Gomtuu77 posed the following question to spblat, to which spblat responded during an exchange on another topic. I have a question below.




Gomtuu77, here is a question, of which there is physical evidence depending on your answer and if you choose to open your mind and understand it.

How did we get to the point where we can have this discussion? In other words, where did it start?

I sometimes get in trouble when I assume everyone knows what I mean at DH. So I'm going to clarify my quote above. When I said "since my reality is obviously the correct one, clearly you are the one in denial," I was being tongue in cheek in the sense that we all have our own little realities, and obviously most of us have no reason to think that our perception of reality might be skewed, and few people who do agree that their perception of reality might be skewed are willing to seriously acknowledge or examine this. I think this was clear, but there you have it.

One other thing. I mistyped "reality" as "erality" above, and I think I'm going to coin a new word.

erality - your skewed version of reality.

OK, shutting up now.

Dude, I'm fully aware that you said that completely tongue in cheek. Based on that, I'm hoping (actually I believe) you are fully aware where I'm going with this.

There is reality, which is what everyone can see with a bit of observation, open mindedness, education and effort.

Then there is the other "reality" that only that individual experiences or believes. I won't use the term delusion here in that I'm outwardly claiming anyone is delusional, HOWEVER that may well be the most appropriate term. Only time (and responses) will tell.

So, if there is confusion as to whether or not I believe is spblat's reality is more real or more correct than Gomtuu77's, that's not the issue. I'm simply waiting on a response from Gomtuu to get an understanding of their position.

Scott

Is it not merely assumption that we perceive physical reality the same? Obviously there are different perceptions of almost everything e.g. color blind people.

Just flipping through DH on my lunch break, and this comment really caught me. I agree with it completely, and yet, I think it is still the cause of many of the debates here (and elsewhere, no doubt).

I tend to lean pretty hard towards the philosophical end of the Reality spectrum. As such, I think that the "other reality" -- Erality (using spblat's term), actually represents something like 90%-99.99% of all human experience. In other words, I do believe there is such a thing as Objective Reality; I just think that, the way our brains and bodies function, we hardly ever cross paths with it.

I suspect, however, that most atheists and/or scientifically-minded folk tend to believe that most of human experience is actually seated in Objective Reality, and that Erality is uncommon, and probably unnatural, something to be avoided.

Maybe it is to be avoided; it is, after all, the ultimate goal of Buddhism to get past our personal illusions to finally see what Objective Reality really is. Perhaps this is why Buddhism seems to be one of the more palatable religions for atheists?

A signature-worthy observation.