Life is An Illusion.

[twobitsmedia]

Life is an illusion. I am not really here. You are not really here. We do not know anything because there is really not anything to know. If this is true, than do I have an argument? I need to get a life........but......I can't because there is no life to get. If we do not exist, then we are completely out of touch with all truth and reality--because there is not any to be in touch with. My question than, is, if I do not exist than what does it matter what the question is?

[joer]

Twobits wrote:

I believe I exist. I guess my OP was playing "devils advocate" so that I could get an idea of what the belief is really all about. The dialogue (particularly bernee and QED) raises some questions for me to think about. The mind is a powerful tool and can imagine a wealth of "scenarios, ideas," etc . There is a finiteness, obviously, but the imagination seems to know no end. I like to see what peole call "logic" and how they put it together. That does not mean I agree with everything because I have to be able to connect the dots in my own mind before it makes sense, but it is interesting. _________________

Sounds good twobits. I get a little worried sometimes. I remember being caught in a mind game when I was 19, where I was contemplating the difference between the reality of being “alive” vs. being “dead” I almost fooled my self into believing the reality of either experience was equally valid of experiencing. And I couldn’t find the purpose of my “living” that could outweigh an equally valid purpose in dying. I fooled myself to the extent that I almost killed myself to experience “death” which seem to hold as least as much purpose as “life”. Finally it was a simple thing that swayed me to know that I was meant to live. The fact that being alive was the state in which I found myself. I reasoned if I was meant to experience death at that time I would have found myself in the state of “death”. Since I found myself “in the state of being alive” I knew I must live. If for no other reason than simply because I was and am alive. “I am that I am”.

Oh by the way Bernee that’s another answer to your question “Who am I?” I am that I am.

Bernee also wrote:

Every perception we have of our interface we have with the phenomenal world is 'in the mind'.

That’s right Bernee and having those perceptions “in the mind”, that’s life.

If it changes, how can it be real?

It it (Our perceptions and understandings of life) didn’t change and we couldn’t perceive that change how could it be real?

The opposite is true...'reality' is a trick we play in our minds.

Reality isn’t the trick we play in ours minds, it is the truth our mind perceives in the world. The illusion is our false perceptions of the world. For example Bernee if you're right in there being no God and I’m wrong than my perceptions of the reality of God’s existence is an illusion. Conversely if you're wrong and I’m right about God then your belief that God doesn’t exist is the illusion. While most likely neither of us has an accurate perception of reality because history evidences that our reality is constantly being updated by improved knowledge and perception. So the illusion is that, that we find is most false. And reality is that which we find to be most true. We’re alive and it’s real except in the mind games we play that would lead us to say otherwise.

[bernee51]

Joer, let me first say that I have immense gratitude for the honest and thoughtful words you write. Though we have differences in our approach and basic beliefs we have more in common than that which separates us.

I remember being caught in a mind game when I was 19, where I was contemplating the difference between the reality of being “alive” vs. being “dead” I almost fooled my self into believing the reality of either experience was equally valid of experiencing. And I couldn’t find the purpose of my “living” that could outweigh an equally valid purpose in dying. I fooled myself to the extent that I almost killed myself to experience “death” which seem to hold as least as much purpose as “life”. Finally it was a simple thing that swayed me to know that I was meant to live. The fact that being alive was the state in which I found myself. I reasoned if I was meant to experience death at that time I would have found myself in the state of “death”. Since I found myself “in the state of being alive” I knew I must live. If for no other reason than simply because I was and am alive. “I am that I am”.

Your words are somewhat redolent of those spoken by Ramana Maharshi over 100 years ago when he was reflecting in a manner similar to your’s above - though he came at it from a different perspective to you. His ‘awakening’, if it had happened today (or perhaps even then) in a ‘developed’ country, would have seen him institutionalized.

Oh by the way Bernee that’s another answer to your question “Who am I?” I am that I am.

I would have taken it one step further – “I am”

Every perception we have of our interface we have with the phenomenal world is 'in the mind'.

That’s right Bernee and having those perceptions “in the mind”, that’s life.

It is more than life – it is the total experience of our being.

If it changes, how can it be real?

It it (Our perceptions and understandings of life) didn’t change and we couldn’t perceive that change how could it be real?

If it changes, how can it be real?

The opposite is true...'reality' is a trick we play in our minds.

Reality isn’t the trick we play in ours minds, it is the truth our mind perceives in the world. The illusion is our false perceptions of the world.

What is a ‘false’ perception? What is a ‘true’ perception? What happens when a ‘false’ perception’ becomes a ‘true’ perception? Or vica versa? Are not perceptions just that, perceptions?

For example Bernee if you're right in there being no God and I’m wrong than my perceptions of the reality of God’s existence is an illusion. Conversely if you're wrong and I’m right about God then your belief that God doesn’t exist is the illusion.

The very point I am making Joer is that neither of our perceptions are ‘real’ – all perceptions can be nothing other than illusion.

While most likely neither of us has an accurate perception of reality because history evidences that our reality is constantly being updated by improved knowledge and perception.

Thank you for making my point. If our perceptions are ‘reality’, and our perceptions are constantly changing, how can that be ‘reality’. If what was ‘real’ last week is no longer because our perceptions have changed how ‘real’ was it? It follows logically that what we see as ‘real’ now will, in time be no longer so. The truth is that it is ‘illusion’.

So the illusion is that, that we find is most false. And reality is that which we find to be most true.

As you note above… with improved knowledge and perception what was once true becomes false or vica versa. All is illusion.

We’re alive and it’s real except in the mind games we play that would lead us to say otherwise.

Without a doubt we are biological creatures – alive in a biosphere. What we make of it, however, is reliant upon our perceptions; our perceptions exist only in the mind.

[joer]

Joer, let me first say that I have immense gratitude for the honest and thoughtful words you write. Though we have differences in our approach and basic beliefs we have more in common than that which separates us.

Thank You Bernee. I believe that also Bernee, that we have more in common than that which separates us. And I find that exciting I seeing how what we perceive in common is actually envisioned differently because of the influence of our conceptual frames of references on our perceptions.

Your words are somewhat redolent of those spoken by Ramana Maharshi over 100 years ago when he was reflecting in a manner similar to your’s above - though he came at it from a different perspective to you. His ‘awakening’, if it had happened today (or perhaps even then) in a ‘developed’ country, would have seen him institutionalized.

Your Right! That’s correct.

I would have taken it one step further – “I am”

I like that. But I would have to keep my self at least one step removed from “I am” to allow for error in my perception of that “I am”. Therefore “I am that I am” seems to allow for that changing perception of what “I am” on “that I am”. I hope I’m not getting to convoluted here. 

It is more than life – it is the total experience of our being.

I don’t think so. Our being is more than we can perceive it to be. And it’s the fact that it is more than we can perceive it to be that leads us to find out new and intriguing aspects of our being. So reality is always more than we can perceive. It is something in and of itself. But in our relationship with reality our cognizance of reality is limited or expanded by our ability to perceive it. And if one is looking for an expanded understanding of reality one will project, extrapolate and conjecture as to what that possible reality could be. And that activity and belief would deem that we are more than what we can perceive ourselves to be at any one moment in time.

If it changes, how can it be real?

Reality doesn’t have to be static to be real. It can be dynamic and still be real. See previous answer.

What is a ‘false’ perception?

One that was once reality but has since been proven to be false. i.e. “The world is Flat.”

What is a ‘true’ perception?

The current status quo of the reality of something i.e. “The world is just about spherical.”

What happens when a ‘false’ perception’ becomes a ‘true’ perception?

We adopt it as reality.

Or vica versa?

We deem it as false.

Are not perceptions just that, perceptions?

Yes. And reality as we perceive it IS based on our best perceptions of it at that time.

The very point I am making Joer is that neither of our perceptions are ‘real’ – all perceptions can be nothing other than illusion.

I understand your point Bernee. But there is a practical necessity to accept a given perception of reality at any given time to get on with the reality of living. And the strength of that reality often depends on how things work out. If things go as expected it is given more credence if failure is experienced we look to correct our perspectives.

Thank you for making my point. If our perceptions are ‘reality’, and our perceptions are constantly changing, how can that be ‘reality’.

Like I said that IS reality.

If what was ‘real’ last week is no longer because our perceptions have changed how ‘real’ was it?

Well if it changed from last week to this week it would depend on how long before last week it lasted as a reality. If it was a few hundred or thousands of years. Than it was “real” for quite a while. If it only lasted a week, I’d say it was more like the “reality” of a hypothesis that failed during the testing stage.

It follows logically that what we see as ‘real’ now will, in time be no longer so. The truth is that it is ‘illusion’.

I wouldn’t go that far. Sometimes our concepts of something serve us for quite awhile. And in fact they are not completely changed but just updated in our perception of them. So it’s (our reality of it) more accurate. Like Pluto. In reality it was recognized as a planet for some time. Now it’s been downgraded to some type of small planetoid. Our perceived reality of Pluto has changed but Pluto is still the same. So it’s not an illusion, it’s an upgrade perspective.

As you note above… with improved knowledge and perception what was once true becomes false or vica versa. All is illusion.

Not exactly. It’s not totally false just better perceived.

Without a doubt we are biological creatures – alive in a biosphere. What we make of it, however, is reliant upon our perceptions; our perceptions exist only in the mind.

You forget that our perceptions are also affected by the realities they perceive. So they are formed by the mind and by the reality that we are perceiving.

Cheers Bernee!

[QED]

Hello joer. WRT "things in and of themselves"...

I understand your point Bernee. But there is a practical necessity to accept a given perception of reality at any given time to get on with the reality of living. And the strength of that reality often depends on how things work out. If things go as expected it is given more credence if failure is experienced we look to correct our perspectives.

That's a pretty good description of how natural selection would bring about a "realistic" perception in animals. The "acid test" is how the structure and behaviour of the evolving animal copes with the rest of the world it inhabits. Perceptions are only falsified if they result in some significant calamity. In other words, so long as it doesn't cause harm (prevent the completion of the reproduction cycle) any number of seemingly realistic perceptions are admissible for any given phenomena.

I think this shows that Kant's "things in themselves" are best understood in terms of our relation to them and not in some absolute sense. As John Barrow points out we might think of the entire universe as a giant computer program with each human representing a subroutine in that program. The underlying nature of those "things in themselves" thus experienced may be far removed (if connected at all) with the reality we perceive.

[bernee51]

I would have taken it one step further – “I am”

I like that. But I would have to keep my self at least one step removed from “I am” to allow for error in my perception of that “I am”. Therefore “I am that I am” seems to allow for that changing perception of what “I am” on “that I am”. I hope I’m not getting to convoluted here.

“I am” is doing the perceiving it is not the perceived. If you can perceive something it is an object within you perception – it is not he perceiver. “I am” cannot change, it is all that is ‘real’.

Some philosophies would have “I am” as the perceiver, the act of perceiving and the perceived. The Tibetan idea of “One Taste” for instance.

It is more than life – it is the total experience of our being.

I don’t think so. Our being is more than we can perceive it to be. And it’s the fact that it is more than we can perceive it to be that leads us to find out new and intriguing aspects of our being. So reality is always more than we can perceive.

Until the act of perception takes place, what we experience as reality does not exist in our experience. The fact that it may exist in another’s is irrelevant. This is what you allude to with this comment. Except that it is “something in and of itself” only because of an agreement between perceivers that this is what it is. A tree is a tree because we all agree it is a tree.

It is something in and of itself. But in our relationship with reality our cognizance of reality is limited or expanded by our ability to perceive it. And if one is looking for an expanded understanding of reality one will project, extrapolate and conjecture as to what that possible reality could be. And that activity and belief would deem that we are more than what we can perceive ourselves to be at any one moment in time.

So if we are more than what we perceive to be then what we perceive ourselves to be is not ‘real’. It is an illusion, is it not?

If it changes, how can it be real?

Reality doesn’t have to be static to be real. It can be dynamic and still be real. See previous answer.

I beg to differ…because of you previous answer.

Only that is real which does not change and cannot be destroyed.

What is a ‘false’ perception?

One that was once reality but has since been proven to be false. i.e. “The world is Flat.”

It was one ‘real’, it is now ‘false’. Was it not an illusion?

What is a ‘true’ perception?

The current status quo of the reality of something i.e. “The world is just about spherical.”

Only until such time as a comet smashes into it and it becomes ‘star dust’.

Have we not seen that if what we perceive as the current status quo is shown to be ‘false’ is in fact illusory?

What happens when a ‘false’ perception’ becomes a ‘true’ perception?

We adopt it as reality.

That is true – we adopt it as and believe it to be a ‘reality’.

The very point I am making Joer is that neither of our perceptions are ‘real’ – all perceptions can be nothing other than illusion.

I understand your point Bernee. But there is a practical necessity to accept a given perception of reality at any given time to get on with the reality of living.

I have no argument with this…we build a perception to suit our purposes at any given time. As we learn, grow and evolve those perceptions change and the ‘reality’ along with it. It does not change the fact that it is illusory.

And the strength of that reality often depends on how things work out. If things go as expected it is given more credence if failure is experienced we look to correct our perspectives.

The phrase ‘strength of that reality’ I don’t hold as valid. Something is ‘real’ or it is not. Are there degrees of reality? Or would that be like being a little bit pregnant or nearly unique?

If what was ‘real’ last week is no longer because our perceptions have changed how ‘real’ was it?

Well if it changed from last week to this week it would depend on how long before last week it lasted as a reality. If it was a few hundred or thousands of years.

Even if it was thought to be reality since the ‘beginning of time’ and then shown not to be it was not ‘real’. It was an illusion.

Without a doubt we are biological creatures – alive in a biosphere. What we make of it, however, is reliant upon our perceptions; our perceptions exist only in the mind.

You forget that our perceptions are also affected by the realities they perceive. So they are formed by the mind and by the reality that we are perceiving.

That’s all well and good except that our perceptions are just that – perceptions. We are very comfortable with the process of transferring our perceptions to the object of our perceptions and labelling it as a characteristic of that object. That process is reinforced when all around us do it as well and our perceptions agree. All once perceived and agreed that the sun went around the earth. It was an illusion.

[bernee51]

I think this shows that Kant's "things in themselves" are best understood in terms of our relation to them and not in some absolute sense. As John Barrow points out we might think of the entire universe as a giant computer program with each human representing a subroutine in that program. The underlying nature of those "things in themselves" thus experienced may be far removed (if connected at all) with the reality we perceive.

This I can relate to.

Could you see the base program then as the “I am” referred to in previous posts and the subroutine being the XXX in the observation “I am XXX”? However, perception occurs in the subroutine, or it is in fact, the subroutine?

[joer]

Hello QED and Bernee,

Good to hear from you. Thanks for the great posts. I like your responses.

QED I read the link on the paramecium that you gave me. About pulling away from the acid in an apparent instinctive reaction of self-preservation. I was somewhat less impressed by the limitations in the article expressed in the narrowing of focus to the extent it did to review the meaning of the word “meaning”. It appeared as if it was trying to get to the most basic level of the meaning of “meaning”. But it seemed somewhat contrived within itself to get it’s point across.

The most important aspect I believe was an indication of how much of our response to the world around us is instinctive. Or using the Computer program sub routine allegory, is how much of our response to the world around us is “built in” to our "sub routine"? As I wondered about how the presentation was intentionally limited in scope, I thought about lemmings rushing in what might be called a “fear response “, over the edge of a cliff to their death. Than I wondered back to the “paramecium” what if fleeing the acid it moved to something else that destroyed it? Then I thought of populations. The thinning of populations when they get to great. And the longevity of a species, in relation to the idea of defining “meaning” as began in the article on the paramecium.

It seemed like all of these aspects were tied in instinctively and primordially to the paramecium’s response. We are the paramecium at one end of an ongoing evolutionary chain. And what we are becoming is the paramecium expanding in it’s evolutionary reality along one path of branching development. An actualization of one of the possible outcomes of one of the possible subroutines of the paramecium

But what about how our decisions affect this subroutine? You have the effect of the instinctive evolutionary process of the DNA contained within the paramecium, but then you have the effect of the creature’s evolved cognitive interaction based on historical instinctive “reaction-based” evidence that is analyzed and then the creature makes it’s own decisions that affect it’s continuing evolution. The instinctive reaction of the paramecium to get away from the acid in self-preservation becomes a “self” planned action in self-preservation.

So in regards to the article on the Paramecium. How realistic is the meaning of “meaning” when the scope is so limited?

“Perceptions are only falsified if they result in some significant calamity.”

I think we can find that they are also false without calamity, (preventing the completion of the reproduction cycle), when they are recognized as false in perceiving a more accurate sense of reality.

Also like Bernee I agree with what you present of Kant and Barrow.

Bernee, you are right. We very much do “see” (perceive) things in a similar fashion. It does seem to me that it is mostly semantics or definitions of terms that separates us in our descriptions of what we see. What I called a “constantly changing reality” you call an “illusion”.

So if we are more than what we perceive to be then what we perceive ourselves to be is not ‘real’. It is an illusion, is it not?

You believe:

Only that is real which does not change and cannot be destroyed.

I believe the perception of that “which does not change and cannot be destroyed” is real.

Where as you see things as Black and White. I see an infinite number of shades of gray in between.

The phrase ‘strength of that reality’ I don’t hold as valid. Something is ‘real’ or it is not. Are there degrees of reality? Or would that be like being a little bit pregnant or nearly unique?

I believe there are degrees of reality. The pregnancy changes in every moment. Cells are multiplying and differentiating at a phenomenal rate. There are degrees of pregnancy. 1st trimester, 2nd trimester, embryo, fetus etc.

Only until such time as a comet smashes into it and it becomes ‘star dust’.

Have we not seen that if what we perceive as the current status quo is shown to be ‘false’ is in fact illusory?

When the comet hit’s it, the reality of earth changes but it doesn’t change the fact of it’s reality before the comet hit.

Maybe if we looked at how “illusion” is generally seen and how you see it. It can at least demostrate I understand how you use the term vs. a more common definition of the term. Please Correct me if I’m wrong Bernee. Thanks.

Wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion
An illusion is a distortion of a sensory perception, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.

The way I see it. You are saying that our normal everyday waking reality (the way we perceive things) is an illusion. BUT in Wikipedia we see that an “illusion” is actually a distortion of our normal everyday waking reality (how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.)

So while I understand what you are saying, Life is an illusion because we can’t completely and accurately perceive "the reality" of it, I lean toward this short synopsis of the Wikipedia definition of our normal everyday waking reality (how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.) My caveat in respect to this thread “Is life Illusion”, is that this reality is “ever-changing” but that constantly renewing process is just as real. One other thing that I believe that may not be pertinent to this thread, is unlike you and QED, I believe we continue this process of constantly renewing perception (reality) for eternity until we as perceivers and that, that is perceived become One in the Same.

Then we are truly "real" in the way that Bernee defines reality.

Nice neat little package, isn’t it? With one caveat….we have to live it out…it’s a long time coming. And in time we'll know if this is "True"!

Cheers brothers!

[Curious]

[bernee51]

Bernee, you are right. We very much do “see” (perceive) things in a similar fashion. It does seem to me that it is mostly semantics or definitions of terms that separates us in our descriptions of what we see. What I called a “constantly changing reality” you call an “illusion”.

Perhaps it is semantics but I think it goes a little deeper. I have trouble getting my head around the phrase “constantly changing reality”. If something was ‘real’ and now it is no longer ‘real’ I am of the opinion it wasn’t really ‘real’ at all because if it was it would not have changed.

Philosophically I have seen ‘real’ defined as “independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent”

Where as you see things as Black and White. I see an infinite number of shades of gray in between.

The operative (and defining) word in the above is ‘see’. I too ‘see’ things in at least 256 shades of grey (I’m still an 8 bit sort of guy). But what I see, what I perceive is not “independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent”

I believe there are degrees of reality. The pregnancy changes in every moment. Cells are multiplying and differentiating at a phenomenal rate. There are degrees of pregnancy. 1st trimester, 2nd trimester, embryo, fetus etc.

I see as ‘degrees within perception’. Sure it changes but regardless of the stage it is still na 'either or', is it not?

Maybe if we looked at how “illusion” is generally seen and how you see it. It can at least demostrate I understand how you use the term vs. a more common definition of the term. Please Correct me if I’m wrong Bernee. Thanks.

Wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion
An illusion is a distortion of a sensory perception , revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.

The way I see it. You are saying that our normal everyday waking reality (the way we perceive things) is an illusion. BUT in Wikipedia we see that an “illusion” is actually a distortion of our normal everyday waking reality (how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.)

So while I understand what you are saying, Life is an illusion because we can’t completely and accurately perceive "the reality" of it, I lean toward this short synopsis of the Wikipedia definition of our normal everyday waking reality (how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.) My caveat in respect to this thread “Is life Illusion”, is that this reality is “ever-changing” but that constantly renewing process is just as real.

My view on this definition is that we can only perceive ‘reality’ as it arises or emerges in the moment or in the ‘now’. That which was perceived no longer exists, that which we may perceive is yet to exist. What we take as an ongoing reality is a memory of a previous ‘now’.

How long is a ‘now’?

One other thing that I believe that may not be pertinent to this thread, is unlike you and QED, I believe we continue this process of constantly renewing perception (reality) for eternity until we as perceivers and that, that is perceived become One in the Same.

An advaita vedantist describes this as atman (the individual consciousness) and Brahman (universal consciousness) are one. In order to taste an ocean all you need is a drop.

Then we are truly "real" in the way that Bernee defines reality.

That is the only ‘reality’

Nice neat little package, isn’t it? With one caveat….we have to live it out…it’s a long time coming. And in time we'll know if this is "True"!

It can be a long time coming, but doesn’t have to be.

It is all a matter of ‘realization’.

I too have a caveat. It is one thing to ‘know’ it is another to ‘be’.

[Curious]

Kudos to all who did not reply.