Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 305 (308891)
05-03-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by New Cat's Eye
05-03-2006 10:45 AM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
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

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2006 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2006 8:54 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 17 of 305 (308894)
05-03-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ikabod
05-03-2006 9:53 AM


States of Mind
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?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ikabod, posted 05-03-2006 9:53 AM ikabod has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 305 (308896)
05-03-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by lfen
05-02-2006 11:41 PM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
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.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by lfen, posted 05-02-2006 11:41 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by lfen, posted 05-03-2006 10:58 PM RAZD has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4744 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 19 of 305 (308898)
05-03-2006 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
05-03-2006 10:37 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2006 10:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2006 9:10 PM DominionSeraph has replied
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2006 9:33 PM DominionSeraph has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 305 (308905)
05-03-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
05-03-2006 8:05 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2006 8:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2006 9:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 305 (308909)
05-03-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by DominionSeraph
05-03-2006 8:30 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 8:30 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 29 by lfen, posted 05-03-2006 11:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4744 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 22 of 305 (308910)
05-03-2006 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
05-03-2006 8:54 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2006 8:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-04-2006 11:38 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 305 (308911)
05-03-2006 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
05-03-2006 8:54 PM


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.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2006 8:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-04-2006 11:45 PM RAZD has replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4744 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 24 of 305 (308912)
05-03-2006 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by New Cat's Eye
05-03-2006 9:10 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2006 9:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2006 9:35 PM DominionSeraph has not replied
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-04-2006 11:58 PM DominionSeraph has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 305 (308913)
05-03-2006 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by DominionSeraph
05-03-2006 8:30 PM


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.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 8:30 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:53 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 305 (308914)
05-03-2006 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by DominionSeraph
05-03-2006 9:32 PM


... 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?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:32 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4744 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 27 of 305 (308918)
05-03-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
05-03-2006 9:33 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2006 9:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2006 7:50 PM DominionSeraph has replied
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-05-2006 12:13 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4667 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 28 of 305 (308931)
05-03-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
05-03-2006 8:19 PM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2006 8:19 PM RAZD has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4667 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 29 of 305 (308942)
05-03-2006 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by New Cat's Eye
05-03-2006 9:10 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2006 9:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-05-2006 12:08 AM lfen has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 305 (309206)
05-04-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by DominionSeraph
05-03-2006 9:53 PM


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.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:53 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-04-2006 9:12 PM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024