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!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5195323 -

Are certain things unknowable?

I don't know.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: Phred]
    #5195333 -

Phred said:
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.


After countless threads of a similar theme, I would assume that you should understand by now that it is not being proposed that our perception of reality is illusory because of the fact that our sensory devices have limitations. :lol:

What is being called into question is the nature of the mechanism that utilizes the input derived through the senses. The sensory data, in itself, has no value and implies no meaning. If I reach for a walkie-talkie and punch a sequence of long and short beeps, it is not the sound itself that contains the language it is being used to represent, it is the mind that receives the signals and interprets them within the context of its understanding, naturally.

This mechanism is programmed to interpret and analyze incoming data in a certain manner - otherwise, it could not make sense of it. This programming exists on a multitude of levels, the conscious mind analyzes and intreprets the mind's thoughts and its experience, and there is also a mechanism that analyzes and filters what data will reach the conscious mind itself, based on priority, etc.

The statement that our perception of reality is illusory depends on who "our" represents. Our conscious experience of reality is an illusion. It is a projection, regardless of the fact that our senses directly perceive reality. Projection - illusion. That illusion may not even represent a true sense of reality as our sensory input presents it, as the mechanism responsible for assigning value and projecting it to our consciousness may be acting under incorrect assumptions, wrong conclusions, etc.

Ultimately, there is nothing by which one can validate that one's direct perceptions of reality through their senses is representative of reality as it stands anyways. :smirk:

: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
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #5196233 -

fireworks_god writes:

Quote:
After countless threads of a similar theme, I would assume that you should understand by now that it is not being proposed that our perception of reality is illusory because of the fact that our sensory devices have limitations.


Sorry. I gave you credit for following what was being discussed. My bad. I won't make that mistake again.

I was addressing Mushman's assertion that "man cannot percieve actual reality because we only have means to create 'maps' of reality." This is of course incorrect, since we can perceive reality directly through the use of our senses. To repeat, when we feel the warmth of a burst of infrared against our skin, we are not "creating" a "map" of reality, we are directly perceiving the reality of an energy release -- an energy release that is occuring in reality.

Quote:
What is being called into question is the nature of the mechanism that utilizes the input derived through the senses. The sensory data, in itself, has no value and implies no meaning.


Sensory data is integrated into percepts, yes. Those percepts correspond to the entities being perceived. It is true that a newborn human perceives not discrete balls being juggled by an entertainer within its line of sight, it merely registers the sensations of colors moving through space. But a one year old infant has had practice integrating sensations into percepts -- it no longer sees merely the blurs of color in motion, it sees separate entities (balls, though the infant may not yet identify them as such) being manipulated by another entity (the juggler, an entity similar to but not identical to its mother) that the infant identifies (conceptually) as a human. These entities are knowable, though if the infant has never been given the opportunity to directly handle, smell, or taste an actual ball its grasp of all aspects of the entity "ball" are as yet less complete than that of the juggler.

The sequence being followed is sensation(s)--> percept(s) --> concept(s).

Quote:
Our conscious experience of reality is an illusion. It is a projection, regardless of the fact that our senses directly perceive reality. Projection - illusion. That illusion may not even represent a true sense of reality as our sensory input presents it, as the mechanism responsible for assigning value and projecting it to our consciousness may be acting under incorrect assumptions, wrong conclusions, etc.


And yet again we see the subjectivist insistence (with no supporting evidence) that what we perceive is illusory. It is not illusory, it is reality. You stick your hand in a bucket of water. Your hand gets wet. You know your hand is wet through the input of your senses. And in fact, your hand is wet -- The wetness you register is not an illusion, it is a fact, since in reality your hand is wet.

Even while watching a skilled magician performing his trade, making objects "appear" and "disappear", the watcher is perceiving reality. He may not be drawing the correct conclusions as to what has just occurred, but that is not the same thing as misperceiving reality.

For example, the watcher perceives through the use of his senses that a coin held in the magician's hand at one point is no longer being held by the same hand at a later point. This often leads the untrained watcher to assume the coin winked out of existence. The watcher's perceptions were accurate -- the coin was in fact held by that hand at one moment and in the next moment was no longer held by that hand. The watcher's senses were not mistaken, they gave an accurate report of observable and verifiable facts of reality -- the coin was in the hand. Now it is not in the hand. An untrained observer then makes incorrect extrapolations about where that coin might have gone -- i.e. it no longer exists. A trained observer (a fellow magician, for example) makes the correct extrapolations about where that coin is now -- not because he saw where the coin went (he didn't) but because he is familiar with the techniques employed by his fellow magicians.

The universe not only exists, it is knowable by humans.




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: Phred]
    #5196254 -

They register the stimuli as percepts.

Please get out your psychology textbook and turn to the page about sense data.

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.

Irrelevant.

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.

Huh? Except for the last sentence, which is a blank statement, this doesn't seem relevant either. I feel like I'm talking to an badly wired Objectivist voicebox. Distortion caused by our sensory tissues wasn't even brought up.

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.

Yes, a wonderful Objectivist talking point, but irrelevant (again!) nonetheless. The 'incompleteness' of our perception was never part of my thesis.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5196296 -

MTM writes:

Quote:
Distortion caused by our sensory tissues wasn't even brought up.


Sophistry. Your claim is that because we do not "directly" experience reality, our apprehension of reality is perforce illusory. Yet if our senses do not distort reality, what is the difference between "directly" experiencing reality (and I note that you have yet to define what "directly" experiencing reality even is) and experiencing reality through input from our senses?

It seems you claim that our senses report accurately the aspects of reality to which they are attuned, but that somehow (for what reason?) our brain then automatically distorts the input from these senses, integrating them not into accurate percepts, but into inaccurate percepts. What support do you have for this claim other than your own say so?





Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: Icelander]
    #5196337 -

Icelander said:
God, Tao , the meaning of life, etc.


G-d can be known through Gnosis; that is to say: experience.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: Phred]
    #5196350 -

FireworksGod wrote:

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.

"Accurately" representing reality? There is nothing else to _perceive_ but reality. The only alternative to reality is unreality, which does not exist to be perceived. It is true that perception is a complex process in which the brain actively participates, because we always perceive reality in some particular form and by some particular means, but this does not mean that the brain therefore builds a "model" of the outside world, such that what we perceive is the model and not the outside world itself, which is a classic Kantianesque theory of perception if I ever saw one.

There are only two alternatives: either you are conscious of reality or you are not conscious of it. If you are conscious of it, then you perceive it directly. If you don't perceive it directly, then in order to know it, you must infer it from what you do perceive directly. But the only thing that you could perceive directly other than reality is unreality, which does not exist. Therefore, if you perceive anything directly, it has to be reality; there is nothing else to perceive. Also, perception is, by definition, direct; there is no such thing as indirect perception. Any kind of indirect knowledge is inferential; it is acquired by inference from direct observation.

What you [and mush] may be thinking, is that since different people can perceive the same object differently [e.g., a color-blind person and a normal person], the object of awareness cannot be perceived directly, for if it were, then everyone would perceive it in the same way. This is what David Kelley calls the "diaphanous" theory of perception [see his book The Evidence of the Senses for a refutation of that view]. The diaphanous theory holds that in order to perceive reality [directly], one must perceive it by a process of pure consciousness devoid of any means or form of perception. But it is that theory that must be rejected, because it makes no sense. Perception necessarily requires a specific means - physical sense organs - and a specific sensory form - e.g., vision, hearing, touch, etc. - without which it is literally inconceivable. Therefore, the conclusion to draw is not that because we perceive in some particular way and by some particular means, we do not perceive reality directly. The conclusion to draw is that we do perceive it directly but in different ways and by different means.

Furthermore, to say that 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 is a denial of a natural and lawful aspect of the Law of Identity: That an entity is the sum of its parts.

Let us not forget, in this discussion that the issue of the perceiving pertains to all animals, not just humans, so in claiming not perceiving reality is a claiming nothing perceives reality.

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

Perception is not to be confused with analyzation and interpretation. Perception provides the data that is the basis for interpretation. Perception is the automatic physical process that converts sensations into a particular form, the form in which we directly perceive reality.
A thermometer "perceives" the relative speed of molecules and can present that "perception" in various digital and analog forms. The thermometer does no interpretation. It merely presents the facts in various forms. Our perception works similarly.
Interpretation depends on thinking, on the choice to focus.
Remember: Man's senses does not tell us what exists, only that it exists.

...And that is what I meant when I said this:

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

And moreover, you are implying that there must only be one, universally correct, and accurate way to percieve reality [or the apple, to use our analogy], by the implication that man's natural means of grasping the apple is questionable because it is merely limited as it is specific, which is specific because it exists as a something.
In order to substantiate any such attack on man's senses, you must first establish what the one and only correct, accurate perception of reality must be, and why. Well?



--------------------
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]
    #5196470 -

*applause*

Well done.





Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: Phred]
    #5196505 -

Your claim is that because we do not "directly" experience reality, our apprehension of reality is perforce illusory.

No, this 'claim' was branded onto me by Objectivist doublespeak. I never said anything about our perception-of-reality being false or illusionary. Is a map an illusion of territory? Of course not, its a representation of it. It would be illusionary if the stimulus was not external, but I never claimed this. My claim is simple: When you 'see' an apple, what you 'see' is a representation of the apple, not the apple itself.

It seems you claim that our senses report accurately the aspects of reality to which they are attuned, but that somehow (for what reason?) our brain then automatically distorts the input from these senses, integrating them not into accurate percepts, but into inaccurate percepts.

More of the same nonsense. Get offa me, I don't want to be your Strawman.

What support do you have for this claim other than your own say so?

As far as the claim for the existance of inaccurate percepts, there are a vast amount of scientific research supporting this. (See: psychosis, optical illusions, temporal integration) But... I never claimed any of this! Never was inaccurancy involved in my arguement! STRAWMAN!

but this does not mean that the brain therefore builds a "model" of the outside world, such that what we perceive is the model and not the outside world itself, which is a classic Kantianesque theory of perception if I ever saw one.

This 'Kantianesque theory' is what modern psychology is based on, even those on the side of direct perception hold this view, but they feel the model is 1:1.

Perception is not to be confused with analyzation and interpretation.

per?cep?tion
n.

1. The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
2. The effect or product of perceiving.
3. Psychology.
a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.

Also, perception is, by definition, direct; there is no such thing as indirect perception.

Don't tell that to cognitive psychologists!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5196587 -

Quote:
My claim is simple: When you 'see' an apple, what you 'see' is a representation of the apple, not the apple itself.


Nitpicking. If the representation accurately corresponds to what is being represented, then reality is being perceived accurately, regardless of the process involved.

Quote:
Never was inaccurancy involved in my arguement!


Then what is the point of your argument? Do you dispute that reality is knowable to humans?




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: Phred]
    #5196701 -

But its not nitpicking. A map can be a completely accurate representation, but most people realize the difference between a map and the territory. You cannot find a 'real' tree by looking on a map. You can describe the tree in its totality and understand it, but you still cannot experience it simply by reading its description on the map.

This is the same way I see human perception. Based off our 'mental models' we can understand reality, come to functional and accurate conclusions about it*, but not experience it.

*(If I am percieving it consistantly, and other people are percieving it consistanly, the same principles probably apply to 'out there' as they do 'in here'. This is why I place my trust in empiricism. We could all be sharing a perpetual hallucination, but this possibility is too small to take seriously. Plus, if it is perpetual, we'll never know the difference anyway.)

Ok... maybe it WAS nitpicking. But, I'm glad I'm a nitpicker! Otherwise, I would've been spending my time entertianing myself in some unproductive way rather than sitting here thinking about this. I'd like to thank both of you for replying to my posts when others may have simply thought: "This guy doesn't get it. Screw him."
I appreciate it, even if it did give me a headache.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5196735 -

(Reply to the original post)

Imagine an Alien race is trying to determine the length of a stick, which is floating in space, by flying their spaceship until they reach the end of it. If the stick were actually infinitely long, how would they know? They couldn't say "We've gone this far, it must be infinite", because the end may just be a few hundred lightyears away, just out of sight.

Eh? eh?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5196913 -

yes


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #5198210 -

MushmanTheManic, Thank you for nitpicking and showing the improper choice of vocabulary which I employed. Allow me to rectify:

per?cep?tion
*noun*<~

1. The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
2.The effect or product of perceiving.
3. Psychology.
a. Recognition and interpretation **of** sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.


The more accurate word for me to use:

per?ceive
*transitive verb*<~~

1.)To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.

The meaning of a transitive verb, is incomplete without a direct object [as opposed to an indirect object, which is always a noun or pronoun]. Allow me to demonstrate:

INCOMPLETE
The table holds.

COMPLETE
The table holds three dinner plates and a bowl of spaghetti.

INCOMPLETE
The senses percieves.

COMPLETE
The senses percieves the table with three dinner plates and a bowl of spaghetti.

The direct object, is the "whom?" or "what?", which is preceded by the transitive verb.
Likewise, with our perceptions, the "whom" or "what?" is always preceded by the "that", which we percieve or sense.

I was already well aware that many people collaquially use words such as interpretation, under the word perception. They are oftenly operating on faulty philisophical premises. Those people are el wrong-o.
Take an example of the far-away object. Our interpretation that it is really a large object which is far away rather than a small, nearby object, is based on our perception of that object plus other perceptions and knowledge that we have. We do not percieve it as a large and far away object - we perceive the object and then interpret that it is such and such.
Two different things that, if we are to nitpick and get really serious, are just that - two different things.

Don't tell that to cognitive psychologists!


Now that you mention it, I think I will do just that...



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: Phred]
    #5198345 -

Phred said:
Sorry. I gave you credit for following what was being discussed. My bad. I won't make that mistake again.


I realize who's assertion you were addressing; however, I was myself responding to your reference to countless threads with a similar theme. Excuse myself, as I had just finished reviewing buttonion's classic thread *cough* EXISTANCE *hack* (which is, unfortunately, utterly incomplete without Mr. Mushroom's posts :frown:). I was supporting my observation that, in certain threads under similar themes that you have participated in, the statement that our perception of reality is illusory was not being supported by the fact that our senses are limited. :wink:


Quote:
Sensory data is integrated into percepts, yes. Those percepts correspond to the entities being perceived.

The sequence being followed is sensation(s)--> percept(s) --> concept(s).


Exactly what I am calling into question, the impression of that which is perceived through the senses. This is not evidenced within the aspects of reality that are being perceived by the senses, or within the sensory data itself.

It is our definition of the aspect of reality that we are perceiving with our senses. It is this that distinguishes the object being perceived from every other aspect of reality being perceived. Without this, we would not experience that aspect of reality, regardless of whether or not it is perceived through our senses. Without a percept, it would be unknowable to us, correct?


Quote:
And yet again we see the subjectivist insistence (with no supporting evidence) that what we perceive is illusory. It is not illusory, it is reality.


Reality is reality. Our experience of reality is not. We do not experience reality, we experience our percepts of reality. Does a digital camera experience the data it collects? It, no doubt, is a sensory device that collects information from reality, just like our eyes. The fact that we experience our percepts, as the sensory data itself is of no value or experience without them, would suggest that which we perceive is illusory, in that we are not directly perceving reality. The mechanism that you yourself have outlined would suggest that we indirectly perceive reality. :grin:

: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
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5198530 -

SkorpivoMusterion said:
"Accurately" representing reality? There is nothing else to _perceive_ but reality.


Indeed, there is nothing else to perceive but reality, as the sensory data that perception relies upon is received from reality. It is the act of perception that forms a representation of reality, as that which is being perceived is not reality itself, but yet an impression of reality derived through the senses.

Are we still on the same page? I was questioning if one's perceptions were forming an accurate representation of reality, and also that of the mechanism that interprets and analyzes these perceptions. :grin:

Quote:
It is true that perception is a complex process in which the brain actively participates, because we always perceive reality in some particular form and by some particular means, but this does not mean that the brain therefore builds a "model" of the outside world, such that what we perceive is the model and not the outside world itself, which is a classic Kantianesque theory of perception if I ever saw one.


Surely it is a representation of reality that is perceived and not of the external world itself. The object that is detected by one's eye is not perceived and experienced.  It is a representation of that object that is formed by the sensory device that is perceived.

Quote:
There are only two alternatives: either you are conscious of reality or you are not conscious of it. If you are conscious of it, then you perceive it directly. If you don't perceive it directly, then in order to know it, you must infer it from what you do perceive directly. But the only thing that you could perceive directly other than reality is unreality, which does not exist.


Therefore, one does not perceive reality directly. The only thing that one perceives directly is the information created by one's sensory devices, which is a representation of reality. Reality is thus indirectly perceived.

Quote:
Therefore, if you perceive anything directly, it has to be reality; there is nothing else to perceive. Also, perception is, by definition, direct; there is no such thing as indirect perception. Any kind of indirect knowledge is inferential; it is acquired by inference from direct observation.


It seems that the definition of perception implies that perception is the recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli. One's sensory data is what is directly perceived. You are correct in stating that there is nothing else to perceive. Reality itself cannot be directly perceived, only the representation of reality that is formed through one's sensory devices.

Quote:
What you [and mush] may be thinking, is that since different people can perceive the same object differently [e.g., a color-blind person and a normal person], the object of awareness cannot be perceived directly, for if it were, then everyone would perceive it in the same way.


That is not what I was thinking, but it is this concept that allows myself to question if one's representation of reality through perception is accurate. Obviously the object itself has only a certain quality of light being reflected or absorbed. Which color experienced is the one that accurately represents reality?

Quote:
Perception necessarily requires a specific means - physical sense organs - and a specific sensory form - e.g., vision, hearing, touch, etc. - without which it is literally inconceivable.


Certainly.

Quote:
Therefore, the conclusion to draw is not that because we perceive in some particular way and by some particular means, we do not perceive reality directly. The conclusion to draw is that we do perceive it directly but in different ways and by different means.


Neither conclusion naturally follows, as the diaphanous theory you have outlined does not concern the true nature of perception and the manners in which it works. Therefore, one cannot draw a conclusion from the theory that states that we perceive reality directly.

Quote:
Furthermore, to say that 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 is a denial of a natural and lawful aspect of the Law of Identity: That an entity is the sum of its parts.


I am not familiar with this law, but, as I am not stating that, because our perceptions do not register everything, we therefore do not directly perceive reality, I am glad I am not breaking it. :grin:

Quote:
Let us not forget, in this discussion that the issue of the perceiving pertains to all animals, not just humans, so in claiming not perceiving reality is a claiming nothing perceives reality.


As no one is claiming that reality is not perceived at all, I feel no need to be reminded of this. :tongue:

Quote:
Perception is not to be confused with analyzation and interpretation. Perception provides the data that is the basis for interpretation. Perception is the automatic physical process that converts sensations into a particular form, the form in which we directly perceive reality.


As it is a process that converts sensory stimuli into another form that has value and meaning to be interpreted and analyzed, it is thus clear that reality is not being directly perceived. You are stating that perception converts that which it perceives into a form that is the form in which we directly perceive reality? :confused:

Quote:
A thermometer "perceives" the relative speed of molecules and can present that "perception" in various digital and analog forms.


A thermometer does not perceive. A thermometer receives stimulus. Perception is an act that recognizes and interprets such stimulus. A thermometer responds to the stimulus that it is designed to be receptive to. A thermometer does not recognize or "make sense of" its reaction to the stimuli. It does not perceive anything.

Quote:
The thermometer does no interpretation. It merely presents the facts in various forms. Our perception works similarly.


Our perceptions work with the "facts" that sensory devices such as thermometers provide. To think that this faculty works similar to the object that reacts to stimuli in a manner to provide data for perception to use is baffling. :wtf: Perception, by definition, is intrepretation, partially.

Quote:
Remember: Man's senses does not tell us what exists, only that it exists.


Incorrect. Man's senses are objects that react to external stimuli in a manner that conveys information to us, which we then use to determine that "it" exists. Determining that which our senses represent as existing is an action belonging to one's perception, not one's senses themselves.

Quote:
And moreover, you are implying that there must only be one, universally correct, and accurate way to percieve reality [or the apple, to use our analogy], by the implication that man's natural means of grasping the apple is questionable because it is merely limited as it is specific, which is specific because it exists as a something.
In order to substantiate any such attack on man's senses, you must first establish what the one and only correct, accurate perception of reality must be, and why. Well?


I am not implying that there is one accurate way to perceive reality. I am implying that reality is what it is, and that what exactly reality is, as it is, cannot be known, as we do not know reality, only our representation of it that is collected through the senses and then intrepreted and recognized by our perceptions.

I have no need to substantiate any such attack on man's senses by establishing what an accurate perception of reality must be, as I have not atacked man's senses. I have called into question whether or not our perceptions of reality through its representation formed by our senses accurately portrays reality itself.

As we cannot know reality, only our representation of it created by our senses and perceived from our senses' data, we have no certainty that our representation of reality is an accurate depiction of reality as it objectively exists.

: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
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5198851 -

Thank you for nitpicking

Two individuals, one voice.

They are oftenly operating on faulty philisophical premises.

Are you implying that psychology is false? What faulty premises does this definition rely on?

The senses percieves the table with three dinner plates and a bowl of spaghetti.

So, the senses become aware of, directly through the senses, the table with three dinner plates and a bowl of spaghetti?

This is transparent perception, not direct perception.

Our interpretation that it is really a large object which is far away rather than a small, nearby object, is based on our perception of that object plus other perceptions and knowledge that we have.

This is indirect perception; this perception is based on stimuli plus previous information. Luckily for your arguement, depth perception is a result of binocular vision and stereopsis, not other perceptions or knowledge that we have.

What you seem to have described is a perceptual set. Our beliefs and expectations about an object can change our perception of it. The classic example of this is the double-image of a vase and two faces. If you tell someone they are going to be shown a picture of a vase, they will most likely see a vase. If they are told they are going to be shown two faces, they will most likely see two faces.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5199068 -

Proof of the Existence of Unknowable Things:

Knowledge presupposes an experiencing unit that acquires the knowledge. Let us call A this experiencing unit.

Now, ?things? are either finite or infinite.

If things are infinite:

No matter how many things A gets to know, there will always be more things that A does not know. Therefore there are things A will never know.

If things are finite:

A will keep acquiring knowledge of things one after another until there is one last thing left. Now, what happens when A reaches knowledge of the last thing is that A?s experience halts and A seizes to exist. This is because the moment following A?s experience of knowing the last thing is a new thing to know and cannot happen. So, since the moment A reaches knowledge of the last thing and the moment that A seizes to exist is the same moment, this is an impossible moment? and therefore there are things A will never know.

Things A will never know are by definition things A cannot know.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are certain things unknowable? [Re: raytrace]
    #5201224 -

Fireworks God wrote:

I was questioning if one's perceptions were forming an accurate representation of reality

Accurate, compared to what?

Reality is reality. Our experience of reality is not.

Incorrect. Our experience of reality IS reality. If it were not, there would be no such existence of an experience.

I am implying that reality is what it is, and that what exactly reality is, as it is, cannot be known, as we do not know reality,

First you say "reality is what it is", then you claim that it "cannot be known", as we do not "know reality", neglecting the fact that you are, in essence, claiming knowledge about it.


To those of you who hold we have Indirect Perception because of the fact that there is a specific, and complex process for such perception, I have a question. Can any of you provide examples of direct processes? Any sort of interaction that occurs in nature or wherever, that you would deem as direct?



--------------------
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]
    #5201716 -

so skorp, is my proof logically unsound?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

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 1,426 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 773 15 12/06/04 05:50 PM
by pantsboy
* For those who believe in only perception and experience TheShroomHermit 1,408 13 04/14/04 03:37 PM
by PHARMAKOS
* Confusing creativity with perception.
( 1 2 3 all )		 Phluck 6,118 59 09/30/03 02:02 AM
by fireworks_god
* Direct Route to Heaven!
( 1 2 3 all )		 brian_orion 2,760 45 01/04/03 02:28 PM
by Adamist
* BIGFOOT and Human (Mis)Perception
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 3,101 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
5,380 topic views. 2 members, 174 guests and 45 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 0.034 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 18 queries.