Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
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

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

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

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

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


Message 31 of 305 (309230)
05-04-2006 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
05-04-2006 7:50 PM


RAZD writes:
The problem is that you aren't talking about reality but "your concept of reality" -- your perception of it.
That's simply a communications problem. I have to use the language that refers to the next level down to make it understandable, but in using that language I'm no longer referring to the level I want you to assign it to.
Here:
As you can see, even though C and D don't have the term "concept" applied; that's what they are. When you reference "reality", you're referencing D -- but the problem is that D is within E.
(And I wish I could say, "F", but anything referenced is necessarily within E; and therin lies the problem.)
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 05-04-2006 09:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2006 7:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 05-05-2006 12:46 AM DominionSeraph has replied

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


Message 47 of 305 (311331)
05-12-2006 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
05-05-2006 12:46 AM


RAZD writes:
I'm glad you saw the need to correct your first diagram. What are you going to do to correct this one?
It can't be corrected. Anything that is referenced is not unreferencable.
RAZD writes:
Your redefinition of reality as {perception of reality}
If you perceive reality to be independent of perception, is that not a perception of reality?
RAZD writes:
is a strawman argument
It's a separate argument, not a strawman.
RAZD writes:
that collapses into a tautology - what is in my mind is in my mind.
If each, "my mind," is referencing a different layer, such is not a tautology.
RAZD writes:
There are things you have never seen, never heard of, that do not depend on your "mind"
Those do depend on my mind -- both to define the sets and to place concepts within them. Here's an example of the latter:
"I have seen everything."
I just emptied the set of, "Things I have never seen."
Now I'm back to normal, with it filled with placeholders.
RAZD writes:
There are experiences of other people that you do not share
So I fill them with placeholders. And if I can fill them with placeholders, where do they exist?
RAZD writes:
How do you rescue your perception problem from being a rather meaningless expression of solipsism?
Who says it needs to be rescued?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 05-05-2006 12:46 AM RAZD has not replied

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


Message 48 of 305 (311875)
05-15-2006 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
05-04-2006 11:58 PM


Faith writes:
Because I'm calling faith things that cannot be verified by sensory data.
That's fine.
Faith writes:
And your inclusion of sensory data into the defintion of faith is fucking up my definition.
It wasn't included. The accuracy of sensory data is taken on faith. The specific sensory data is separate.
What we have is a circular argument:
1. My sensory data is accurate.
2. As it's accurate, what I sense actually exists.
3. As it actually exists, my sensory data is accurate.
Whether it's sound depends on whether (1) is true, but (1) can't be proven. You can't use sensory data to prove that sensory data is accurate, as you need sensory data to be accurate for it to be an indicator of what is true.
Watch what happens if we don't assume it's accurate, and assume that you can somehow use sensory data in support of its accuracy:
1. My sensory data may or may not be accurate.
2. My sensory data tells me that my sensory data is accurate.
Well, if your sensory data is inaccurate (allowed by 1), what it's telling you in (2) is completely undermined. You'd need it to be accurate for what it tells you (that it's accurate) to actually mean that it's accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-04-2006 11:58 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2006 3:14 PM DominionSeraph 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