Is what we see really what we see?

Existence = the complete Universe = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc.... ALL INCLUSIVE!! 'One'! "Consciousness is the ground of all existence!" - Copenhagen interpretation of QM Everything Exists! Everything is Real! Everything is True! Existence/Reality/Truth is all inclusive! 'One'! That which is perceived exists! That which exists is perceived! Not a thing exists that is not perceived! Not a thing is perceived that does not exist! (There is no, nor can there be, any evidence to the contrary!) All inclusive!!! "The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman..… or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd ALL INCLUSIVE!!! tat tvam asi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi) So, 'Reality' is all that is, ever, the complete Universe, ALL INCLUSIVE! If a tree falls in the forest, and there are none to hear (goes the old Zen koan), does it make a sound? ~~~ sound http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound 1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. 2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level. ^^^^^^^^^^^ According to the first definition, no. There would be no "organs of hearing" (assuming that there are no other "organs of hearing" around; squirrels, warthogs, bluebirds of happiness, faeries, whatever...) present. And no, according to the second definition; If there is no one perceiving those 'vibrations', they cannot/do not exist. Only that which is perceived, exists! ^^^^^^^^^^^ Actually, to 'know' that there is a forest and a tree, it (they) must be perceived. It is not possible that there can be Perspectives perceiving the existence of the tree, and that it falls, without being there to perceive accompanying sounds, if any. A tree cannot fall in the forest unless one is there to perceive the forest and the tree and the falling! The very question is, from that Perspective, in error.

yes, of course you do

Go back to sleep Cobb. Oh, wait....

Yes.

we see what we want to see, what we are shown, and what we are told there is to see. rarely does anyone truly see what is there in reality. the reason being is that it is either beyond our understanding or does not match up with the delusions that we hold close about the world, our place in it, and how we see ourselves.

Things are defined by our vision, so you alone can not say what is and what is not because the only thing we acknowledge is our perspective. Unless of course you user thermal cameras or special devices..

Reality hardly works like this. Some things can be reduced to subjective interpretation such as morality, but things like colors, are objective unless seen by people without color sight. Me not being able to see green just means that in my world it doesn't exist, but it doesn't mean green objectively doesn't exist.

It matters not whether things really exist or not because your life will play out exactly the same either way. We can only perceive reality through the filter of our human senses and intellect, therefore reality is what you experience, not what it truly exists. True reality is beyond our ability to perceive it. As for testing what you perceive versus what another human perceives and determining if those perceptions are similar or identical, it is indeed possible

Slow down or you'll drive yourself nuts. Perception varies from individual to individual. No two people will see the same thing in exactly the same way. This is the fragile failing of our human senses. So, what's the answer? You could disbelieve what you see, and try to see in what you believe to be a realistic manner. But then, are you sure your new viewpoint isn't even less reliable than your original one? Or, given that we are fallible you can make peace with this, qualifying every judgment based on observation with the preface "What I see is. . .". The key criterion is whether your perception works for you as you want it to, and if you deem it reliable (for you). If the answer is yes, I wouldn't push the issue. You'll just go crazy. There have been several attempts to standardize perception. One notable example is the IEC's (an international organization) attempt to standardize color based on quantitative measurement with precisely calibrated, spectrum analyzers. This effort has led to greater standardization of photographic and printing color management. While each person's eyes will see a color differently, the strict definition of each color removes all doubt. NIST (National Institute of Standards Technology) is dedicated to establishing and maintaining irrefutable standards in many areas of measurement such as weight, time, temperature, length, volume, and other parameters. While this helps tremendously in the scientific community, to the lay person it is of little comfort. All we can do is work with what we have and be mindful of our sensory fallacies.