The Biggest "Blunder" Of Reality That Everyone Overlooks

[Princess Arabia]

It's not really a blunder nor a mistake. I said that for emphasis. 

Notice you're using your eyes to see this message while i'm using mine to write this message. Different eyes seeing the exact same thing. My sense of sight sees what your sense of sight sees. My cat and I are sitting in the room. An explosion occurs outside. We both jump. A cat hears the same thing a human hears not to mention her ears are on a cat's body with a total different make up. 

You're in a room talking with a friend. Your mom walks in. Both sees mom. Different heads, different bodies, different sets of eyes, both sees the same exact person. 

I smell toast burning you smell toast burning. Two separate bodies smelling the same things simultaneously. Yet if you hit me upside the head, I'm the only one that will feel it. I understand it's direct contact; but it's direct contact also with sight and smell. Why aren't you feeling the hit upside the head just like us smelling the burnt toast together. That's direct contact of the sense of smell.

Two people turn their heads witnessing the same car accident from different bodies, different sets of eyes. How's my cat seeing the neighbor with her cat eyes and I'm seeing the neighbor with my human eyes. A million people at a rally watching the same speaker. A million different sets of eyes seeing the same speaker. I see a snake, you see the same snake, the snake sees both of us. Different sets of eyes seeing the same things.

How's that happening. I will wait for the "the same thing looking out my eyes is the same thing looking out your eyes" generic response. Whose feeling what I'm feeling. I'm very curious to see the responses and comments to this topic. I say blunder because everything else seems so separate but this one thing is obvious unity.

[Sugarcoat]

Your experience is limited, it’s particular appearances/forms appearing for you. For something to be limited means that it is something: and thus it ISNT something else, it excludes everything else that it isn’t, because otherwise it wouldn’t be limited 

[Princess Arabia]

2 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Your experience is limited, it’s particular appearances/forms appearing for you. For something to be limited means that it is something: and thus it ISNT something else, it excludes everything else that it isn’t, because otherwise it wouldn’t be limited 

Speak English please. I'm expecting some weirded out explanations but not this weirded out. What does this have to do with how you can see this response I'm making with a different set of eyes over there in Germany or wherever the hell you at.

[Joshe]

Different conscious agents coming together to focus their consciousness upon the same thing. Your question seem akin to “how does the sky allow for birds to fly in it”. The answer is it just does - it’s how reality is. 

[Princess Arabia]

10 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Different conscious agents coming together to focus their consciousness upon the same thing. Your question seem akin to “how does the sky allow for birds to fly in it”. The answer is it just does - it’s how reality is. 

No, that's different. Your example is akin to how does one house accommodate many people. That's not the same as how can a supposed separate body share same sense perceptions as another.

[Nemra]

I am not seeing what you are seeing, existentially speaking.

Edited yesterday at 02:30 PM by Nemra

[Keryo Koffa]

 Like this ??

[Princess Arabia]

Also, when the natural wind of nature blows, you and i can feel it at the same time. It's direct contact. Why can't you feel a fan if a fan is blowing on me and not you while in the same room or house. We can only feel the forces of nature together but not from a machine. I thought nothing was separate. Do you see what i'm saying. These sensations are conditional and are dependent on different scenarios. You and i can feel the wind at the same time but you and i can't feel the fan at the same time.

[Princess Arabia]

5 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I am not seeing what you are seeing, existentially speaking.

Didn't you see my post. I saw it. I saw your comment. What does existentially speaking have to do with this.

[Princess Arabia]

6 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

 Like this ??

Looks two lop-sided dresses with no bust line and no waist.

Seriously how does this picture explain you being able to see with your eyes what i'm seeing over here.

[Joshe]

7 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

No, that's different. Your example is akin to how does one house accommodate many people. That's not the same as how can a supposed separate body share same sense perceptions as another.

It’s not different. A sense perception is shared in the same way physical space is. Everything gets shared the same way. That includes sights, sounds, time, and physical space. 

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Joshe said:

It’s not different. A sense perception is shared in the same way physical space is. Everything gets shared the same way. That includes sights, sounds, time, and physical space. 

Ok. So they're not your eyes or your nose or mouth then right. I agree with you now you put it that way. Would you agree then, that those eyes aren't seeing shit.

[Nemra]

1 minute ago, Princess Arabia said:

Didn't you see my post. I saw it. I saw your comment. What does existentially speaking have to do with this.

You are looking at this issue superficially.

You have only had your experience.

The idea of others' experience is based on your experience. That's why you can never actually see what others see.

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Nemra said:

You are looking at this issue superficially.

You have only had your experience.

The idea of others' experience is based on your experience. That's why you can never actually see what others see.

So how come everything else can be based off of seeing the same thing. I get what you're saying. The mistake I think you're making, though, is assuming others are actually seeing anything. 

I can't see what others are seeing but a whole conversation can be based off of us apparently seeing the same thing. Youre speaking of maybe perceptions. I don't see the correlation with the topic, though.

[Keryo Koffa]

1 minute ago, Princess Arabia said:

Looks two lop-sided dresses with no bust line and no waist.

Seriously how does this picture explain you being able to see with your eyes what i'm seeing over here.

I think I 'see' what you meant now... appearing like a cueing of context through senses...
But the capacity for that context to be in any way aligned, synchronized, understood...
And overlapping, despite being a seeming inference of arbitrary sense perceptions

So is what you're asking... how Context can be shared among Perceivers interpreting Content?

 

[Joshe]

5 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Ok. So they're not your eyes or your nose or mouth then right. I agree with you now you put it that way. Would you agree then, that those eyes aren't seeing shit.

What do you mean? I would say it’s the perception of each conscious agent that feels the wind. 

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Keryo Koffa said:

I think I 'see' what you meant now... appearing like a cueing of context through senses...
But the capacity for that context to be in any way aligned, synchronized, understood...
And overlapping, despite being a seeming inference of arbitrary sense perceptions

So is what you're asking... how Context can be shared among Perceivers interpreting Content?

 

Something like that. Not necessarily understood but seen as the same underlying thing but through different lenses from different bodies. Not necessarily going back and forth as in the yellow picture but anything "outside". If you turn those two heads towards a bird chirping across the way, both will see the bird but from different eyes and different heads. 

[Princess Arabia]

3 minutes ago, Joshe said:

What do you mean? I would say it’s the perception of each conscious agent that feels the wind. 

You and i are standing in the wind. We both feel it. No issue there. According to you, it is my perception that feels the wind and your perception that feels the same wind but at the same time we can have different perceptions on how the wind is experienced. You can say the wind feels annoying because it gets in your eyes and I can say I love the feel of the wind because without it it feels hot. 

[Nemra]

15 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

So how come everything else can be based off of seeing the same thing. I get what you're saying. The mistake I think you're making, though, is assuming others are actually seeing anything. 

I can't see what others are seeing but a whole conversation can be based off of us apparently seeing the same thing. Youre speaking of maybe perceptions. I don't see the correlation with the topic, though.

What I mean is that the experience is happening for you. You will never have access to mine, because it doesn't exist for you.

You said only you feel when someone hits you. Well, I will say that your sight will change when you harm your eyes. But if you hit others or harm their eyes, you don't experience change of your senses the same way they do.

Edited yesterday at 03:03 PM by Nemra

[Princess Arabia]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

What I mean is that the experience is happening for you. You will never have access to mine, because it doesn't exist for you.

Ok, i think we jumped the gun a bit. I get that but what about you and i in the same room seeing the same thing with different sets of eyes. Forget about the experience of it, just the direct seeing of it, how can we both see the same thing with different eyes i'm asking.