observing observation, reality discussion blog. · 8:20pm Mar 23rd, 2014
So, let's talk about reality! And if you're wondering why I want to discuss reality, there's two things you probably know about me by this point. I have mental issues when it comes to perceiving an objective reality, and I have issues with emotions that don't involve almost two decades of repressed hatred.
As such, I find it much easier to bond with people by understanding them, rather than by doing things with them. So! Let's talk, share ideas and get to know each other better. Since I'm the OP here, I suppose it's expected for me to start us off. So, I suppose I'll go ahead and do that.
From what I have observed, there's multiple forms of reality, I'm not referring to the multiverse theory--the real one, not the media corrupted egotistical stuff used by comic books--. The first form of reality I have observed is what I call personal reality as it's the reality given through the schema. Let's say you look at... your favorite pony. Before the observer would think of anything, their senses would receive the raw information from the source, at which point, the information is interpreted and shifted. From there, your mind will consider the channel the information comes from. The body is given so much information from moment to moment that most of it ends up being discarded or ignored based off of what you're paying attention to. It's why people can be in a party and just hear a vague overlapping series of words, then clearly make out their own name. From that filtering, you have emotional bias. But past that, you have the schema. What schema does is take your automatic responses, channels, and all those variables into consideration, and forms an automatic thought that applies prior to cognitive awareness of the situation. It causes a variety of sensations, thoughts, and even some disabilities, like social anxiety. If you've ever walked onto a bus and just felt like everyone was watching you constantly... despite how much you told yourself they weren't. That's schema, it forms the basis of conscious awareness without being directly part of it.
It has a profound influence on how people think, see the world around them and interact with it. As such, I consider it a portion of effective reality. Let's say that an observer is in a room they can't leave. The only object of note within the room is a dispenser with a built in button. When the button is pressed, the color of objects out of the room change, and food is dispensed. As such, there is two effects. However, only one effect can be observed. The other has no apparent effect on the observer. As such, that's effective reality. Humans evolved in such a way that there's a massive, massive amount of variables to an objective reality that can't be observed without extensive technology and education. Effective reality is day to day life. What if everything is a dream? Or something similar. Humans are blind, effectively. We do not directly interact with anything, rather, data is given through our nerves which is then interpreted through the brain. As such, all we can objectively state is that we are being stimulated by something providing information.
However, back to effective reality. Most variables can, somewhat similar to how the schema operates, be discarded with no noticeable change to the situation of day to day life. In my day-to-day life, I deal with most of the general archetypes people rely on for an effective reality, whether it's reliance on religion, science, the occult, or soft sciences.
The issue is of course, people generally don't like not knowing things. So they search for answers. Answers that they can accept, that don't have flaws they can see within their own bias. Science requires the assumption that perception can be trusted in order to be accurate. Of course, it also gives the empowering sensation of being able to call portions of reality objective. Creationist thought process by contrast generally supplies a sense of security, purpose, and objectivity through authority, while those that study the occult generally feel that rather than understanding reality is impossible, and as such, effective patterns is all that should be bothered with.
In the grand scheme of things, each has a requirement for certain bias, which can overlap. However, within the constraints of effective reality, that choice merely gives a more socially accepted perspective. If I were to describe the process of effective reality, it would be quite simple: Searching for 'the' answer. If a person is unsatisfied, they tend to search until they find an answer they can accept and like. Because, quite simply, if they don't stop at that point, they will never stop. For the amount of answers that could be effectively accurate, or objectively accurate, is staggeringly high to the point of being infinite.
Just as schema, social, cultural, and internal aspects form those two aspects, the last two aspects of reality I've observed is objective reality, and what I call essential reality.
Objective reality is what is accurate, to the best of human knowledge. Not what is socially recognized. For example. Can an object exist in two places at once? Of course not, you learned that in high school! and even if you didn't, it's quite logical to assume as such.
... Except they totally can, because the observable nuances of our reality shows particles and functions that fly in the face of what a person would think of as realistic. But does it matter to a persons day to day life? No. Not really. The barrier here between effective and objective reality is quite simple. It's difficult to wake up and not be able to acknowledge anything as real, it's unhealthy, and liable to land you in an asylum--hi!--but to really get a firm grasp of what is there, it requires a devotion, an intense devotion, intelligence, and skill-set to comprehend it. However, for the average individual, that is somewhat ridiculous to ask. They will merely apply their logic, and find an answer that suits them, and their lives go mostly unaffected. Which isn't to say they are necessarily incorrect, just that the effective choice is made to ignore or make no attempt to learn the aspects of the universe that aren't going to noticeably effect day to day life. For a Jehovah witness, for example, their religion makes a point that the basis of reality is far to complex for a human to possibly comprehend, so it really shouldn't be worried about, instead, the beauty of what can be comprehended should be observed.
Further than this level however, is the essential reality. What things comes down to, is that something is applying information. From what can be observed, is a sub-level of the known universe. Whether natural phenomenon or deity, is, effectively irreverent at the moment--unless you're reading this during the heat death of the universe or the wrath of some angry god, in which case, hi future individual!--what is relevant however, is that it produces a series of effects that founds the basis of what can be observed, resulting in the objective reality, interpretation of which, leads to effective reality, and within the context of that reality that people live in, a world held together by abstract concepts. Which is in turn, filtered into a personal reality by your schema.
Personally, I find I'm unable to come across as comprehensible unless I utilize and consider the four levels of reality in day to day life. There are people I find, who tend to focus on one level. I'm fairly certain that you guys see them yourselves, introverts who consider little more than their own thoughts, trapped within their personal, delusional reality. People constantly obsessed with the basis of reality, about the apparent impossibility to understand or perceive anything correctly. etc.
Of course, I have a medical disability specifically relating to comprehension of reality on any level. So I'm hardly qualified to be talking about something like this. But! That's what I've observed, so what do you guys think about reality? 
Objective reality exists, but with our limitations, it doesn't always do us as much good as it "should".
1949510 What good is it supposed to do exactly?
To be honest, my views on realities are completely illogical and idiotic, which is why I intend to write a story about it
Also, ironically, I found this nice little youtube video that from someone else's blog that fits well with this subject:
hmm, I don't usually do thinking this deep, I just accept "reality" as it comes along. To me, reality is just that, what's real. If it is factual, can truly be proven to be there, then it is real. now, there is objective reality as you said. What is personally real to you, simply because you believe it to be real. Religion, hallucinations, and those kinds of things are real to those that believe them but can not be proven to be real to those that don't believe them. Many things about reality are relative to the person's perspective but there are many commonly shared perspectives that have been accepted as a sort of social reality. Things such as "the sky is blue" are considered reality to most people but to a colorblind or fully blind person, is the sky blue? Does a blind person even have the same concept of the sky in general? How can something like color truly be real if you can never know what color is?
... and now you've got me doing thinking when I just wanna watch a movie. Damn you, making my brain do stuff!
Personally enjoyed the room analogy with the color changer/ food dispenser; it allowed me to understand that bit easier.
I think it's a shame many people don't observe the world around them as much as they should. I take walks and have taken a recent habit of simply standing by in conversations and I've learned far more about people through actions and tone rather than the words. Though, that's hardly relevant. Should have been doing it far sooner. My main point being: I'll be referring to this blog over the next few weeks to continuously better myself. We both know I don't make much progress initially.
1949549
Actually, due to pigmentation and reflection of observable light, the colors a person sees is what is reflected from the objects they are observing, the actual colors possessed by the object is what is absorbed. So the optical illusion of the sky being blue is actually the sky not being blue.
1949561 We live in a busy world. People generally only make observations if they want to find something. If they have suitable answers to every question, within their personal reality, there's no reason to make observations.
What I'm saying is, you should make an effort to confuse people.
1949593
I literally do that every time I speak to people for reasons I completely understand. And usually unintentionally. Usually.
it sucks.
1949725
... But... What about our friendship.
1949619
Lovely.
1949794 wha
i thought it was more than that
1949847
Friends with benefits is the same as friendship to me.
Thinking? I will do no such thing.
1949581
What's even more interesting to think about is how people have blue eyes, for example. It has nothing to do with pigmentation in the eye (since there is no blue pigmentation, unless you happen to have a very rare mutation), but rather a special combination of melanin and wavelength scattering (the same kind that creates the "blue sky") The pigmentation itself should give it a brownish black color. In other words, sometimes the "true color" of objects is hidden under not one but multiple "false layers." And since you mentioned the sky, it's even more deceptive. After all, it only appears to be blue during the middle of the day, does it not?
All that said, while I like to ponder about "reality" myself, I also think some people tend to think in far too complicated ways about it (up to and including this blog post, in a way
), which disguises the true nature of everything around them just as much as not thinking about it at all.
1951511
I... I'm not overthinking anything.
/Sadjackalope.
1951725
Hey, at least you are thinking. That's something...
1951745
I feel unloved now.