Near sighted/Far Sighted and survival

[UnbornTao]

The perceptive faculties seem to exist exclusively for survival purposes, but this is an interesting exercise. Do not make the mistake of turning the concept of survival into a bad thing - nor a good thing, for that matter. It is what we're up to.

@aurum:

Quote

Your perception of reality is exactly reality. Not an interface of any kind. 

I don’t think this is true, if I understand your proposition correctly. We do take our perception and experience to be an accurate reflection of reality - but that doesn't mean they are. We know that different animals perceive reality differently from us. Which is the more "correct" faculty? After some investigation, we find that we aren't even clear on what perceiving something actually is. Look at a small object and see whether you can sort out the different mental activities involved in your experience of it. Is the object its use or its label? Then how come it seems that we relate to its use and overlook the existence of the object itself? Is the use of the object perceived, or is use a function of something else?

Edited July 8 by UnbornTao

[Eskilon]

9 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

However, you will find, that getting back to the 'not knowing' state is virtually impossible.

Hmm, but you go back to it everynight in deep sleep🤔.

[aurum]

31 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

The perceptive faculties seem to exist exclusively for survival purposes, but this is an interesting exercise. Do not make the mistake of turning the concept of survival into a bad thing - nor a good thing, for that matter.

@aurum:

I don’t think this is true, if I understand your proposition correctly. We do take our perception and experience to be an accurate reflection of reality - but that doesn't mean they are. We know that different animals perceive reality differently from us. Which is the more "correct" faculty? After some investigation, we find that we aren't even clear on what perceiving something actually is. Look at a small object and see whether you can sort out the different mental activities involved in your experience of it. Is the object its use or its label? Then how come it seems that we relate to its use and overlook the existence of the object itself? Is the use of the object perceived, or is use a function of something else?

Perception itself is Absolute. Deconstruct the notion that there is a perceiver doing survival. 

There is just perception, full stop.

Alternatively, you could say there's no perception at all since there is no perceiver. It's just Consciousness.

Any notion you have of a perceiver is within Consciousness.

[UnbornTao]

17 minutes ago, aurum said:

Perception itself is Absolute. Deconstruct the notion that there is a perceiver doing survival. 

There is just perception, full stop.

Alternatively, you could say there's no perception at all since there is no perceiver. It's just Consciousness.

Any notion you have of a perceiver is within Consciousness.

Okay, thanks. To play devil's advocate: everything is absolute. So, me saying that isn't very useful here. It might be the case that no one is actually doing the perceiving, yet you said that there is something occurring that we call 'perception' - and that sounds like a factual claim. Now, the former doesn't necessarily negate the latter, does it?

Try to perceive these scribbles on a screen as objectively as possible - it's difficult to do. My point is that what we call 'perceiving something' tends to be interpreting or experiencing it, not merely encountering it through the senses.

Edited July 8 by UnbornTao

[aurum]

39 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

To play devil's advocate: everything is absolute. So, me saying that isn't very useful here.

But is that actually understood? 

Someone like Donald Hoffman does not actually understand what Absolute Perception means. They think no such thing exists and that it's just survival based interpretations.

To actually understand Absolute Perception is earth-shattering. It's not "oh yeah, well I already knew that, duh".

39 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Try to perceive these scribbles on a screen as objectively as possible - it's difficult to do. My point is that what we call 'perceiving something' tends to be interpreting or experiencing it, not merely encountering it through the senses.

The scribbles are viewed perfectly objectively. You could not view them any other way, because there is only perfectly objective perception.

Subjective = objective.

And really we should say they are not even viewed at all. They just exist as is.

Edited July 8 by aurum
clarity

[Hojo]

@aurumWhat we look at in reality is what we identify with. We are essentially darting around a wavy field with our eyes looking for things we identify with. If you didnt identify with anything your eyes would naturally go near sighted.

[aurum]

5 minutes ago, Hojo said:

If you didnt identify with anything your eyes would naturally go near sighted.

If you didn't identify with anything, you'd become Infinity.

[Hojo]

@aurumWell then you would want to at least identify a little less.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I also think I must be misundersting this: 

3 hours ago, aurum said:

Your perception of reality is exactly reality. Not an interface of any kind. 

The 'your' is catching me, if thought of in the absolute. 

Every deconstructive process I have engaged in has revealed nothing left but pure being. Pure consciousness. Perception was an overlay obscuring the truth. I am 'doing' perception. When I get to this part of contemplation, when I know I am the doer, I know I can stop. So I do. Then, being. Then, empty.

I have always found fault in perception, just as, ironically, could be the case here - in trying to perceive the above statement 😆😅

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I also think I must be misundersting this: 

The 'your' is catching me, if thought of in the absolute. 

Every deconstructive process I have engaged in has revealed nothing left but pure being. Pure consciousness. Perception was an overlay obscuring the truth. I am 'doing' perception. When I get to this part of contemplation, when I know I am the doer, I know I can stop. So I do. Then, being. Then, empty.

I have always found fault in perception, just as, ironically, could be the case here - in trying to perceive the above statement 😆😅

I'm being a bit loose in my language.

Yes, you can and should deconstruct the notion of perception, such that there's not even a perceiver. 

When I say "perception", I just mean what most people consider their field of consciousness.

What's necessary is to deconstruct every overlay story that tells you that your field of consciousness is not Absolute as it is.

 

"My field of consciousness is actually made up of atoms, molecules and subatomic particles" - No.

"My field of consciousness is a survival-based interface, based on symbols of actual reality" - No.

"My field of consciousness is generated by brain activity, which is what's real" - No.

"My field of consciousness has optical illusions" - No.

"My field of consciousness is a simulation / virtual reality "- No

"My field of consciousness is being perceived by a physical creature" - No.

"My field of consciousness can hallucinate and show me what's not actually there" - No.

"My field of consciousness contains objects that are still there when I don't perceive them"- No

"My field of consciousness is just one perspective in an external world I am participating in" - No.

"My field of consciousness is just one field of consciousness among many field of consciousnesses" - No.

 

 

Edited July 8 by aurum

[UnbornTao]

6 hours ago, aurum said:

But is that actually understood? 

Someone like Donald Hoffman does not actually understand what Absolute Perception means. They think no such thing exists and that it's just survival based interpretations.

To actually understand Absolute Perception is earth-shattering. It's not "oh yeah, well I already knew that, duh".

The scribbles are viewed perfectly objectively. You could not view them any other way, because there is only perfectly objective perception.

Subjective = objective.

And really we should say they are not even viewed at all. They just exist as is.

You should have noticed that you immediately interpreted the scribbles. Actually removing language-interpretations from your experience of them isn't necessarily easy and takes a concerted effort. You already distinguish between objective and subjective: you distinguish your preference towards a particular object from the object itself. You might also say, for example, that pain is illusory, and the next moment be in pain. So, notice the discrepancy between what one thinks and one's experience. 

How do you see perception?

If it's absolute, why add 'perception' to it? 

Edited July 8 by UnbornTao

[Hojo]

@Natasha Tori MaruThis is where his logic fails. He is trying to tell me my reality is 100 percent how I perceive it, but trying to use that logic to tell me I am wrong, and therefore reality is not 100 percent how I perceive it.

You cant say you are 100 percent right but wrong about being 100 percent right. Its contradictory.

I was never the one to say I was 100 percent right he did so it he must be wrong.

Student - What did I get on the test?

Teacher - You got 100 percent on the test

Student - sweet

Teacher - You are self deceived that you got 100 percent

Student - You gave me the marks and told me I got 100 percent. So you deceived me. That means you were wrong

Teacher - No you are wrong

Edited July 8 by Hojo

[aurum]

36 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

How do you see perception?

If it's absolute, why add 'perception' to it?

By perception, I just mean whatever is your field of consciousness.

I don't just specifically mean a mental interpretation. Although that is also part of your consciousness.

Use of the word "perception" here is mostly pragmatic. Strictly speaking, it's just Consciousness. No outside perceiver, no outside perception.

[aurum]

32 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@Natasha Tori MaruThis is where his logic fails. He is trying to tell me my reality is 100 percent how I perceive it, but trying to use that logic to tell me I am wrong, and therefore reality is not 100 percent how I perceive it.

You cant say you are 100 percent right but wrong about being 100 percent right. Its contradictory.

I was never the one to say I was 100 percent right he did so it he must be wrong.

Student - What did I get on the test?

Teacher - You got 100 percent on the test

Student - sweet

Teacher - You are self deceived that you got 100 percent

Student - You gave me the marks and told me I got 100 percent. So you deceived me. That means you were wrong

Teacher - No you are wrong

You are mixing up a statement of ontology with the correctness of your beliefs.

Try thinking about it like this:

If your teacher gives you back an exam and you get 73% right, then that's exactly what is.

When you look at the paper and it says "73%" on top, that experience is absolute. Even though you got a 73% on the exam.

When you hear your teacher call your name, that's absolute.

Your entire field of consciousness is ontologically absolute. But within that, you can have mistaken beliefs.

It should be obvious that you can have mistaken beliefs and that you're not always right. If you've ever been wrong about something, then you know this is the case.

Edited July 8 by aurum

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, aurum said:

Perception itself is Absolute. Deconstruct the notion that there is a perceiver doing survival. 

There is just perception, full stop.

Alternatively, you could say there's no perception at all since there is no perceiver. It's just Consciousness.

Any notion you have of a perceiver is within Consciousness.

Perception is the reality as you said, but it's relative. There are infinite planes of reality related to each other and all of them are the reality

Edited July 8 by Breakingthewall

[Hojo]

@aurum But when I ask you if I'm wrong you cant say no. You are claiming to know when you cant know by your definitions. How do you know I'm wrong and self deceiving? Especially when I made a claim that I didn't even say was right it was a question. You are arguing your version that being far sighted is natural and near sighted is survival I said plausible you said I'm self deceiving.

I'm asking how can you possibly know that under your framework i cant know my self deceptions  but you are telling me I am self deceiving, but not where or how.

Is this some guru thing?

Edited July 8 by Hojo

[aurum]

15 minutes ago, Hojo said:

You are arguing your version that being far sighted is natural and near sighted is survival I said plausible you said I'm self deceiving.

I am not arguing that at all. I don't care about that.

The only reason for that comment was to point out that you could just as easily create an alternate interpretation that would also make sense.

What I think is self-deception is Donald Hoffman's understanding of consciousness.

Edited July 8 by aurum

[aurum]

14 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Perception is the reality as you said, but it's relative. There are infinite planes of reality related to each other and all of them are the reality

Yes that's correct.

The absolute is relative. As of course it must be.

There is just infinite consciousness. 

Edited July 8 by aurum

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

Yes that's correct.

The absolute is relative. As of course it must be.

There is just infinite consciousness. 

As I see what is the absolute is the total potential , the openess. the experience is a manifestation that happens relatively between infinite planes of existence. Existence is relative by definition, it's the becoming, the incessant change. The absolute is the nature of that change, from which that change emanates.

[aurum]

19 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The absolute is the nature of that change, from which that change emanates.

Yes we've had this debate before. I think this is where my understanding at least slightly differs.

Ultimately you have to drop the distinction between the unchanging source (nothingness) and the changing manifest. 

Edited July 8 by aurum