3 ms·

> There's no such thing. Reality is subjective for everyone who experiences it, as our senses dictate how we perceive it. The model of reality we agree with is

> There's no such thing. Reality is subjective for everyone who experiences it, as our senses dictate how we perceive it. The model of reality we agree with is a general overlap of our collective senses, and is not any more "real" than the one experienced when under the influence of mind-altering substances. I honestly think it's a cope to assert that there aren't really existing objects out there. The best you can do is a Hegelian argument, i.e. that everything is undetermined without a pure concept or language, but that doesn't really tell us whether or not there is "stuff" out there. Here's a question for you: do you think that there was no universe before sentient beings started to see it? Your argument here would mean you should answer "yes"

imiric 3y ago
That's the age old question of a tree falling in a forest. I'm not disputing the claim that the universe exists even if there is no observer. What I'm saying is that the perception of that universe depends entirely on our senses. After all, to a blind person, the universe appears much differently. In that same vein, altering our senses by taking various substances expands our perception of the universe in a way a person who doesn't will never experience. My point is that choosing to do so or not is fine, and neither is better than the other. So my objection is to your claim that the people who do make that choice are deluding themselves, or not experiencing "true" reality.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  > What I'm saying is that the perception of that universe depends entirely on our senses. And there is a right way to perceive it, and a wrong way to perceive it. > After all, to a blind person, the universe appears much differently. And? They still perceive the senses they can still access accurately. > In that same vein, altering our senses by taking various substances expands our perception of the universe in a way a person who doesn't will never experience. I agree except replace "expand" with "confuses". It makes our perception of reality incorrect. > My point is that choosing to do so or not is fine, and neither is better than the other. One is objectively better than another. Try driving a car on a strong LSD trip. You can't, because it isn't allowing you to have an accurate perception of reality. > So my objection is to your claim that the people who do make that choice are deluding themselves, or not experiencing "true" reality. You haven't adequately justified your objection.

imiric 3y ago

That's the age old question of a tree falling in a forest. I'm not disputing the claim that the universe exists even if there is no observer. What I'm saying is that the perception of that universe depends entirely on our senses. After all, to a blind person, the universe appears much differently. In that same vein, altering our senses by taking various substances expands our perception of the universe in a way a person who doesn't will never experience. My point is that choosing to do so or not is fine, and neither is better than the other. So my objection is to your claim that the people who do make that choice are deluding themselves, or not experiencing "true" reality.

bowsamic 3y ago
> What I'm saying is that the perception of that universe depends entirely on our senses. And there is a right way to perceive it, and a wrong way to perceive it. > After all, to a blind person, the universe appears much differently. And? They still perceive the senses they can still access accurately. > In that same vein, altering our senses by taking various substances expands our perception of the universe in a way a person who doesn't will never experience. I agree except replace "expand" with "confuses". It makes our perception of reality incorrect. > My point is that choosing to do so or not is fine, and neither is better than the other. One is objectively better than another. Try driving a car on a strong LSD trip. You can't, because it isn't allowing you to have an accurate perception of reality. > So my objection is to your claim that the people who do make that choice are deluding themselves, or not experiencing "true" reality. You haven't adequately justified your objection.