Vsauce video: 'Is Anything Real?/

[Ben_Sinner]

Ok so I was on YouTube and when I got on the front page there was a video on the side by Vsauce titled Is Anything Real?:

I didn’t watch the video but I’m still freaked out. Vsauce is been a pretty reputable channel.

Now the title says Is Anything Real? which is an implication that the video will probably “prove” that NO, nothing is real.

Some of the titles for mentioned with that video by the same channel discuss “Audio Illusion” and “Visual Illusions”.

Is it true that audio and visual is just an illusion?

I worry about this because if it is an illusion than I worry that what if the audio Jesus spoke was just an illusion and the sight of him on the cross was an illusion, etc. etc.

Has anybody seen this video? Here it is…

youtube.com/watch?v=L45Q1_psDqk

I just want to know if this is something I should be concerned about…like I said Vsauce seems to be pretty reputable, thats the only reason this bothers me. And the fact that audio and vision could be an illusion freaks me out too.

 

[laircy]

I haven’t watched it (or if I have, it was a while ago and I don’t remember what it was about) but I think we have to realize something here (no pun intended). You can’t really say that all of the reality we experience ISN’T real, precisely because it is what we have defined to BE real.

It’s like this: say, there’s water. Someone says “that’s not REALLY water, that’s just a bunch of H2O molecules.” But then you have to ask, and what ARE a bunch of H2O molecules? Water.

It makes no sense at all to say that what is defined as real isn’t really real, because then what standard are we appealing to?

 

[Ben_Sinner]

I haven’t watched it (or if I have, it was a while ago and I don’t remember what it was about) but I think we have to realize something here (no pun intended). You can’t really say that all of the reality we experience ISN’T real, precisely because it is what we have defined to BE real.

It’s like this: say, there’s water. Someone says “that’s not REALLY water, that’s just a bunch of H2O molecules.” But then you have to ask, and what ARE a bunch of H2O molecules? Water.

It makes no sense at all to say that what is defined as real isn’t really real, because then what standard are we appealing to?

I guess in a way, a person who concludes that “nothing is real” would have no choice but to concede that there is reality in the world.

…or else what is the “nothing is real” hypothesis based on?

 

[SecretCatholic]

I haven’t watched it (or if I have, it was a while ago and I don’t remember what it was about) but I think we have to realize something here (no pun intended). You can’t really say that all of the reality we experience ISN’T real, precisely because it is what we have defined to BE real.

It’s like this: say, there’s water. Someone says “that’s not REALLY water, that’s just a bunch of H2O molecules.” But then you have to ask, and what ARE a bunch of H2O molecules? Water.

It makes no sense at all to say that what is defined as real isn’t really real, because then what standard are we appealing to?

Exactly. Reductionism.

I guess in a way, a person who concludes that “nothing is real” would have no choice but to concede that there is reality in the world.

…or else what is the “nothing is real” hypothesis based on?

And obviously then, the video is not real and neither is its contents!

OP, you should look into Anthony Rizzy’s book “The Science Before Science” iapweb.org/OldSite/science_before_science.html

I believe he tackles some of these issues.

The problem is bad philosophy. Nobody denies that you could split up a human being into subatomic particles. Does that mean that human beings “aren’t real”? Likewise, you can reduce light and sound into waves and particles. But that doesn’t reduce their reality as light and sound. When people go on claiming that it does, that’s called reductionism, and it’s quite the trend nowadays.

Reality seems weird to us when looked at from a non-common perspective. But its still reality!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Now the title says Is Anything Real? which is an implication that the video will probably “prove” that NO, nothing is real.

He doesn’t “prove” that nothing is real (though he does point out that “proved” is not equivalent to “true”). He talks about our senses, potential differences between how we perceive/sense/ the world and how it really may be, and epistemology.

I just want to know if this is something I should be concerned about…like I said Vsauce seems to be pretty reputable, thats the only reason this bothers me. And the fact that audio and vision could be an illusion freaks me out too.

He doesn’t say these senses are illusions, but that some times illusions can occur with them. These senses are not 100% reliable.

 

[Partinobodycula]

I worry about this because if it is an illusion than I worry that what if the audio Jesus spoke was just an illusion and the sight of him on the cross was an illusion, etc. etc.

At least do yourself the favor of going to the 6:47 mark, and watching the last part of the video. Then take the time to contemplate what this ultimately means, not only about Jesus, but about you, and about life. Your life is an absolutely amazing thing. Among all the known lifeforms in the world, you alone have the ability to contemplate the mysteries of where it all came from, and what it all means. You have the ability to marvel at the beauty of a sunset, and mourn for the suffering of those whom you have never known. You have the ability to love, and hate, and weep, and laugh, and wonder, and hope. These are the things that make life a truly precious thing. These are the things of which heaven is made. You, among all of creation, have the ability to recognize these things.

Appreciate this wonderful thing called life. Don’t simply endure it, embrace it. For you, for whatever reason, have the ability to comprehend the wonders of creation. Whether this is a gift from God, or simply the result of chance, you can never know, but you can, and indeed you should, appreciate it all the same.

Love life. It’s amazing.

 

[Bahman]

Nothing is absolutely real but relatively.

 

[Aloysium]

Nothing is absolutely real but relatively.

Not sure if you are:

• just throwing out a bunch of random words hoping they mean something,
• trying but not quite forming a coherent thought,
• unable to communicate what you think, or
• actually believe the world is irrational.

Obviously, if everything is relative, that would be an absolute reality.
I can’t see reality as being relative because it would mean that each of us exists in our own isolated subjective reality.

What I do see is that it is all about relationships, and that each of us forms our particular relationship with God, the world and each other based on the uniqueness of who we are.
From the Godhead to all existence, everything is in relation to everything else. This is different than relative.
It seems I might even, presumptuously, disagree with Einstein’s wording but I haven’t thought it out.

 

[Bahman]

Not sure if you are:

• just throwing out a bunch of random words hoping they mean something,
• trying but not quite forming a coherent thought,
• unable to communicate what you think, or
• actually believe the world is irrational.

No that was to just start a conversation.

Obviously, if everything is relative, that would be an absolute reality.

Are you sure that there is an absolute reality? If so, why people are so scattered about believing what is the truth. In another word, the only reality we can stand on is that we experience things. Do we experience the same level reality? Some people have vision, other have strange spiritual experience, so as you could see we are different on what we can experience on the spot.

I can’t see reality as being relative additionally because it would mean that each of us exists in our own isolated subjective reality.

It could be true as we are different in experiencing the reality, such as a spiritual experience, so it is relative.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Are you sure that there is an absolute reality? If so, why people are so scattered about believing what is the truth. In another word, the only reality we can stand on is that we experience things. Do we experience the same level reality? Some people have vision, other have strange spiritual experience, so as you could see we are different on what we can experience on the spot. . . . It could be true as we are different in experiencing the reality, such as a spiritual experience, so it is relative.

The fact that we are communicating is an absolute reality (the Zen Buddhist in me). There is no doubt in my mind. It is possible to have some sort of thought disorder that would cause one to deny reality, but it is not something to which I have currently succumb.

The human condition is such that we exist in a state of profound ignorance. All religions assert this. It has been revealed to us why this is our fate and also that we can be saved.

“We experience things” as you say. We connect with things, with each other. Experience involves a relationship between the mystery that we are with the mystery that is the other.

I am not sure what you mean by level of reality. We relate to God, the world and each other in different ways, reflecting who we are.

I suppose much of my difficulty with what you are saying has to do with my understanding of the term “relative” - It connotes an absence of absolute and universal standards.
This is not the true nature of the world, and you may wish to consider the possibility that it represents how your mind understands.
You may be searching for truth on your own, without Foundation or compass to direct you. Any and all ideas in this case would sound probably all equally valid.
Not connecting with the Divine, there are simply subjective “truths”.
Keep searching with an open mind, surrendering preconceptions. Truth is revealed; one cannot go barging in.
The ultimate Truth actually is known in action; it is not enough to sit and contemplate. You will probably think it arrogant to say, but the surest way too know God is to participate in His Church.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Nothing is absolutely real but relatively.

Except for your statement, no?

Are you sure that there is an absolute reality? If so, why people are so scattered about believing what is the truth. In another word, the only reality we can stand on is that we experience things. Do we experience the same level reality? Some people have vision, other have strange spiritual experience, so as you could see we are different on what we can experience on the spot.

In order to even communicate we must be sharing some kind of absolute reality. We can have different points of view, but there must be something to view in the first place. It’s easy to say that everything is relative, but relative to WHAT?

It could be true as we are different in experiencing the reality, such as a spiritual experience, so it is relative.

We are different in experiencing a reality because experience is subjective, not reality. We are each different, and have different experiences of an objective reality.

 

[Bahman]

The fact that we are communicating is an absolute reality (the Zen Buddhist in me). There is no doubt in my mind. It is possible to have some sort of thought disorder that would cause one to deny reality, but it is not something to which I have currently succumb.

The language is constantly under change to explain the reality as we experience and it could be logically fitted in our mind. The fact that language changes over time to overcome the difficulty of facing the truth means that there is no absolute truth since otherwise we had one single language and one single truth hence there was no need for any changes. We are very unsure about the truth behind the reality outside our mind. We have approaches to comprehended it but our approach is biased by the way we are looking at the world.

The language however has advantage and disadvantage since your mind become cognitively close in comprehending and explaining a new subject matter so called anomaly once you are attached to the language. Unfortunately we most of the time try to resolve anomaly by striving to the old language which is not complete and that is the sign of error, because of two facts, our understanding will never be anomaly free and the approach we take to explain an anomaly is biased by our language which is not proper for understanding the subject matter which we don’t know what it is.

In simple word, our understanding of our word that we have something in common is biased by our language to seek and explain the truth hence the truth is relative because our understanding is not anomaly free.

“We experience things” as you say. We connect with things, with each other. Experience involves a relationship between the mystery that we are with the mystery that is the other.

The fact that we call the word mysterious shows that our understanding is illusory from the subject matter and depends very much on how thoughts evolved around the existence based on the language we use to communicate.

I am not sure what you mean by level of reality. We relate to God, the world and each other in different ways, reflecting who we are.

By this I mean that the reality that person X is exposed and comprehend could be different from person Y hence the reality is relative. If it is so then reality has levels. By level I mean there are some sort of reality that person type X are exposed to and not Y type.

I suppose much of my difficulty with what you are saying has to do with my understanding of the term “relative” - It connotes an absence of absolute and universal standards.

The existence cannot be common sense and in the same time mysterious. We can claim that the there is universal truth once the existence become common sense to us.

This is not the true nature of the world, and you may wish to consider the possibility that it represents how your mind understands.

What is the true nature of our world is one of the subject of discussion and in fact that is correlated with how we understand the thing, otherwise no comprehension could be achieved.

 

[Bahman]

Except for your statement, no?

The fact that existence is mysterious implements that there is no absolute reality unless you achieve in comprehending it and we would be so happy to know your idea.

In order to even communicate we must be sharing some kind of absolute reality. We can have different points of view, but there must be something to view in the first place.

In order to communicate we need to share a language not the absolute reality. Our language is unfortunately biased with what we have learn from past considering them all as absolute truth which they were not hence our language is incapable of facing with anomalous quality like existence, consciousness, free will, etc.

It’s easy to say that everything is relative, but relative to WHAT?

Relative to what that is common sense to other which is not wholly explain the existence.

We are different in experiencing a reality because experience is subjective, not reality. We are each different, and have different experiences of an objective reality.

Are you arguing that reality exist knowing that existence in general is mysterious?

 

[Sochi]

Has anybody seen this video?

The video is about epistmology: how we know and what we can know and not know. It is one of the most neglected areas of study, and one of the most important. I’m guessing that lot of folks don’t even know it exists.

Most people take for granted that they are “realists.” That is, that they think that they are a discreet (seperate) individual existing in a world of objects. This is an easy conclusion to assume, as we tend very much to deal in commonalities posited to be part of an objective world, and we, ourselves, one of them. But “objectivism,” the belief that there is an objective world independent of the one who experiences it ,and behavior associated with that belief, is one of the biggest bugaboos of the human mind.

We exist in four areas: I, we, it, and its. The ideas that the video explores are about how we actually perceive and interact with the world. All of that is utterly dependent on the “I” factor, and is modified by what that “I” associates its sense of being with. The only thing that might be of concern to anyone is this: If one is thoroughly entrenched in the subject and object world view, it could take a bit of intellectual and emotional stability to explore the actual implications of what the video points to. It has been said that “The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking; it will destroy your world.”

Why, or how could anyone say that? Well, it is because, in fact, the world as we each thinks “is” is our private version of the world as we have constructed it by acceptance, inculcation, or conjecture. If that isn’t true, why are there as many views of the world as there are people? Hence the video title. If everyone saw the world the same way, would there be political parties, ethnic cultures, or religions? No, there would be only one of each and wouldn’t be perceived as such. But It takes a pretty strong person to deliberately start looking at themselves and how their mind actually works relative to Reality. Most people for the most part are invested in comfort and stability, and rarely stir their own pot to see its ingredients in any truly useful way.

Why? Because if we look at how we use our senses, and mental faculties, we discover that we in fact don’t perceive very much, only enough to have some sense of commonality with our surroundings, enough to get by. Some seem not even to have that. We tend to see only surfaces, and it takes great effort and focus to go past that, and if we are comfortable, who cares? A few do.

About the least explored area, then, is “I.” Our culture, you may have noticed, is invested in superficiality. Unfortunately, despite the very good intentions of religions, most of their adherents never get past the mere face of their own faith. This is unfortunate, because it isn’t the dogmas and tenets held as intellectual concepts that mean anything real. Meaning lies in the interior of each one. And that means understanding “subject.” And that is also greatly discouraged, and why, in some cases, people turn to the understandings and practices of Eastern religions.

But the fact is, all that we think is “out there” is really “in here.” It is really, really important to understand how that works. It is also why I would never recommend someone who is very fundamentalist in any religion to go down that road. The reality of things is not as advertised in the common ways of perception. That may be why some find physics and quantum theory so fascinating. Those are now quantifying ideas that the Rishis knew experientially 5000 years ago, down to the fact that particles indeed continually do flash in and out of existence.

So the video is kind of an kindergarten intro to something it would be really good for all of us to be experts in. But for way many, that means discomfort and change. Not likely to happen, in other words.

 

[Sochi]

Here is an interesting addendum to the above post:

"…We define thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers. Look around you. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to the corner store and back without breaking a leg. If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two-valued ‘either-or’ logic to arrive at his wrong answers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personally interested in the answer, he can’t use any sort of logic and will discard observed fact as blithely as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exists. He classes his own mental process as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.

"That is why there is always room at the top, why a man with a leetle more on the ball can so easily become governor, millionaire, or college president–and why homo sap is sure to be displaced by New Man, because there is so much room for improvement and evolution never stops.

Here and there among ordinary men is a rare individual who really thinks, can and does use logic in a single field–he’s often as stupid as the rest outside his study or his laboratory–but he can think, if he is not disturbed, sick, or frightened. This rare individual is responsible for all the progress made by the race; the others reluctantly adopt his results. Much as the ordinary man dislikes and distrusts and persecutes the process of thinking he is forced to accept the results occasionally, because thinking is efficient compared with his own maunderings. He may still plant his corn by the dark of the moon, but he will plant better corn developed by better men than he.

"Still rarer is the man who thinks habitually, who applies reason, rather than habit pattern, to all his activity. Unless he masks himself, his is a dangerous life; he is regarded as queer, untrustworthy, subversive of public morals; a pink monkey among the brown monkeys–a fatal mistake. Unless the pink monkey can dye himself brown before he gets caught.

"The brown monkey’s instinct to kill is correct; such men are dangerous to all monkey customs.

"Rarest of all is the man who can and does reason at all times, quickly, accurately, inclusively, despite hope or fear or bodily distress, without egocentric bias or thalmic disturbance, with correct memory, with clear distinction between fact, assumption and non-fact. Such men exist, They are “New Man”–human in all respects, indistinguishable in all appearances or under the scalpel from homo sap, yet as unlike him in action as the Sun is unlike a single candle.

~RA Heinlein Gulf, a short novel in Assignment in Eternity c 1949, '53, '81 RAH

 

[Aloysium]

The video is about epistmology . . . I’m guessing that lot of folks don’t even know it exists.

You’re right. It doesn’t even show up on Google. Epistemology on the other hand . . .

Most people take for granted that they are “realists.” That is, that they think that they are a discreet (seperate) individual existing in a world of objects. This is an easy conclusion to assume, as we tend very much to deal in commonalities posited to be part of an objective world, and we, ourselves, one of them. But “objectivism,” the belief that there is an objective world independent of the one who experiences it ,and behavior associated with that belief, is one of the biggest bugaboos of the human mind.

It helps when you are buying groceries, paying bills, fixing the fence; you know, all the unreal stuff.

. . . If one is thoroughly entrenched in the subject and object world view, it could take a bit of intellectual and emotional stability to explore the actual implications of what the video points to. It has been said that “The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking; it will destroy your world.”

Usually it’s the other way around; intellectual, emotional and especially spiritual instability rocks one’s foundations. One has no choice but to take the plunge.

. . . the world as we each thinks “is” is our private version of the world as we have constructed it by acceptance, inculcation, or conjecture. . . But It takes a pretty strong person to deliberately start looking at themselves and how their mind actually works relative to Reality. Most people for the most part are invested in comfort and stability, and rarely stir their own pot to see its ingredients in any truly useful way.

There is still a world and not all teachings and understandings are equal in their ability to reveal truth. I assume you would agree, since otherwise there would be no point to all your words. I am left wondering how willing you are to stir the pot and consider that maybe most people have it right and you don’t.

. . . we in fact don’t perceive very much, only enough to have some sense of commonality with our surroundings, enough to get by. Some seem not even to have that. We tend to see only surfaces, and it takes great effort and focus to go past that, and if we are comfortable, who cares? A few do.

Being half blind, I perceive even less.
You seem comfortable, actually quite satisfied, with where you are. Do you care?

About the least explored area, then, is “I.” . . . Unfortunately, despite the very good intentions of religions, most of their adherents never get past the mere face of their own faith. This is unfortunate, because it isn’t the dogmas and tenets held as intellectual concepts that mean anything real. Meaning lies in the interior of each one. And that means understanding “subject.” And that is also greatly discouraged, and why, in some cases, people turn to the understandings and practices of Eastern religions.

Making disparaging comments about phantom “adherents” does lend support to your claim the “least explored area, then, is ‘I’,” assuming you are using yourself as an example. There are many lost souls in this secular society that has had it in for the Church. Many people are unaware of the treasures that are all around them.

But the fact is, all that we think is “out there” is really “in here.” It is really, really important to understand how that works. It is also why I would never recommend someone who is very fundamentalist in any religion to go down that road. . . But for way many, that means discomfort and change. Not likely to happen, in other words.

Are you suggesting that this monitor is “in here”? It is actually “out there”. The experience that arises out of my relationship with this inanimate object informs me of this. The experience itself, is not “out there”, “in here”, or anywhere. It is and that is about all I can say about it. I can see the blackness which represents my visual capacity and the physical nature of the plastic, which I understand as absorbing all frequencies of visible light.

I’m not sure you have made your case and you really don’t say why understanding things as you do is “really important”.
It seems that what would cause discomfort for you would be to pursue the Church’s teachings, but I think there is hope and it may very well happen.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Let me summarize my views.

We cannot prove or disprove what reality is. We can only know that there IS a reality, because we exist. Even better, the only thing you KNOW is that YOU exist. I really can’t fully prove my existence to anyone else. But from there you start to explore the possibilities and make (hopefully) reasonable assumptions. For me, that means that others like me (human beings) exist and that we share a common reality, even if our perceptions and beliefs on reality differ.

There might be twenty different theories on why it rains. That doesn’t make the rain any less objective, nor does it mean that every theory is equally right. In fact, they might all be wrong. But that doesn’t deny that there is one correct theory. My subjective experience of the rain may be different than yours (maybe the cold rain makes me, but not you, shiver) but the rain is there and its real. There may be a thousand different ways to feel the rain and to see it, but we are all referring to something objectively real.

Now, if you believe that truth CANNOT be known, then you are a skeptic, that is:
Dictionary.com:

a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

And yet we know truth enough to communicate and be fairly good at it. If I ask someone for a cup of sugar, I usually get what I ask for, not a cup of salt or pepper or a vacuum cleaner, so at least the gist of my message was communicated, even if I get brown sugar instead of the white sugar I was picturing.

And yet we know truth enough to build bridges, computers and land on the moon. It all points to a real, objective truth. Many people have believed that they can fly and yet when launched out of a six story window without apparatus, they fall, not fly. And yet we can come together and build an airplane which can fly without any strong belief needed.

So there appears to be a reality out there that stands on its own, regardless of our beliefs on it. In that, we agree with atheists. They do not believe that God exists. We do. I do not say- You are right, and I am right! No, these are mutually exclusive beliefs. Either they are right, or we are right. Reality being what it is, there may be more options than we realize. But that doesn’t mean that some beliefs on reality are mutually exclusive and some are right while others are wrong.

You can take refuge in the unknown and claim that we are all wrong and laugh from a distance with an air of superiority. It’s easy to deny everything and claim truth for your own. It’s easy not to take a stand and claim moral superiority. But its not honest. You are not outside reality. You are inside it right alongside the rest of us. You have a position and it is as suspect as the next. Ambiguity may shroud your belief, but it does not make it any more credible.

The same goes for all that drivel about how “average man” is inferior and “new man” is superior. Are we copying Nietzsche here? Yes, most people are not great thinkers and have a lacking spiritual and interior life. But by not being one of them, you have greater responsibilities, so instead of putting down “average man” and gloating, you should do what you can to help humanity, which does not include put-downs. Much is expected to whom much is given. Or maybe, you’re just as deluded as the rest and not really much above average yourself.

I have met many intelligent people throughout my life. I have known several engineers. Yes, they were smarter than the average bear. But that doesn’t actually make them better people. In fact, most work for a paycheck and many are as morally-devoid as other, less thinking people. It’s all self-worship and nonsense. It is not a superior sense of logic or intuition that is telling you you’re right and everyone else is wrong. It’s your ego.

 

[Sochi]

You’re right. It doesn’t even show up on Google. Epistemology on the other hand . . .

Blessed spell check…

It helps when you are buying groceries, paying bills, fixing the fence; you know, all the unreal stuff.

Exactly. But the point is that it is unclear to many how it is unreal.

Usually it’s the other way around; intellectual, emotional and especially spiritual instability rocks one’s foundations. One has no choice but to take the plunge.

Yes, that is why so many go for the “bread and circuses” of life.

There is still a world and not all teachings and understandings are equal in their ability to reveal truth. I assume you would agree, since otherwise there would be no point to all your words. I am left wondering how willing you are to stir the pot and consider that maybe most people have it right and you don’t.

Right. Where is your experience of that world? And there are many conceptual structures about that world that are in some way and to some degree useful in navigating it. Truth as a relative revelation is useful to some extent, and yes, some teachings are more transparent than others. For my pot, lol, I literally had the rug pulled out from under me as to every concept I had about what it was about to be human. So yes, involuntarily got my pot stirred big time, and had to back off and re-asses. Conclusion? Definitely that most people have it relatively right as far as their immediate necessities and comforts, but basically no.

Being half blind, I perceive even less.
You seem comfortable, actually quite satisfied, with where you are. Do you care?

I just did some readings on Hellen Keller today. She smoked others in many respects. “Seeing” is not just of the eyes, by any means. I am secure with where I am, as it is not dependent on circumstance, and quite satisfied, as you say, as far as my sense of being, but not in the way you might think, I suspect. I am rather discomforted by much, on another level, such as much that I read in the news or even on here.

Making disparaging comments about phantom “adherents” does lend support to your claim the “least explored area, then, is ‘I’,” assuming you are using yourself as an example. There are many lost souls in this secular society that has had it in for the Church. Many people are unaware of the treasures that are all around them.

No kidding. Most people are walking around asleep, thinking they are wide awake. Not speaking personally on that one though, but about the “i” that many consider as their “me.”

Are you suggesting that this monitor is “in here”? It is actually “out there”. The experience that arises out of my relationship with this inanimate object informs me of this. The experience itself, is not “out there”, “in here”, or anywhere. It is and that is about all I can say about it. I can see the blackness which represents my visual capacity and the physical nature of the plastic, which I understand as absorbing all frequencies of visible light.

Yes, but look more deeply at your looking. You will see that you see it “out there” only “in here.” “Out there” is a concept “in here.”

I’m not sure you have made your case and you really don’t say why understanding things as you do is “really important”.
It seems that what would cause discomfort for you would be to pursue the Church’s teachings, but I think there is hope and it may very well happen.

I’m not very interested in making a case. I’m kind of fishing for folks who get what I mean because they see the same way. I could go somewhere where the is a sure thing, but it is more fun fishing, and having some interesting conversations. So far, I’m doing well. It’s important to me, of course. But looking at new tings is important to everyone. For me it is important because questioning your mind leads to great rewards, such as the cessation of suffering. The fact is, I did superbly well in not only pursuing the Church’s teachings, but in proselytizing as well. I was a good “missionary.” Then the world changed in the blink of an eye. And yet, here I am. Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Are you suggesting that this monitor is “in here”? It is actually “out there”. The experience that arises out of my relationship with this inanimate object informs me of this. The experience itself, is not “out there”, “in here”, or anywhere. It is and that is about all I can say about it. I can see the blackness which represents my visual capacity and the physical nature of the plastic, which I understand as absorbing all frequencies of visible light.

The truth is that there is no way to ever know for certain whether anything exists outside of your own mind, or not. You are alone, and you are destined to always remain alone. Nothing, or no one, can ever change that. Everything around you must be accepted on faith.

What you believe, and what you do, you do because you choose to, and only because you choose to. The world may, or may not be an illusion, but how you choose to respond to it reveals the essence of the only thing in this world that you know to be true…you. The hearts of men are revealed in the choices that they make. They choose to condemn others, not because God tells them to, but because they choose to. In like manner they can choose to forgive, if it be their desire to do so.

Men believe what they choose to believe. And they act in the manner in which they choose to act. They live the life that they choose to live, and they are at peace, if they choose to be at peace.

 

[SecretCatholic]

The truth is that there is no way to ever know for certain whether anything exists outside of your own mind, or not. You are alone, and you are destined to always remain alone. Nothing, or no one, can ever change that. Everything around you must be accepted on faith.

That you are “alone” is also an article of faith!

What you believe, and what you do, you do because you choose to, and only because you choose to. The world may, or may not be an illusion, but how you choose to respond to it reveals the essence of the only thing in this world that you know to be true…you.

But what are “you”? Are we not at least partially formed and informed by the outside world, illusion or not? If a baby never interacted with anyone or anything, would he even be a person as he grew, even if all his physical needs were somehow met?

The hearts of men are revealed in the choices that they make. They choose to condemn others, not because God tells them to, but because they choose to. In like manner they can choose to forgive, if it be their desire to do so.

But again, what is the heart and how can it be formed or dis-formed? The “world” certainly plays a huge part, even if the choice is ultimately ours.

Men believe what they choose to believe. And they act in the manner in which they choose to act. They live the life that they choose to live, and they are at peace, if they choose to be at peace.

Yes, but upon what basis do we choose? There are some of us who seek truth and act according to what we believe the truth is, not merely according to whatever we fancy. If I found out that something I held to be a core truth was not, I’d reanalyze my behavior and adjust it accordingly.

If I suddenly found out that everyone else in the world was an illusion, I would certainly adjust my behavior towards them, because they do not posses the quality of personhood I believed. I probably still wouldn’t cause them harm, because violence affects the one who commits it as well, but if that truth were not so, then why not harm others? You see, these beliefs can become very dangerous if erroneous.