Mind as alternate reality

I think that my mind could be viewed as a pseudo reality that is caused by true reality. Consciousness in living beings is not necessarily a part of reality, because one cannot truly know reality without sensing all or nothing of it (whereas I sense a finite, portion of reality). Conscious beings are actually alternate realities within the true reality. By ‘true reality’ I mean sort of what was the world of Amber in those books by Roger Zelazny, or what Plato called the ‘forms’ with which we existed before life. In the ‘Allegory of the Cave’ our minds would be the equivalent of one of the shadows on the wall, not one of the people viewing the shadows. So, since my reality is defined by my senses, but not fully defined, I cannot consider myself part of the true reality, but instead a pseudo reality within the true reality, a shadow on the wall of reality.

The idea that all we perceive is shadows of reality can be explained physically. Humans see the world as colors, shades, shapes, depths, and movement in their immediate surroundings. But in fact, we have discovered that, broken down into the smallest parts, the sight of reality is much more than the general colors, shades, shapes, depths, and movement that we see. There is exactness to the world that we cannot see unless looking through an advanced, powerful microscope or through the figuring of mathematical truths. The smallest components of life are actually the subatomic particles of which everything is made. What we perceive is basically a terrible resolution of reality. The naked eyes, ears, skin, nose, and tongue cannot detect more than generalizations and guesses of the true orders of these particles. If we could perceive, in exact resolution (without squinting or changing the focus) the orders of all particles, we could then begin to see reality. Objects would turn into the incredible combinations of particles and elements that they truly are, as opposed to the simple, singular object that we see. Sounds would turn into visible variations in the positions of atoms and particles, as would light and all other wave-based systems of movement. Taste and smell would be the reactions between elements that we would be able to detect, in individual and group occurrences.

This true reality is beyond our ability to perceive as humans. Our body and especially our nervous system would need to be drastically enhanced, to a point I am not sure is really possible. Instead, my mind is an alternate reality, describable in these general terms as well as the exact physical makeup of my being. My mind is a unique reality within the true reality that casts many other shadows on this planet Earth.

According to your view, if true reality disappeared would my mind still exist?

According to what I’m saying, your mind would be an alternate reality, but still exists within the true reality. Therefore, if true reality does not exist, neither does your mind. I don’t necessarily believe what I say, I just like to speculate and think of things differently. It’s basically an exercise in logic. Do you think this idea is logical, or is there some fatal flaw to it?

Actually, I take almost the opposite stance that you do regarding subjective reality and objective reality. Objective reality cannot exist without subjective reality. What is more, even when you look under the microscope you are not necessarily seeing reality how it “actually” is. When light waves reflect off an object into your eyes then what you are seeing is actually just a set of patterns that enter your retinas and is interpreted and recorded by your brain. However, there is nothing that assures that this interpretation is correct. Nor is there anyway to tell that we all interpret these things the same. For instance, your brain’s interpretation of light reflecting off a baseball, may actually look like light reflecting off a football to me. It’s all in interpretation. The most obvious instance of this is color. Why do we all have different favorite colors? How do I know whether the way I see the light frequency blue isn’t more like pink to you? There is no way. There is a way to tell if our eyes are recording the data incorrectly in comparison to how others’ eyes record the same set of data, but there is absolutely no way, without jumping into another person’s brain, to tell if the interpretation is the same or not.

In fact, I would say there is more evidence that it isn’t the same. For instance, why do people witness the exact same set of events and then have different ideas of what happened? Here is a good piece of research regarding an experiment done in 1918 by Professor Swift. It is only in book format, so forgive the google books link. books.google.com/books?id=TyogQG … ssor+swift

There are many more such experiments as well. One was done with some law students, where they were all asked to watch the same film and take notes, and told that after that they would be graded on their accuracy. Well what was found was that even when told they had to accurately record what happened, only about 75% of the answers given on the test were correct! It is really quite fascinating.

It doesn’t seem logical to speak of reality as objective or subjective. Reality is just the way things are that the mind attempts to interpret.

Reality seems to be a whole, and individual consciousness seems to make up a fraction of the whole. However, the fraction contains no reality itself, and it is only once we add up all the fractions we can call the sum, ‘reality.’

But people are subjective. I think that anything attempting to interpret reality is subjective. It is impossible for humans to be completely objective. However, what I argue is that we are subjective interpreters of a true reality. Since reality from some individual’s point of view is (or at least can be) different from the true reality, everyone’s mind is a different reality. However, I am a strong believer that there is one true reality, of which everyone is a part.