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: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5319636 - 02/20/06 11:41 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Thanks for the reply, it made a lot of sense to me. Some responses:

Certainly not - for I am cognizant that there are aspects of human existence that are not arbitrary and are indeed absolute. Moreover, I certainly agree that there is a growing realization that many [but not all] aspects of man's repertoire are arbitrary, detached from reality and unreasonable.
Take "scientific observation", as you mentioned, for instance. Scientific observation is rooted in taking in the data from our five senses and reviewing such information objectively, rationally and logically, and creating coherent and applicable knowledge of reality as we know it. There is nothing arbitrary about this at all. If we were to merely claim that knowledge comes from some other-worldly place like lightning bolts, rather than through reason, then that would be arbitrary, for it has zero evidential or rational basis.

This is probably where we differ most in opinion. While I understand the difference between scientific objectivity and the subjectivity of something like a language, I am not convinced that even mathematics is truly objective. In fact I believe that the notion that the universe has an objective observable nature is an assumption of science and remains to be seen. Sure, physics and technology have invented ways for humans to repeat the same miracles of science over and over, and we as a result have come up with laws that describe the nature of the physical universe, but to me these laws are subjective. They are subjective in the sense that, while reliable from our point of view, we have no way of knowing whether or not they are truly universal.
Recent developments in quantum physics seem to be backing this up. The bigger the shift in size, space and time we try to make with our scientific observations, the more ambiguous our results are. This suggests that maybe science only "works" if it is kept on a human scale.

What contemporary science has to say about metaphysics is this: Physics is not concerned with the study of nature, physics is concerned with what we can say about nature.

This is a rather bizzarre and incoherent statement, that attempts to replace physics with linguistics. What we can say about nature is directly contingent upon what we study about nature.

Maybe physics is a type of linguistics. Maybe what we study about nature is not the whole picture, and is complicated by subjectivity. If the statement is incoherent, this is how Heiddeger put it:
"What we observe is not nature revealed, but nature exposed to our line of questioning"

I believe that the more you study and intellectualize and philisophize the more sharp and clear your understanding of the world becomes. As long as you realize that your lessons are meaningless.

Realize that my lessons are meaningless? Meaningless to whom? Certainly not I, for the lessons which have taught me to live in harmony with reality, achieve values, prosperity and happiness are far from meaningless - they are meaningfull, for they serve a purpose

I only meant meaningless in the sense that they hold no universal truths. At least, that is the way I look at the lessons I have learned. They only serve me in the long run when I realize they make sense subjectively and fleetingly. Intellectual laziness pressures the mind to think that it has already learned everything it needs to know. We seem to both agree wholeheartedly that as soon as the mind stops moving forward, its thought process becomes stagnant. This also may be obvious, just wanted to make it clear.

What justifies the notion of destroying ALL of a philosophy, as opposed to re-writing a philosophy according to new information?
Why shouldn't I rather gain knowledge about a particular weakness so that revisions of a philosophy can be made and corrected?
What is the point of destroying an entire philosophy because of a particular flaw, if only to be rebuilt once again - with the same flaw?


I don't believe a philosophy can be destroyed any more than a memory can. And, like individual memories make up a lifetime, individual philosophies are most meaningful when they react with each other and all take part of a big picture that can't really ever be wholly described. Were you to dwell on an individual memory from your childhood, your understanding of yourself would be very weak. The more memories you understand the clearer the picure is, the more you comprehend.

Are you distinguishing human error rooted in lack of situational knowledge, between error rooted in an actual principle?

No. I don't believe it is possible to make such a distinction any more than it is possible to look at the back of your own head. Without a mirror, that is. Perhaps the goal of metaphysics should be to discover that metaphorical mirror that would allow humanity to perceive its own situational perspective in its entirety.

Keep deconstructing. Stay at ground level. Never build anything, never accept a flaw.

How can one stay at ground level if one keeps rebuilding? What does it serve to regress all the way back to square one? I certainly don't wish to go back to the Medieval Ages, ruled by Atillas and Witch Doctors.

Ah but I would argue that we are much closer to ground level today than they were in the middle ages, and we are much better off because of it! The middle ages had a very elaborate structure of understanding, that took a long long time for the renaissance to topple. It was built up over years and years of hierarchical repression of dissenting voice. This Repression was simply a tool for maintaining the status quo, and re-inforcing the notion that the church's philosophy was the only philosopy. And when you look at how the powers that were in the Middle Ages (The Vatican and the Crown) responded to those who were trying to fix the flaws of understanding (Galileo, Newton), you see how dangerous the game can become. Nowadays, although there is a power structure, there is also an open invitiation for revolutions of thought, in fact they are sought out in public debate. I honestly think this comes from the fact that society is beginning to see flexability in meaning, even science.

Never build anything and never accept a flaw, you say? Disagreed. You seem to neglect the fact that building things requires a process of solving flaws, problems and weaknesses. One must first accept that there exists a flaw before one can proceed to understand and correct it.

But what if the flaw is only observable once the tower is complete, and is in the head cornerstone of the structure? The whole thing has to be torn back down to its foundations.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


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: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: gluke bastid]
    #5321807 - 02/20/06 09:13 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

While I understand the difference between scientific objectivity and the subjectivity of something like a language, I am not convinced that even mathematics is truly objective. In fact I believe that the notion that the universe has an objective observable nature is an assumption of science and remains to be seen.

Caution: I, for one, do not think that knowledge or mathematical facts are intrinsic to reality - nor do I profess that our objectivity is intrinsic to reality - and nor are they subjective. Rather, such qualities and data are products of a metaphysical union between reality and man, just as the colors we percieve in a rose are not in the object alone, nor in perciever alone, but object-as-percieved.


Sure, physics and technology have invented ways for humans to repeat the same miracles of science over and over, and we as a result have come up with laws that describe the nature of the physical universe, but to me these laws are subjective. They are subjective in the sense that, while reliable from our point of view, we have no way of knowing whether or not they are truly universal.
Recent developments in quantum physics seem to be backing this up. The bigger the shift in size, space and time we try to make with our scientific observations, the more ambiguous our results are. This suggests that maybe science only "works" if it is kept on a human scale.


There is only one existential law I know of which becomes "questioned" when discussing QP, and that is The Law of Causality. However this is an unjustified transition from epistemology to metaphysics. And for argument's sake, let us say it becomes proven that the LoC is only applicable to the macroscopic level - this is no different from saying that it is contextual. Lastly, your stretch of the definition for subjective doesn't fly with me. Having a confined or local nature does equate to subjectivity. The fact that water won't freeze when boiling at 130 degrees Fahrenheit is confined to the circumstantial components that make the unique liquid we call H20, does not mean that such a fact isn't an objectivity.


"What we observe is not nature revealed, but nature exposed to our line of questioning"

Incorrect. What we observe is nature revealed through our sense perceptions, which are automatic and in-fallible; they do not question, or reason. Pertinent such a function lies in our faculty of reason, which interprets sensory data into condensations of data, forming concepts, and so forth.


I only meant meaningless in the sense that they hold no universal truths.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed - this is undeniably universal, and a very enlightening lesson I've learned. Reality is real. Existence exists. A is A. Those truths are not "local."


No. I don't believe it is possible to make such a distinction any more than it is possible to look at the back of your own head.

I disagree. We can form a guideline of principles that are -in principle- flawless, but this does not mean that any human who follows it will necessarily be without mistakes and the occasional err. Take a look at the Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson -nothing short of a brilliant and great philosophical work- which holds true the principal of individual freedom. Yet, look at the state of current affairs today, where countless Americans face life behind bars for smoking a type of grass called Cannibis, for instance.
This does not mean such an example of an egregious deviation from the norm indicates a flaw in the principle authored by Jefferson - rather, an error due to lack of situational knowledge per human[s].


Ah but I would argue that we are much closer to ground level today than they were in the middle ages, and we are much better off because of it! The middle ages had a very elaborate structure of understanding, that took a long long time for the renaissance to topple. It was built up over years and years of hierarchical repression of dissenting voice. This Repression was simply a tool for maintaining the status quo, and re-inforcing the notion that the church's philosophy was the only philosopy. And when you look at how the powers that were in the Middle Ages (The Vatican and the Crown) responded to those who were trying to fix the flaws of understanding (Galileo, Newton), you see how dangerous the game can become. Nowadays, although there is a power structure, there is also an open invitiation for revolutions of thought, in fact they are sought out in public debate. I honestly think this comes from the fact that society is beginning to see flexability in meaning, even science.

Ah, I thought by "going back to ground level" you were talking about actually going back to "square one" - which as I'm sure we both agree, is quite absurd. Now if I understand you correctly, what you're really talking about is maintaining a level of universality in one's philosophy - well, of course I must agree. How does one create a versatile philosophy? It must be rooted in reality, not fantasy, in facts, not fiction; if it -in principle- remains comitted to this, it will be nothing short of an highly universal philosophy.


But what if the flaw is only observable once the tower is complete, and is in the head cornerstone of the structure? The whole thing has to be torn back down to its foundations.

I have yet to hear what may be this "flaw" you speak of.




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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTurn
Hey Its Free!

Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5321914 - 02/20/06 09:34 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Right on man! Your right, but what direction should I look in to know how to think?

And you said "and then ordain itself over the total field of cognition, calling for a halt and a reappraisal whenever different areas begin to clash. For instance, when physics advocate causeless subatomic behavior"
But Physisicst tell me that the subatomic world is so differnt from our world that our logic and reason don't work down there, and you have to accept the madness it is. - I just saw that alot of the replies deal with this, so scratch it



And I don't like your attitude of if the rest of the world wants to not think then let em. But yeah, smartest thing I have read all day, and I have been reading Kingdom of Fear all day!


Edited by Turn (02/20/06 09:35 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5328272 - 02/22/06 02:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
For argument's sake, let us say it becomes proven that the LoC is only applicable to the macroscopic level - this is no different from saying that it is contextual. Lastly, your stretch of the definition for subjective doesn't fly with me. Having a confined or local nature does equate to subjectivity. The fact that water won't freeze when boiling at 130 degrees Fahrenheit is confined to the circumstantial components that make the unique liquid we call H20, does not mean that such a fact isn't an objectivity.


Contextual is a better word. But in a universe of infinite contexts (of space, scope, and time), human-perspective-obejctive-truth becomes one of just an infinite number of objective truths. This may or may not pose a threat to your definition of objectivism. I'm curious to see your answer.

"what we observe is not nature revealed but nature exposed to our line of questioning"

Incorrect. What we observe is nature revealed through our sense perceptions, which are automatic and in-fallible; they do not question, or reason. Pertinent such a function lies in our faculty of reason, which interprets sensory data into condensations of data, forming concepts, and so forth.

How does your statement contradict Heidegger's? Sense perception + Reason = Line of Questioning, In my understanding. And besides, how can you trust your sense and your reason when both are susceptible to delirium? What makes your senses and reason more in-fallible than those of a paranoid schizophrenic's?

Reality is real. Existence exists. A is A. Those truths are not "local."

How can you prove that reality is real?

I disagree. We can form a guideline of principles that are -in principle- flawless, but this does not mean that any human who follows it will necessarily be without mistakes and the occasional err. Take a look at the Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson -nothing short of a brilliant and great philosophical work- which holds true the principal of individual freedom. Yet, look at the state of current affairs today, where countless Americans face life behind bars for smoking a type of grass called Cannibis, for instance.
This does not mean such an example of an egregious deviation from the norm indicates a flaw in the principle authored by Jefferson - rather, an error due to lack of situational knowledge per human[s].


To me it indicates the canyon sized gap between theory and practice. The Declaration of Independence is ultimately a collection of words with a specific poetic nature. "The principal of individual freedom" can mean anything to anyone. I can think of dozens of different ways to understand it even in the context of my very own somewhat rigid political beliefs. You can't build something that is due to subjective interpretation and believe that people will somehow understand it objectively!

Ah, I thought by "going back to ground level" you were talking about actually going back to "square one" - which as I'm sure we both agree, is quite absurd. Now if I understand you correctly, what you're really talking about is maintaining a level of universality in one's philosophy - well, of course I must agree. How does one create a versatile philosophy? It must be rooted in reality, not fantasy, in facts, not fiction; if it -in principle- remains comitted to this, it will be nothing short of an highly universal philosophy.

What is the difference between a fantasy and a fact? Using your model of sense perceptions plus reason as the method to make objective observations...Is an LSD induced hallucination a fact or a fantasy? How about the presence of your mother in your dreams? How about seeing a dog wag its tail and deciding that it is a happy doggy? How about deciding that a movie is a comedy as opposed to a drama?

If you believe that the Declaration of Indepedence, the Law of Causality or the Periodic Table are not extensions of the same subjective point of view manifestations of human psychology, memory subconcious and most importantly culture, than I just don't agree with you. There is no reality outside of the human mind. Subjective perception is everything. And yet the universe exists and human perception is as objective as any atom can hope to be. Its both. The universe is an objective truth. The universe is a subjective rubik's cube of an infinite number of possible interpretations that are equally complete and incomplete.

I just don't share your belief that the human mind and human culture as a whole will ever develop an objective philosophy that will even come close to addressing either the subjective or objective nature of the universe. How can you objectively describe that which is subjective? How can you subjectively describe that which is objective?

Versatile philosophy needs only to be rooted in the acceptance that philosophy is nothing more than an ever expanding "?"

I have yet to hear what may be this "flaw" you speak of.

You and i disagreeing evinces the flaw in both of our philosophies.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLakefingers

Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5330600 - 02/23/06 04:28 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

...and the Responsibility of the Intellectuals.

Now, when individualism is one of the highest values among the ignorant, an intellectual must question the values and pillars of individualism.

Does the intellectual choose to continue willing against a herd or do they choose to act selflessly? To uphold a tradition, a way, a path...

Both individualism and selfless care can be rooted in fear, but only individualism can be rooted in laziness.


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: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: gluke bastid]
    #5331552 - 02/23/06 12:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Contextual is a better word. But in a universe of infinite contexts (of space, scope, and time), human-perspective-obejctive-truth becomes one of just an infinite number of objective truths. This may or may not pose a threat to your definition of objectivism. I'm curious to see your answer.

Not at all a threat. The plurality of objective truths does not weaken Objectivism - it only strengthens it. Anyhow, going back to our prior sub-discussion, should we not also keep in mind the unjustified accroachment of epistemological nescience over metaphysics, as mentioned before?


How does your statement contradict Heidegger's?

Heidegger said "What we observe in nature..."
You phrased: "Sense perception + Reason = Line of Questioning, In my understanding" That, is correct. However, our line of questioning does not alter our sense perceptions themselves, only our interpretations of our sense perceptions. Heidegger's statement wasn't specific enough with the word "observe", so I took that to mean as "What we percieve [not to be confused with concieve] in nature...".


And besides, how can you trust your sense and your reason when both are susceptible to delirium?


Being susceptible to delirium doesn't warrant a mistrust in my sense perceptions or reason - it only means that, usually, they can only be trusted when they are not under the influence distortion. I say usually, because there are exceptions, e.g., under the influence of hallucinogenics, when such "delirium" does not negate some people's use of reason and/or interpretation of their sense perception - some have reported only intensified use of such abilities - not much unlike the reports of those who've experienced sudden and intense experiences, whether under a negative or positive context.


What makes your senses and reason more in-fallible than those of a paranoid schizophrenic's?

Our sense perceptions are in-fallible because "right or wrong" does not apply in and of themselves, any more than such mind-made conceptions apply to a tree's system of photosynthesis. This means that a schizophrenic's sense perceptions are not any less in-fallible than ours are. However, a schizophrenic's interpretations are what becomes fallible - and the same applies to us non-schizophrenics. How is it determined that the interpretations of our sense perceptions more accurate than that of a schizophrenic's? By objectivity, read: by the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation, read: by the consistent correspondence with facts and objective knowledge of reality/nature.


How can you prove that reality is real?

By the very fact that it exists, and the fact that we are conscious of it. Objectively, there is no "un-reality". It is all RealTM.


To me it indicates the canyon sized gap between theory and practice.

Well, essentially, this is basically what I am talking about. In principle, i.e., in theory, there can be flawless guidelines by which man can follow - but it is putting it in practice that ain't always gonna be easy. There is a reason why, after years and years of school, doctors call it "practice" - forbid they should call it "Utopian Action", or the like, for they are human just as much as anyone else - they are capable of error, in spite of the rather rigorously tested, verified, and flawless principles of medical procedures and processes that will work - both in principle and action - albeit with chances of error in action. Much of everything we do is practice, in this sense.


"The principal of individual freedom" can mean anything to anyone. I can think of dozens of different ways to understand it even in the context of my very own somewhat rigid political beliefs.

Well, indeed, the exact phrase "The Principal of Individual Freedom" can mean many things to anyone - but when much more specifically elaborated principles which covers much more ground is introduced, it becomes much more explicit rather remaining an implicitness which becomes a host for, at least far more, assumptions, interpretations and misbegotten conclusions.


What is the difference between a fantasy and a fact?

A fact has clear objective status, and is evident and open for anyone to verify, but this doesn't mean that everyone will accept it. Fantasy is only limited to the imagination - albeit with references that will always have to boil down to some specific percept, or observation, one way or another.


Using your model of sense perceptions plus reason as the method to make objective observations...Is an LSD induced hallucination a fact or a fantasy?

A hallucination is a fact, for it is a physiological result of chemicals interacting with neurons.


How about the presence of your mother in your dreams?

Imagination + memories - not that I really ever recall dreaming about my mother, now that you mention it.


How about seeing a dog wag its tail and deciding that it is a happy doggy? How about deciding that a movie is a comedy as opposed to a drama?

Sense perception + identification + evaluation + response. Mind you, I recognize that such a process is subjective defined as particular to a specific individual, but I recognize that ultimately, it is all part of an objective existence, and as such, is objective as well. From what I've gathered in your response, it sounds to me like you and I agree on this.


There is no reality outside of the human mind.

Nonsense. There is most definitely a reality outside of my mind, for if it weren't for the existent in the form of a furry creature with four legs that we refer to in the English language as "dog", I would not have any such concept pertinent to such an existent.


I just don't share your belief that the human mind and human culture as a whole will ever develop an objective philosophy that will even come close to addressing either the subjective or objective nature of the universe. How can you objectively describe that which is subjective? How can you subjectively describe that which is objective?


It sounds to me like you are under the definition of Objective as being outside of our nature, i.e., being intrinsic to reality. However, strictly speaking, reality/nature itself, isn't objective. Reality/nature is only objective in relation to consciousness. It is only the mind which is objective or non-objective.
In relation to consciousness, one is objective if one adheres to reality by reason in accordance with logic - epistemologically speaking. In relation to consciousness, one or something posesses metaphysical objectivity by the recognition that existence exists, and is independent of a perciever's consciousness - in other words, that the consciousness only holds existence as its object - metaphysically speaking. Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.


You and i disagreeing evinces the flaw in both of our philosophies.

Please elaborate further.


Btw, did I mention you have good taste in avatars? :wink:




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


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/23/06 02:03 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5331982 - 02/23/06 02:51 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Our sense perceptions are in-fallible because "right or wrong" does not apply in and of themselves, any more than such mind-made conceptions apply to a tree's system of photosynthesis. This means that a schizophrenic's sense perceptions are not any less in-fallible than ours are. However, a schizophrenic's interpretations are what becomes fallible - and the same applies to us non-schizophrenics. How is it determined that the interpretations of our sense perceptions more accurate than that of a schizophrenic's?

If sensory perceptions are infallible and reality is objective, why can a schizophrenic have the perception that spiders are crawling all over his body, but no one else is able to percieve them? Even if the schizophrenic correctly interprets this hallucination as a hallucination and not truely representative of reality, his perception is still erroneous.

A hallucination is a fact, for it is a physiological result of chemicals interacting with neurons.

The physiological mechanisms behind hallucinations are not being questioned, the question is the perception. The mechanisms for why you see something exists, but simply because you see something doesn't mean it exists in reality. For instance, may I smoke DMT with some friends and have the perception that have been transported to another planet. Yet all my sober friends around me observe that I haven't left the room. Either, my perception is incorrect, their perception is incorrect, or reality is malleable and we are both correct.


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: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5333264 - 02/23/06 09:48 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

If sensory perceptions are infallible and reality is objective, why can a schizophrenic have the perception that spiders are crawling all over his body, but no one else is able to percieve them?

Because the schizophrenia is distorting his perceptions. His sense perceptions are being warped by the lack of proper functioning of his thoughts, memory, and emotions between perception.


Even if the schizophrenic correctly interprets this hallucination as a hallucination and not truely representative of reality, his perception is still erroneous.

Incorrect. His perceptions are representing reality quite truly, for it is "representing" the very schizophrenic disorder of his mind. His perceptions can only be labeled erroneous in relation to our standards and evaluations. His perceptions in and of themselves do not "lie", any more or less than a thermometer does.The fact that the schizo is percieving the hallucinations, be it auditory or visual, does not negate his sense perceptions any more or less than the fact I will percieve a stick as "bent" when submerged underwater. Our sense perceptions automatically obey reality - in-fallibly.


The mechanisms for why you see something exists, but simply because you see something doesn't mean it exists in reality.

I've noticed that you and I seem to be using, in this context, the word reality in differing meanings. When I use that word in this context, I refer to: existence. If it has existence, in one form or another, then it is unimpeachably real. What I think you're actually saying, is if one interprets their hallucinations exist as non-hallucinations, then they are in error. In other words, you are saying hallucinations do not exist in reality as normally percieved or interpreted. However, such hallucinations do exist in reality, otherwise, they would've not been experienced - and there would be no concepts with such a referent.


For instance, may I smoke DMT with some friends and have the perception that have been transported to another planet. Yet all my sober friends around me observe that I haven't left the room. Either, my perception is incorrect, their perception is incorrect, or reality is malleable and we are both correct.

Correction: It depends on how you interpret your perception. If you are cognizant of the fact that it was an actual hallucination caused by a physiological phenomenon, then you are correct as well as your sober friends.




--------------------
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: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5333722 - 02/23/06 11:46 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

When I ask if a perception is real, I'm asking if that perception accurately represents whats actually happening externally. If one person can see a unicorn, but another cannot, I think its reasonable to assert one of these two is inaccurately viewing reality.


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: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5333822 - 02/24/06 12:48 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

When I ask if a perception is real, I'm asking if that perception accurately represents whats actually happening externally. If one person can see a unicorn, but another cannot, I think its reasonable to assert one of these two is inaccurately viewing reality.

I agree - a hallucination does not accurately correspond with what's actually happening externally - otherwise, it would not be a hallucination. And I simply add: such a hallucination is by definition, real.




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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefresh313
journeyman
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/01/03
Posts: 2,537
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5333865 - 02/24/06 01:08 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

theres an internal and external reality

they both view each other independently and objectively

like if theres a colorblind guy on a road w/ a traffic light with only one signal. its flashes either red or green at the same intervals. his internal reality is black and white, on or off. say he doesnt know hes colorblind. he just know to go or stop by the position of the illuminated lights usually. he goes thru. you stop cuz u see its flashing red.

External reality was that this light was emitting red wavelengths

The colorblind guy is less one of his indicators of external reality

A schizophrenic on the other hand is given extra indicators of internal reality.


Edited by fresh313 (02/24/06 01:19 AM)


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: Intellectual Laziness/Fear [Re: fresh313]
    #5333902 - 02/24/06 01:36 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Sounds like you and I agree - except, I recognize that, basically speaking, external reality only holds such colors in relation to our consciousness. A cat or some other creature will see things in a much different tone and color-scheme, for instance.



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


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

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


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Schizophrenia from a spiritual perspective gettinjiggywithit 2,241 18 01/26/05 05:32 PM
by incubaby_421
* A different look at Schizophrenia
( 1 2 all )
gettinjiggywithit 3,902 32 02/08/14 03:22 AM
by FishOilTheKid
* Numerology and schitzophrenia
( 1 2 3 all )
reflectedlight 5,922 43 06/07/07 06:05 PM
by backfromthedead
* intresting interview with a schizophrenic
( 1 2 3 4 all )
scattass 9,837 71 04/21/07 10:30 AM
by spiritualemerg
* Schizophrenia
( 1 2 3 all )
OrgoneConclusion 6,599 59 10/19/09 03:32 PM
by soldatheero
* some thoughts on schizophrenia
( 1 2 all )
wordreality 3,521 20 10/06/03 10:28 AM
by fireworks_god
* Belief in God: A form of schizophrenia?!
( 1 2 3 all )
Northernsoul 6,584 47 08/26/09 12:01 PM
by OrgoneConclusion
* Schizophrenia: Loss Of Control
( 1 2 all )
Droz 2,591 20 01/12/07 03:41 PM
by jonnyjonjonjon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,751 topic views. 0 members, 17 guests and 7 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 0.031 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.