Augmented Reality

Evidence of life as a simulation

If the perception of reality can be augmented, is it really reality? if perceptions can be altered in any way by our sensual acuities, are those perceptions truly bona fide? If the world were real it would not be ever-changing. And when I say real, I mean that substance or substratum of all particles* and existence. That isness that endures in spite of all biological forms.

Augmenting reality has “real world” implications, like car crashes and pedestrian accidents, as in n established Poké Stops. Augmenting reality emphasizes the blind spots we already have and creates new ones, virtually enhancing the personal preference by eliminating the things that don’t fit our likes or dislikes

“The best case for life as a simulation is augmented reality. If you assume any improvement at all, soon the games will be indistinguishable from what we considers reality”—Elon Musk.

Reality is the familiar perceptions we generally ignore. That same reality has changed dramatically since man could put into words. “God spoke to Adam and gave him commandments” Is not this a form of augmented reality, describing nature with symbols—letters, words, numbers, and counting? The rise of language, writing, and math has fixed reality to a particular style of describing it, which isn’t it at all.

Stare at the image. Rotate it upside down and blink 3 times.

*According to modern physics a particle is an “excitation of a field”. That is you—

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap.

51 thoughts on “Augmented Reality”

  1. If I’m ever given the opportunity to augment my reality by removing Elon Musk from it I’ll leap at it.
    Maybe I can invent a pill that will delete all references to Musk from awareness.
    Then who’ll be the world’s richest man?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Cruel! I’ll take the autist for $200, Alex.
      One thing I noticed growing up in the PNW around Gates-land Bezos-ville, was the medias affinity to wealth as a virtue. They suddenly became expert at everything I wish they’d just stay out of.
      Would you prefer the Russian oil baron, or a Mexican phone card salesman as your guy?

      Like

      1. One thing I noticed growing up in the PNW around Gates-land Bezos-ville, was the medias affinity to wealth as a virtue. They suddenly became expert at everything I wish they’d just stay out of.

        Only 20 years ago – when he was still considered the wealthiest man in the world – the same sort of people who now characterise Bill Gates as the devil incarnate thought he could do no wrong. Now Zuckerberg looks to be on the road to his own gated circle of hell too.

        When gods fall from grace they sure fall hard. I’m looking forward to the damnation of Musk and Bezos.

        Like

  2. I don’t think any two people can experience the very same reality. It could be damn close, but not exact. Every single detail of every single moment of our lives, is the how and why, of the who and what we are.

    … but put enough sensible adults in the room, I think we can reach a consensus favorable to most, pertaining to that immediate reality. Was it a good concert? Did you see/hear the waiter drop the tray? Did you hear those screaming kids in the theater? We can all pretty much agree on those things if we were all there to experience it.

    Also, consensus among experts in their field of study, or science, is the best way we have of better understanding our reality. It ain’t perfect, but it’s a heckuvalot better than religion, FB, or Bullshit Central TV.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Sure at the most basic level of existence we can agree what appears to happen around us. We are all equipped with the same sensors (more or less) and the same circuitry. But what happens when we look at it under magnification? Is not that the real world too, and where do we draw the line on what level of perception is the correct one?
      Consensus among experts is why we’re living in the current circumstances. I would suggest that you and you alone hold more authority than that. No one is as dumb as all of us. The opinions of experts is way overrated IMO.

      Like

      1. I agree things like the talking head circuit is overrated.

        But my meaning was meant to be more towards the things that go a little deeper in our knowledge pool. Astrophysics, cutting edge tech, evolution, space stuff…

        Generally speaking, which or whose, perception is the right one? My best guess? All and none. We all perceive our reality in very much the same way, but perspectives differ. Which is why I think a scientific consensus is a better measure than what Mr. Billy Bob, hold my beer thinks.

        That’s the best I can do with a splitting headache this morning, and my first cup of coffee in front of me.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Also, consensus among experts in their field of study, or science, is the best way we have of better understanding our reality. It ain’t perfect, but it’s a heckuvalot better than religion, FB, or Bullshit Central TV.

      Or we could make up our own minds (or decline to do so) about the nature of reality as it presents to us instead of waiting for external authorities to tell us what to believe.

      Through eyes of madness

      Like

  3. To augment or not? It all gets back to the brain. The brain will do what it has to do with all the input it receives. Augment with a bunch of computer generated possibilities? Why? Where is heaven? GROG

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The fact is presented with VR and AR that one cannot tell the difference. Your interface (the brain) with the world environment cannot decipher on from the other, and in many cases of illusions, even when you know it’s and illusion and it’s been carefully detailed and explained, your brain cannot fix it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That is what I said, the brain does what it needs to do based on the info it receives. It continues to make sense of the world. There can, of course, be a new reality. The brain will try to survive until it can’t. Insanity is a defense mechanism. GROG

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Education ‘augments’ reality. If person A knows a lot more about a certain place, for example, then their experience is (at least in principal) greater than person B. It’s richer.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. If person A knows a lot more about a certain place, for example, then their experience is (at least in principal) greater than person B. It’s richer.

      Err, no.
      Everyone of the same age has about the same amount of experience. And there’s always more ‘reality’ on tap than anyone can incorporate into their knowledge base.

      Education is a means of curating aspects of experience to direct beliefs, thinking and behaviour into certain channels. Ideally they’ll be channels approved by the person being educated that will help them employ what education has taught them to achieve their own goals. It would be very naive to imagine all education is so ideal though.

      Like

      1. Everyone of the same age has about the same amount of experience.

        Nonsense. By age 13 I’d travelled around the world three times. Are you seriously trying to suggest another 13 year old who’d never left Wagga Wagga (except to visit his grandmother in Beechworth once), for example, would have the same depth of experience?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Nonsense. By age 13 I’d travelled around the world three times. Are you seriously trying to suggest another 13 year old who’d never left Wagga Wagga (except to visit his grandmother in Beechworth once), for example, would have the same depth of experience?

          No. They would likely have greater depth of experience than you, particularly in regards to Wagga.

          It’s likely you would have had greater breadth of experience, but it’s also possible that by attending to the maximum range of experiences available to him in Wagga rather than focusing on particular aspects of it the two of you could have had similar depth and breadth of experience. But assuming similar capacity for attention you would have had a similar quantity of experience overall. Quality of experience is, of course, a purely subjective judgement dependent primarily on your respective personalities and outlooks.

          There is always far more depth, breadth and many other dimensions of reality available at hand than you can possibly incorporate into your experience. The limiting factor is your attention, not your location.

          Or as Blake once wrote :

          To see a World in a Grain of Sand
          And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
          Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
          And Eternity in an hour …

          Liked by 1 person

            1. Dunno if you’re old enough to remember the house band of The Aunty Jack Show, ‘The Gong’.

              What you just wrote put me in mind of their cover of I’ve Been Everywhere.
              Refrain:
              “I’ve been to Woolongong, Woolongong, Woolongong, Woolongong, …. Dapto, Woolongong, Woolongong, …”.

              Liked by 1 person

        2. BTW, one of my Wagga experiences happened at about 2am at the railway station after a day of exams at CSU.

          I was the only one there – waiting for the XPT to take me back to Sydney – when a familiar looking middle-aged man rocked up with a boy of about 10. It soon became clear the boy was autistic, albeit much more disabled with it than was I. I’m not sure if he was non-verbal, very shy or utterly disinterested in conversation, but I didn’t hear a word from him over the 20 minutes or so we shared a platform. So I struck up a conversation with the man who immediately revealed he was the boy’s father.

          He’d brought the boy to the station at 2am because both of them were train enthusiasts and wanted to watch a particular goods train go past. That prompted me to tell him about my experiences of the Indian railways and the mostly British train spotters I’d met while there. He in turn related his own experience of sneaking away from a trade delegation in Delhi to go to Old Delhi station (a place I was quite familiar with) and collect engine numbers. It was then I realised I was talking to Tim Fischer, leader of the Federal National Party and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia.

          Though I was sorely tempted to shift the topic onto the recently commenced US-led invasion of Iraq – having participated in large but futile anti-war marches in both Wagga and Sydney – I resisted and we continued a genial, if boring, conversation about trains until rumbling along the tracks announced the imminent passage of the goods train he and his son were awaiting.

          As the train roared through the station he lifted his excitedly waving son above his head, who received a wave in return from someone standing at the open door of the loco. Mr Fischer and I then bid each other farewell in that warm but not intimate manner favoured by rural gentlemen of his vintage and he and his now exhilarated son left me to await my train.

          I haven’t spent anything like 13 years in Wagga but have never felt impoverished for experiences while there.

          Liked by 2 people

  5. Sort of had a two-blog series on this subject: Clockwork and then Clockwork Closing over on my blog. 🙂

    I’ve personally concluded that modern Homo sapiens are EXTREMELY talented at augmenting their own perceived reality (versus a wide, wider consensus) as a coping-mechanism for discontentment, for instead as much self-pleasure as possible via Denial or delusion. That mind-circus is not really any different than the rest of our closely related primates in the world. HAH!!! 😄 IOW, we Homo sapiens LOVE to regard ourselves as much, much more than we truly are! Case and point of how we are trained, raised, and further educated to lie; to lie to ourselves as well as others. From National Geographic Magazine, June 2017:

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Excellent point! One thing is true, we are easily deceived and the sweeter the lie the better(burying head in sand as we speak) but don’t you think all animals see themselves as priori número uno?
      I think it is interesting that a tiger and lion cannot see themselves related, yet we fail to see the behaviors of the primate and the humans so eerily similar we should automatically make that connection on behavior alone.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. When you say “augmenting reality”, I see what I think is the delusion of another realm some call heaven. This augmentation allows them to live in two realms. When those augmenting their mind with this belief, their perception of everything is altered. I don’t believe heaven exists. I view the world differently than someone who believes that heaven exists and that they will spend eternity there if they act a certain way. To augment or not, that is the question? GROG

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Yes, I see those mind-circuses as just that. I TRY—try being the very operative word there—to balance life around me and in me as much as possible in principles based upon core fundamentals of individual creativity, expression, understanding and compassion for the Greater Good for the Greatest Number, while acknowledging those same limitations within a greater reality outside of self and sometimes (often) a bigger consensus. This is a mental-check and seriously honest introspection that some/many have a near impossible time fathoming, much less practicing it.

        If you’re interested GROG, I wrote a blog-post about the mental-emotional placebos people happily search out and swallow, if you will, in order to cope with a world, Universe, and existence too harsh, too gorgeously imperfect to embrace:

        https://professortaboo.com/2016/12/11/mind-and-matter/

        Then, once the Placebo-effect takes, with theatrical support and reinforcement of a church congregation, the dopamine and endorphins follow; sometimes for months, sometimes for years. But it always wears off to a great degree over time because, well… they’re placebos. They don’t necessarily mimic or reflect true reality in a cosmic Universal sense. Not by any means. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

    3. I can see some useful aspects of that diagram, but also some serious weaknesses. I’m autistic though and its widely recognised that many of us have very different views of the importance of the truthfulness to that practiced (rather than preached) by dominant society.

      I assume the diagram accompanied an article that explained how those percentages were arrived at, but it seems unlikely to me they’d represent generalisations that could be applied presumptively to individuals. Different people lie at hugely different rates for different reasons under different circumstances. For example, I’d hope that very few people involved in marketing or politics lie as frequently or the same way to their families as they do in the course of their work day.

      It’s also unclear to me how anyone could get at those percentages. Self-reporting by liars? Thorough investigation of every statement someone makes to determine whether they knowingly lied? It seems pretty obvious to me that a lot more lies are self-justified as ‘white lies’ than the combined totals of ‘altruism’ and ‘social or polite’ would indicate. What about the ‘humor’ category? What causes that to qualify as lying but other forms of fiction to apparently not?

      It also fails to distinguish between lies – in which someone consciously seeks to misrepresent the truth – and bullshit – in which someone is seeking to convey an impression without any concern about the accuracy of his statements. I think there’s a heck of a lot more of the latter in our society – from groupthink to sales spiels to forced optimism to affirmative self-talk to statements of faith as objective fact to automatically answering ‘good’ to the inquiry ‘how are you?’ – than there is self-aware lying.

      It’s also not clear to me what proportion of the lying depicted is self-directed and how much is aimed at deceiving others.

      Basically I think the diagram – whether deliberately or not – will result in many who see it thinking they now know more about the nature of human lying than they do.
      In other words, it promotes bullshit.

      Like

      1. Cabrogal, I was a Special Ed teacher and had over my teaching years several autistic students in my 5th- thru 8th-grade classrooms. What you allude to regarding the importance of “truth” and its perception by ‘non-autistic society’ versus ‘autistic society’ in my mind and from my teacher-experience has significant merit. I saw that difference you allude to clearly, and still do today. I developed a few very special, endearing teacher-to-student relationships that I cherish very much.

        But yes, “Dominant [American] society” or the general public not adequately trained or educated about Autism is for the most part naïve of the difference you hint at. That is very unfortunate when it absolutely DOESN’T need to be, for as many decades as it has been in the U.S. With years in the clinical Psych/A&D rehab field as well, I’d say this is also unfortunate regarding mental-illness & health in the U.S.; most of the American general public is sorely naïve of recognizing stages of mental-illness, its treatments, and humane, compassionate, appropriate reinstatement into “Dominant society.” My younger sister is one of these mental-health patients—will be for the remainder of her life. And unfortunately (once again) has been primarily treated/rehab’d in the Texas prison system most of her life, and not treated in appropriate long-term facilities of 3- to 6-months, minimum! This is a reflection of “Dominant society’s” naivete and too often turning to quick-fix Band-Aids on America’s mental-illness/health issues. 😔

        I assume the diagram accompanied an article that explained how those percentages were arrived at…

        It did, yes… if not presented in the content of the June 2017 article, then with a bibliographical reference/footnote. Here’s the link to that month’s issue if interested:

        https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazines/pdf/060717_dom/indexC4.html

        In other words, it promotes bullshit.

        Without reading the entire article first before drawing that conclusion Cabrogal, and then further research into the studies Dr. Levine and other colleagues have done and are doing on lying, truth, half-truths, half-lies, etc, …is unfair and overly harsh. I personally found the article (with bibliographical references) to be exceptional… regarding the American general public, or to use your identifier: “Dominant society.

        Now, off to read your 2nd comment-reply to me. Warm regards Cabrogal. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Thanks for your generous response PT. It was a pleasure reading it.

          I’ve just finished reading Yudhijit Bhattacharjee’s article and though it briefly quotes Levine I can find no explanation for the graph beyond what it displays. Instead there’s another graph below it which is similarly short on details, attributing lying frequencies by age group without defining what constitutes a lie, detailing how the data was captured or even specifying whether it reflected different individuals in different age groups or followed a cohort over time. The latter is unlikely as it would have taken over 50 years to collect the data, but the former alternative would suggest the data is being distorted by cultural differences between age cohorts and not accurately depicting the relationship between lying frequency and biological age at all. It’s hard to gain an objective perspective, but it sure seems to me untruthfulness has become more socially acceptable and widespread over the course of my lifetime, so it’s to be expected different generations would have different propensities for misleading themselves and others and different ways of doing it.

          I’ve gotta say I still think the graph promotes bullshit. Specifically of a kind I’ve seen a lot of in academia in general and ‘soft sciences’ like sociology and psychology in particular. It basically relies on bogus or invalid quantification – often quite precisely presented as are the percentages in the graph – of poorly defined and gathered parameters to try to burnish the veneer of ‘science’ over the claims being made. I think it acts to disarm the critical thinking of readers in a way anecdotal ‘analog’ presentation of the same information wouldn’t and often implies conclusions that go way beyond what the data can support.

          When I studied psychology as part of a science degree the overwhelming majority of my classmates were art students with mediocre mathematical skills. One strand of the course was statistical analysis, which the bulk of the art students showed very little capacity for even after three years of study. They could imitate statistical analysis by applying formulas they’d learned by rote but generally couldn’t work out which techniques to apply to a given situation to enable valid conclusions to be drawn from the data. Obviously such skills are fundamental to both conducting psychological research and to understanding the research done by others, but the statistical strand of the course contributed so little to the final assessment many of my fellow students were able to gain high level qualifications while having little critical understanding of the research underpinning their discipline.

          I think that sort of education plays an important role in the replication crisis that has so seriously undermined decades of research and foundational assumptions in multiple scientific fields, especially the social sciences and perhaps psychology most of all.

          To me it looks like entire fields of academia and research have become shot through with bullshit of which most of its proponents are oblivious. Basically they’re imitating the forms of scientific data analysis without understanding how they work. Because so many of their colleagues are doing the same thing they mostly assume they’re doing it ‘correctly’ and propagate falsehoods and over-reach through their entire discipline.

          It reminds me of a riddle I learned while working in the IT industry during the early days of personal computing. “What’s the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman?”. “A used car salesman knows he’s lying”.

          I find it ironic that Levine – a specialist in deception – seems to have fallen for the same self-deception and is (probably) unwittingly perpetrating it upon others. One point it hammers home to me is that no study of untruthfulness is on firm ground without incorporating a distinction between lying and bullshitting along the lines made famous by Harry Frankfurt. They would probably be further undermined unless they can elucidate the relationship between self-deception and deceiving others and how they can produce vicious circles to the point depicted by Miller in Death of a Salesman.

          I probably developed an aversion to lying because my autism made me worse at it than those in my age group. These days what keeps me (more or less) honest is the fear that misleading others will degrade my own capacity for distinguishing truth from falsehood. You can’t expect to maintain a sensitive bullshit detector if you’re constantly spraying bullshit.

          Of course I might be kidding myself. My self-esteem might have become so entangled in my ‘truthful’ self-image that I’ve blinded myself to my own untruthfulness as a psychological defence. Sometimes I reassure myself with my history of being in demand for my ability to puncture institutional deception and bullshit (e.g. for a while I was a regular at forensic science conferences with my presentation “Why do forensic scientists lie so much?”). But I suspect Levine also imagines his expertise in deception reduces his susceptibility to self-deception.

          So it’s probably best to be mindful that my entire concept of ‘self’ is ultimately a form of self-deception and assume that I engage in many further acts of self-deception to try to maintain it. And if I’m trying to fool myself I’m definitely trying to fool you too.

          Liked by 1 person

    4. I think Miller’s play, Death of a Salesman offers important insights into the nature of lying and bullshit in our society that are even more relevant now than when he wrote it.

      Willy Loman’s life is constructed of lies and bullshit and I think Miller invites us to conclude all aspects of it have been contaminated by the lack of truthfulness inherent in his chosen profession. He lies to his family and himself about his career success even after he’s been laid off for failing to meet sales targets. His self-esteem is concocted through constant comparisons with his imaginary ideal of his brother and through the prism of his aspirational social veneer. His presumed success as a parent – which is in constant tension with his disappointment at the lack of ‘success’ of his sons – is built primarily on the idea he has successfully inculcated them with the importance of being ‘well liked’, which he believes to be the fundamental foundation of all success no matter how superficial and self-delusional.

      His eventual suicide is something perhaps only he failed to foresee, as his carapace of bullshit crumbled and he was brought face to face with the lie he was living for most of his life, resulting in increasing psychosis as he retreated further in delusion to avoid the self-disgust that would arise from the collision between clearer self-perception and unrealistic and unachievable ‘American Dream’ values.

      I think our current culture of ‘fake it until you make it’, influencer BS, ultra-fake ‘reality’ TV and increasingly sophisticated and ubiquitous marketing and propaganda makes the message of the play even more relevant and urgent now than it was in the 1950s.

      Like

      1. Cabrogal,

        After reading your comment here then reading (just) two different synopses of Arthur Miller’s stage play, rather hurriedly I might add, I think I will want to read or watch Death of A Salesman, if not for the intriguing plot of how humans augment reality (Jim 😉 ) to fit their own needs and/or desires despite the external world, but MORE SO because my interest is piqued due to the following two reasons:

        • My years and love for mental-health/illness and its promoted awareness-education and MORE long-term, quality treatment facilities NOT always for-profit business models, obviously. And much more personally…

        • A further look into a) my own father’s suicide in 1990, b) the deep, major depression he sank into, and c) his cognitive pathology which seemed to corner him (in his mind) into a “no-hope, no-alternative(s)” decision of complete seclusion then suicide. This is perhaps my primary reason of curiosity to Miller’s play.

        Very interesting follow-up comment Cabrogal. Thank you. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

  6. We are ALL THERE IS. It’s as simple and as complex as that. The only reality is that you hold all time, all space, all possibilities within and you expand into them. Your sentience is the ONLY reality.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I’m reluctant to say that we’re all there is, but all there is inside this particular feedback loop. We’re seeing on the inside of our heads what we are inside of. To see beyond that limitation is imaginative, but likely to only happen with an accidental glitch now and then.

      Like

      1. I don’t think Wendy’s statement “We are ALL THERE IS” necessarily equates to solipsism, but it does allude to the fact that the only reality we can really hope to know is that of ourselves. All else is theorising.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. QUESTIONER: At what point does one experience reality?

    MAHARAJ: Experience is of change, it comes and goes. Reality is not an event, it cannot be experienced. It is not perceivable in the same way as an event is perceivable.
    If you wait for an event to take place, for the coming of reality, you will wait for ever, for reality neither comes nor goes.

    It is to be perceived, not expected.
    It is not to be prepared for and anticipated.
    But the very longing and search for reality is the movement, operation, action of reality. All you can do is to grasp the central point, that reality is not an event and does not happen and
    WHATEVER HAPPENS, WHATEVER COMES and GOES, IS NOT REALITY.

    See the event as event only,
    the transient as transient,
    experience as mere experience and
    you have done all you can.

    Then you are vulnerable to reality, no
    longer armoured against it, as you were when you gave reality to events and experiences.
    But as soon as there is some like or dislike, you have drawn a screen.
    – TALKS with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj 🙏

    Liked by 2 people

      1. try this excercise when you have a spare moment. make yourself comfortable and be still. close your eyes and go back into the memory and chose a moment you remember well. bring it to life again, see yourself in it, see the other people that were in it, the whole experience, you know? look at the moment as if from above, and just feel it. then try to feel what was in that moment that has never left you? what was there then, and is there now? does your persona stand out more than other people, or it is just like objectively watching a scene? don’t let thoughts come in, just feel it.

        Like

  8. Ten people witness an accident. By their reports there were 10 different accidents. Which one was real? Human perception is fallable. But is a videotape any better? It can omly show what it recorded from its viewpoint. Change that viewpoint and other things could be recorded. Videos see in two dimensions. What we call reality exists in four!
    Not sure if this helps your discussion, Jim. Probably it just muddies it even more…

    Liked by 2 people

    1. This is also apparent in replay footage during a close call in a game. If it’s your team it’s a touchdown. If not it wasn’t. Even the officials have to make a good guess and then irate the fans who know better.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. And what is the answer? You see what you want. YOU DON’T SEE WHAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE! Your reality is what you want it to be. Meanwhile, my reality is what “I” know it to be!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. If that were universally reliable we’d also have to accept the Muslim and Christian testimony at face value. If that was your reality why is it so illusive to maintain that experience. Your reality is all based on memory of the past which past does not exist.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Jim … I’m beginning to think living somewhat remotely there in the woods is beginning to affect your thinking. Strrrange responses …

            Like

            1. Hmm. What point exactly are you referring? I could say; since you spent too much time in the city has affected your thinking—and probably be just, if not more accurate.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Not one point. Many of them.

              I guess it’s just all too esoteric for me at this point in my life. I seem to have settled down into more of a “it is what it is” perspective. (Yes, I recognize it’s open to debate whether that’s good or bad. 😉)

              Liked by 1 person

            3. So it sounds like you need an echo chamber? There are hundreds of physicists and cognitive scientists exploring these topics. They are unanswered questions and really, the only ones left without explanation. Does that make me “out there”?

              Like

            4. I do recognize there are no easy answers to some of the topics you present — and that’s most likely why some people enjoy discussing them. Pondering can be a favorite pastime for many. 😊

              And no, I don’t live in an echo chamber! Sheesh! I would think you would have noticed that by now.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. What’s coming and nearly here at this moment is a virtual reality indistinguishable from normal reality, which suggests to some that is what we are already experiencing. Cracking the code is the fun part. It has nothing to do with existential anxiety.

              Like

          2. Universally true? Is there any such thing? We want there to be. We believe there to be! But that does not make it so.
            Are you even sure the past is gone? So far time travel has only been theorized–what if it came true? What if the past could be revisited? Even changed?
            That thing is, no matter what we believe to be true, we can never know. Never! There are things I want to be true. There are things I do not to be true. But what is “true”? That we do not know.
            As for my past, it is still with me. There are things I remember. There are things I have forgotten. And there are things I CANNOT FORGET. The past may no longer exist, but my memory does. And tnat makes my past exist, for me. (Mind you, if my father never beat me within an inch of my life, maybe I had a great childhood, and just forgot! NOT!)

            Like

  9. Re “If perceptions can be altered in any way by our sensual acuities, are those perceptions truly bona fide?” Do you mean that if I put on a pair of sunglasses, I am seeing into another dimension?

    Perceptions are just perceptions. They are not real per se, except to the perceivers. If I am colorblind, does that change the color of anything I am looking at or does it just affect my perceptions of those objects?

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: