|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Perceptions of Reality | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Seems like a CYA statement to me Or a statement on the limitations of science, that every theory we have today can be falsified by new evidence. Maybe just a space-time anamoly.
Whadaya mean? Will you draw another image? Remember that sizes are not absolute indicators, and different people will have different ideas about the sizes (and placements) of the different areas, how much of what is real. What's outside the green circle? What we can never know?
I think reality includes some things that are outside the circle of science. And not just in our abilities, but in the limit of science's abilities. Of course, I have to take this on faith, or keep it in the philosophy circle. Definitely agree. The question is how can we measure the validity, and that's where the problems start.
hmmmm. As denial approches zero you don't have to deny anything for the concept to be real, so an infinite amount of relative reality is real? I don't think that is true all the time that a concept that requires no denial is neccessarily real. Everyone has to deny something or they end up with some contradictions or a useless world view where nothing matters ... I don't see it as an absolute relationship either, it's more like the light in the tunnel is getting brighter but you can't tell which direction is more so. This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*03*2006 08:09 PM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
reality is where each of us live , and that is inside our own mind . ... we have to have faith that our personal sensors ie eye skin etc are feeding us true data .. go read the latest ideas on how we form images from the info the eye send to the brain to see how much faith you need Yes but we have an advantage -- we can discuss our perceptions with other people and see if they have the same ones, is the sky blue? If other people agree with our perceptions then there is a measure of reality involved that is outside our mind. It's where people disagree on the perceptions that the issue realy arises -- which is more likely to be closer to reality? How can we determine that? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm suggesting that an interior or contemplative or phenomenological approach yields a faith that is at once subjective and irreducible and also much more resistant to being exploited by authority. I would agree that the commonality of the experience of faith in people of different cultures and different beliefs would indicate there is something involved that is real. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Do you mean philosophically or really?Cause, my response to that would be....not really. You can only reference what your mind encompasses.
Catholic Scientist writes: We can verify that data and then you don't need faith. Person A: "Hey, is that an apple hanging from that tree"Person B: "Uhh, that red one?, yeah it sure is." You can't use sensory data to validate sensory data.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, I think the reality slice should be finite. Why not make it round too? I'd make it an elipse that crosses all the circles. Most of science would be covered by it and there wouldn't be that much outside of science.
Remember that sizes are not absolute indicators, and different people will have different ideas about the sizes (and placements) of the different areas, how much of what is real. Is this your ideas about the sizes and positions or did you just place them conveniently?
What's outside the green circle? What we can never know? Well, it depends on how you look at faith. I'd say that what is outside the green circle is what we can imagine but that we don't have faith in, or don't think exists. Or you could say that you can have faith in anything, then you would include everything that we can imagine in the green circle. For either case, I'd go with you with what we can never know as outside of that. What about things that we can imagine that aren't impossible, we just havn't invented them yet. At some point they'd become a part of reality, but when? and how would that affect the circles or the slice?
I think reality includes some things that are outside the circle of science. And not just in our abilities, but in the limit of science's abilities. Of course, I have to take this on faith, or keep it in the philosophy circle. Definitely agree. The question is how can we measure the validity, and that's where the problems start. Well, there's the possibility of a better method. The Scienitific Method is really damn good though...hmmmm. I dunno, maybe we can't validate them. As far as science cares though, things that can't be validated don't affect anything, or exist for that matter.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
DominionSeraph writes: Catholic Scientist writes: ikabod writes: reality is where each of us live , and that is inside our own mind . every thing else is ultimatly a matter of faith Do you mean philosophically or really? Cause, my response to that would be....not really. You can only reference what your mind encompasses. So I guess you saying he meant philosophically, so...whatever.
Catholic Scientist writes: We can verify that data and then you don't need faith. Person A: "Hey, is that an apple hanging from that tree"Person B: "Uhh, that red one?, yeah it sure is." You can't use sensory data to validate sensory data. Says who!? Your standards are too high if you think that. Whats in this can in front of me? Is it beer? *takes a drink* Yup, its beer. Your saying that I can't know that in reality there's a beer in front of me and I just took a drink of it? That's retarded. Cause it is, and I did. That kind of philosophy, like nihilism, is rediculous to me. If there's one thing I know, its that I just took a drink of a beer. Now you can ask: can I really know it? or can I really know it? or can I really know it? or whatever. Seems like a bunch of pointless bullshit to me, no offense.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Well, I think the reality slice should be finite. Why not make it round too? I'd make it an elipse that crosses all the circles. Most of science would be covered by it and there wouldn't be that much outside of science. The problem is that reality could be completely outside of all 3, as reality isn't necessarily limited to: "That which I can imagine." This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 05-03-2006 09:37 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Is this your ideas about the sizes and positions or did you just place them conveniently? Convenience and an attempt at rough visual equity in areas for the sake of argument.
Well, I think the reality slice should be finite. Why not make it round too? I'd make it an elipse that crosses all the circles. I think of reality as more infinite but bounded, in part to match the universe, in part because I just like it that way. (is that faith?) The circles could be vast amorphic amoebic shapes - this just represents them {simply} to convey the basic idea of nested reality perceptions.
For either case, I'd go with you with what we can never know as outside of that. What about things that we can imagine that aren't impossible, we just havn't invented them yet. Do you think the circles are static or growing? As we add knowledge, some may need to be discarded (invalidated theories, anachronistic ideas) but don't you think there would be a net growth?
Well, there's the possibility of a better method. The Scienitific Method is really damn good though...hmmmm. Outside science, inside philosophy you would have logic -- the conclusions are 'true' as long as the precepts they are based on are 'true' and the logic construction is valid. Outside philosophy you have a commonality of experience, and while you cannot "vote" on what is real, there can be a consensus on what may be real. Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns reach the same mental state in their {meditations\prayers} -- the interpretation of the state is different. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: So I guess you saying he meant philosophically What isn't?
Catholic Scientist writes: Says who!? Your standards are too high if you think that. That's why it gets dropped all the way down to "faith". I take it on faith that my sensory data is accurate, since I can never know that it's not; and I live in the world formed from my sensory data regardless of whether I actually exist in a world that exactly mirrors it.
Catholic Scientist writes: Your saying that I can't know that in reality there's a beer in front of me and I just took a drink of it? You can -- but only because of what the row-of-letters, "reality," symbolizes. The symbol is linked to a concept -- and that you can reference, as your mind encompasses it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You can't use sensory data to validate sensory data. So when I punch you on the nose, you can't use the sensory data of a hurt nose, the warm trickle of blood on your lip, and the flux of stabiity in your standing ability to validate the feeling in my hand that I hit something? There are rational limits to solipsism. Commonality of experience is one. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... but only because of what the row-of-letters, "reality," symbolizes. The symbol is linked to a concept ... Are you saying that reality exists only when it is perceived in a mind? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
RAZD writes: So when I punch you on the nose, you can't use the sensory data of a hurt nose, the warm trickle of blood on your lip, and the flux of stabiity in your standing ability to validate the feeling in my hand that I hit something? You can, due to what those terms refer to. The problem is that you have a final, unstated, "I think," that you can't divide out of the equation and be left with something referencable.
RAZD writes: Are you saying that reality exists only when it is perceived in a mind? The referencable one, yes.
A is placed within B which exists within C. Take away C, and B goes bye-bye. This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 05-03-2006 10:03 PM This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 05-03-2006 10:04 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4667 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Possibly the ground of faith is the organism/environment relationship? We evolved to walk on the earth so walk with a confidence? We evolved to breath oxygen so we inhale without concern?
We begin in faith. Conception and developement are faith. Only later do we lose faith and then we begin to discover a conceptual need to find faith, or rather restore it. lfen
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4667 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Your saying that I can't know that in reality there's a beer in front of me and I just took a drink of it? I'm not sure where DS wants to go. But I'm working on this idea of knowledge as function. Knowing what is beer is knowing a lot of associations and knowing where to find, prepare , and drink it. Maybe even know how to brew it. Maybe know it's chemistry. But what is beer in itself? The external reality of beer, will it ever be somethng we can know? Can we ever know what anything in the universe is? And thus can we know anything other than that we function? I'n exploring the notion that we can't know what anything is only that it is and how we function with it. What we call knowing is a kind of doing, or an abstraction of doing, or our concepts about our doing. Perception is a kind of doing, as is cognition. lfen
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The problem is that you aren't talking about reality but "your concept of reality" -- your perception of it.
Of course your perception is in your mind. But perception of reality is not {reality}. It is filtered by (your) perceptions. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024