Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: dr0mni]
    #4918957 -

"a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

a. Yes
b. no
c. if theres no one around, there is no tree


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


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: Moonshoe]
    #4919969 -

Moonshoe, for the most part, everything you've said in that post isn't something that I couldn't draw a down-to-Earth philisophical parallel from.
In other words, I can see what you've said, and compare it to what other people have similarly said, albeit in a different perspective. This isn't to say that this must therefore be exactly what you're really saying underneath the semantics, because honestly, I don't have the basis for that kind of certainty as of yet.
To be certain of exactly what you're saying, overall, I would have to ask you a few questions.
Do you believe that to command reality [nature], one must act according to its rules and identity? If one wants to change the world, must one act according to reality? Or: Do you believe that the metaphysically given facts of reality are subject to one's wishes, desires and whims alone? Does one's actions achieve desired results when the rules and identities of reality are evaded?



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4920079 -

Here is my current metaphysical suspicion on Reality:

I think that an objective, immalleable, firm Reality DOES exist, but the only thing we primates can experience is our interaction with it. In other words, following the philosophy of Korzbyski, we create a 'map' or model of Reality. Some of our 'maps' are a more accurate representation of Reality than others. Our ordinary experiences interacting with Reality seem to be the best 'maps' and hallucinations seem to be the worst.
Darwinian evolution does not 'design' organisms to operate at an optimum condition, it only gives organisms the bare minimum they need to survive. It doesn't seem logical to think that evolution endowed us with a perfect nervous system which can 100% accurately model reality, all the time.

"The map should not be confused with the territory."

(I just thought of something neat. Maybe, maybe, maybe, hallucinogens do "open us up to a 'higher' reality" that isn't necessary for our survival and thus never became part of our individual 'maps.' Its like Materialistic Shamanism. I'm very skeptical about it, and I'll have to spend more time thinking about this, but it sure does sound cool.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4920194 -

I think that an objective, immalleable, firm Reality DOES exist, but the only thing we primates can experience is our interaction with it.

Basically, yes. This thread is about accepting the validity of our sensory perceptions themselves, and not rejecting them, simply because they are conditional, i.e. human.


we create a 'map' or model of Reality. Some of our 'maps' are a more accurate representation of Reality than others. Our ordinary experiences interacting with Reality seem to be the best 'maps' and hallucinations seem to be the worst.


Right, we can create concepts that reflect what is objectively the case. For instance, there is an objective existant in the form of a furry, purring, pointy-eared creature which we've formed a subjective concept/idea/map that is called a "Cat" in the English language.


Darwinian evolution does not 'design' organisms to operate at an optimum condition, it only gives organisms the bare minimum they need to survive. It doesn't seem logical to think that evolution endowed us with a perfect nervous system which can 100% accurately model reality, all the time.

You may have missed somethings the original post was saying. What is a "100% perfect, infallible, accurate model of reality"? Our nervous systems do not violate the Law of Identity. Just because our sensory perceptions are conditional [human], does not invalidate the sensory input we recieve. It is because we have an identity, that it is conditional, and if we had no identity, no nature, we would be nothing at all.

Imagine a species of thinking atoms; they have some kind of sensory apparatus but, given their size, no eyes or tactile organs and therefore no color or touch perception. Such creatures, let us say, percieve atoms directly, as we do people; they percieve in some form we cannot imagine. For them, the fact that matter is atomic is not a theory reached by inference, but a self-evidency.

Such "atomic" perception, however, is in no way more valid than our own. Since these atoms function on a submicroscopic scale of awareness, they do not discover through their senses the kind of evidence that we take for granted. We have to infer atoms, but they have to infer macroscopic objects, such as a table or the Empire State Building, which are far too large for their receptive capacity to register. It requires a process of sophisticated theory-formation for them to find out that, in reality, the whirling atoms they percieve are bound into various combinations, making up objects too vast to be directly grasped. Although the starting points are very different, the cognitive upshot in both cases is the same, even though a genius among them is required to reach the conclusion obvious to the morons among us, and vice versa.

No type of sense perception can register everything. A is A - and any perceptual apparatus is limited. By virtue of being able to discriminate one aspect of reality, a consciousness cannot discriminate some other aspect that would require a different kind of sense organs. Whatever facts the senses do register, however, are facts. And these facts are what lead a mind eventually to the rest of its knowledge.




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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4922826 -

The first post seems to say that sense perception is valid because, even though we know its illusory and not a true picture of what is, it is still valid because it is a result of the true system.

So we know that what we perceive is an illusion, but because this illusion is REALLY happening, it is legit!

I do not like this form of philosophy. How can they say that what we know in physics is not philosophically relevant, the two are very much related. We must take into account all knowledge that we have available to us when trying to answer questions either of science or philosophy.

Yes our sense perceptions are in a sense valid. Are you denying that our experiences are subjective? I believe the above post tries to say that our experiences are not subjective, because it is a result of the objective system of reality? In any case that does not mean our experiences are not subjective.

When we know what we are experiencing is illusory and that there is a more primary, baser reality underlying those experiences, I think it is important to take into account those underlying realities, not just to accept the illusory experiences as completely valid. When in the midst of a full blown psychedelic experience, we perceive and experience many revelations and thoughts etc. that at the time might seem completely valid and to make sense, but to immediately grab onto these things as reality would be absurd. It is only after coming back to baseline and reflecting on those thoughts induced, that we can pick out which have value and which were mere illusion. This type of philosophy would, it seems, accept everything we experience in the psychedelic experience, simply because it really happened. Come on... :/

Also take into account that yes our subjective experiences 'in us' are reflective of the objective reality 'out there' but realize that there are an infinite amount of ways we could subjectively experience 'in us' what is 'out there'. This article seems to claim that all beings are all experiencing the same thing 'in us', but this is completely not true, there is a range of subjectivity between each human. Also realize how much an alien entity's experience 'in them' differs from the reality 'out there'. There an infinite number of ways it seems that what is 'out there' can be perceived, and to latch onto one version of this as somehow more valid than the others, is making an extreme mistake.

It is important that philosophy always aims at objectivity and not subjectivity, or else it seems to rip out the base from underneath itself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: Amber_Glow]
    #4923173 -

The first post seems to say that sense perception is valid because, even though we know its illusory and not a true picture of what is, it is still valid because it is a result of the true system.

Not quite. The article is saying that our sense perceptions are not illusory. Some people like to think that simply because we know one aspect of reality [and therefore, not all and every aspects of reality], we must be "illusioned" or "deluded" or whatever.

You used the phrase "true picture of what is", as if there's only one possible picture that can ever be "true". If I show a picture of an apple at the microscopic level, next to a picture of an apple in the macroscopic range, is either picture any more "real" than the other one? Both perspectives do not contradict the apples identity, nor the Law of Identity itself. Both are equally real. Just because our sense perception is conditional, or has various limits, does not mean that it is therefore erroneous, illusional, or invalid.


Are you denying that our experiences are subjective? I believe the above post tries to say that our experiences are not subjective, because it is a result of the objective system of reality? In any case that does not mean our experiences are not subjective.

No, I am certainly not saying our experiences aren't subjective.


This type of philosophy would, it seems, accept everything we experience in the psychedelic experience, simply because it really happened. Come on... :/

I see nothing wrong with simply accepting a psychedelic experience as real - in certain respects, of course. I accept that my dreams are real, they are actual, occuring phenomena during my sleep. I accept that my hallucinations are real when I consume hallucinogenics, just as I do with my dreams, and so forth.



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

Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (11/11/05 05:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4923418 -

By true picture of what is I didn't mean picture as in regards to a visionary quality. I meant objective reality. Certainly you are not denying the existence of an objective reality?

In my opinion philosophy's aim should be towards discovering the truths about an objective reality.

If we are looking for truth in our subjective reality, I suppose that is OK too, but you must keep in mind that because it is subjective, and because of the nature of the subjectivity, there are probably infinite ways of looking at that objective reality, infinite subjective realities. It reminds me of that quote that I have seen all over, including on here, I don't remember the exact words but it goes something like "When you realize why you have dismissed every other religion, you will realize why I have dismissed yours" or something like that, in defense of athiesm. As a parallel to that, there is no reason to put your subjective reality above the infinitude of other subjective realities. But there is reason to aim towards that objective reality!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: Amber_Glow]
    #4923570 -

doesn't that turn into industrial engineering as proof of physics
then with a twist of credibility,
politics and war can then be applied to prove who owns the best truth

objective truth sometimes has to take a rest, to let nature heal the wounds our overreaching efforts make to encapsulate immensity.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: redgreenvines]
    #4923667 -

well, since reality is subjective, the objective reality cannot exist, even if there is a set standard for experiences, there is no actual experience, but a collaboration of alternating experiences

a dream whose dream characters play a part in determing the subjective reality, good times


--------------------
"It is easier to teach a computer to play chess than to build a mudpie."Sherry Turkle Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts"-Einstein
:mrt: I pity the fool who break traffic laws with $870,000 of drugs in the car.      -mo0nlite_sonata
Psythos

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: TheGus]
    #4923734 -

Quote:
well, since reality is subjective...


There's your error. Reality is not subjective.





Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: Phred]
    #4923886 -

the impression of objective reality is real enough to work with, does it need to be more heavily emphasized than that?

(that is why i brought engineering into this, and to go with convincing others, politics becomes involved, and then, in time naturally nature heals all the wounds of the whole idea based life struggle)


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: Amber_Glow]
    #4924184 -

Certainly you are not denying the existence of an objective reality?

Of course not.

In my opinion philosophy's aim should be towards discovering the truths about an objective reality.

Agreed.




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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4925987 -

SkorpivoMusterion said:
I see nothing wrong with simply accepting a psychedelic experience as real - in certain respects, of course. I accept that my dreams are real, they are actual, occuring phenomena during my sleep. I accept that my hallucinations are real when I consume hallucinogenics, just as I do with my dreams, and so forth.


I'm just wondering what you mean by "real"? Is any sensory stimulation real? Do schizophrenics have just a good, although different, grasp on reality as the rest of us?

I define "real" as an experience which accurately represents Reality.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4926015 -

Quote:
I define "real" as an experience which accurately represents Reality.


Woo Hoo!  :rofl2:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: Icelander]
    #4926059 -

im not sure if reality can be defined, maybe reality is so mystical that defining it would disgrace it? perhaps its just mans obsession to get sumkinda order in things.. interesting thoughtsplay however.. :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4926092 -

In that context, I am defining real as: Existence. If it exists, be it an experience of a Schizo or otherwise, it is real, in the respect that it exists.

Do schizophrenics have just a good, although different, grasp on reality as the rest of us?

Schizophrenic's experiences are no less real than our own experiences, for the simple fact that both of our experiences exist. Whether their experiences accurately grasp reality or not, is another story, and does not negate the existence of their experiences.



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Acknowledging and accepting the validity of our sense perception [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5097312 -

just because I promised to reply to Scorpivo:

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.

No, I don?t advocate primacies. Where this leads to is: Arguments are provided based on a hypothetical scenario, namely that at some point scientists will ?know the ultimate ingredients of the universe?. I?m just saying that there is a flip side to this. Simply, what if I hypothesize the opposite? Am I not allowed?

If arguments would have started from a fact rather than from a hypothesis then there would not be space for dispute. Just pointing this out really, I don?t necessarily disagree with the conclusions.


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.

This was a rhetorical question and I don?t think I can or wish to explain this further for now; you can just ignore it.

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

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Anonymous 22,726 157 12/21/04 06:31 AM
by deafpanda
* UFO's Become more accepted in england - ,,
( 1 2 all )		 Food 3,064 30 01/28/03 10:39 PM
by EvilGir
* Confusing creativity with perception.
( 1 2 3 all )		 Phluck 6,058 59 09/30/03 02:02 AM
by fireworks_god
* doors of perception matt66 1,135 5 05/15/02 04:32 AM
by gnrm23
* objects mr crisper 619 9 01/30/03 08:31 AM
by the_Landotter
* For those who believe in only perception and experience TheShroomHermit 1,404 13 04/14/04 03:37 PM
by PHARMAKOS
* Objective reality challange gribochek 1,923 8 01/31/02 09:20 PM
by Swank
* Objective Quality....an inquiry into values...... PsyllyMe 1,034 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
6,001 topic views. 0 members, 265 guests and 26 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.021 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 15 queries.