Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 6:30 PM
23 online now:
anglagard, AZPaul3, Dredge, jar, JonF (5 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,868 Year: 8,904/19,786 Month: 1,326/2,119 Week: 86/576 Day: 86/50 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
Sour
Member (Idle past 410 days)
Posts: 63
From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK)
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 286 of 305 (398563)
05-01-2007 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by ikabod
05-01-2007 6:28 AM


Re: Reality for Pink Elephants?
The whole issue is that the specific pink elephants we are talking about are part of the whole reality that is our reality . Then we can look at the issue of things that have no physical form and how the work in our reality .

Oh ok, like thoughts?

the doctor treating the person for the hallucination .. his work is real ...his work is there because of the elepants , the doctors reality is shaped , partly by the elephants , and he the passes on the affect to the rest of the whole of reality .

Hm, I think the doctor's reality is shaped by the person claiming to experience pink elephants, not by the elephants as such.

no , i am saying reality is everything , including experience , everything we experience IS within , and a part of , reality ..

Ok, I can deal with that. However, what we experience is not something that can be experienced by others. The perception of something is a reality for the perciever, but it is not transferable. Aren't the implications that there is a reality for every perciever? Surely that's the point about perception in the first place, that its just an imperfect reflection of reality?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by ikabod, posted 05-01-2007 6:28 AM ikabod has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 287 of 305 (398570)
05-01-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by ikabod
05-01-2007 6:28 AM


Equal Reality for Pink Elephants?
a points here , i am not talking about others experiencing the pink elephants , but they experience the people who have see the elephants , the "real" effect of the elephants is in how they have affected the people two or more steps away from the original vision.
ie the doctor treating the person for the hallucination .. his work is real ...

And independent of pink elephants. Treatment is the same if the hallucination is little green goblins, techno gnomes, insectoid ferris wheels, or friendly rabbit-like pookas.

What affects the other people is not the substance of the hallucination but the fact that a person is sensing something no one else does, and is altering their behavior based on their perceptions.

no , i am saying reality is everything , including experience , everything we experience IS within , and a part of , reality ..

But your experience is not part of my reality. The only thing that affects me is your communication of your experience, which I am free to treat as either (a) fact, (b) possibility or (c) hallucination.

Conversely, when dealing with perceptions of Stonehenge and the like, we can compare photos, drawings, writings of people that never met and which come from completely different backgrounds, and determine that they are talking about the same pieces of rock on a certain hillside in England. That the vast majority of such documented perceptions match to such discrete details as a carving of a certain kind of dagger on one specific stone when such had not been communicated to them prior to their experience of Stonehenge shows that we are dealing with a vastly different level of experience.

Now it is possible to avoid going to Stonehenge or studying about it, and to dismiss the observations of all other people that have been there as hallucinations. The difference is that one would also need to dismiss all the correlations between such observations and records of other observations (including places where the stones were quarried and similar structures made of wood, etc), and to dismiss such vast amounts of evidence that it would take a conspiracy of thousands of people committed to perpetuating a hoax. This becomes a delusion of a different kind.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by ikabod, posted 05-01-2007 6:28 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-02-2007 12:06 AM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 290 by ikabod, posted 05-02-2007 5:16 AM RAZD has responded

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 288 of 305 (398647)
05-02-2007 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by RAZD
05-01-2007 1:23 PM


Re: Equal Reality for Pink Elephants?
RAZD wrote (concerning pink elephants):

The only thing that affects me is your communication of your experience, which I am free to treat as either (a) fact, (b) possibility or (c) hallucination.

Overly restricted range of options.

You could also treat it as a metaphor.

In that case the pink elephant is real as a symbol. It is an image that stands for a factually real phenomenon regardless of whether or not the image shows us a creature that is factually real.

(Leave it to scientists and fundies to keep overlooking this possibility. Jeez. :rolleyes:)

And your choices do not end there. Symbolism is an entire category of possibilities. Within it you have a number of options open to you. You might treat the pink elephant as (1) a metaphor consciously employed as such by the speaker and meant to be taken as such by you, (2) a metaphor consciously employed as such by the speaker but meant to be taken literally by you, (3) a metaphor consciously employed as such by the speaker but meant to be taken either literally or metaphorically by you depending on your level of sophistication, (4) an image taken literally by the speaker and meant to be taken as such by you that retains validity as a metaphor apart from the question of its factuality, (5) an image generally taken as metaphorical by a given community but understood literally by the speaker, (6) an image generally taken literally by a given community but understood metaphorically by the speaker, and so on.

_____

Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2007 1:23 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 289 of 305 (398653)
05-02-2007 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Rob
04-27-2007 9:19 PM


Re: patterns and evolution -- an aside
Rob: Wasn't it you, who talked about quotes being useless or something along those lines?

Where did I say quotes were useless?

Quotes are a wonderful seasoning that enables certain tasks in writing. As wallpaper to cover one's incoherence, though, they are inadequate for the purpose and annoying.

A capable writer like C S Lewis, for example, never acts this way. He accepts the obligation to make his own case and he makes it. Lewis refers now and then to statements made by other people. But he doesn't throw chunks of out-of-context prose at the reader like a gopher kicking up sand before vanishing down a hole. If that's how he did things, you never would have heard of Lewis.

I think you do know the difference.

I'll do my best to give more matter.

I believe you. If I thought you were really trapped in self-defeating patterns (some people are) I wouldn't have bothered saying anything.

That is... if you can fathom what matter actually is.

To fathom anything is to evolve.

Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes;
Nothing of him that does fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Rob, posted 04-27-2007 9:19 PM Rob has not yet responded

ikabod
Member (Idle past 2656 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 290 of 305 (398679)
05-02-2007 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by RAZD
05-01-2007 1:23 PM


Re: Equal Reality for Pink Elephants?
But your experience is not part of my reality. The only thing that affects me is your communication of your experience, which I am free to treat as either (a) fact, (b) possibility or (c) hallucination.

arrh , no i am not talking about reality expressed by the self , but the greater whole reality that include all the self's and there perceptions .. you are making your personal perception important , where as a i am starting from the point that reality exeist with out us , reality does not need an observer .

further i could not communicate with you about my experences , but they will still be there and your reality will now include a ignorance that you have no control over , and can not percive , until a outside sorce informs you .

All of our personal percevied realities are made up of masses of ignorances , where as Reality has none .

this is why perception is not a good tool to observer reality with ...harking back to one of my earlier posts on this thread .

Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2007 1:23 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-02-2007 8:31 AM ikabod has responded
 Message 292 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2007 7:50 PM ikabod has responded

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 291 of 305 (398697)
05-02-2007 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by ikabod
05-02-2007 5:16 AM


Re: Equal Reality for Pink Elephants?
ikabod:

no i am not talking about reality expressed by the self , but the greater whole reality that include all the self's and there perceptions

I noticed that. You were speaking of ultimate reality--that which is, apart from how we interpret it. RAZD was talking about 'my' reality--the interpretation.

_____

Edited by Archer Opterix, : corrected attribution.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ikabod, posted 05-02-2007 5:16 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by ikabod, posted 05-03-2007 5:16 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 292 of 305 (398822)
05-02-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by ikabod
05-02-2007 5:16 AM


Re: Equal Reality for Pink Elephants?
arrh , no i am not talking about reality expressed by the self , but the greater whole reality that include all the self's and there perceptions .. you are making your personal perception important , ...

Not really.

What I am saying is that if it is not part of my reality it is not part of the greater reality - that which is reality for anyone or any-not-one.

...where as a i am starting from the point that reality exeist with out us , reality does not need an observer .

Exactly: your personal hallucination is not part of that reality, because it requires you as the observer and does not exist without it.

All of our personal percevied realities are made up of masses of ignorances , where as Reality has none .

this is why perception is not a good tool to observer reality with ...

But it's the only tool we have. And I agree that when the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems initially look like nails, but it is also amazing what you can do with only a hammer: hammers can turn nails into screwdrivers.

further i could not communicate with you about my experences , but they will still be there and your reality will now include a ignorance that you have no control over , and can not percive , until a outside sorce informs you .

So what do you count as an outside source? Other people? Certainly that is a starting point: that is how we agree on the reality of Stonehenge versus pink elephants.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ikabod, posted 05-02-2007 5:16 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by ikabod, posted 05-03-2007 5:13 AM RAZD has responded

ikabod
Member (Idle past 2656 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 293 of 305 (398955)
05-03-2007 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by RAZD
05-02-2007 7:50 PM


Re: Equal Reality for Pink Elephants?
What I am saying is that if it is not part of my reality it is not part of the greater reality - that which is reality for anyone or any-not-one.

very intresting , because in your reality you do not know what i have in my left hand , thus from your statement , the apple in my left hand is not part of your reality and by your statmentnot part of the greater reality ... just because you can percive it !

this in effect you are claiming to create all reality by your action of perciving it ! if you did not exist there would be no reality !

My point is to start to understand reality one must detach the self and go beyond .

or are we all products of you perception , and thus have no free will , or do you have a skill in know other thoughts and dreams et al and percive free will in action ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2007 7:50 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2007 9:22 PM ikabod has not yet responded

ikabod
Member (Idle past 2656 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 294 of 305 (398957)
05-03-2007 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Archer Opteryx
05-02-2007 8:31 AM


Re: Equal Reality for Pink Elephants?
spot on , and as we are near the end of this topic , i will draw a line here ...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-02-2007 8:31 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 295 of 305 (399101)
05-03-2007 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by ikabod
05-03-2007 5:13 AM


whose perception of which greater reality?
... very intresting , because in your reality you do not know what i have in my left hand , thus from your statement , the apple in my left hand is not part of your reality and by your statmentnot part of the greater reality ...

Your argument still rests on your perception of reality as your criteria for the greater reality, that because you perceive the apple that it is real -- but it could be an hallucination: how do you know?

How do I know that you are not just claiming to have an apple in your hand when in fact it is empty? As I said you can explain your perception and then I can decide whether I regard it as fact, fiction, possibility, or hallucination (or any of archers metaphors for possibilities): without my own perception all I have is your description.

Now, were we at the same table and you could hand me the apple, it would be different. I could see it in your hand, feel it in mine, match my vision observation with my tactile one. This test of reality cannot be applied to hallucinations, or perceptions that cannot be shared.

Likewise you could take a picture of the apple in your hand and post it on the web, and many people could look at the picture and share the experience of the picture being real. You could also "photoshop" the picture to create the image of an apple in your hand when in fact it was not there, but the picture would be real.

this in effect you are claiming to create all reality by your action of perciving it ! if you did not exist there would be no reality !

Not really, and certainly not any more than you do by claiming that your perception of an apple is one of "greater reality" ...

We can reach a consensus on certain things having a high probability of being "greater reality" objects by repeated observations and by correlated observations by several individuals that then all communicate a similar perceptions ... individual perceptions.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by ikabod, posted 05-03-2007 5:13 AM ikabod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by tesla, posted 01-27-2008 10:51 AM RAZD has responded

tesla
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 296 of 305 (451339)
01-27-2008 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by RAZD
05-03-2007 9:22 PM


Re: whose perception of which greater reality?
i have given laws that are reality, but science ignores, and most don't comprehend, and the lack of comprehension means something is "supernatural".

in reality, nothing outside of energy is real. if no energy at all, there is nothing to measure, nothing to be, nothing that exists, thees nothing. so it cant be real, its not there.

so by observing what is energy, knowing nothing outside of energy is real, cause it don't exist, we can determine where energy is that we cant see, because of what we do see.

this is reality.

by this law, something can "apparently" come form nothing, but something cant "literally" come from nothing.

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2007 9:22 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2008 4:59 PM tesla has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 297 of 305 (451342)
01-27-2008 11:10 AM


Admin?
This is near 300 posts and has been inactive for a while. We've recently had some discussion along this line on another thread, so I have made a version 2 in proposed new topics

Perceptions of Reality -v2

Please close this one and promote that one to this forum (Is It Science?)

Thanks.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 298 of 305 (451424)
01-27-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by tesla
01-27-2008 10:51 AM


Re: whose perception of which greater reality?
... and the lack of comprehension means something is "supernatural".

I would say it is unknown: it could be natural or supernatural, but because we don't understand it we don't know.

in reality, nothing outside of energy is real. ... something can "apparently" come form nothing, but something cant "literally" come from nothing.

What if two somethings that add up to nothing happen? How would you know one something from two?

Enjoy.



we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by tesla, posted 01-27-2008 10:51 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by tesla, posted 01-27-2008 5:04 PM RAZD has responded

tesla
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 299 of 305 (451425)
01-27-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by RAZD
01-27-2008 4:59 PM


Re: whose perception of which greater reality?
What if two somethings that add up to nothing happen? How would you know one something from two?

are you serious? you cannot take something, and then get nothing. prove that.

the law: energy cannot be created or destroyed:

was established by the observation that you cannot take something, and then make nothing.

the burning of wood would appear to destroy the wood, but it was changed in form from what it once was, to another thing.

so also, can you not have something from literally nothing, but only from something, can something be. because if there is no energy at all, literally nothing, then nothing can come of it, and it isn't real.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2008 4:59 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2008 6:33 PM tesla has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 300 of 305 (451451)
01-27-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by tesla
01-27-2008 5:04 PM


Re: whose perception of which greater reality?
are you serious? you cannot take something, and then get nothing. prove that. ... because if there is no energy at all, literally nothing, then nothing can come of it, and it isn't real.

This is a different question. In Message 296 you said:

in reality, nothing outside of energy is real. ... something can "apparently" come form nothing, but something cant "literally" come from nothing.

Are you talking about the physics in the current cooled universe? In that case particles appear and disappear all the time, according to quantum mechanics. Sometimes a subatomic particle changes into two subatomic particles. Are they dancing in and out of reality or are they dancing in and out of another dimension? We don't know.

Or the physics before inflation? We have some theories about what happened, and some theories about how different the physics was in that period, but in reality we don't know.

the burning of wood would appear to destroy the wood, but it was changed in form from what it once was, to another thing.

That's chemistry, not physics. It doesn't even get below the molecular level to explain.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : spc



we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by tesla, posted 01-27-2008 5:04 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by tesla, posted 01-27-2008 6:42 PM RAZD has responded

RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019