people often perceive things that others do not. Thus, either the mentally ill are perceiving incorrectly or the sane.

In either event, if one of the parties is correct, the other is incorrect;

basically what I am saying is that perceptions are not always a valid representation of reality.

You are drawing a false inference here. Everyone perceives things that/as others do not. Where do you get the idea that perception is 'correct' or 'incorrect'? Where do you draw the line between 'mentally ill' (a definition please? Even the shrinks 'shrink' from that term these days). And 'sanity' is a legal term, not a medical/psychological term. You are creating a false dichotomy in your 'either/or' proposition. Were your premise correct, there would still be a wide continuum involved, transcending the 'correct' or 'incorrect'. Who judges for all? You? You and your friends? You and everyone who shares Perspective in the matter? Are the 'mentally ill' those who see things differently than you do, as you know that you are.. 'correct'? See what I mean?

Thats undigestible (and spurious) "if"! Why pit one Perspective against another? Its an old and fruitless game. The 'win/lose' days are already over. Win/win is the new order. All Perspectives are 'correct' within that Perspective, at that moment. Additively, all Perspectives give greater 'view/understanding' (Perspective!) of the 'whole'.
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective." - Book of Fudd (1:1)
Not 'right', not 'wrong', just 'opposite'.

All Perspectives are incomplete. That is what a Perspective is, a 'limited' view, hence, the more, the better 'representation of 'reality'.

The last few days I've been working on my view of reality. It'll probably take a while to explain, so bear with me. I'll also dip into epistemology a bit.

OK, so what do we define as reality? One may say that we create reality in our heads, a subjective reality. Another may say that what we perceive with our senses is reality. Objectivists, for example, claim that what we sense is reality, no ifs, ands, or buts. This is taking an awfully big leap of faith, though, in that saying that our senses and perceptions are fully valid methods of understanding reality. Rather, psychedelic drugs and mental illness shows that people often perceive things that others do not. Thus, either the mentally ill are perceiving incorrectly or the sane. In either event, if one of the parties is correct, the other is incorrect; basically what I am saying is that perceptions are not always a valid representation of reality.

In fact, they never are! For if we consider the world of atoms and electromagnetic waves to be the real, objective reality, we can see that our perceptions are vastly off. The objective reality is a reality of existence and motion. If we perceived objective reality as it truly is (this is assuming the widely held belief of objective reality--of atoms and whatnot--is true. This may be wrong, but that's for a physics discussion.) then all we would perceive would be particles moving, bonding together. There would be no "objects," just a whole bunch of tiny particles interacting with one another.

Thus, it is clear that the reality we live in, based on perceptions, this subjective reality, is far different from objective reality. Subjective reality is composed of colors, things, and meanings. Our senses are not accurate translators of reality; they give us things such as color, taste, etc., which do not exist in objective reality. Sure, one could say that color exists in the wavelengths of electromagnetic waves, but what is color to us is different than scientific, objective color. Our perception of "color" is found only in our subjective realities.

So, there is an objective reality and a subjective reality. The subjective reality is the one we think we live in, the one we feel we live in; objective reality is what subjective reality is created out of by the senses. So, is the objective reality the true one, what is really real? Well, consider this: we have already proven that senses are unreliable, and all of our information about objective reality comes from our senses. Also, subjective reality is created out of our senses. So, everything we know about reality right now is unreliable, invalid, because all of it is based on our senses.

For example, I may say, prove this table (imagine there is a table right in front of me) exists. As far as I can tell, this would be impossible, because any argument for the table's existence would rely on my senses, and senses are unreliable. Thus, certainty about anything in objective reality is impossible. When talking about subjective reality, though, we can be certain. For example, I am certain that I perceive that this computer I am typing on exists. As to whether it really exists, I do not know. I am sure that I perceive it to exist, though.

So we can be certain of subjective reality and other things of the mind, because they are self-contained inside the mind. In math, for instance, I can be sure that 2 + 2 = 4 because math is an abstract concept that exists solely in the mind. We can be sure of subjective things, but never of objective things, for objective knowledge is based on senses, which are not entirely valid representations of reality.

Yet, what is reality? Existence? Could we not say that anything that I perceive truly exists, for it does exist in my subjective reality? Subjectivists would argue that the conscious mind creates reality and existence. However, there must be some level of existence that contains consciousness, for consciousness really does exist, and the consciousness is not necessarily part of the body.

Now, I made a pretty big reasoning jump by claiming that consciousness truly exists and is not part of the body. I mean, the most logical scientific explanation for the mind is that it is merely a result of the mechanistic operations of our physical brains. So, what is my reasoning for this? Well, it is rather hard to explain with words, for it is an argument of introspection, of individual experience within my mind. Also, there is no way of proving it to you, for it is based on my own internal experiences, which cannot be proven to others. The best way for others to understand my argument is to examine their own internal experiences and evaluate what they find. Now, I'm not even sure if others are conscious as I am; perhaps I am an anomaly, the only being conscious at my level. All human behavior could conceivably be explained by physical processes in the brain. So why do I think consciousness is a real, separate entity from the body?

Well, when I am conscious, I experience what can be best described as a unified awareness, all of my senses being combined into a structure of consciousness that would simply not exist if my behavior was a result of atoms merely moving around with electrical impulses, as a purely mechanistic view of the brain and mind would indicate. Now, whether this unified awareness does any thought processing or not, I am not sure. What this consciousness does is beyond me; I merely know that it exists and it is what I consider myself. Now, what consciousness is may not fit into the standard theory of a separate soul. One thing I have heard but know next to nothing about is the theory that consciousness is an effect of quantum mechanics. This would make sense; all thoughts and actions and whatnot could be explained by physical brain activity, and the physical activity creates a separate mind. This would still fit in with what I am saying; all I am saying is that my mind is not purely physical as far as we understand physics today.

So, what is the implication? This: though I am not sure whether objective or subjective realities exist, I know this: existence exists, and my consciousness is part of existence. I figure that if my mind didn't exist, I would not experience my unified awareness. Also, if my consciousness exists, there must be actual existence; existence that absolutely exists and not in the frame of reference of any other being, like subjective reality. I hold that there is absolute existence, that is, reality that exists independent of any frames of references. This existence is what I call true reality, for it truly exists and does not exist in the context of any entity, like our subjective realities.

So, what do I know about this true reality? Only that my mind is part of it and any conclusions that can be drawn from that knowledge, such as the fact that minds can exist, etc. As to anything else, such as how this reality operates, what the true laws of existence are, and so on, I know nothing. Notice how I use "know" in the present tense. Some who've listened to me explain this up to this point have expressed the conclusion that we can never know about true reality. However, this is a big assumption. The way I see it, since we do not know how true reality operates, it may be possible, for all we know, for our minds to become aware of how true reality operates. We don't know that this is impossible, for such knowledge would require at least a little knowledge already of how true reality operates.

Now, understand that I consider it possible that our objective reality may be true reality. So may our subjective reality. I just don't take these realities, either of them, as a given for being true reality. So, at this point in time, I, and most likely everyone else, cannot be sure of anything at all except for what we create within our own heads.

I hope you enjoyed my explanation of how I view reality. I would really appreciate any feedback concerning holes in my reasoning or other possible views concerning these subjects. Maybe sometime soon I will post a description of my take on ethics and why morality is, no matter what, arbitrary. Thanks,



Farthender

As for how a perception can be "correct" or "incorrect", well, I suppose I'm operating there from the common point of view that there is an outside reality we are perceiving.

I'm kind of saying that if one person perceives a chair to be at a place, and another person perceives it not to be there, that one of them is wrong.

Not just opposite, but contradictory. I'm under the impression that two contradictory things or statements cannot coexist. Of course, quantum mechanics would argue with me in this respect.

...rather than entire points of view.

There is more where that came from.

Khethil, thanks, but I am still confused. As to the statement you made below:

"Objective reality does exist in rock-solid form, and although we'd have a hard time trying to prove it I believe it very hard to dispute".

Either something is or it isn't. What is there to dispute? Where am I missing the boat here.