|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: zzripz]
#24014108 - 01/16/17 09:22 AM (7 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
what this says to me is that even with the ultra discipline of physics and measurement there can be no absolute certainty:
Quote:
certain (adj.) Look up certain at Dictionary.com c. 1300, "determined, fixed," from Old French certain "reliable, sure, assured" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *certanus, from Latin certus "sure, fixed, settled, determined" (also source of Italian certo, Spanish cierto), originally a variant past participle of cernere "to distinguish, decide," literally "to sift, separate." This Latin verb comes from the PIE root *krei- "to sieve, discriminate, distinguish," which is also the source of Greek krisis "turning point, judgment, result of a trial" (see crisis).
This would have to include the certainty that the nature of reality is illusory!
Edited by zzripz (01/16/17 09:24 AM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: blingbling] 1
#24014168 - 01/16/17 09:44 AM (7 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
blingbling said: I'm totally willing to admit my ignorance when it comes to modern particle physics, but I still don't see how you can get subjectivity from quantum material or any material for that matter. You are implying that you have the answer to this problem that has plagued philosophy for the last couple hundred years. Or is there a difference between subjectivity and subjective correlates?
I don't have any answers. I just have what are really gut feelings, and it's taken a long time to reach conclusions that in reality I can't remotely prove. But I do think some of the connections I've made are valid, and quite possibly I can point to certain truths at least in outline. The various conclusions I've come to and the paths I've taken are far too involved to go into meaningfully, but in the end I'm just trying to explore. I think eventually subject and object are one, and if this is true, it implies that there is some interface between matter and consciousness that is fundamental. But this is a very abstract notion, and there is no way for me to explain it logically, as it relies more on experience than reasoning.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said I think eventually subject and object are one, and if this is true, it implies that there is some interface between matter and consciousness that is fundamental. But this is a very abstract notion, and there is no way for me to explain it logically, as it relies more on experience than reasoning.
I hear what you're saying but I don't see why the notion that there may be an interface between the mind of a human being and our animal bodies is necessarily abstract.
We are all connected to nature in a biological way.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
#24014194 - 01/16/17 09:59 AM (7 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I hear what you're saying but I don't see why the notion that there may be an interface between the mind of a human being and our animal bodies is necessarily abstract.
I'm glad you see it that way.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
|
The basic view I take is that somehow humans have learnt to control our fight or flight response to a degree higher than that of our wild ancestral counterparts.
From my collective experiences on the topic I suppose ethics might have something to do with our ability to control our instinctive responses in order to behave less impulsive and more critical in the moment.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
...it relies more on experience than reasoning.
Short while ago I happened on a radio talk show where a group of scientists were talking about things. They also had a comedia in rsidence too which gave it more of an edge, but the question came to me 'why is science so boring/dull...for some people?'
Then I thought about love and sex. Imagine trying to explain love and/or sex using scientific terms, be it chemicals, biology, particles, etc. HOW boring IF that is it. the really interesting bit is the experience, and the more open to love and sex the deeper the experience
So surely the reason science can be so boringly dead to many people IS because they have excluded actual experience by claiming there is no sentience in matter, in nature. This is how R.D.Laing explained the situation to Fritjof Capra:
Quote:
"The main point of Laing's attack was that science, as it is practiced today, has no way of dealing with consciousness, or with experience, values, ethics, or anything referring to quality.
"This situation derives from something that happened in European consciousness at the time of Galileo and Giordano Bruno", Laing began his argument.
"These two men epitomize two paradigms - Bruno, who was tortured and burned for saying that there were infinite worlds; and Galileo, who said that the scientific method was to study this world as if there were no consciousness and no living creatures in it. Galileo made the statement that only quantifiable phenomena were admitted to the domain of science. Galileo said: "Whatever cannot be measured and quantified is not scientific"; and in post-Galilean science this came to mean: "What cannot be measured and quantified is not real." This has been the most profound corruption from the Greek view of nature as physis, which is alive, always in transformation, and not divorced from us. Galileo's programme offers us a dead world: Out go sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell, and along with them have since gone esthetic and ethical sensibility, values, quality, soul, consciousness, spirit. Experience as such is cast out of the realm of scientific discourse. Hardly anything has changed our world more during the past four hundred years than Galileo's audacious program. We had to destroy the world in theory before we could destroy it in practice." (Uncommon Wisdom: Conversations with remarkable people, Fritjof Capra, page 139)
|
Penelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic



Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
|
|
As Feynman tells us, all mass is interaction. How do you approach such a viewpoint? What does maya mean to you?
One could get really esoteric with it. Science of mathematics and geometry. We are going through iterations of equations until we arrive at a suitable solution. Maybe those who've found an elegant process are the ones living in harmony or some higher state. Right now, I'm just using my mass to interact with as much as possible and the processes which bring me the most pleasure and least discord are the processes I continue to iterate. Maybe I'll find a sacred shape one day and its path I will continue to follow.
--------------------
full blown human
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
|
Maya to me means the journey taken by mankind to ascend from tribal life to our modern civilisation over a 10,000 year period.
Quote:
An astro-blink is a long time: all those seconds work out to just over 54,000 thousand years for each flutter! That means that any event that happened over a 54,000-year period would occur in the “blink” of an eye, astronomically.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
Penelope_Tree said: As Feynman tells us, all mass is interaction. How do you approach such a viewpoint? What does maya mean to you?
One could get really esoteric with it. Science of mathematics and geometry. We are going through iterations of equations until we arrive at a suitable solution. Maybe those who've found an elegant process are the ones living in harmony or some higher state. Right now, I'm just using my mass to interact with as much as possible and the processes which bring me the most pleasure and least discord are the processes I continue to iterate. Maybe I'll find a sacred shape one day and its path I will continue to follow.

-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
shapes are not meant to fit so cleanly- as that would be akin to allowing that the highest pleasure be stationed at sex (or something else), and not the truth.
our illusory reality can be summed up as: two of the loneliest whales in the world.
|
Penelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic



Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: akira_akuma] 2
#24014902 - 01/16/17 02:28 PM (7 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Holding my tongue
--------------------
full blown human
Edited by Penelope_Tree (01/16/17 02:28 PM)
|
Middleman

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
|
|
Quote:
Penelope_Tree said:
How do you approach such a viewpoint? What does maya mean to you?
Through discord. The way out of maya is the opposite of peace.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Middleman]
#24017544 - 01/17/17 02:18 PM (7 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Edit: Fixed the clerical issues.
Do appearances exclusively have to do with perception? Is that the question here? To what extent may we realistically assume this?
My thought is that there is a middle ground between the poles of naive realism, (especially in some of the naturalistic fallacies of conscious realism) and unbounded idealism (and the quicksilver poetry of the phenomenologist).
Obviously it is a pretty good practical assumption to say that any "appearances" we speak of likely originates in consciousness, and that probably means in a locality of perception. But how strongly can this be asserted? When it is said we understand or inquire into the nature of any entity, the nature of reality, it is just as true that this is a "horizon" (link for clarity) as the phenomenologist Husserl put it.
I do not suppose I can gesture to a fruitful and systematic phenomenology, exactly. Things are too divided. I think it is a priority though. Just as we deal with certain open questions, regarding nature, the novelty which we constantly look to is effectively phenomenological; where certain dealings with phenomenal appearances are more inherent to the world, and direct. The sun itself "appears" on the horizon. And we know this poetic terminology actually fits; as "phenomenon" is a word that relates to things in themselves, in their appearance.
As Heidegger points out, phenomenology is even further complicated as sometimes we do not even know the horizon of what we look to. Or consider how the symptom "appears", in something, for what does not show itself, in a thing itself. There are many possible relations in appearance. Also finally there is "mere" phenomenal appearance, the accident of perception in perspective, which is structurally tied to things in themselves, as well. Are all appearances, likely as that, mere appearance? Are they consciousness relating and conferring with things in themselves?
Take another slant of philosophical preference, and we can see why we simplify things. It seems like a natural assumption on the face of it today, to say the origin of appearance is always something arising out of locality of conscious perceptions, but in what sense do we effectively assume that? Perception may be conceived as a possible correspondence between internal mental representation and what is in front of it, in general. This is because perception can be considered a possible linguistic proposition or argument of what is the case, that is evaluated as true or false (I am calling this "conscious realism", our empiricism of today). Then we look to analysis of language and concept as the ground of truth, from perception.
This has a way of simplifying phenomenology, which was justified on some bases. One basis is that Cartesianism inflated phenomenology to a proportion that couldn't be dealt with, simply put. We are not exactly able to ground the phenomenologist's horizon in any way, and it tends to end in a kind of transcendental idealism, when it is argued. Another reason we turn towards language is it is positively appropriate from the same basis of perception.
The fact is, we have departed from discussing classical physical objects, indeed "things" at all in themselves in science. We have to talk about perceptions as propositions possibly conferring with complex states of affairs, because the "entities themselves" (or rather, "relations") we are dealing with are actually complexes of affairs, and not classical spatiotemporal objects of perception. We ground "theories" in science, as propositional reflections of the world hanging in the air of conjecture as the most basic ground of science. We ground the scientific "theory", although we say theory is not above or more than the empirical object, or for that matter, the material substratum of objects, and the assumption is mainly we have all this is in tow, somewhat integrally.
The problem is, as early language analysis philosophers like Wittgenstein demonstrated, there is deep philosophical conservativism to analytic and cognitivist philosophy. If it is a construct of strict correspondence of perception to reality that we deal with, something in that was no doubt in initial conception, likened to an empiricism. In today's empiricism this opens us to burgeoning phenomena - but only in a technical conceptual language, which more or less only speaks to the world, as authority of science in general in these conjectures, or in the way the majority of people are just aping science (this propositional reflection) as an authority.
People will argue about particular philosophical stances like they argue about "political correctness" in politics today, rather than in realizing we have come to a philosophical situation. Where is it important to stand for the empirical, the theoretical, or the ground of common sense?
But my comments are mostly gathered with a historical method, and I think this is why I think we just end up watching history. There must be a shift in consciousness beyond the entrenchments of 20th century philosophy for western philosophy. I think most of the ways of embracing post Newtownian consciousness, will be in looking to something in front of us, in a philosophical way, and we can only start at that. We haven't integrally understood this circumstance. In other words the discussions get nowhere without getting past the naive and outmoded epistemeological stances that have been taken to guide us. Postmodernity, doesn't mean anything, other than that we have to be real philosophers of the future, as Nietzsche wrote.
On phenomenal appearances, I think that philosophical preferences, and practical lines of effective inquiry, will speak loudly, but will tend to dance around a property dualism. Philosophy is split in two today, but we will prefer to defer that difference. Also, my other thought is that historical sensibility, and more integral thinking would help philosophers and scientists. In my opinion there is a huge issue to modern western philosophy, in that by and large its tradition actually preceded its current focus, what it obsesses over and leans from in mind and body dualism (cartesianism, and subsequent empirical slants dealing with perceptual experience). What preceded this for the majority of western history, and back to the greeks was not mind and body, but some kind of functional monism; for instance, like Aristotle's idea of matter and the form it takes. I am not saying that means anything other than that these anthroprocentric trends exist, and that is deep in western philosopher's veins. Naturalism is, and metaphysics is too.
People want to shrug off the phenomenology and the inflated value of perceptual experience, in subject object relations, for another turn toward theoretical language, and pragmatism in the 20th and 21st century, and yet people do not know how, as they do anyway. There is the divide. I think generally it is best to deconstruct. For instance, anyone could say yes, we talk about theoretical relations of affairs, and those relations tend to come from a broad basis of empirically perceivings... And indeed empirical perceivings (objects) tend to have a common sense material substratum as their basis preceding them. This can be laid out over historical development of our conjectures. We act as if history is in tow, but really we don't know what we have our heads in most the time, not to insinuate too much. There are different kinds of illusions to have. It is not so much just the novelty of the phenomenon, but historically, western philosophers are a little too lost in what they project out into, in my opinion.
But I notice I am not either cynical or optimistic, in face of life, and I just try to stay close to my perceptions, some common sense and an ethic for real knowledge. I don't know how much this reflects our real world, or the way people want to talk but it is an insight of my own.
Edited by Kurt (01/17/17 07:16 PM)
|
pineninja
Dream Weaver



Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt]
#24017596 - 01/17/17 02:39 PM (7 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Excellent.
-------------------- Just a fool on the hill.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: pineninja] 1
#24017690 - 01/17/17 03:16 PM (7 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Thanks 
Just a thought, if a hefty one.
|
viktor
psychotechnician



Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
blingbling said: I'm totally willing to admit my ignorance when it comes to modern particle physics, but I still don't see how you can get subjectivity from quantum material or any material for that matter. You are implying that you have the answer to this problem that has plagued philosophy for the last couple hundred years. Or is there a difference between subjectivity and subjective correlates?
I don't have any answers. I just have what are really gut feelings, and it's taken a long time to reach conclusions that in reality I can't remotely prove. But I do think some of the connections I've made are valid, and quite possibly I can point to certain truths at least in outline. The various conclusions I've come to and the paths I've taken are far too involved to go into meaningfully, but in the end I'm just trying to explore. I think eventually subject and object are one, and if this is true, it implies that there is some interface between matter and consciousness that is fundamental. But this is a very abstract notion, and there is no way for me to explain it logically, as it relies more on experience than reasoning.
What I find difficult is that I can be consciously aware of my body but not yours. Although the consciousness is in both cases the same.
I have been told that the answer to the riddle lies in understanding the nature of mercury, i.e. a round pool of mercury can be divided and it will immediately form two self-sufficiently round pools, both of which are complete in themselves, unlike silver/gold/copper/tin etc.
-------------------- "They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."
|
pineninja
Dream Weaver



Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: viktor] 1
#24018211 - 01/17/17 06:59 PM (7 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
To not be aware of anothers is to be aware of your own, which is not possible without another.
-------------------- Just a fool on the hill.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: viktor] 1
#24018261 - 01/17/17 07:19 PM (7 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
viktor said: What I find difficult is that I can be consciously aware of my body but not yours. Although the consciousness is in both cases the same.
The way I see it, it makes sense to me that we can be consciously aware of our own bodies because we are aware of our immediate environment through the sensory systems of our nervous system and brain.
While two human beings can both have conscious experiences and they do share a genetic inheritance, they do not share the same physical nervous system as they would if they came from the same families or parents.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
#24018363 - 01/17/17 07:56 PM (7 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
But viktor is right. The consciousness is the same. Literally the same. And it's not a material.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
|
Ethics can exist in both people but are you saying we all have the same interpretation of ethics or sense of morality?
I don't think consciousness is a material but a measurable force of nature, like that of electromagnetism or radio waves.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
|