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 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5188058 -

I follow her and never said I can't be sure I even exist.

I said, "I can't be absolutely sure I exist "the way I think I do". Meaning to me, biological evolution, physiology and holistic principles are in play as we know them. Who's to say this reality and form of consciousness we experience isn't some major mind fuck of some superior intelligence and none is as it appears to be from a perspective yet unknown to us, though knowable. :wink:

Like I said, I go around assuming a lot to be so to get through the day, but when push comes to shove, absolutes can easily crumble with a shift of perception.

I exist in some form, I feel pretty sure of that.:lol: What form that is, is subject to the information I have to date. I may now only be partially correct in how I think it is that I do exist and I may also be WAAAAAAAAAAY off if a new set of data or experiential realization were to present itself up the road.

Comment if you want. I do believe I exist. I'm not absolutely sure if I am correct about how I think I do though. :lol:

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5188064 -

Cogito ergo sum!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: Veritas]
    #5188161 -

That's a tongue I don't speak. :lol: Translation please? :smile:

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5188176 -

The fact that we have optical illusions does not change the fact that we are still percieving reality directly through our senses.

What we are percieving is a construction of reality, which relies on input from various stimuli. Our brains have the capacity to recieve large amounts of stimuli, then narrow them down to what seems 'important' (see: thalamus), organize those stimuli into a 'working model' of our enviromnent, and project them outwards. Again, what we are experiencing does not appear to be Reality itself, but a 'model' of it.

In reality, if they did not exist [physiologically], we would not experience such physiological phenomena in the first place.

The question was about the perception of the image, not the mechanisms behind it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5188213 -

Sorry!  Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am.  (Or, more precisely translated, "I am thinking, therefore I exist.")  :grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: Veritas]
    #5188303 -

Ahhhhhhhhh! For me its like, I think therefore I think I am thinking that I am, but what do I think I am is the next unaswered question. Everytime I think I have what I am figured out, I change what I think about that......... :tongue:

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Edited by gettinjiggywithit (01/16/06 06:31 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5188308 -

:lol: I guess we need to ask more specific questions!

Am I?  Just doesn't cover it all.

:grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: Veritas]
    #5188568 -

nothing is unknowable, just the sacrafice to know is far too great for most


--------------------
"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: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5189063 -

I found this quote in the pub and it made me think of this post  as it sort of illustrated it. I chuckled when the writer first says, "God is the indescribable" and then he starts describing it. That was cute.

I think this is the sort contradiction the quote you shared was addressing.


Quote:
i think that i use 'God' to describe the indescribable......'God' is eternal is the all encompassing, magical, and is something the human mind cannot digest.....



Its weird to note the contradiction in a phrase like, "It is undefinable." In a way, didn't I just define it?
I wonder what other phrases self contradict.

It's unknowable- you;d have to know it to know that.

Its undefinable- Thats its definition.

It's unlimited- no limits are its limit

It's unspeakable- it was just spoken of

It's unmentionable- it was just mentioned

These are funny!

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5190163 -

So with your Kantianesque twist, you are in essence, making the same error as one who holds that a pain is not in your arm, but in your brain.

narrow them down to what seems important

But important to what? To perception of reality of course.

project them outwards

What is this "projecting outwards"? To be aware, we must be aware of something. Even if that something is an abstraction, an identification of processed stimuli, or a feeling such as joy, surprise or confusion. How do we be aware of only being aware?

I am the model of reality created by the action [mind] of my brain. The premise indirect perception is based on is the "I" of consciousness existing apart from the means of sensation and processing, rather than consciousness being the process itself. When I practice meditation, I only need try to let go, damp the thoughts that occur to me by choosing to "listen". Merely monitoring your perceptions is still monitoring being aware of "something" your aware of.

Our neurons that sense external reality can have many different states, each state is dependent on their interaction with reality. This is the case with all of our neurons. Our body's state, and the information that our brain operates on, are all parts of reality.

If we do not perceive reality directly, then we do not perceive reality at all. There is no such thing as perceiving reality indirectly; by what indirect means would you perceive it? By means of unreality? There is no such thing as unreality. Unreality does not exist. And if we do not perceive reality at all, then we are not conscious, since there is nothing else to be conscious of. If what you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.


The question was about the perception of the image, not the mechanisms behind it.

And my answer is valid, because I addressed the fact that it exists, otherwise, we would not experience it.



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5190169 -

Yes, that is essentially the kind of contradiction that Branden was pointing out. V-e-r-y humorous once you actually start seeing other people do this without even realizing it.




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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5190920 -

So with your Kantianesque twist, you are in essence, making the same error as one who holds that a pain is not in your arm, but in your brain.

Please explain the error in such thought? The sensation of pain is usually result of a 'pain-receptor' being activated in your arm, this stimulus then travels from your PNS to the CNS. The central nervous system is responsible for creating the sensation of pain or discomfort. (In other words telling YOU something is wrong in your arm.) Your arm, being a limb, not a conscious being, is incapable of being in pain. The sensation may feel as if its in your arm, but its created by an interaction of peripheral receptors and the brain.

But important to what? To perception of reality of course.

More or less. Some information the thalamus does not deem relevant or important, thus its 'gated off'. We do not have to capacity to process all the stimulus we receive all at the same time.

What is this "projecting outwards"? To be aware, we must be aware of something. Even if that something is an abstraction, an identification of processed stimuli, or a feeling such as joy, surprise or confusion. How do we be aware of only being aware?

The "projecting outwards" is awareness of the 'model' or abstraction developed in accord with our stimuli. The 'model' appears to be what we percieve, not raw stimili.

Our neurons that sense external reality can have many different states, each state is dependent on their interaction with reality. This is the case with all of our neurons. Our body's state, and the information that our brain operates on, are all parts of reality.

Agreed.

If we do not perceive reality directly, then we do not perceive reality at all. There is no such thing as perceiving reality indirectly; by what indirect means would you perceive it? By means of unreality?

Vibrations != sound... not until the vibrations reach human ears. The information we recieve comes directly from Reality, except in the case of hallucinations or false perceptions. But, this information is not directly percieved, it has to be created into something we can understand. The same way voice recognition software on a computer needs to translate the vibrations from a voice into machine code. The code is derived from Reality, but the computer is only aware of the code, not the vibrations.

And my answer is valid, because I addressed the fact that it exists, otherwise, we would not experience it.

You are saying the perception of an after-image is not a false perception? Stare a the America flag for 30 seconds, then quickly look at a white piece of paper. You'll see the American flag (colors inversed). Does that flag really exist on the paper, or was it a creation of your mind?

Edited by MushmanTheManic (01/17/06 12:32 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5191139 -

Please explain the error in such thought?

The error is based on the factor of exclusivity. Since it [sensation, pain] is the product of an interaction [a marriage, so to speak] 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.

Pain is the form in which we perceive damage or malfunctioning of some part of our body. Of course there won't be any pain if the means of perceiving the malfunction is destroyed. You don't get any sound from your radio if you disconnect the speaker wires.

Vibrations != sound... not until the vibrations reach human ears. The information we recieve comes directly from Reality, except in the case of hallucinations or false perceptions. But, this information is not directly percieved, it has to be created into something we can understand. The same way voice recognition software on a computer needs to translate the vibrations from a voice into machine code. The code is derived from Reality, but the computer is only aware of the code, not the vibrations.

LOL. You are still conflating the perception and integration of reality within your conscious mind with reality itself. The perceptions I have come from reality itself and are not from constructs, but my understanding of reality is created in my conscious mind as a construct from my senses and their interaction with actual reality. In other words, what I am getting from you, is that because we have a conditional [read: limited] interaction with reality, we are therefore, not interacting with what you refer to as "reality itself."

For example, you mentioned:

What we are perceiving is not reality directly, but a construction of reality, which relies on input from various stimuli.

This statement reverses reality with perception - Where do the "stimuli" come from if not reality? Our perception of reality, which relies on stimuli from reality itself, is the actual construct.

Let us remember the that an Entity is the Sum of its Parts.
The identity of an entity composed of other entities can be fully explained by reference to the identity of the building blocks, and how they are interacting. A house can be explained by reference to the wood, metal, and glass that are combined in that particular way to form the house. Or it could be explained in terms of the atoms that form it. These are all true, because the entity is a sum of its parts. Depending on what we specify as an 'entity', it has a particular identity. This identity exists objectively. We may choose to focus on a particular part of an entity, and discover the identity of that part, but it doesn't contradict the identity of the whole.

You are saying the perception of an after-image is not a false perception?

I am not saying that it isn't an optical illusion. I am stating that optical illusions exist, otherwise, how could we experience them if they did not exist, in whatever form, be it psychologically, or imaginatively?

Some people are less able to differentiate between what their senses pick up and what they imagine than others. I have no reason to think that I am incapable of differentiating. Do you? If my knowledge is consistent with itself, and things happen as I predict, I can be confident that I am capable of differentiating correctly. I have no reason to think the contrary. Do you?



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5191498 -

You are still conflating the perception and integration of reality within your conscious mind with reality itself.

I must not understand what you're trying to say here... are you saying: I'm confusing perceptions with reality (which is what I accused you of) or that perception is not part of reality? Based on this converstion, I don't think you're saying either... Please explain.

LOL

:rolleyes:

Our perception of reality, which relies on stimuli from reality itself, is the actual construct.

Remember this? "Our nervous system receives various input from our environment and we create a 'model' or 'map' [figuratively] of that environment". The "input" is our stimuli, the "model" is our perception-of-reality, and the "environment" is reality.

In other words, what I am getting from you, is that because we have a conditional [read: limited] interaction with reality, we are therefore, not interacting with what you refer to as "reality itself."

Interacting, yes. Percieving [directly], no.

"The stimuli* I have come from reality itself and are not from constructs, but my understanding of reality (recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli = perception) is created in my conscious mind as a construct from my senses and their interaction with actual reality." And, I think its unwise to confuse our perception-of-reality with actual reality. A rose is every color but red.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5192009 -

I must not understand what you're trying to say here

What I am saying is that there is no such thing as perceiving reality indirectly. Again, what indirect means would you perceive it? By means of unreality? If man does not have direct perception, what would direct perception denote? What I'm getting from you, is that because our perception of reality is human [read: conditional]; that because our perception does not register everything, we therefore, do not directly percieve reality.
In essence, you are saying man is blind to "actual reality" because he has a faculty of vision; that man cannot hear "actual reality" because he has ears.

Interacting, yes. Percieving [directly], no.

Percieving denotes interaction. Percieving is a form of interaction. Perception is an interactive process.

A rose is every color but red.

Actually, in a very real sense, such products [colors, etc] are "in the object." They are so, not as primaries independent of man's sensory organs, but as the inexorable effects of primaries. Consciousness 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".



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

Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (01/17/06 05:53 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5192180 -

Again, what indirect means would you perceive it?

Distal stimulus to proximal stimulus to electronic signal to "consciousness." Consciousness being a very complex process which is hardly direct itself.

If man does not have direct perception, what would direct perception denote?

"Direct perception" seems about as meaningful as "unique amino acid."

In essence, you are saying man is blind to "actual reality" because he has a faculty of vision; that man is cannot hear "actual reality" because he has ears.

In essence, man is blind to actual reality because he has a brain which consciousness functions using percepts.

Percieving denotes interaction. Percieving is a form of interaction. Perception is an interactive process.

Over-simplification. Perception is an interaction between physical processes (light, vibrations, etc) and sensory organs, which in turn interact with the central nervous system.

Actually, in a very real sense, such products [colors, etc] are "in the object."

:eek: What!? Could you provide any empiric evidence to support that sophism? If you could provide such evidence, I assure you, you'd win the Nobel prize! You'd falsify our understand of photosynthesis, among other things... maybe, even the entire concept of color.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5192774 -

Distal stimulus to proximal stimulus to electronic signal to "consciousness." Consciousness being a very complex process which is hardly direct itself.

Our neurons change in their own state when they are influenced by other parts of reality, this is "sense"ing. This is a direct influence, you can't get any more direct then one part of reality influencing another part of reality like an electron exerting force on another electron. This influence directly causes the nerve to change its behavior, it fires electrical impulses differently. The different rates that a neuron can fire are different states. Each state contains information that is directly influenced by external parts of reality. That is how our nervous system gets all of its input.

In essence, man is blind to actual reality because he has a brain which consciousness functions using percepts.

And that which we are not blind to, is "unreality"? Again, unreality doesn't exist. No matter what being and mode of cognition it has, it cannot percieve, what you refer to as "actual reality", because it has a means by which to percieve it? :rolleyes:
Again, let's remind ourselves that an entity is the sum of its parts:

The identity of an entity composed of other entities can be fully explained by reference to the identity of the building blocks, and how they are interacting. A house can be explained by reference to the wood, metal, and glass that are combined in that particular way to form the house. Or it could be explained in terms of the atoms that form it. These are all true, because the entity is a sum of its parts. Depending on what we specify as an 'entity', it has a particular identity. This identity exists objectively. We may choose to focus on a particular part of an entity, and discover the identity of that part, but it doesn't contradict the identity of the whole.


Over-simplification. Perception is an interaction between physical processes (light, vibrations, etc) and sensory organs, which in turn interact with the central nervous system.

Thus, proving my point. We directly percieve reality. Because there is a natural and specific process of causes and effects [natural law] does not negate or invalidate this, it is what makes this possible.



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5192945 -

Our neurons change in their own state when they are influenced by other parts of reality, this is "sense"ing. This is a direct influence, you can't get any more direct then one part of reality influencing another part of reality like an electron exerting force on another electron. This influence directly causes the nerve to change its behavior, it fires electrical impulses differently. The different rates that a neuron can fire are different states. Each state contains information that is directly influenced by external parts of reality. That is how our nervous system gets all of its input.

Yes, but input is converted into percepts, similar to how computers convert information into binary. Binary code is what the computer 'percieves' not the raw information. Likewise, mammals precieve their percepts, not stimuli.

No matter what being and mode of cognition it has, it cannot percieve, what you refer to as "actual reality", because it has a means by which to percieve it?

No, man cannot percieve actual reality because we only have means to create 'maps' of reality. "The map should not be confused with the territory."

And that which we are not blind to, is "unreality"?

We are not blind to our percepts.
Percept != Reality^-1

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5194084 -

MushManTheManic writes:

Quote:
Likewise, mammals precieve their percepts, not stimuli.


Incorrect. They register the stimuli as percepts.

You can't seem to understand that the fact that a human registers a burst of incoming infrared radiation as a feeling of warmth does nothing to alter the fact that the human is registering (through interaction, note) the burst of infrared radiation. If some other being registers a burst of incoming infrared radiation as a feeling of coolness, this likewise does not change the fact that that being is registering the same burst of infrared radiation. Both are perceiving the burst of infrared radiation.

Quote:
No, man cannot percieve actual reality because we only have means to create 'maps' of reality. "The map should not be confused with the territory."


A clich? misused in this context. Look out your car window at the passing scenery. Now roll down the tinted car window and look at the scenery. The scenery you are viewing in both cases is equally real. In both cases you are perceiving the scenery, not a "map" of the scenery.

As has been pointed out countless times in various incarnations of this discussion in previous threads in this forum, the fact that humans due to the limitations of their senses cannot directly perceive every possible aspect of the universe surrounding them (i.e. we cannot directly see more than a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum) doesn't mean our perception of reality is illusory, arbitrary, or fallacious, it means nothing more than that our direct perception of reality using just our unaided senses is incomplete, just as a snake's perception of reality is incomplete.




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5195266 -

SkorpivoMusterion said:
The fact that we have a conditional [read: human] means of cognition and perception, does not negate the validity of our perceptual and sensual input.


This is true, our conditional means of cognition and perception does not negate the validity of our perceptual and sensual input. It is entirely questionable that the mechanism responsible for analyzing and intrepreting this sensory and perceptual input is accurately representing reality as it is being interfaced with, however.

Naturally, our senses receive their data. What guarantees that the model of reality that we construct from this data portrays reality as it stands to be directly perceived?

Quote:
Are both perceptions somehow not congruent with the "true" resemblence of the apple?


If they are not correctly analyzed and intrepreted, then they would certainly not be a proper resemblance of the apple.

Quote:
Whatever facts the senses do register, however, are facts. And these facts are what lead a mind eventually to the rest of its knowledge.


The facts that the senses register are meaningless without the mechanism that, by methods of analyzing and interpreting, give the input its value. It is entirely plausible that misinterpretation and misidentification can occur, and, as a result, wrong conclusions reached.

I'm reminded of a time when I was in art class, and we were all to paint the same exact picture on display, as accurately as possible. I sat next to a person who was partially colorblind, and who started painting the grass in the picture orange. Everyone else painted the grass in their picture green.

I'm not studied into the nature of colorblindness, but either there is an error in the sensory device itself, or within the mechanism that assigns value to the data that the sensory device collects. Regardless, the reality of the picture we were to paint is not such that the grass was both green and orange.

Consensus among similar entities might indeed reveal errors in perception that will create an inaccurate representation of reality, but yet it is entirely plausible that errors in perception exist at a level that the entity cannot distinguish, even if their inaccurate model of reality is effective at allowing the entity to interact with reality. The nature of scientific theories is such that we have operated for several hundred years with misconceptions regarding the workings of gravity without realizing it until new variables were taken into consideration. It is presumptuous to assume that our concept of reality as we experience it is a true representation of aspects of reality itself.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ 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
* doors of perception matt66 1,145 5 05/15/02 04:32 AM
by gnrm23
* Direction and a place to start? Tasty_Smurf_House 1,427 9 08/25/03 07:36 AM
by Sole_Worthy
* Faith in the unproven, the unknown & unknowable Autonomous 472 3 11/17/04 04:18 PM
by Gomp
* Has God ever spoken to you directly? MikeOLogical 774 15 12/06/04 05:50 PM
by pantsboy
* For those who believe in only perception and experience TheShroomHermit 1,409 13 04/14/04 03:37 PM
by PHARMAKOS
* Confusing creativity with perception.
( 1 2 3 all )		 Phluck 6,124 59 09/30/03 02:02 AM
by fireworks_god
* Direct Route to Heaven!
( 1 2 3 all )		 brian_orion 2,762 45 01/04/03 02:28 PM
by Adamist
* BIGFOOT and Human (Mis)Perception
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 3,103 41 04/05/05 01:56 PM
by Swami

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,383 topic views. 0 members, 29 guests and 8 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 0.03 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.