assertion that we have zero access to it is correct or that it cannot exist independently of us (more on this below). Even if our interpretation is vastly different from how the world actually is though, that doesn’t negate the fact that it exists. If I refuse to believe that there is giant meteor heading to earth that doesn’t stop it from killing me when it hits.
Certainly our experience of colours, or sounds are quite a bit different from the phenomena that cause them, EM waves or pressure waves respectively. These experiences can differ from person to person or organism to organism. However we have access to knowledge about the universe that doesn’t seem to be subjective, things like math and physics. No matter who you are, what species, organic or inorganic, gravity affects you the same way. There may be subjective experiences that go along with those effects, pain say, from falling. Gravity doesn’t change though, it affects me the same way as you, or planets. Now our theory of gravity or other parts of physics and even math are not perfect, they do seem to be approximations those are our understandings of it though not the actual phenomena. If it was our experience or perception that created the phneomena then things would always happen as we except, yet they do not. This would seem to suggest that we do have access to “reality” and it is independent of us. While our understanding is still young and our tools developing, to just say it is pointless and we will never have any access doesn’t seem right based upon the avaliable evidence.
Just because we have a hard time comprhending the metaphysical nature of the universe, or reality, doesn’t mean it is non-existent. That would put way to much importance on humans or percievers I thiink.
I think I can make my point a little more clearly and concisely by refering to your first content directed paragraph there.
“When you refer to a perciever-independent external world, you are doing so through your own subjetive lens, and that world to which you refer is at least slightly different from the world which I would refer if I were to use the term.”
I am not really though, I am refering to the wrold independent of my perceptions and your perceptions or anyone’s perceptions. This is the meaning of the word “reality” so it is what we are refering to. Can I directly perceive that world, no, of course not. Sensation to perception is an information processing task no doubt. This doesn’t mean I cannot refer to reality (the external preceiver-independent world) though. I may know nothing about it, and since I am what philsophers refer to as a Global Sceptic, I will fully admit that there is a chance of that, or even a chance we are in some matrix like simulation so whats causing our perceptions is computer and not the reality we hope, or even that Idealism (the notion that there is no external world, only mental stuff such as minds and thoughts) is possible, however these seem very unlikely and all the evidence points to an external world.
Jon – I’m gonna reply outside of the conversation thread because these comments are getting narrow…I need to get a new commenting platform for the site. And thanks to YOU (caps = italics…another reason to get a new commenting platform) for commenting. I always enjoy these types of discussions and appreciate the time you took to type it all out.
I use the word “reality” because perception, subjective experience, or experience…is the MOST real thing. It is reality, it is all we can claim to know. The seemingly objective external world is not reality. It doesn’t make any kind of sense, and has no meaning outside of a perceiver. It requires a perceiver in the first place even to refer to it, and different perceivers are inextricably tied to their own unique perceptions.
Two people can experience the same seemingly objective external stimuli, but what those stimuli mean for them, what the reality is for each of them, can be very different based on their belief systems.
When we refer to the outside world, we necessarily refer to it from our own subjective lenses. What we refer to, although it seems like we are all referring to the same set of objective stimuli, is actually our perception of that external world. We can’t, as humans, understand external reality in purely objective terms. Even the meanings of the words that flow from us are influenced heavily by our lifelong subjective experience.
As for the meteor, well in a sense it is objective and external in that it is a big rock-like thing heading for Earth and it will kill us. But what is the reality of the meteor? Is it actually a rock heading toward earth? Is it a ball of energetic material heading toward a bigger ball of energetic material full of energetic beings? Is it a preordained blessing to the universe that has been known by other faraway races for eons? Seeing as how we see it as a solid object, is it really solid or is it actually composed mostly of space since it is composed of atoms, presumably. And have we been to it and inspected it scientifically, or are we just guessing at what will happen and what it’s made of? Really, we don’t know much, and anything external that seems objective can be reduced to or almost to absurdity.
Yes, assuming we know we will certainly die from it, our beliefs about it won’t change that fact. But what is the reality of the meteor and the impending collision? To you and me, it would seem, it would be a terrible thing because we enjoy life and don’t want it to end so soon. But how about to someone who is suicidal and looking for a way out but doesn’t have the gumption to kill himself? To someone like that, the reality is that this meteor is a blessing.
Further, there is, frustratingly, no way of proving that this entire life isn’t just a simulation. Think The Matrix. Although it seems implausible and objectionable that this life really is just a dream of sorts, there’s no way to prove that it isn’t. If this is in fact a simulation, then the seemingly objective reality of the external world would change dramatically. Instead of being actual objects as they appear, they would have some kind of digital or electronic reality instead of a physical one.
And what is a physical reality anyway?
Even now as we understand it, the solidity of objects is largely an illusion. Objects are made up of atoms, and the vast majority of atoms are empty space. We never actually touch anything. What we feel when we think we are making contact with objects is actually electromagnetic force. I wrote about that here: http://www.dingtwist.com/illusion-of-solidity/
So in a sense, the external physical world actually is an illusion of sorts, which brings me back to my original point: what seems to be an objective, external world, is actually still our interpretation of it. It doesn’t make too much sense even to refer to such an objective existence with our limited knowledge.
The meanings or experiences of things are the most important, and that is in part why I call them reality. Further, we can’t really meaningfully refer to an external, objective world as reality when we’re not fully sure what it is we’re referring to. Is it solid physical objects? Is it mostly space that just seems like solid objects? Is it a simulation? Or as quantum physics would have it (according to my limited understanding of it), is it all just pulsating energy? What do you mean when you refer to an objective external reality? And if you can define what you mean, there are others who might disagree and would mean otherwise when they refer to it, bringing us right back to the subjective nature of reality.
I agree that mathematics is objective. But it’s not physical or tangible. It’s an idea, and perhaps an idea that makes perfect logical sense to us humans, but due to our limited conscious minds, mathematics may be just the very tiniest tip of the iceberg, a tip that underlies a much deeper understanding of the universe we literally can’t conceive of with our human minds. Who knows?
And gravity affects everything, I agree. But what is the hummingbird’s experience of gravity? What is its experience of space? Much different from ours for sure. How about the UFOs that seem to defy gravity. We don’t know that there isn’t anti-gravity technology out there. Actually, if you believe the thousands of reported UFO sightings, it would seem there is anti-gravity technology, so it may not affect everything. To get a bit crazy for a second, I have read credible accounts of humans who are able, through deep meditation, to levitate. We understand so little of gravity and really everything that to pretend we are even able to refer to external reality as objective seems a bit ridiculous to me when I think about it. Who knows?
I guess that’s my point: who knows? The reality of it all is that we don’t know much, that all we know is our experience, how we feel, what we enjoy. Our subjective experience is our reality. And since our subjective experience is so thoroughly influenced by our beliefs and how we see the world, we have the power to change our reality.
I know that what I’m experiencing right now as I type this is pleasurable. It’s racking my brain in a good way. I know that I adore being out in the woods with my dogs, feeling the heat of the sun, the breeze on my face, hearing the birds chirp. That is a beautiful reality and whether it’s a simulation, “real” physical objects, or balls of vibrating energy, it doesn’t change my experience one iota. Whatever it is to different perceivers doesn’t at all affect my perception, my experience of it. My experience is perfectly real to me. All I know is that I love it. That’s all I can say, for sure, is real.
(Sorry if I repeated myself a bit above – it’s late and I’m going to bed!)
I had a second reply above that I seem to have posted at the same time you did. It might be informative about my POV if you care to read it.
I still think that theory of the universe puts to much emphasis on humans or perceivers. The external world does not need perceptions or perceivers and, in fact, those two things exist inside reality and require an external world to exist. So the chain very much seems to go external world -> perciever -> perception. That is to say the external world causes sensations in our faculties which are processed into perceptions which we then perceive. I think we very much agree on that chain yes? It is important to remember that the sensations, our faculties, body, brain and perceptions are all apart of this external world. The brain is of course just a part of the body but is different enough from the rest of the body to mention separately I think.
It makes sense to refer to the external world, we want to refer to the world that is independent of our perceptions. We are saying we realize we process everything but what I am referring to is whatever is causing those sensations we process and perceive and not my indirect perception of them. Sort of like if I say “Superman can fly” vs saying “Lois Lane believes Superman can fly” in one I refer to Superman’s actual abilities in the other I refer to Lois’ perception of Superman. These clearly say two different things. Just as if I say “reality” or “my perception of reality” say different things. Or more aptly, when I say “look at that tree over there” II am not saying “look at my perception of that tree over there” because my perception isn’t actually over there where ever that external object we call a tree is, the perception is inside my brain. What I am saying, although implicitly, is “Look at that object over there that fits in with the category of things we call trees and is causing me to visual perceive a tree”. I am referring to the outside world and not my perception of it.
I don’t see the logic of perception being more real then reality, existence doesn’t seem to be on a continuum something is or it is not it either exist or it doesn’t. They call this the law of excluded middle and is often expressed by the logical form of (A or not A) or in as close as I can get to logical notation on here (A v ~A) the “v” means “or” and the “~” means “not”. However reality exists whether perceivers exist to have perceptions or not, perceptions require perceivers and something to cause them. Perceivers require an external world. Perceptions are, of course, real things they are things that occur inside our minds or brains or consciousness however you want to say it. They exist inside reality though, our brain is a part of the external world and inside there is where the perceptions occur. The interesting part of that last sentence is that it applies even in a matrix scenario, although the perceptions we are having would be caused by a simulation the place where the perceptions occur would be in our brain which is outside the simulation in the real world. The fact that we can’t share our mental states does not seem to change reality, there isn’t really a logical connection there that I can see.
I’m not sure it matters if another species has a deeper understanding of this universe or the meteor. It just means they know more than us. That doesn’t entail that we know nothing. The fact that perceptions are processed does not also entail that it is the only thing we can “know”. The study of knowledge is called epistemology and it’s been going for a long time but I’ll boil it down briefly, to require certainty for knowledge will require forever that we know nothing not even Descartes “cogito ergo sum” “I think therefore I am”. The standard analysis of knowledge goes roughly(for simplicity and brevity sake) as follows to say we know something we should require that it be something we believe, we have reasonable justification in believing it, there is causal relation between what it is we believe and the justification we have for believing it and finnally that it is true.
The harder question is can we ever know that we know something, that would require that we know it is true and that, I will go right along with you, and say is probably impossible. That is because I am what philosophers call a global sceptic, not only do they call us that but they do it with a scowl on their face.
Math and physics are good examples that the universe is not absurd, absurdities are contradictions and from contradictions anything is provable. The universe is quite ordered coherent, consistent and logical. It is certainly surprising. Things like quantum entanglement and superposition are odd, they are not absurd though. The fact that atoms are mostly empty space and what makes them seem solid is the repulsion of their electrons through the EM force was not what we believed or expected, we still seem to have discovered it though. If you look at the way the universe works it is very consistent and coherent, not absurd at all.
Just incase you didn’t read my second reply above, I will, as a sceptic, admit that this could all be a simulation or some other cause that is not an external world. However we have no way to test that or theories that posit stuff outside of our perception so it really ends the endeavour, theories that you can test are much more fun and interesting IMO. All the evidence we have access to points to an external world
Beliefs can colour our perceptions, and memories, change the way interpret someones actions even. They do not hold as much sway as I think you might believe though. I actually study cognitive science, which is a field that is researching this very thing, among a wide array of other interesting stuff. It is the field that is focused on perception, attention, memory, consciousness, and well as the name suggest, anything cognitive. So in studying, cognitive scientists not only study cognitive science they study psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, linguistics, computer science, and anthropology, in fact cognitive science is really just studying these things through the idea that we as humans are information-processors, and a lot of the studies that made us aware of to what degree beliefs can alter perceptions is from cognitive science and I have read a great deal of the research articles.
Just to illustrate the meteor point again I will make myself clearer. Here is the scenario
In reality there is a meteor heading to Earth. Everyone is aware of it and keeps telling Bob it is heading to earth and it is large enough to potentially kill us all. Bob as a sceptic of reality believes that everyone is mistaken and hence does not believe at all that this meteor exists. If Bob were to look through a telescope he would still seethe meteor, so beliefs can colour our perceptions but unless you have a system that functions irregular from most other humans they cannot totally alter your perceptions or create persisting false perceptions except in odd situations we call optical illusions. Let us say for the sake of the argument about reality though, it does cause this change in perception and Bob no longer perceives the meteor, under your framework it does not exist for Bob so it cannot harm him. Now the meteor hits the earth and it is more catastrophic then they thought and it kills every human. Bob will still be among the dead humans. Bob never perceived the meteor, and never believed it was coming but in reality he is still dead.
I really think your argument for preference of perception over the external world is a better argument for the fact that our perceptions very much dictate how we interact with the external world.
Responded below.
Jon – phew – lots of info there. First of all, it’s really cool that you’re in cognitive science. It seems like a fascinating field.
I don’t know if I can respond to every point but let me say that I think maybe our disagreement could be boiled down in somewhat simple terms.
While it seems we can imagine an objective, external world independent of perceivers, I’m not sure that either of us can validly refer to it as such. While in a sense an objective external world seems to exist, we are so thoroughly immersed in and slaves to our individual, subjective lenses, that I don’t think we really MEAN anything when we refer to the objective external world, although it seems that we do. Our language flows in the first place from our subjective minds and is thoroughly colored by our subjective experiences.
Even if we could meaningfully speak of an objective external world, I don’t think there would be any point in doing so because it’s inconsequential to us. What is important is our experience, and depending on who the perceiver is, the same seemingly objective stimuli could result in vastly different experiences, different realities. So whose experience, whose reality would be the “right” or “valid” one? All of them, and they all result from the same stimuli.
In the case of Bob, I don’t think it’s a good analogy because first of all, he’s failing to perceive something that everyone else perceives. While I think reality is subjective, I’m not saying that everyone’s reality is equally “correct” in our individual terms, because some people misperceive things (in the eyes of most other perceivers), as Bob is doing. Also, we’re talking about future results (i.e. probable death from meteor) instead of present experience/reality. It would probably be the case that when the meteor actually hits and he’s seconds from dying, that he’d realize he was wrong, that he was misperceiving something that was actually there. And the thought of all humans dying, well in that case Earth and reality as we know it would cease to exist because there would be no human perceivers. What we refer to as reality is human reality, or how we experience the world of seemingly objective stimuli in human terms.
When we imagine Earth after all humans are gone, we are still doing so through our present human lenses. IF we were all to die, what we imagine the world to be without humans is still how we view it now through our human lenses. This world would literally cease to exist if we all were to die because “world” means, necessarily, the world in our human experience.
Anyway, maybe a less stringent idea of my philosophy is, instead of saying an objective external world literally doesn’t exist, I could say that maybe it exists, but knowing of its existence and referring to it at all is pointless (instead of impossible).
I think you would agree that changing our thoughts and beliefs can significantly and/or completely change our subjective experience of the world, for better or for worse. I would say our experience is our entire reality, but you would say it’s our experience OF the “true” reality. I still question what you mean, or if you can mean anything by speaking of a “true” external, objective reality.
In the end, I don’t think we’re saying very different things. You just believe we are able to refer meaningfully to an objective, external reality, and while it may SEEM like I understand what you mean, I don’t think we actually are able to speak of it meaningfully. And in the end, even if we could, doing so would not have any impact on our realities.
I will just say one thing then I would like to ask you a question, although I have a lot more to say in response.
I cannot agree that our beliefs can completely change our perceptions. It can colour our interpretation but it does not totally change them. There is no evidence that the effect is that strong. It has limits.
Before I say anymore though I would like to ask you a question:
Let’s say someone invented a virtual reality that was indistinguishable from reality. It’s a simulation that can give your any and all and only the experiences you wanted, if you want to live as a rich well respected person you can, if you just want a random mundane life it can do that, it can generate anything and these experiences are inndistinguishable from this world. Would you enter into the machine and live out your life there instead of here? It’s not a networked machine it’s just you in there but all the other people seem real, they seem like living people but they are just some sophisticated AI. Would you say goodbye to your loved ones out here and jump in the machine for the rest of your life?
Responded below.
No, I would not. Also, I sense a trap 🙂
Haha sort of a trap, yes. Why not jump in? It provides the all important experiences. If you wouldn’t get in, it would seem to indicate that the authenticity of the external world is important to you. 😉
The “why not” is a legitimate question though. I would like to know why that seems unappealing to you.
See below.
First, I’ll also assume that by jumping into this virtual reality, I would have no memory of having done so, so it would appear to me simply to be a continuation of this life, except all of a sudden I’m having the most brilliant experiences imaginable up until my virtual death.
While I do believe reality is subjective, I’m not a solipsist, so I grant the existence of other consciousnesses who have their own experiences quite as valid as my own, although their subjective realities themselves have no bearing upon my own since I create my own. We all do. However, I would not want to be responsible for the sadness of those who love me if I were to plug myself into a machine. Granted I would not be aware of it if I did so, but in this moment, I am aware of what would happen in this reality if I were to enter the virtual reality, and I would never choose to cause that much sadness voluntarily.
Further, the idea of a perfect reality in which all of my deepest desires are fulfilled without my being personally responsible for them leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Granted, I would not know this were the case if I were plugged into the machine, but right now in the present, I know that would be the case, and I presently choose not to do that.
I guess you could say I have the utmost respect for the present moment. It is, as one of my favorite authors would call it, our point of power. We have full power in the present moment, and the future and even the past (to be discussed in the future on the site) are appropriately altered by the actions we take right now.
Lastly and most importantly, Earth is a playground, somewhere we willingly incarnate in order to gain experience and expand our consciousness. This happens both for people who seem to have perfect lives and for those who seem to have the most painful lives. We all learn, we all grow, and we all keep that knowledge and experience with us, as consciousnesses, for all of eternity. Plugging myself into the machine would not afford me the same level of growth that the physical reality in which I’m currently immersed can provide, so even apart from the other reasons given, this is reason enough for me to want to continue in this life, even if somehow I could know that I’m in for a world of pain.
P.S. Although I undoubtedly have “problems” (in quotes because I am in the process of changing them into blessings) in my life, in a way, my life has come to feel in many ways as if I AM plugged into a perfect virtual reality machine. I’m extremely happy. I didn’t always feel this way about my life, but after examining and changing many of my most deeply held beliefs, this new reality that has emerged as a result really does seem like a beautiful dream. I doubt any virtual reality could favorably compare with it.
Why wouldn’t you plug into the machine?
Sorry Chaki, I haven’t forgotten about our conversation. I am in summer semester and it is midterm and paper season. I will have a response by this weekend hopefully!
No rush at all. Good luck!
[…] your view is of the world is your world. Reality is subjective. If you don’t know about innocent women being raped in the Middle East, that’s not part […]
I truly understood and relished everything you said 😀
I randomly came upon this blog entry; thinking about how amazing my life is oddly enough, while wondering what a good tattoo for my body would be. I had thought up the phrase, “Realty is Subjective,” a while ago, much in the same way after my spiritual journey began, googled the phrase, and this listing popped up third.
I’m listening to “Air” radio on Pandora, so you may understand how profoundly refreshing this music in tune with this writing, might be. I teared up because it was such a beautiful reminder.
Thank you,
Be at peace 🙂
Kika Huston
Kika, glad you enjoyed it!
I actually also occasionally listen to the Air Pandora station. Funny coincidence. Very peaceful music. I also saw them live a few years back in NYC. The light show accompanying the music was really beautiful.
Thanks for the comment, and I hope you continue to create the life you’re enjoying.
I absolutely agree with your article. I actually ran into this article unplanned, through taking a great interest on the capacity of the human mind, especially through the subconscious and super conscious mind, with it being one of the most mysterious objects if not the most mysterious object in the universe.
Learning some extraordinary feats being performed by ordinary humans, such as a man being able control his body temperature at absolute will, the placebo effects on some ill people, people who can absolutely tolerate, or maybe even eliminate pain from their bodies when in painful situations like shaolin monks, yogi masters etc.
some of these feats are not even fully understood by science, such as the placebo effect, which science by their own admission have not understood and cannot therefore explain. This is just one mild example. Science doesn’t understand so many things that I can’t even begin to list all of those things. So for science to even make certain absolute claims about things which it hasn’t even began to study, makes them those people in those scientific fields arrogant and close minded.
For example, the idea of placebo effect maybe laughed at if talked about over 100 years ago, but today, due to technological advances, we can see the effects of it. Whose to say that in the next 100 years, we’ll discover even more powers of the mind and the powers of its beliefs. For example, telekinesis and telepathy may become a reality, and they maybe believed through greater understanding physics, mainly quantum mechanics. Although today, based on our limited science knowledge, we’ll laugh if we hear those feats being mentioned possible. Another feat that maybe possible could be that we could alter reality with our beliefs. Jon mentioned (paraphrased) that “whether I believe or don’t believe, if a meteor is coming my way and I don’t defend myself, I’m going to die”. However, like the placebo effect, we might discover in 100+ years time, that if I sincerely believe without any doubt, where I am fully convinced that I’m not going to die even if the meteor hits me, then I might not die. That maybe the case. A far fetched idea? Yes. Especially today with our current knowledge. However, the power of the mind and its beliefs are barely at its birth stage of being studied. Who can say anything about the minds powers from its thoughts and beliefs with absolute certainty when the subject itself is at its infant stage being studied? Nobody can in their right mind can give an absolute certain answer today with limited knowledge on what the mind certainly can and can’t do. The power of the mind and its belief may transcend our current understanding of it. The evidence is already there with placebo effects demonstrating portion of its powers.
I know I talked a lot about the brain and the mind, but I see the connection between reality and the mind. For example, in quantum mechanics, there is a experiment by the name of slit experiment, One of the findings tell us that the quantum particles, when not observed, cease to exist, However, when they are observed, they pop into existence. As if the particles know that they’re being observed. This (to a certain degree), demonstrates that for reality to exist, it requires perception. As without perception, it ceases to exist. Furthermore, no one can prove perception is absolutely objective as you’ve already mentioned.
So this makes me wonder if ‘reality’ really is just the figment of our imagination. Or reality is just that we believe to be true, is true. So if I believe after I die that there’ll be an afterlife, then it may exist primarily for me and people like me. However, if other people don’t believe in an afterlife and believe they’ll be eternally gone, then that might really happen to those people. If I sincerely believe I can fly or meditate without any doubt coming to my mind, then that maybe real for me. Whilst the people who don’t believe in those said things, then their beliefs will be real specifically to them.
[…] experience of a mantis shrimp is? While it’s fun to wonder, it’s completely beyond our human conception of reality. Yet these amazing creatures operate just as, if not more effectively than we do on our […]
[…] We each create an entire life experience from stimuli that are meaningless without our perception. No other person or being’s reality is the same. We are creative whether or not we want to […]
[…] honest, I don’t think there is an overall answer outside of situational boundaries. I mean, isn’t reality already subjective in its essence? Aren’t we all just floating along only living this life from our own perspective with our […]
[…] between Eastern philosophy and Western science over whether or not there actually is any true objective reality that is devoid of subjective interpretation from individual beings. In a sense, we’re asking the […]
hey Chaki, just wondering, what happens when you roll down a hill. does the world revolve around you? i gotta know (:
You’ve misunderstood the article.
[…] to others, and if you believe it to the point where you know it’s true, it will be true for you. Reality is subjective. But the subconscious mind is tough to change, even tougher to fool, so if you consider a belief […]
Reality to us is an experience but this begs the question: Experience of what? A representation of what is. This representation has to be consistent with what actually is only in the sense that it enables us to function. This representation has more to do with the requirements of the human organism than with actual reality. In short, a table is solid mainly because the human body is solid, not because it has any actual solidity in absolute universal terms. Our representational reality is subjective but that which it represents is not. Therefore reality is clearly not subjective. This doesn’t mean that it must be objective. Perhaps there is another option “in reality”.
Sam, I think at this point it comes down to semantics. When you say that our experience is a “representation of what is”, it sounds like you’re talking about an objective reality of which we have a subjective experience. You’re referring to that objective reality from your subjective lens, so that objective reality is also necessarily subjective. You literally cannot meaningfully speak of an objective reality. Perhaps if there is in fact god-like creator of all that is, its reality would be the end-all, truly objective reality. However, we are limited so much in our perception that we couldn’t even conceive of such a reality. Every awareness in existence has its own subjective reality, and if in fact we are all perceiving some kind of ultimate objective mush of stimuli (or whatever), we wouldn’t even know what that mush is, we couldn’t even speak of it in a meaningful way. No one could, except maybe the creator, but then who else could even understand what he were saying? So in a sense the creator would also have his own subjective reality separated from that of everyone else.
I said it comes down to semantics because when you say “what is”, “absolute universal terms”, and when I say “objective mush of stimuli”, I say those terms are basically meaningless. We know in a highly limited sense what the other means, but the terms as we speak them refer to nothing we can conceive of.
I think reality is subjective, as Protagoras, the first agnostic, said, “reality is not objective: what seems true to me is true for me and what seems true to you is true for you”. But there are rules, e.g. an insect has to have compound eyes, a fly is disgusting and a spider is hairy, the suspicions of your mind make it that way. It’s your mind that creates sight and feel, reality is subjective.
We live in a shared reality unless of course we’re metaphysical solipsists or metaphysical nihilists, in which case individually the world only belongs to you. It’s true, our reality is all our imagination, but the truth is the mind creates things, it’s an illusion that anything but my mind exists, even though gods do. I say that people are depending on the existence of my activities with no independent existence when none of what you want of me exists, changing or doing things differently or any negatives don’t exist, and I don’t think my sex with other people exists either, you think I’m interested in sex? Dream on!
Im Loving your insights… And as Oneness Is all there Is… Well i thank you for what i perceive as you, but actually im telling to myself. I believe indeed reality Is all about perception, Although whatever perceived… Doesn’t die… It caused an expansión of the Totality of what we as Consciousness Are. Source expands… AND therefore becomes something More. Something Greater. Just because of your perception. As I Am in you…And your Are in Me. and Everything all together Is what existance/God/conscience/whatever Is really about.
Just my perception… #4462ht #thankyou