Reality ain’t what it seems, and even science knows it now

Here is a very instructive analogy

“There’s a metaphor that’s only been available to us in the past 30 or 40 years, and that’s the desktop interface. Suppose there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not. But those are the only things that can be asserted about anything on the desktop — it has color, position, and shape. Those are the only categories available to you, and yet none of them are true about the file itself or anything in the computer. They couldn’t possibly be true. That’s an interesting thing. You could not form a true description of the innards of the computer if your entire view of reality was confined to the desktop. And yet the desktop is useful. That blue rectangular icon guides my behavior, and it hides a complex reality that I don’t need to know. That’s the key idea. Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviors. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. And that’s pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be. If you had to spend all that time figuring it out, the tiger would eat you.”

Notice, though, that if, throughout this article, you substitute the word “God” for “evolution” the meaning is unchanged. And that’s my objection to the way people think of evolution. They silently turn a concept into God. Is this good science? Or is it merely a way of talking about God without losing your official materialist credentials?


3 thoughts on “Reality ain’t what it seems, and even science knows it now

  1. His scientific basis for the study lacks reality 😉

    What was individually interesting to me is that he ‘bounced’ from a religious upbringing (e.g., his father was a minister) into science. And while reading the article, I was reminded that I grew up with similar polarities – science (evolution) and religion (god). Despite this environmental noise, I knew that there was something more beyond these definitions, but I was not able to articulate that until I had a clearer experiences of the non-locality of consciousness.

    Reading this article, I also am reminded of your new term with Rita … “All-D”. And her persistent emphasis of both of our individual and community aspects being concurrent. Many of us (e.g., raising my hand here) in the “OBE and other experiences community'” are continually tempted to see individuality as what is happening now and the community as later (upon death).

    But, this is not reality (either).

  2. Rita, I enjoy your conversations with Whashisname. This last couple of conversations, dealing with the idea that when we are in non-3D reality we are part of the committee a multi person unit has been very intriguing for me. The question that I use as a koan is “what is it in the non-3D world that distinguishes one soul from another?” Hhere in the 3D world our sensory perception helps create the sense of separate identities. If people have past life memories I’m assuming then that they are remembering their own experiences and not somebody else’s experience s. If there’s such a thing as soul development then there must be some way of keeping track of that souls activities distinct from other souls activities. I can imagine in the sense of as above so below moving from electrons to atoms to molecules to plants to people, that we could have committees as a spiritual unit on another plane. At the same time I’m wondering what is it though that keeps the record straight between the souls. This would be the question, it still is on my mind

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.