riiight..

show me evidence which supports your claim then.
you can't, because experiences are subjective, and a claim like
yours is belief, not something which can be shown so that others may observe it
universally. last I checked, mailboxes weren't living entities; contains no structural/functional proteins
and on the intermolecular level, its matter is mostly empty space (this can be observed universally, using AFM or TEM on a sample)...yet we perceive it as solid matter. the resolution in our optical receptors is relatively poor, such that we cannot determine that matter is mostly space.

so..nothing is true nor real; all we have is our perception (and beliefs) of what's "real" and "true", which may just be illusion. we use science to create models, so everyone may observe the illusions

again, if you like to think of yourself as some sparkly star, then good for you.
I don't observe that illusion, and chances are, neither does the next guy/girl.

I never had the intention of proving anything, I'm simply relating an existential truth that I experienced and pointing out the arrogance in your post. Just because you know a lot about chemistry doesn't make you an expert on reality.



How can you speak for "the next guy/girl"? You can't.

note the bolded text, and explain how you infer that I speak for the next guy/girl.
and you're not elucidating any kind of existential "truth", because you have no argument to support it. I could experience existential delusions too, but I wouldn't go as far as to call them "truths".




hello pot, I'm kettle.

right now it's the collective experience of sensory perception. When every human (including anything we evolve into if we last that long) is dead homer simpson won't exist. After that anything that is left is reality.


I know some anthropologists that would disagree, but fuck them.

pretty much

I know right? Fundies say the darndest things.

Benzyme, maybe you need to smoalk moar. You seem to have a bit of an ego problem. I actually LOL'ed at your hypocrisy.

The term 'reality' has not been defined here btw. If you´re in search of something, it may be helpfull to first ask yourself what exactly it is what you´re looking for.

There are thenthousand possible valid answers to the question.

n00b...how do you know I haven't smoalked plenty?
I have no "ego problem", I know who I am.
If I actually believed I was a mailbox, or a pulsar in space,
then I'd have an ego problem

and hypocrisy is precisely what you've presented.

if you can tangibly show how everything is existentially connected rather than alluding to some anecdotal hippy bs, I'd be willing to consider it

I can see this thread has quickly degraded....

yea

I'll leave it, like you said, at this...
your reality may not necessarily be my reality

and best of luck showing the existence of a "universal truth". this is also subject to interpretation.

Now we have a chance to get back to the subject: what do you mean with the question?
Do you want to know what´s real and how we can determine real from not real? Do you want to define the meaning of the word 'reality'? Do you want to define the underlying meaning of all possible definitions of the word 'reality'? Are you looking for a gradn-unified-theory on everything? Do you want an inventory of all that exists? Do you want to gain insight in the relationship between you and the world around you? Do you want to know how we can be aware of things? Do you want to know what awareness is?

You can´t answer all of those questions at the same time, you know.

I would like those who want to continue discussing in this thread to reflect on why they are posting in the first place. Is your post really gonna add to the discussion, or is it gonna be finger-point, ad hominen attacks and general confrontational attitude? Are you doing it plainly for yourself, or is there something others can gain from it?

And, quoting infundibulum's relevant remark in some other thread:

"Reality" is the state encountered when ones blood level of NN DMT is not elevated!

Or could it be the other way around?!

low dmt plasma conc. = reality
elevated levels of dmt plasma conc. = surreality

When dreaming, DMT plasma concentration is not elevated (is it?). So according to your definition, the dream state = reality.

Why do you consider the dream state to be reality, yet the DMT state to be "surreality"? And why don't you differentiate between the dream state and the sober awake state?

I don´t think DMT has anything to do with the question(s).

The problem with dreaming/altered states, is that we CAN know that we are dreaming, that something is NOT 'real'. But we can NEVER proof that we are awake and that something DOES actually exist as we perceive it.

Any possible proof or evidence that we aren´t dreaming but fully aware of the world around us could be dreamt-up as well.

The only thing i think we can ever be sure of, after acknowledging that at least our own existence must be real, is the framework of relationships that make-up this (possible illusory) world. Even if something is illusory, the way in wich we relate to it is not.

Wich means that there must be something outside the scope of our direct experience, to wich we relate, of wich we would say, from our consensus-reality point of view, that it has a material basis.

But you´d have to realise that the word 'material' could (and is likely to) have a completely different meaning than we think....'material' could refer to atoms and particles, or it could be the brain of god.

I was elaborating on corpus' statement.
I don't exactly consider the dream state to be reality, more of a shuffling of perceived realities transcribed into memory during the waking state

at this stage the question "what is reality" can't really be successfully answered (as far as i can tell.. but i could be wrong). i guess reality includes everything that does exist (in whatever form, dimension, universe) and excludes anything which does not exist. i'm sure we all agree that whatever "we" are, we do exist. so whatever we are, whether we are distinct individual entities or all connected as part of one huge consciousness or whatever, we are part of reality.

i'm inclined to lean towards the scientific method when it comes to which things to class as reality.. if i see no compelling evidence of something, then i see no reason to accept it as truth/reality. we all know that there are things that cannot be readily investigated using the scientific method, and i am aware that by ruling certain things out based on lack of evidence i could be ruling out things which are part of reality... but it is the best heuristic i have and to abandon it would leave me open to believing any number of unjustifiable beliefs, with no way of determining which of them is true and which is false. even things that i believe based on scientific evidence i only believe tentatively... since even they could be wrong.