Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reality is not based upon our perception.
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 13 of 37 (346309)
09-03-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ReverendDG
09-02-2006 11:50 PM


real perception of sense
I am going to have to disagree a little bit with this.
I will start in this thread with your post rather than some of the "upstream" contributions and if I have to become a salmon, well so be it.
So I take it("and define it") just now,
quote:
define it as according to our senses. O(corrected cap)ur senses are our filters of what we define as reality, so no they are not really part of reality in the same way as what we sense.
Now I step back...
Look what Faith or I call "reality" you or Crashfrog may not. Look at it this way, by pursing my own "reality" (or version thereof) I came around to an understanding of my TOTAL REALITY (of anything I have or may have in the future to post on EVC) that organic "senses" (eyes, ears, touch, taste etc.) EVEN as "filters" and being anatomically located (in two places on my body at the same time)no matter the aspect under projection lead(past tense) and lead(present tense) me INTo>was and is the same reality and senses I have had before I had to try to communicate what sense and reality I have or had or will so to.
I will explain. Our sense Are filters, yes, of course. I even will suppose in this particular post that our "reality" is *defined* accordingly ("to our senses").
But in my case and in case you have the same eyes, ears, nose etc, there has been IN (my) REALITY some difference of opinion (NOT ABOUT ASPECTS OF REALITY) but about what it meant to be called "filters",i.e. what the "senses" really are.
Being interested in reptiles and amphibians, I have always been keen to try to figure out how these creatures "sense" and how these "senses" are different than mine (human). One day I dug a large snapping turtle out of a pond on the golf course at Cornell. All (reality)was balls and grass that day. This specimen had unusually long turburcles protruding BELOW its chin. I took this creature to the local Cornell Herpetologist expecting to find out what kind of "sense" could be made out of these fleshy appendages that were odd (even)by my own experience of collecting a couple dozen of the same species prior. Not only did the herpetologist have no idea if the blobs were "sense organs" or possible sense organs he had NO INTEREST AS A HERPETOLOGIST in the anatomical part, no matter what it was.
This is a small example how my "sense" of "sense" and the reality that surrounded it was being confounded or misconstructed. He was a "herpetologist" after all. That is what he was supposed to be interested in. He responded worse than the Romance Studies proffessors did to Hawkings' book about time.
I say this in the past tense because I have now resolved that biologists have not been wholistically in touch with the relation of sense itself, to even ^simple^ horizons of reality. I just posted a case where Sharks may have gel that is responsive thermoelectically and sensically
http://EvC Forum: Re-activation of the human thermoregulating functions -->EvC Forum: Re-activation of the human thermoregulating functions
and this CLEARS all of my own speculations on sense physiology from non-scientific angles showing that where some ichythologist has a phd saying that electric fish have "AND" gates in their brains and senses is out of this mind physically because (regardless of the real truth (it is relative to confounding or confusing me only in this case)) the computer science "and" could simply and more easily be "sensed" (in the human way) as concurrent fluctuations of temperature and electricity, thus "spoofing" an IT concept. Instead, before this resolution, it was my mind, that cared more for the snapper than the birdie being golfed, that was SENSED as off real. It was not. It was actual and the scientists' have been only aspects of the same. Not the whole kit and Kaboo000000dle.
So even if our reality is defined as our senses and AS filters this does not seperate them just because they are not smooth muscle nor glial cells. Just the possibility that turtle barbels use thermoelectric gels removes all possibility that I was not ipso facto thinking correctly physically/sensically. By the way a mud turtle I have from S. Carolina has FOUR projections from its lower jaw and these might be used specifically as seperated in space to actually sense the SAME reality that I have defined with my human ability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ReverendDG, posted 09-02-2006 11:50 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ReverendDG, posted 09-10-2006 2:14 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 37 (347925)
09-10-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ReverendDG
09-10-2006 2:14 AM


Re: reality in perception-sense

My answer will eventually be a full "yes."
This answer does require a continuous motion through a discontinuously written place spaced and spaces placed(I think I accomplished in the image moving from perception towards conception onto the right) so you will have to bear with me as I make the reality more than the perception (I have a lot to work on in another thread concurrently as well).

The mud turtle usually and for extended periods of time can and "will" hold its chin a little lower than the EmyDID depicted above. The appendages are pretty much in a square, with two on the surface and two below the surface of the water.
Now follow me. We know that water on the surface is often much hotter in the sun than below. Sharks were found to have gel that is possibly actually thermoelectric. Turtles could have brains that invert the functionality of fish (they evolved did they not?) and convert the temperature differences into electric ones traveling down the nerves but when combined with electrical activity afforded by the eyes and slight adjustments of the head (without altering the temperature input from the appendages) differences of frequency of light might be decoded even by triune reptile brain.
To show that this is essentially what we SEE with our human eyes rather than with both eyes and thermoelectricity I would need to discuss some issues of Fourier series as to how a turtle might "triangulate" a human sense.
Edited by Brad McFall, : suface of appearence added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ReverendDG, posted 09-10-2006 2:14 AM ReverendDG has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 37 (348176)
09-11-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Christian7
09-01-2006 9:09 PM


absoulte vs actual
I have not been able as of yet to get to those parts of this discussion bearing on "absolute" terminology because I must evaluate if the potential(franklin)
quote:

I have described in this thread so far is not a Milton. I am not against some rHytHm objectified as indicated by Whitehead.
quote:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Christian7, posted 09-01-2006 9:09 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024