Reality Essays - Differential Reality and Belief

By Paul Jungnitsch

Paul's original goal was to find faith. He was bombarded daily by beliefs. He found a way to sift through the enormous pile of information. A solid definition of reality is developed. A logical reality check shows how to quickly throw out the unreal. What's shocking is how little passes this basic test. The problem then is that beliefs fail also. So he does further investigation into belief itself.
The author explores how we share information, how we perceive the world, and our basic thought processes. He exposes the hidden fallacy of empiricism in our subconscious. The author then discusses many common beliefs. Logic is pitted against bigfoot and major world religions. A man who has seen UFOs and ghosts firsthand explains how our senses are tricked by the world and our own minds.
The author found his faith: faith in reality.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Aug 21, 2019
• ISBN: 9780359869688

Book preview

Reality Essays - Differential Reality and Belief

REALITY ESSAYS

Differential Reality and Belief

By

Paul L. Jungnitsch

©2019 Paul L. Jungnitsch.

One paper image only of this electronic file may be produced. No electronic copies of this file permitted.

For questions/arguments/comments/suggestions contact Paul at:

[e-mail]

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Reality is what we have in common. We may describe the world around us with different languages, but we are describing the same world. So why is there so much disagreement about reality? Not only do we perceive things differently, we can’t even agree on a definition of what is real. An analysis of human perception, thought, and communication is needed to explain why. There should be an underlying reality of how humans interact with the world.

The previous paragraph was written after reading way too many philosophy books. The following essays are some of my musings on the subject. Since developing this philosophy, my view of the world has been crystal clear. I hope to clear up your view.

The entire work is mine alone, and it is entirely opinion. Since it is a collection of essays, it may seem a little disjointed. Some essays are supported by information in later essays. I thought it prudent to put the essays about reality first. Please read them all before passing judgment.

PURPOSE IN LIFE

This book started as a journal. Its purpose was to help organize my thoughts. I started writing down whatever I was thinking about. Now and then someone would ask my opinion about something (like time travel and anti-gravity). I wrote that down too. After about a year, I started putting related ideas together on the same page. After another six months, I started rewriting the pages into essays. As I became more organized, I started writing whole essays.

My inspiration came about half way through. The written organization process worked! I realized that a common theme ran through the essays. That theme was reality. I believe that I have revealed a chunk of truth. You can decide if I am a writer and philosopher.

REALITY

BELIEVERS ARE FROM VENUS,

REALISTS ARE FROM MARS

When pressed with a logical argument, most religious people will eventually fall back on I just believe it. Using that rationale, one could conclude that it is acceptable to believe something purely by choice.

We all would like to have our beliefs respected by others. What should be done, then, when someone else’s beliefs contradict yours? Tolerance is tolerated only up to a point. What if someone believes something that may lead to harm to you? What if someone wanted to throw your daughter into a volcano? You don’t know all of the beliefs that are harming you every day.

There are limits to tolerating beliefs. Many controversies boil down to fights over whose conflicting beliefs are right. We all have to set our own limits. You would not want ten percent of your income given to the Mormon Church, unless you were Mormon.

We have to use a criterion for deciding what to tolerate. The criterion that we use is reality, skewed by personal beliefs. My personal opinion is that the most accurate definition of reality is skewed by no beliefs at all. What is real is only what we all know and can prove to be real. Of course, we have to exclude those not of sound mind. Real things can be touched, tasted, pointed out to others, tested, diagnosed, deduced, and confirmed, and occupy a defined portion of the universe.

The conclusion of this is that all of us have some beliefs that are not real. Thus these essays are guaranteed to offend everyone in some way.

EXISTENCE

Existence: (ig-zis’təns) n.1 The state of existing.

This is a confusing word with a redundant definition. The definition of exist is also confusing:

To have being or actuality of a material or spiritual nature

Taken literally, this definition lumps spirits together with material objects.

Clearly there is confusion between existing and real. Ideas exist. We all have them. We can deduce that other people have them. But ideas are not real. They are fleeting, just like ghosts. The idea of a ghost exists, but the idea is not real. The ghost itself is not real, and does not exist.

No amount of thinking has, or ever will, produce a solid object. We do not have telekinesis. No amount of thinking will ever cause something to spontaneously happen. No amount of looking for ghosts will ever turn up evidence of ghosts.

The boogeyman is frighteningly real to a small child in the dark. As adults, we know that there isn’t anything under the bed or in the closet. We still have those feelings, though, that something is there. No amount of logical analysis will change how our subconscious mind works. We haven’t matured yet, as a self-aware thinking species, to get past that.

REALITY CHECK

Humans cannot make something appear out of thin air just by thinking about it. Or by speaking words or making noises. Or by gyrating their bodies in any manner. Or by writing about it. Or by drawing a picture of what it would look like. Or by making a sculpture of what it would look like.

Gather all of the evidence that exists about something. Then throw out everything that was spoken by other people. Throw out everything that is written (only humans write). Throw out all of the likenesses made by human hands. Is there anything left?

You may still have seen Bigfoot tracks in the dirt. You may even have a plaster cast of one, right in front of you, right now, on your desk. Now, without all of that human hearsay evidence, with just the plaster cast to look at, can you honestly draw the conclusion that the impression was made by a big hairy monster? Is there any other evidence of a big hairy monster? Half-eaten food? Clumps of hair? Bones? Plenty of humans have been caught making fake tracks. Is there any reason, at all, not to believe that another human being made your tracks?

Look at the photo you took of a strange object in the sky. Think about the erratic movements you saw it make. Is there any reason, at all, to believe that it was under the control of an intelligence? That it had a power source? That it was hollow? That it was a space ship? That it did not originate on this planet? That it contained alien creatures? That it was even solid? Why would you look at something too vague to be identified, and assume the most outlandish far-out conclusion imaginable?

A PRIORI

Rene Descartes said, I think, therefore I am. This revelation was probably the first documentation of our civilization reaching the age of reason. He wasn’t quite there yet though.

Descartes supported a previous revolutionary work, The Proslogian, by the 11th century monk Saint Anselm of Canterbury.

Saint Anselm argued that no thought could be greater than the thought of god. Greater than the thought of some imaginary thing would be the thought of that same thing, and that thing also existed in reality. Therefore god exists in reality. This argument was touted as proof of god, for several centuries.

This is an outstanding example of how an idea is given the status of reality. It is also an example of faulty circular logic. It is citing the definition of some thing as proof of its properties. The problem is that the person doing the proving wrote the definition.

Simplifying the argument to its basic logical form, it becomes:

God is defined as existing. Therefore god exists.

This is called a priori, which means from the prior, or from previous assumptions. What it all boils down to is that people just assume that god exists.

My assumption is that thought and reality do not have a cause/effect link. I still think a lot about winning the lottery though, just in case.

NON-REALITY

If things can exist, but not be real, then what are they? If the imaginary doesn’t exist, then how could there be something else between real and imaginary? If