Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception
    #4847194 - 10/24/05 07:17 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Since the objects we perceive have a nature independent of us, it must be possible to distinguish between form and object; between the aspects of the perceived world that derive from our form of perception [such as colors, sounds, smells] and the aspects that belong to metaphysical reality itself, apart from us. What then is the status of the formal aspects? If they are not "in the object," it is often asked, does it follow that they are merely "in the mind" and therefore are subjective and unreal? If so, many philosophers have concluded, the senses must be condemned as deceivers - because the world of colored, sounding, odoriferous objects they reveal is utterly unlike actual reality. This is the problem, a commonplace in introductory philosophy classes, of the so-called "two tables": the table of daily life, which is brown, rectangular, solid, and motionless; and the table of science, which, it is said, is largely empty space, inhabited by some colorless, racing particles and/or charges, rays, waves, or whatnot.

The answer is: we can distinguish form from object, but this does not imply the subjectivity of form or the invalidity of the senses.

The task of identifying the nature of physical objects as they are apart from man's form of perception does not belong to philosophy, but to physics. There is no philosophic method of discovering the fundamental attributes of matter; there is only the scientist's method of specialized observation, experimentation, and inductive reference. Whatever such attributes turn out to be, however, they have no philosophic significance, neither in regard to metaphysics nor to epistemology.
Let us see why, by supposing for a moment that physics one day reaches its culmination and attains omniscience about matter.

At that point, scientists know the ultimate ingredients of the universe, the irreducible building blocks that combine to make up physical objects part from any relationship to man's form of awareness. What these ingredients are I do not pretend to know. For the sake of the argument, let us make the extravagant assumption that they are radically different from anything men know now; let us call them "puffs of meta-energy," a deliberately undefined term. At this stage of cognition, scientists have discovered that the material world as men perceive it, the world of three-dimensional objects possessing color, texture, size, and shape is not a primary, but merely an effect, an effect of various combinations of puffs acting on men's means of perception.

What would this sort of discovery prove philosophically? It would prove nothing.

If everything is made of meta-energy puffs, then so are human beings and their parts, including their sense organs, nervous system, and brain. The process of sense perception, by this account, would involve a certain relationship among the puffs: it would consist of an interaction between those that comprise external entities and those that comprise the perceptual apparatus and brain of human beings. The result of this interaction would be the material world as we perceive it, with all of its objects and their qualities, from men to mosquitoes to stars to feathers.

Even under the present hypothesis, such objects and qualities would not be products of consciousness. Their existence would be a metaphysically given fact; it would be a consequence of certain puff-interactions that is outside of man's power to create or destroy. The things we perceive, in this theory, would not be primaries, but they would nevertheless be unimpeachably real.

A thing may not be condemned as unreal on the grounds that it is "only an effect," which can be given a deeper explanation.
One does not subvert the reality of something by explaining it.
One does not make objects or qualities subjective by identifying the causes that underlie them.
One does not detach the material world as we perceive it from reality when one shows that certain elements in reality produced it.
On the contrary: if an existent is an effect of the puffs in certain combinations, by that very fact it must be real, a real product of the ingredients that make up reality. Man's consciousness did not create the ingredients, in the present hypothesis, or the necessity of their interaction, or the result: the solid, three-dimensional objects we perceive. If the elements of reality themselves combine inevitably to produce such objects, then these objects have an impregnable metaphysical foundation: by the nature of their genesis, they are inherent in and expressive of the essence of existence.

The dominant tradition among philosophers has defined only two possibilities in regard to sensory qualities: they are "in the object" or "in the mind." The former is taken to subsume qualities independent of man's means of perception; the latter is taken to mean "subjective and/or unreal."
This alternative is defective, however. A quality that derives from an interaction between external objects and man's perceptual apparatus belongs to neither category. Such a quality - e.g., color - is not a dream or hallucination; it is not "in the mind" apart from the object; it is man's form of grasping the object. Nor is the quality "in the object" apart from man; it is man's form of grasping the object. By definition, a form of perception cannot be forced into either category. Since it is the product of an interaction [in Plato's terms, of a "marriage"] between two entities, object and apparatus, it cannot be identified exclusively with either. Such products introduce a third alternative: they are not object alone or perceiver alone, but object-as-perceived.

In a deeper sense, however, such products are "in the object." They are so, not as primaries independent of man's sense organs, but as the inexorable effects of primaries. Consciousness, to repeat, is a faculty of awareness; as such, it does not create its content or even the sensory forms in which it is aware of that content. Those forms in any instance are determined by the perceiver?s physical endowment interacting with external entities in accordance with causal law. The source of sensory form is thus not consciousness, but existential fact independent of consciousness; i.e., the source is the metaphysical nature of reality itself. In this sense, everything we perceive, including those qualities that depend on man's physical organs, is "out there".

Those who condemn the senses as deceptive on the grounds that sense qualities are merely effects on men are guilty of rewriting reality. Their viewpoint amounts to an ultimatum delivered to the universe: "I demand that the senses give me not effects, but irreducible primaries. That is how I would have created reality." As in all cases of this fallacy, such a demand ignores the fact that what is metaphysically given is an absolute. Perception is necessarily a process of interaction: there is no way to perceive an object that does not somehow impinge on one's body. Sense qualities, therefore, must be effects. To reject the senses for this reason is to reject them for existing - while yearning for a fantasy form of perception that in logic is not even thinkable.

As to the claim that the racing particles, puffs, or whatever that make up tables do not "look like" the peaceful brown things on which we eat in daily life, this is the literal reverse of the truth. "Looks" means "appears to our visual sense." The brown things are exactly what the puffs "look like." There are not "two tables." The brown things are a particular combination of the primary ingredients of reality: they are those ingredients as perceived by man.

In regard to the senses, the standard argument, long a staple of skeptics, has already been indicated: "A certain object looks red or sounds loud or feels solid, but that is partly because of the nature of human eyes, ears or touch. Therefore, we are cut off from the external world. We do not perceive reality as it really is, but only reality as it appears to man."
Here is the same argument presented by Kantians, in regard to the conceptual faculty: "Certain abstract conclusions are incontestable to us, but that is partly because of the nature of the human mind. If we had a different sort of mind, with a different sort of conceptual apparatus, our idea of truth and reality would be different. Human knowledge, therefore, is only human; it is subjective; it does not apply to things in themselves."
Here is the argument a third time, as applied to logic: "Even the most meticulous proof depends on our sense of what is logical, which must depend in apart on the kind of mental constitution we have. The real truth on any question is, therefore, unknowable. To know it, we would have to contact reality directly, without relying on our own logical makeup. We would have to jump outside of our own nature, which is impossible."

We cannot escape the limitations of a human consciousness, the argument observes. We cannot escape our dependence on human senses, human concepts, human logic, the human brain. We cannot shed human identity. Therefore, the argument concludes, we cannot gain a knowledge of reality. In other words: our consciousness is something; it has specific means and forms of cognition; therefore, it is disqualified as a faculty of cognition.

This argument is not confined to human consciousness. It is an attack on all consciousness, human, animal, or otherwise. No matter how keen an animal's senses, the argument indicts them equally: since the animal cannot escape its organs of perception, it, too, must be imprisoned by them and cut off from reality. The same would apply to a Martian with unearthly senses; such a creature would never encounter things as they are, only things-as-processed-by-the-Martian-mechanism.

What sort of consciousness can percieve reality, in the Kantian, anti-identity approach? The answer is: a consciousness not limited by any means of cognition; a consciousness which percieves no-how; a consciousness which is not of this kind agains that; a consciousness which is nothing in particular, i.e., which is nothing, i.e., which does not exist. This is the ideal of the Kantian argument and the standard i t uses to measure cognitive validity: the standard is not human consciousness or even an invented consciousness claimed to be superior to man's but a zero, a vacuum, a nullity - a non-anything.

In this view, identity - the essence of existence - invalidates consciousness, every kind of consciousness. Or: a means of knowledge makes knowledge impossible. As Ayn Rand observes in a critical formulation, this approach implies that "man is blind, because he has eyes - deaf, because he has ears - deluded, because he has a mind - and the things he percieves do not exist, because he percieves them."

Ayn Rand rejects all these errors, because she rejects their root: she begins not by bewailing the nature of human consciousness, but by insisting on it. The fact that man's cognitive faculties have a nature does not invalidate them; it is what makes them possible. Identity is not the disqualifier of consciousness, but its precondition. This is the base from which epistemology must proceed; it is the principle by reference to which all standards of cognition must be defined.

Authored By Peikoff.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (10/25/05 12:12 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4847932 - 10/24/05 10:09 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Best post ever.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: Phluck]
    #4847955 - 10/24/05 10:17 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Yep. Ayn Rand was one brilliant human being, fo shizzle.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedaimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4848439 - 10/25/05 12:05 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Have you read The Ominous Parallels?


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: daimyo]
    #4848618 - 10/25/05 12:55 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Nope, not yet. I have a good long road of Randy-reading ahead of me as of now. Looks interesting though..

By looking at the cover, I'm assuming the book can be eloquently summarized as:

:usa: = :hitlerdance:

?



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedaimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4848675 - 10/25/05 01:10 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

:lol:  Something like that.

Not one of the books I'd put on top of the list, but an interesting read for a look back on how such philisophical foundations were able to be laid in Germany, and could be in the US.

It was written in the early 80s if I remember correctly.  It would be nice if he would write a follow up.

Until then, I will have to continue on trying to find a DIM Hypothesis torrent.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4849259 - 10/25/05 05:30 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

supposing for a moment that physics one day reaches its culmination and attains omniscience about matter.

what about supposing for a moment that physics never reaches its culmination?

what validates the existence of puffs? what makes them real?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: raytrace]
    #4851273 - 10/25/05 05:20 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

what about supposing for a moment that physics never reaches its culmination?

Irrelevant. The point is that whatever attributes of reality are discovered from physics, has no philisophic significance.

"The task of identifying the nature of physical objects as they are apart from man's form of perception does not belong to philosophy, but to physics. There is no philosophic method of discovering the fundamental attributes of matter; there is only the scientist's method of specialized observation, experimentation, and inductive reference. Whatever such attributes turn out to be, however, they have no philosophic significance, neither in regard to metaphysics nor to epistemology."


what validates the existence of puffs?

Look at your question. Validation of anything presupposes its existence. Existence is its own validation. Existence is axiomatic.

what makes them real?

Existence, for if they were not in existence, they wouldn't exist - i.e., they would be nothing.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedaimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4852823 - 10/25/05 10:59 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

For something to be anything, it must be nothing. No?


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4853077 - 10/25/05 11:55 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

"Existence, for if they were not in existence, they wouldn't exist - i.e., they would be nothing."

Obviously, but how do we determine what exists? If we say everything we can experience exists, then do datura-hallucinations actually exist?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4853199 - 10/26/05 12:22 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Obviously, but how do we determine what exists?


By contrast of non-existence. Vague questions will get vague answers.


If we say everything we can experience exists, then do datura-hallucinations actually exist?



Of course hallucinations exist, if they didn't exist, there would be no hallucinations.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: daimyo]
    #4853387 - 10/26/05 01:11 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

By "anything", I meant any-thing, i.e. any-thing-in-existence.





--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4907656 - 11/08/05 12:27 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

what about supposing for a moment that physics never reaches its culmination?

Irrelevant. The point is that whatever attributes of reality are discovered from physics, has no philisophic significance.

I cannot see how this can be irrelevant. The whole argument is based on the existence of puffs as building blocks that interact to form reality. What if puffs are not there at all? Lets say they go through such transformations that prevent them to be conceptualized as 'rigid' or 'independent' entities.

What is there other than a mysterious something within which the mind in its longing to understand, order and categorize, fantasizes about puffs?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: raytrace]
    #4908056 - 11/08/05 05:56 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

I cannot see how this can be irrelevant. The whole argument is based on the existence of puffs as building blocks that interact to form reality. What if puffs are not there at all?

Keep in mind, it is philosophically irrelevant, and the existence-of-puffs is merely a hypothetical scenario devised for the purpose of demonstrating this. Whether it be puffs, or super-unicorns or cosmic foam, the bottom line is still:

"The task of identifying the nature of physical objects as they are apart from man's form of perception does not belong to philosophy, but to physics. There is no philosophic method of discovering the fundamental attributes of matter; there is only the scientist's method of specialized observation, experimentation, and inductive reference. Whatever such attributes turn out to be, however, they have no philosophic significance, neither in regard to metaphysics nor to epistemology."


Lets say they go through such transformations that prevent them to be conceptualized as 'rigid' or 'independent' entities.


It sounds to me like you're an advocate of the "Primacy of Consciousness" school of thought. Is this so? If not, then I'm not sure what point you may be leading to. Please clarify.


What is there other than a mysterious something within which the mind in its longing to understand, order and categorize, fantasizes about puffs?


I don't understand this question.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4909680 - 11/08/05 03:41 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
Of course hallucinations exist, if they didn't exist, there would be no hallucinations.




Hallucination n.: Perception of visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory experiences without an external stimulus and with a compelling sense of their reality, usually resulting from a mental disorder or as a response to a drug.

Hallucinations, by definition, do not exist... but because there are hallucinations they do exist?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4909795 - 11/08/05 04:06 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Hallucination n.: Perception of visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory experiences without an external stimulus and with a compelling sense of their reality, usually resulting from a mental disorder or as a response to a drug.

How does this definition show that hallucinations don't exist? All it implies is that hallucinations are subjective. Like ideas and concepts, hallucinations still exist, albeit not objectively.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4909859 - 11/08/05 04:20 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

"Without an external stimulus" in other words, it is a false perception.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4909891 - 11/08/05 04:25 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

"Since the objects we perceive have a nature independent of us"

I disagree. In the words of the Great Ravus, "We can never escape this sensory human cage." If they do have a nature independent of us, it seems completely irrelevant. There is no way to experience them outside of our perception of them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4909951 - 11/08/05 04:35 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

There is no way to experience them outside of our perception of them.




That doesn't alter the fact that they have a nature independent of us. Nor does it alter the fact that we can garner tremendous amounts of knowledge about most of them -- even ones we cannot detect at all with our unaided senses.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: Phred]
    #4909971 - 11/08/05 04:37 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Something which we cannot experience is hardly fact.
You cannot remove the observer from the equation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Anonymous 21,763 157 12/21/04 06:31 AM
by deafpanda
* UFO's Become more accepted in england - ,,
( 1 2 all )
Food 2,888 30 01/28/03 10:39 PM
by EvilGir
* Confusing creativity with perception.
( 1 2 3 all )
Phluck 5,506 59 09/30/03 02:02 AM
by fireworks_god
* doors of perception matt66 1,068 5 05/15/02 04:32 AM
by gnrm23
* objects mr crisper 604 9 01/30/03 08:31 AM
by the_Landotter
* For those who believe in only perception and experience TheShroomHermit 1,306 13 04/14/04 03:37 PM
by PHARMAKOS
* Objective reality challange gribochek 1,863 8 01/31/02 09:20 PM
by Swank
* Objective Quality....an inquiry into values...... PsyllyMe 988 13 08/19/04 10:58 AM
by BlueCoyote

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,865 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.