Perceived reality would be what we are in now. We are (in theory) existing in a plane of... Let's call it chaos. There are actions, reactions, entropy, and a plethora of other anomalies. We've come to understand a very small portion of that chaos. What we do not know about our universe outweighs our knowledge of it probably thousands or millions of times over. With that being said, we have a latent potential to discover (x) amount more of the universe based on our senses and what we can perceive. If a human gains a new sense or an enhanced sense, they'll have a different perception of their reality. Now, it's probably unreasonable to say that the universe changes to fit our needs. We can argue that the universe already had these properties and we just never had the tools to experience it in such a way. Well, with what we know (basically nothing) who's to say what reality even is? I don't think we can say anything has truly existed because we have only ourselves to substantiate that claim based on a very flimsy supporting structure. I would not be able to describe actual reality because in some cases, there may be an infinite amount of universes or realities, each being as real or unreal as the previous. (We would never be able to tell because we still have the same biased outlook given our abilities.) So to sum it up, I don't think we can discern a true reality vs. a fabricated one at this point just because there are so many unknowns and possibilities beyond our range of capabilities. To say something is real based on your own perception would be an overstep. If something is true in our reality, it is a concept for now until 100% of all the universes are discovered and understood fully. These concepts may actually turn out to be real, I am not disputing that. But who can really give a definitive answer beyond what they perceive to be true? Perception is always changing and is not something to rely on when talking about true, unbiased reality.
You said me saying "reality" implied it is real (in an objective sense I assume?) When I say reality, I am talking about 'consensus' reality, that which we humans generally agree we all perceive. As opposed to say hallucinations, dreams, psychedelics, NDE etc. The only objective difference is consensus reality is agreed upon as 'real' because we all experience it similarly, the later is an individual experience. I know of no way to objectively say one is any more real than the other, other than special pleading to majority opinion. Obviously we intuitively think consensus reality is real and the other catagory is just the brain being hijacked or something. If the brain is a receiver and not a projector, we cannot simple write those experiences off as nonsense since they are a result of external input.
Keeping things in the strictly physical realm, it is absolutely possible to never die. Anyone following the history of humanity can see a clear path where we have eliminated or greatly reduced a vast number of things that used to wipe us off the face of the Earth at some point, but now doesn't because we dealt with it. We no longer get eaten by wolves in the dark in the 1st world. We no longer die of the flu. We don't have a gigantic infant mortality rate, etc etc. If technology continues to advance >but does it for the sake of humanity<, then it seems only plausible that more and more death factors will be removed. Eventually, cell regeneration itself can be tackled, so all those things that wear out over time simply won't. I have many a dark vision of the future based on tech overtaking us, but in the more positive versions of said future, we may find ourselves in the best shape of our lives by the time we hit 70 and full cell regeneration has been mastered. .....or whatever currently unspeakable new technology may allow this.
Wouldn't it be great if corporate endeavours were judged/financed based on human/environmental considerations not just profit.
This was posted earlier today.. Henrietta Lacks has been immortalized.. in a way. I mean.. she's dead.. and it came from her cancer, but those are technically her cells that are spread all over the globe.
Theisim, atheism, no difference imo. Just two belief systems thinking they have a monopoly on being right. As with most things the answer is probably gonna be in between.
This isn't life this is temporary this is just the beginning Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I feel even if i lived 250 years wouldn't be enough for what i am trying to accomplish Don't worry man, Everything is already changing.
No doubt, it's a freaking whirlwind, when you are inside the storm its hard to have a clear perspective.
I prefer to say non-belief now, as a lot of people jump on your ass for saying atheist. But yeah I'd say non-belief tends to be based on the lack of any credible scientific evidence for a creator. Most atheists I've met tended to be focused towards understanding the world through scientific methods instead of anecdotes.
Massive difference IMO. One claims to know the answer, whilst atheism claims that's there's no credible scientific evidence of a creator. One is making extraordinary claims, whilst the other says those claims have no basis/evidence to be true.
Whenever someone says atheism is a belief system, I've learned that it is virtually impossible to show them otherwise. They are the kind of simple minded people who have a belief system, so they assume everyone else does too. Much like the person who has a favorite food and wants you to try it.. and when you do and don't like it, they respond with "how can you not like that?!?!". Because they can't see passed themselves, they assume others are like them. Now there are those who turn atheism into a belief system.. hell, you can turn anything into a belief system.. but those simple minded folks fail to see that atheism at it's core is a rejection of belief systems. They see a minority of atheists who fight for their belief that gods aren't real.. and due to their negativity bias of making threatening things stick out, they assume that is how all atheists are.
I guess I differentiate between an atheist and atheISM, I haven't found a substantial difference between agnostic and atheist. Neither believe a God exists. Your reason for nonbelief might hold for other investigations, but here I think it fails. Science can only probe the natural universe, so saying you don't believe in a God for lack of natural evidence is meaningless. God is typically the explanation for the natural universe, thus cannot be limited by it. In other words, God would be supernatural, and not subject to scientific probing. So even if we assume God is an objective truth, we still wouldn't expect scientific evidence. My point? Belief in God is not subject to evidence, no matter which way you tend.
The human body is very well built. A person with no predisposed conditions who eats a perfect diet everyday and exercises, could in theory live for several hundred years. -Sent from Zeta Reticuli starsystem-