There are no material objects

[dafydd]

Yes, but you could sit on the TV and stare at the carpet. :D

That might be a good idea given some of the garbage that is on TV.

[punshhh]

I did take it. I sampled his White Lightning and Blue Cheer too. I suppose it all depends upon what you mean by real. My first trip happened because somebody gave me a tab of Blue Cheer and I rather foolishly swallowed it in our local pub. At one point during the evening the landlord was washing the glasses and stacking them on the bar. I saw the glasses melt, run down the bar like lava and the tide flowed over to me , touched my shoes, which became glass too. I wasn't scared, I found it fascinating. Are you saying that this really happened? The friend I was tripping with didn't see it and the regulars in the pub just saw some wet glasses.

Accccccciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid!



What were you saying about being a shy retiring type?

[yy2bggggs]

Not to be pseudo-profound, but there is a difference between, "I really experienced something" (of course people who hallucinate really do have those experiences), and, "I experienced something and it really exists apart from me."
You are part of reality.

ETA:

This isn't about being profound either--this is a communications gap. Nothing you or daffyd are saying is informing any of the participants of anything they didn't already know.

[dafydd]

Accccccciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid!



What were you saying about being a shy retiring type?

What did you say about me posting gibberish? You promised to find some examples. Where are they? Do you have anything serious to contribute to this thread? Get back to the pixies and fairies in your foliage.

[dafydd]

You are part of reality.

ETA:

This isn't about being profound either--this is a communications gap. Nothing you or daffyd are saying is informing any of the participants of anything they didn't already know.

Very true. This discussion has reached saturation point.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Exactly. LSD visions are not reality. I doubt if any of the people who are arguing the point have any experience of psychedelic substances. A true argument from ignorance, and that is not intended as an insult.

You fail to grasp what is being said. LSD visions are REAL and are perceptions just like the ones you are having right now. Under some substances and a "normal" balance, your brain will interpret perceptions in certain ways, under some other substances (or self induced altered states of consciousness) it will experience the same perceptions in different ways.. nothing really obscure or complicated here. And... BOTH interpretations are equally real.

[Lowpro]

You fail to grasp what is being said. LSD visions are REAL and are perceptions just like the ones you are having right now. Under some substances and a "normal" balance, your brain will interpret perceptions in certain ways, under some other substances (or self induced altered states of consciousness) it will experience the same perceptions in different ways.. nothing really obscure or complicated here. And... BOTH interpretations are equally real.

No they're brain failures. They aren't actual input from your eyes they are your brain failing to properly summate the stimuli. They're as real as brain failures, which aren't very real at all (In that they're a failure of interpreting reality). But you're right, the faulty perceptions from acid are from very real failures in your brain. Doesn't mean they're real as we define reality though and that Bodhi is what I think you're trying to conflate.

Basically you're saying both interpretations are equally real but that's not true. One is real, one is a brain failure and doesn't accurately describe reality. It is NOT an equally real interpretation, it is a very poor interpretation. Stop conflating what a real failure is with a real description of reality.

*The word "real" was brought to you by the letter 'I'. Remember, there's no 'I' in 'Fellowshp'

[dafydd]

You fail to grasp what is being said. LSD visions are REAL and are perceptions just like the ones you are having right now. Under some substances and a "normal" balance, your brain will interpret perceptions in certain ways, under some other substances (or self induced altered states of consciousness) it will experience the same perceptions in different ways.. nothing really obscure or complicated here. And... BOTH interpretations are equally real.

I disagree. I was out of touch with reality when I took LSD. The glasses did not melt. That only took place in my brain. You can drop the Bellman tactics.

[dafydd]

No they're brain failures. They aren't actual input from your eyes they are your brain failing to properly summate the stimuli. They're as real as brain failures, which aren't very real at all (In that they're a failure of interpreting reality). But you're right, the faulty perceptions from acid are from very real failures in your brain. Doesn't mean they're real as we define reality though and that Bodhi is what I think you're trying to conflate.

Basically you're saying both interpretations are equally real but that's not true. One is real, one is a brain failure and doesn't accurately describe reality. It is NOT an equally real interpretation, it is a very poor interpretation. Stop conflating what a real failure is with a real description of reality.

*The word "real" was brought to you by the letter 'I'. Remember, there's no 'I' in 'Fellowshp'

I was in that pub the next evening. All the glasses were there, unmelted. I was back in reality . Is Bhodi saying that the glasses both melted and did not melt? That is just a tiny part of what happened in my head that evening.

[Dancing David]

Even perceptual events experienced under 600 micrograms of Owsley's Orange Sunshine?

Yes, they are real perceptual events, they may or may not have validity.

The largest dose I ever took was probably around 2,000, those events were real perceptual events, I saw goblins dancing in the rain.

Now they were not valid as real objects outside of perception.

[Dancing David]

I did take it. I sampled his White Lightning and Blue Cheer too. I suppose it all depends upon what you mean by real. My first trip happened because somebody gave me a tab of Blue Cheer and I rather foolishly swallowed it in our local pub. At one point during the evening the landlord was washing the glasses and stacking them on the bar. I saw the glasses melt, run down the bar like lava and the tide flowed over to me , touched my shoes, which became glass too. I wasn't scared, I found it fascinating. Are you saying that this really happened? The friend I was tripping with didn't see it and the regulars in the pub just saw some wet glasses.

Your perception was a real perception, not a valid one.

[dafydd]

Your perception was a real perception, not a valid one.

I suppose we can indulge in semantics, but the glasses did not melt otherwise we would all have been drinking out of jam jars the following day.

[Dancing David]

Exactly. LSD visions are not reality. I doubt if any of the people who are arguing the point have any experience of psychedelic substances. A true argument from ignorance, and that is not intended as an insult.

Oh, nice appeal to authority.

You don't understand that the perceptions take place in reality, unless you think your serotonergic neurons and others are in fantasy land. That the perceptions are real does not mean they are accurate representations of reality

[Dancing David]

I suppose we can indulge in semantics, but the glasses did not melt otherwise we would all have been drinking out of jam jars the following day.

So keep arguing semantics, where were your perceptions, another dimension?

You need to read more carefully and perhaps ask more questions.

[Dancing David]

I was in that pub the next evening. All the glasses were there, unmelted. I was back in reality . Is Bhodi saying that the glasses both melted and did not melt? That is just a tiny part of what happened in my head that evening.

Psst you were never out of reality, perceptions are created from the sensations, you had altered perceptions that did not reflect the sensations with validity.

If I hold a magnet near a CRT screen I can alter the colors that it displays, the colors are real. I can return the CRT to baseline through deguassing, one is an accurate recreation of the signal, the other is altered.

They both happen in reality

[dafydd]

Why are there so many stroppy people on this site? Did you all get out of bed on the wrong side? I give up, you win, you're all right.

[yy2bggggs]

No they're brain failures. They aren't actual input from your eyes they are your brain failing to properly summate the stimuli. They're as real as brain failures, which aren't very real at all (In that they're a failure of interpreting reality).
Are optical illusions brain failures? How about the aural perception of phonemes?

I don't think the concept of "brain failures" works too well, especially if we use the metric of "failure to interpret reality" to define failure. I would suggest use of concepts that instead compare brain function to a reference brain function.

[Lowpro]

Are optical illusions brain failures? How about the aural perception of phonemes?

I don't think the concept of "brain failures" works too well, especially if we use the metric of "failure to interpret reality" to define failure. I would suggest use of concepts that instead compare brain function to a reference brain function.

Optical illusions are definitely brain failures (though in direct response, they're summated poorly from eye stimuli). When the reality of depth or color* is mistaken in your brain, then it fails to accurately depict reality. But the brain tries oh so hard...

It's a brain failure.

*Example: Synesthetics "see" colors that correspond to letter shapes or even sound. But they aren't actually seeing these colors, because the medium they are viewing through their eyes isn't reflecting the electromagnetic "light" that we all generally see. Their brain is failing, it is somehow doing something wrong. But that doesn't mean what the synesthetic sees is "real" because it isn't because there is no corresponding light they're seeing; it's just their brain failing.

[Lowpro]

Honestly if I wanted to be a dick about it...

Bodhi if you want to pretend that whatever our acidhead saw in the bar (melting glass etc etc turning to glass blah de blah) is "just as real" then that would conflict with thermodynamics. State change of glass requires heat to liquefy it. There was no heat, and glass can't do it spontaneously.

If the glass touched our acidhead's shoes and those TOO turned into glass, that would pose many physical problems to be sure, and cannot be accounted for naturally.

So, even if our acidhead experiences these things, they are NOT part of reality. They are NOT just as real. Experience will NEVER equal real no matter how many people experience it; science is not a general consensus of experience, it's mathematically driven. If you're seeing something, then you better have evidence to validate it as being real.

To sum it up, brain failures are real. When you are seeing something that ain't there, then your brain failed. It failed hard.

[yy2bggggs]

Optical illusions are definitely brain failures (though in direct response, they're summated poorly from eye stimuli). When the reality of depth or color* is mistaken in your brain, then it fails to accurately depict reality. But the brain tries oh so hard...

It's a brain failure.
Let's talk color.

Here is an image:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_206134b650baa2bd99.jpg
For reference, this image comes from a presentation (http://www.ted.com/talks/beau_lotto_optical_illusions_show_how_we_see.html) by Beau Lotto, which I recommend you see, at TED.

In this image, there are tiles that I have labeled a1, a2, b1, and b2. The color of those tiles, on the screen, are all the same. However, in the context of the sample images, given your criteria, there should be a "correct" color that corresponds to the "actual" colors of the object. On the left hand image, which we can simply call "A", the tile a1 is in a shadow, and the tile a2 is outside of it. On the right hand image, which we can call "B", the tile b1 is under the same approximate lighting conditions as the tile b2.

Obviously, there is less light in a shadow than there is outside of one. So if two tiles, let's say a1 and a2, are emitting the same amount of light, but a1 is in the shadow, then a1 should be reflecting a greater percentage of the light that is available to it than a2 (since it reflects the same amount, but there's less light available), and thus, it should be whiter. But if those same two tiles are under equal lighting conditions--let's say b1 and b2--then if they are reflecting the same amount of light, they should be the same color.

There are similar sorts of adjustments that occur in lighting conditions where different color lights are present... for example, take this image:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_206134b683d9979675.png
Here, there are tiles labeled A and B on the left and on the right. Both of the tiles A and B are drawn using the same exact color of gray; however, if the squares on the left are illuminated by a bluish light, and the squares on the right by a yellowish light, then the tile A's "correct" color would probably be yellow, and the tile B's "correct" color would probably be blue.

So here's the point. These are the kinds of things our brain has to do to an image in order to get the "right" color of an object--simply because of the way light comes from objects in an image. There is no way to describe the workings of a hypothetical brain that gets the "correct" color of objects based on the presentation of an image, because the problem of getting the correct color of such objects is an impossible problem. It is for this reason that I object to your use of the term "brain failure".

What our brains do, instead, is make an assumption that objects present themselves in a natural world in "normal" ways, and working off of the assumption that objects have a definite color that does not change under lighting conditions, applies heuristics to try to perceive that color. The reason we have color optical illusions is that these heuristics can be exploited.

So when we look at this image:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/206134a88ee69e0696.png
...and our brains experience a "failure" whereby we perceive two different shades of orange, you should note that this "failure" is due to a heuristic that allows it to "succeed" in judging the color of oranges under more normal scenarios.

I think the model you're trying to apply is too simplistic--it ignores the fact that perception is different than the perceived, and that the former is merely a model of the world. It's too naively realistic for my tastes. I prefer a model of the world where objects exist entirely independent from our perceptions, where qualities of our perceptions are not part of the external world's properties, but instead are properties of how our brain builds a model of the world that is useful for our purposes.
*Example: Synesthetics "see" colors that correspond to letter shapes or even sound. But they aren't actually seeing these colors, because the medium they are viewing through their eyes isn't reflecting the electromagnetic "light" that we all generally see.
You're kind of begging the question here, and are mixing categories.

Colors are perceptual qualities, not inherent properties of light (though there is an alternate definition of color that we can say is a property of light; however, using that definition, color is not a perceptual quality). It appears you're using "to see" to describe perceiving something through the visual apparatus. In this case, I see nothing but your arbitrary declaration to support the notion that color grapheme synesthetes do not see shapes as colors. After all, they see shapes visually, and those shapes are imbued with colors.
Their brain is failing, it is somehow doing something wrong.
Please describe what's wrong with the way their brain is working, without appealing to my suggested alternative of comparing their brain to a reference brain.
But that doesn't mean what the synesthetic sees is "real" because it isn't because there is no corresponding light they're seeing; it's just their brain failing.
In the case of color grapheme synesthetes, there most certainly is corresponding light that they are seeing.

[Lowpro]

Let's talk color.

Here is an image:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_206134b650baa2bd99.jpg
For reference, this image comes from a presentation (http://www.ted.com/talks/beau_lotto_optical_illusions_show_how_we_see.html) by Beau Lotto, which I recommend you see, at TED.

In this image, there are tiles that I have labeled a1, a2, b1, and b2. The color of those tiles, on the screen, are all the same. However, in the context of the sample images, given your criteria, there should be a "correct" color that corresponds to the "actual" colors of the object. On the left hand image, which we can simply call "A", the tile a1 is in a shadow, and the tile a2 is outside of it. On the right hand image, which we can call "B", the tile b1 is under the same approximate lighting conditions as the tile b2.

Obviously, there is less light in a shadow than there is outside of one. So if two tiles, let's say a1 and a2, are emitting the same amount of light, but a1 is in the shadow, then a1 should be reflecting a greater percentage of the light that is available to it than a2 (since it reflects the same amount, but there's less light available), and thus, it should be whiter. But if those same two tiles are under equal lighting conditions--let's say b1 and b2--then if they are reflecting the same amount of light, they should be the same color.

There are similar sorts of adjustments that occur in lighting conditions where different color lights are present... for example, take this image:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_206134b683d9979675.png
Here, there are tiles labeled A and B on the left and on the right. Both of the tiles A and B are drawn using the same exact color of gray; however, if the squares on the left are illuminated by a bluish light, and the squares on the right by a yellowish light, then the tile A's "correct" color would probably be yellow, and the tile B's "correct" color would probably be blue.

So here's the point. These are the kinds of things our brain has to do to an image in order to get the "right" color of an object--simply because of the way light comes from objects in an image. There is no way to describe the workings of a hypothetical brain that gets the "correct" color of objects based on the presentation of an image, because the problem of getting the correct color of such objects is an impossible problem. It is for this reason that I object to your use of the term "brain failure".

What our brains do, instead, is make an assumption that objects present themselves in a natural world in "normal" ways, and working off of the assumption that objects have a definite color that does not change under lighting conditions, applies heuristics to try to perceive that color. The reason we have color optical illusions is that these heuristics can be exploited.



That's a lot of work to get across the fact that you object to "brain failure" man, but maybe you're stuck on your idea. If you want to talk color (we'll talk simple), your brain summates stimuli from cone receptors and sorting out light etc etc and you get color. The failure is when your brain sorts out light that isn't there (synesthetics are seeing colors that aren't actually there). That's what I mean by brain failure and yes it is very simplistic but it's also correct, however it then bugs people to determine what is a "brain success" too, which is easy. Do you see color? Is it actually there? Then your brain succeeded enough.

When it comes to the color illusions like this one:

z9Sen1HTu5o

And this one's a failure of depth (reverses depth due to shadows)

QbKw0_v2clo

That's a brain failure of sorts. The tiles are the same color, reflecting and absorbing their particular wavelenghts of light, but due to the shadows and surrounding tiles your brain "thinks" there's a color difference (similar to the orange tiles picture you put up) but again SIMPLY PUT your brain failed. It tried hard to be correct, but it wasn't.

I think the model you're trying to apply is too simplistic--it ignores the fact that perception is different than the perceived, and that the former is merely a model of the world. It's too naively realistic for my tastes. I prefer a model of the world where objects exist entirely independent from our perceptions, where qualities of our perceptions are not part of the external world's properties, but instead are properties of how our brain builds a model of the world that is useful for our purposes.

I have no idea how you consider my "model" as anything different than what you've described. I LOVE a model that is independent of our brains. If light exists as we see it, awesome. I'm irked when people think there's light there that DOESN'T exist (such as people who do hallucinogens may see).

As for what you're saying in retort to synesthetics, I'm talking about color as it pertains to the property of light, and I cannot imagine another definition for it. Objects may absorb and reflect parts of the visible light spectrum; the parts reflected are what we see, or at least see most of.

There's no need to compare to a reference brain; color doesn't require you to see it to be there because it's an electromagnetic wave and measurable as such, absent the brain. When someone thinks they're seeing colors and those colors are NOT there, their brain fails. For synesthetics they observe a medium and sometimes the intricacies of this medium (be it the shapes of letters or even sounds) change color for them. I don't quite know how to explain it, but in their brain something's happening. It's NOT happening in the medium they are viewing though. A letter doesn't change color due to the shape it's in, a letter would only change color if something made it reflect a different wavelength of light.

Which is why I say their brain is failing, because it is interpreting something wrong. And I can say that without using a reference brain, because color doesn't require the brain to exist.

Now this is a VERY simple concept and I feel that you should already know this so I may have missed something in what you've been saying.

I'll try to make it a little more fair. The brain also sees afterimages which are technically not a brain failure; they're a failure of the chemistry in your photoreceptors overadapting to whatever it's seeing, usually color related. But your brain still gets the stimulus and you "see" an afterimage, but it's not the brain's fault, the photoreceptors won't re-adapt.

So yea I may use the term "brain failure" with abandon, only because I think it's apt. If I wanted to get more in depth as to one "failure" to another, I may but I think my statements suffice.

[yy2bggggs]

That's a lot of work to get across the fact that you object to "brain failure" man, but maybe you're stuck on your idea. If you want to talk color (we'll talk simple), your brain summates stimuli from cone receptors and sorting out light etc etc and you get color.
But color is not light. Color is a perception. You're confusing the two.
The failure is when your brain sorts out light that isn't there (synesthetics are seeing colors that aren't actually there).Synesthetic brains do not sort out light that isn't there. They sort out signals that are there--and not only that--but those signals are created using light that is there. In color grapheme synesthetes, a particular grapheme is always associated with a particular color. When they see that grapheme, they see that color, period; just like when we see this banana, we see this color.
That's what I mean by brain failure and yes it is very simplistic but it's also correct,
I would use the term "naive".
however it then bugs people to determine what is a "brain success" too, which is easy. Do you see color?Yes, and so does a grapheme color synesthete.
Is it actually there?
And with this question your naive realism shows through. We are not seeing light "as it is"; light as it is is spectroscopic and photometric. We're merely trichromatic, with brains that adjust the trichromaticity of the images in such a way as to give enough consistency to the perceptual space in regards to objects that we can possibly speak of them as having color. The invariance of the color of an object is a construct particular to how we see, and a huge number of heuristics involving color vision, to which 1/3 of our brains are devoted.

Color isn't something that is "just there" that objects "just have", it's something our brains do a lot of work to invent. And they do a damned good job. They deserve our recognition!

So in a sense, no, the colors are not "actually there". They're made up by our brains. In another sense, they are actually there, but they're very, very dependent on the way our brain works. In no sense are they actually there and are independent from how our brain works.
That's a brain failure of sorts. The tiles are the same color, reflecting and absorbing their particular wavelenghts of light, but due to the shadows and surrounding tiles your brain "thinks" there's a color difference (similar to the orange tiles picture you put up) but again SIMPLY PUT your brain failed. It tried hard to be correct, but it wasn't.
Your brain created the concept of objects having the same colors to begin with. It's an impossible problem, but it does so anyway. So our brain fails because there's no such thing as success.

But insofar as you get to speak of objects having a particular color, the brain succeeded.
I have no idea how you consider my "model" as anything different than what you've described.The difference is the suggestion that colors are independent of the way our brain works.
As for what you're saying in retort to synesthetics, I'm talking about color as it pertains to the property of light, and I cannot imagine another definition for it.But light is not color. Color is a property of perception. Light is just photons at particular frequencies. They are entirely different things.
There's no need to compare to a reference brain; color doesn't require you to see it to be there because it's an electromagnetic wave and measurable as such, absent the brain.
No, I showed that in the last reply. The same exact electromagnetic spectrum could be black (a1), white (b1), yellow (A), or blue (B); especially if you want to say that objects are particular colors.

Color is a very complicated creation particular to our brains and how we see. And, once again, it is a perceptive quality, not a property of light.

If you want to speak of color as a property of light, you need to talk spectroscopy. In those terms, we need to drop notions such as objects having particular colors, "yellow" being an example of a color, and so on.

[Lowpro]

Hang on a sec I need to get something cleared up because I think I'm saying what you're saying (not about the Graphemes though). Photoreceptors send stilumi to the brain, they get summated, and you "see" color. I think we agree on that simplified version.

Now, in between the eyes and the brain something can "go wrong" and you'll see something that's not there. That's what I've been trying to get across.

I call them brain failures, you say that's naive, but I mean, nuts to you y2. Yes our brain does a REALLY good job of making us see color (because you're right, electromagnetism isn't "color" but for the purposes of color vision they play a very very very central role in vision. Now, you can see color without vision but that doesn't make whatever you're seeing real which is what I'm trying to get across. At that point it's not accurate color vision; it's the parts working for something that's not there.

Just like when you see depth that's not there doesn't mean that depth is real (in relation to optical illusions)

So I know what you're saying that it's not really brain failing because the brain's doing everything correctly enough but then what do you want to call it, brain deception?

And yes I do think color exists independent of the brain only because it is reduced to spectroscopy, but maybe that is my naivete showing; I give more credit to the understanding of electromagnetic color before what our brains see. So I don't really consider the subjectivity of color because it's useless when you have a really really really good definition for color (460nm = blue).

[punshhh]

Yes, they are real perceptual events, they may or may not have validity.

The largest dose I ever took was probably around 2,000, those events were real perceptual events, I saw goblins dancing in the rain.

Now they were not valid as real objects outside of perception.

It gets interesting when you look into the flashlight of enlightenment on a high dose and retrace your steps and those of all of your fellow life forms. One can perceive of the friction and pain of the experience of physicality in a single visualisation, or thought.

[Bram Kaandorp]

It gets interesting when you look into the flashlight of enlightenment on a high dose and retrace your steps and those of all of your fellow life forms. One can perceive of the friction and pain of the experience of physicality in a single visualisation, or thought.

Very deep. You should send that in to the Reader's Digest, they have a page for people like you.

[Brainache]

It gets interesting when you look into the flashlight of enlightenment on a high dose and retrace your steps and those of all of your fellow life forms. One can perceive of the friction and pain of the experience of physicality in a single visualisation, or thought.

The flashlight of enlightenment? I don't have one of those. Would it work with a pineapple of truth? I've got one of them.

[dafydd]

The flashlight of enlightenment? I don't have one of those. Would it work with a pineapple of truth? I've got one of them.

You need a flashlight of enlightenment to peer about when you are beyond the event horizon of the formless, searching for pixies in your foliage.

[Dancing David]

It gets interesting when you look into the flashlight of enlightenment on a high dose and retrace your steps and those of all of your fellow life forms. One can perceive of the friction and pain of the experience of physicality in a single visualisation, or thought.

I don't needs drugs to do that, I was seeking relief from depression.

[Dancing David]

The flsshlight of enlightnement is my phrase, usually when I am rude and accuse people of casing into it

[Bram Kaandorp]

The flsshlight of enlightnement is my phrase, usually when I am rude and accuse people of casing into it

See, Jonesboy, dyslexia is real.

[/off topic]

[yy2bggggs]

So I know what you're saying that it's not really brain failing because the brain's doing everything correctly enough but then what do you want to call it, brain deception?
How about using the established term? Just call them optical illusions. Why would you want to call them brain failures if you know they are not a failure of the brain in any meaningful sense?
Hang on a sec I need to get something cleared up because I think I'm saying what you're saying (not about the Graphemes though). Photoreceptors send stilumi to the brain, they get summated, and you "see" color. I think we agree on that simplified version.So let's go to color grapheme synesthesia then. Do we or do we not see graphemes? If we do, then if a person perceives color associated with a particular grapheme, then in what sense is her brain "failing"? Please note:
The color percept is triggered by a grapheme
A particular grapheme always correlates with a particular color
The grapheme is really there
Given these three things, the color percept corresponds to the visual perception of something that is really there. If that's not seeing, what is?
I call them brain failures, you say that's naive, but I mean, nuts to you y2.
When I say it's naive, I'm not slinging insults at you. I'm referring to naive realism--the notion that we perceive things "directly", "as they really are". You are assuming a view of naive realism in your discussion--this grapheme is somehow "supposed to be green", and if we "see it correctly", we'll "see it to be green".

I don't think this analysis is useful. Light is light, and light is simply photons at various wavelengths. Colors are colors, and they are perceptual qualities. The one has nothing to do with the other, except insofar as spectra in particular environmental situations using "ordinary" scenery convey information about something immutable, and therefore useful, about an object. Given a reference brain and sensory apparatus, we can conventionally talk about the meaning of colors, but only because that gives us a context. A brain or sensory apparatus that works differently can only be faulted as working differently. Or not efficiently. Or could be lauded because it's more efficient at certain useful tasks.

You have to have some actual criteria, you see, other than the naive notion that green is "how an apple really is" and the "proper way to see it" would be to see it as green.
And yes I do think color exists independent of the brain only because it is reduced to spectroscopy, but maybe that is my naivete showing; I give more credit to the understanding of electromagnetic color before what our brains see.If you prefer spectroscopy, then fine. However ...
So I don't really consider the subjectivity of color because it's useless when you have a really really really good definition for color (460nm = blue).
...why insist on using terms such as "blue"? What are you going to call 461nm if 460nm is blue? How are you going to define brown? What is white? You're much better off dropping all color terms and sticking to charts if you want to do spectroscopy. You're welcome to call what you're doing color analysis, but don't confuse what you're doing with what we're doing when we call something yellow.

[Lowpro]

...why insist on using terms such as "blue"? What are you going to call 461nm if 460nm is blue? How are you going to define brown? What is white? You're much better off dropping all color terms and sticking to charts if you want to do spectroscopy. You're welcome to call what you're doing color analysis, but don't confuse what you're doing with what we're doing when we call something yellow.

Fine all the way up until here. The answer is simple, because the names for color are descriptive enough until I need to use the spectroscopy version (for things such as biology or chemistry)

[yy2bggggs]

Fine all the way up until here. The answer is simple, because the names for color are descriptive enough until I need to use the spectroscopy version (for things such as biology or chemistry)
I'm confused. You would want to do spectroscopy, but not use a spectroscopic description?

[Dancing David]

See, Jonesboy, dyslexia is real.

[/off topic]

Nope, I wasn't using Chrome, arrrgh

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

When I say it's naive, I'm not slinging insults at you. I'm referring to naive realism--the notion that we perceive things "directly", "as they really are".

Interesting link thanks, I guess is fairly new in WP. I have been stressing this very point for years now here in the JREF, that many of the self called "skeptics" are, in reality, naive materialists, and therefore, (almost) as gullible as the "woos" they fight so enthusiastically.

[Lowpro]

I'm confused. You would want to do spectroscopy, but not use a spectroscopic description?

Sort of how I call a cup a cup even if it's a tumbler glass...

[Lowpro]

Interesting link thanks, I guess is fairly new in WP. I have been stressing this very point for years now here in the JREF, that many of the self called "skeptics" are, in reality, naive materialists, and therefore, (almost) as gullible as the "woos" they fight so enthusiastically.

I think your failure is (whether intentional or not) conflating the perceptions as real with reality. Perceptions are real because something's going "wrong" with the machine doing the perceiving (eye, brain, etc) now me and y2 got into a tiff about the word brain failure vs the more accurate description (brain's not failing, it's just doing its job and its job actually isn't to properly reflect reality, it's just to give you "enough correctness" though I want to choose my words carefully for that description)

eh edit:

Basically I think bodhi that you come off as conflating real perceptions as if they represent reality. It's like saying that perceptions are real and reality manifests from them, though I'm sure that's not what you mean because that would be ridiculous.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

When you are saying "real" do you mean the observations are real, or just that the perceptions are real?

Err... you were fighting a strawman with your previous comments (even when this second version that you edited). I have stated, clearly IMO, that anything we perceive is real, in the sense that the same mechanisms that give us the "normal" perceptions, give us any perception, and that they are just different ways of dealing with what is called reality.

Thing is, my view is deeper than that, so it is difficult to express in a few sentences. But one thing is for sure, attempting to divide between "observations" and "perceptions" is a problem.

Dualism is implicit in the whole construction, we have "experiences" about "reality"... mmm... nope.. we have experiences and theorize a reality behind them (to explain them), some of our theories become models, and some models deal better with experiences... thats about it.

[Lowpro]

Err... you were fighting a strawman with your previous comments (even when this second version that you edited). I have stated, clearly IMO, that anything we perceive is real, in the sense that the same mechanisms that give us the "normal" perceptions, give us any perception, and that they are just different ways of dealing with what is called reality.

Thing is, my view is deeper than that, so it is difficult to express in a few sentences. But one thing is for sure, attempting to divide between "observations" and "perceptions" is a problem.

Dualism is implicit in the whole construction, we have "experiences" about "reality"... mmm... nope.. we have experiences and theorize a reality behind them (to explain them), some of our theories become models, and some models deal better with experiences... thats about it.

I was fighting a strawman because you can't explain your position so I had to take a stab at what you meant, but at least I understand why that's the case now.

Experiences about reality...well we have chemistry backing up our experiences (read up on opsins) so perceptions of reality I think blur enough to where I find it difficult to take a serious division of "experience" and "reality". Maybe I agree with you, but only due to chemistry.

I do have to pick at this part though:

that anything we perceive is real, in the sense that the same mechanisms that give us the "normal" perceptions, give us any perception, and that they are just different ways of dealing with what is called reality.


Now, I can't figure out why you think this. I think one guy mentioned how acid alters his perception, but this doesn't alter reality. I know we again are forming this distinction between the two, but at least we know that our brains operate chemically and all drugs (in this case, LSD) can, to put it mildy, dick with our chemistry and this in turn causes our brains which summate stimuli to give us false data. I call it false data because "true" data would be visual perception that is consistent with what should be perceived. If plates began to melt, form across your shoes, and turn your shoes to glass, you can say you perceived this, but you cannot say this is reality. Now, I can prove this isn't reality with physical laws.

Now, how is such an LSD trip a way of dealing with what is called reality? Reality is VERY consistent; the brain? Not so much, especially on drugs. I would be more inclined to remove the brain and perception entirely from reality, and reality would be JUST as consistent. Physics will still behave exactly.

This is simple, but for some reason I cannot find this reasoning in your post(s)

[yy2bggggs]

Sort of how I call a cup a cup even if it's a tumbler glass...
Still confused. I do not know what this analogy means in regard to the question I asked.

[Lowpro]

Still confused. I do not know what this analogy means in regard to the question I asked.

Meaning that if I were inclined I'd refer to whatever color I'm referring to by its spectroscopic wavelength. But then, I could just call it "blue".

Sort of like finding blue on a color wheel... It's like asking me to find a cup among a bunch of different types of cups. Well that's what I tried to build that analogy towards (Tumblers, Collins glasses, etc).

Curious because I find it interesting. An apple reflects green light. This is due to chemistry (pigments absorbing and reflecting wavelengths)

Now, your eyes can pick this stimulus up by the chemistry of your opsins, which correspond to the wavelength of light of the apple, in this case I think we're still on green (~500nm).

Now, the brain has to summate the stimuli and give you the perception of what you're seeing, with all hope that the perception is accurate to the light actually being reflected from the apple.

Now, that's why grapheme synesthesia is interesting only because what they're writing with a graphite pencil SHOULD be black, or at least dark. Graphite doesn't reflect orange, or yellow wavelengths. However synesthetics "see" these colors and the colors even change as the symbol changes (curves or lines change the perceived color). But they aren't actually seeing it visually, they're seeing it within their brain, somehow messed up within the pathway for vision but definitely not from the medium (the graphite)

That's what I've been trying to get across anyways.

[yy2bggggs]

Meaning that if I were inclined I'd refer to whatever color I'm referring to by its spectroscopic wavelength. But then, I could just call it "blue".

Sort of like finding blue on a color wheel... It's like asking me to find a cup among a bunch of different types of cups. Well that's what I tried to build that analogy towards (Tumblers, Collins glasses, etc).

Curious because I find it interesting. An apple reflects green light. This is due to chemistry (pigments absorbing and reflecting wavelengths)

Now, your eyes can pick this stimulus up by the chemistry of your opsins, which correspond to the wavelength of light of the apple, in this case I think we're still on green (~500nm).
Hmmm... interesting. You talk about "the spectroscopic wavelength" in the singular, as if you think somehow each object reflects a single wavelength of light. You don't seem to take into account that light doesn't ever mix--a photon at a given frequency is always at that frequency as long as it's a photon (notwithstanding irrelevant details such as change of reference frame of the observer). But those photons are all over the place in normal lighting conditions, including the light that eminates from the apple; and they exist at all frequencies across the visible spectrum (and then some!).

Furthermore, if you're talking singular frequencies of light, then you need to discard the color wheel. There are colors on the color wheel that do not correlate to pure light frequencies of any wavelength. Surprisingly enough, the reverse is also true; there are wavelengths of light whose colors you won't find on the color wheel.
Now, the brain has to summate the stimuli and give you the perception of what you're seeing, with all hope that the perception is accurate to the light actually being reflected from the apple.There's no criteria for accurate in this sense. Again your naive realism is showing through. The particular percept associated with the color of a particular object has no meaning whatsoever in isolation. What matters is how that percept compares to other things; the apple is the same color as this crayon, the same as color as these other apples; a different color than the red apple; the same color as this unripe banana; a different color than the ripe banana, and so on.

Let's suppose I have a strange sort of double-synesthesia. I am a sound-color synesthete, in the sense that I perceive different colors as sounds. This is obviously wrong; I'm supposed to simply see colors, but as it turns out, I hear colors. Something wrong has gone on in my brain. But it doesn't stop there. In my form of double-synesthesia, I am also a color-sound synesthete, in the sense that I perceive sounds as colors. When someone plays a C on the piano, I perceive it as a certain color. As if it's not bad enough, in addition to my double-synesthesia problem, I am neurally deaf, in that I do not hear sounds; and I am also neurally blind, in that I do not see colors.

So there my brain is, all messed up, mixed up, doubly unlucky piled on top of more levels of unluck. However, I have no idea that I have this condition--because every time someone shows me a green apple, or a green crayon, or a monochromatic 500nm laser, I always perceive the same tone. And because everyone else swears that this kind of sensation of objects through the eyes is called "visual", for all I know, my percept that is supposed to be hearing middle C is actually called seeing green. And for all I know, my percept that is supposed to be seeing green is actually called hearing middle C.

Not only do I not know I have this condition, but you don't know I have this condition, because I correctly identify apples as the same color as the crayons they are supposed to be the same color as; and as the monochromatic lasers they are supposed to be the same color as. I correctly identify them as a different color than the apples they're supposed to be a different color from.

And not only do you don't know I have this condition, and not only do I not know that I have it, but you don't know that you don't have this condition. If you cannot figure out that I have this condition, for all you know, your brain is the one that is "messed up"--you are a quadruply unlucky neurally deaf, neurally blind, color-sound sound-color synesthete (and maybe the only case on the planet besides me; good luck with your treatment!)

I don't have this problem, because I'm under no illusion that a particular percept is "supposed" to be how a particular signal is perceived. To me, it doesn't matter what the percept is--so long as the recognition of the same percept corresponds to the recognition of the same correlated conditions.

[punshhh]

I don't needs drugs to do that, I was seeking relief from depression.

Yes I have a friend who used to take it occasionally for manic depression, he found it beneficial.

My point is it can be used as a tool in contemplation, enabling a far deeper insight into our circumstances.

[Lowpro]

Hmmm... interesting. You talk about "the spectroscopic wavelength" in the singular, as if you think somehow each object reflects a single wavelength of light. You don't seem to take into account that light doesn't ever mix--a photon at a given frequency is always at that frequency as long as it's a photon (notwithstanding irrelevant details such as change of reference frame of the observer). But those photons are all over the place in normal lighting conditions, including the light that eminates from the apple; and they exist at all frequencies across the visible spectrum (and then some!).

Yup, but I'm not talking directly about all the photons I'm talking about the light reflected from the apple, a particular photons of a particular wavelength being reflected off the apple and hitting our photoreceptors. I don't understand how that is being understood the way you're thinking it is, that I refer to spectroscopic wavelength in the singular. And while light doesn't mix, our brains can mix it (extra-spectral as wikipedia calls them; I have no points in this, it's just interesting)



Furthermore, if you're talking singular frequencies of light, then you need to discard the color wheel. There are colors on the color wheel that do not correlate to pure light frequencies of any wavelength. Surprisingly enough, the reverse is also true; there are wavelengths of light whose colors you won't find on the color wheel.
There's no criteria for accurate in this sense. Again your naive realism is showing through. The particular percept associated with the color of a particular object has no meaning whatsoever in isolation. What matters is how that percept compares to other things; the apple is the same color as this crayon, the same as color as these other apples; a different color than the red apple; the same color as this unripe banana; a different color than the ripe banana, and so on.

I brought up the color wheel mostly because you proposed (or rather implied) that there is a dilemma to the color "blue" versus 460nm and 461nm and I am just saying you have the same problem with a color wheel too. That's all. As for naive realism, I really think you're trying to label me that and I just think you're wrong =\ if naive realism were summed up as "needing reference brains for meaning" then the wikipedia page for it is wrong.


Let's suppose I have a strange sort of double-synesthesia. I am a sound-color synesthete, in the sense that I perceive different colors as sounds. This is obviously wrong; I'm supposed to simply see colors, but as it turns out, I hear colors. Something wrong has gone on in my brain. But it doesn't stop there. In my form of double-synesthesia, I am also a color-sound synesthete, in the sense that I perceive sounds as colors. When someone plays a C on the piano, I perceive it as a certain color. As if it's not bad enough, in addition to my double-synesthesia problem, I am neurally deaf, in that I do not hear sounds; and I am also neurally blind, in that I do not see colors.

So there my brain is, all messed up, mixed up, doubly unlucky piled on top of more levels of unluck. However, I have no idea that I have this condition--because every time someone shows me a green apple, or a green crayon, or a monochromatic 500nm laser, I always perceive the same tone. And because everyone else swears that this kind of sensation of objects through the eyes is called "visual", for all I know, my percept that is supposed to be hearing middle C is actually called seeing green. And for all I know, my percept that is supposed to be seeing green is actually called hearing middle C.

Not only do I not know I have this condition, but you don't know I have this condition, because I correctly identify apples as the same color as the crayons they are supposed to be the same color as; and as the monochromatic lasers they are supposed to be the same color as. I correctly identify them as a different color than the apples they're supposed to be a different color from.

And not only do you don't know I have this condition, and not only do I not know that I have it, but you don't know that you don't have this condition. If you cannot figure out that I have this condition, for all you know, your brain is the one that is "messed up"--you are a quadruply unlucky neurally deaf, neurally blind, color-sound sound-color synesthete (and maybe the only case on the planet besides me; good luck with your treatment!)

I don't have this problem, because I'm under no illusion that a particular percept is "supposed" to be how a particular signal is perceived. To me, it doesn't matter what the percept is--so long as the recognition of the same percept corresponds to the recognition of the same correlated conditions.

Cute exercise, but all you're saying is that your perception is consistently correct for all the wrong reasons mechanistically. Alright, I don't know how else I can try to explain this because I agree with most of what you say, you don't seem to address it. Okay we'll have a million dollar contest. Photons are reflected off an object at 510nm. If I'm up there, I'd call it green. Do 490nm and it'd be more blue. I'd win a million dollars.

if someone else went up there, received the same stimulus of 510nm and 490nm and called them red, which is NOT the wavelength of light consistent with green or blue, then they'd NOT win a million dollars. If I did this same contest for a graphite grapheme and asked a synesthetic to tell me its color ( its reflected light should be black) and they say orange, they'd NOT win a million dollars.(extremely simplified assertion of how synesthetics perceive, your description is what I should do, but it's not altogether concise for this explanation)

Now I understand that you'd call this naive realism, but I doubt that's really what naive realism is because I understand that the brain generates a perception, which may be accurate to reality, and probably should be only because the chemistry of opsins and the chemistry of the pigments IS consistent. There is nothing mechanistically that should change color all the way up until you hit the brain.

If the brain fails to accurately form up the perception is SHOULD, consistent to the proper stimuli, then I would call this simply a brain failure (though it doesn't accurately describe the condition, I just think it sounds funny)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I was fighting a strawman because you can't explain your position so I had to take a stab at what you meant, but at least I understand why that's the case now.

Oh I do explain it, but it is difficult to grasp, sorry about that, and this is because it is a more encompassing way to deal with available data. In fact, if you re read my last post, in the last paragraph I summarize my view, but apparently it didn't catch your attention.

I agree with yy2 in that your view (which is the standard view nothing to be ashamed) it is called naive realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_realism). In the past, I have criticized some forum members for being "naive materialists", and the linked article in Wikipedia explains the position fairly well. Oh and btw, you can argue, some of them are unable to do it, they have to resort to all kind of rather funny insults and using words like "tripe" to attempt to stablish (according to them of course) that their position is 100% correct and anything else is, "tripe".

[Dancing David]

Yes I have a friend who used to take it occasionally for manic depression, he found it beneficial.

My point is it can be used as a tool in contemplation, enabling a far deeper insight into our circumstances.

Maybe, maybe not

[Lowpro]

Oh I do explain it, but it is difficult to grasp, sorry about that, and this is because it is a more encompassing way to deal with available data. In fact, if you re read my last post, in the last paragraph I summarize my view, but apparently it didn't catch your attention.

I agree with yy2 in that your view (which is the standard view nothing to be ashamed) it is called naive realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_realism). In the past, I have criticized some forum members for being "naive materialists", and the linked article in Wikipedia explains the position fairly well. Oh and btw, you can argue, some of them are unable to do it, they have to resort to all kind of rather funny insults and using words like "tripe" to attempt to stablish (according to them of course) that their position is 100% correct and anything else is, "tripe".

heh you can drop the attitude guy. Now, I really can't find that summarizing of your view unless it's this:

Dualism is implicit in the whole construction, we have "experiences" about "reality"... mmm... nope.. we have experiences and theorize a reality behind them (to explain them), some of our theories become models, and some models deal better with experiences... thats about it.

Now, if you think experiences precede reality, I doubt that. As far as reality is concerned, chemical interactions between light and proteins occur and are demonstrable and measurable, and they are the direct cause of stimuli for our vision (yes, they're the direct cause, there are problems that can occur along the way as it's transduced). Now, the brain does summation, AND the brain can even be WRONG about the stimuli. But at least we can tell WHEN it's correct or incorrect because we actually can measure and demonstrate the corresponding physical mechanisms for them. Similar experiences occur through different stimuli (light versus drugs which give you the feeling of visible light) but some stimuli may be real, the other may be "in your head" now, which one is real, or rather can we index the stimuli to show which ones occur from reality as we call it (in this case I've been referring to external light hitting photoreceptors) versus which is real chemical interactions in your brain giving you perceptions that AREN'T part of the same external reality? Is this distinction proper to you Bodhi? Care to actually comment on my content besides throw out a link and stroke yourself? (Feel free to add that to the list of funny insults thrown at you, but you've earned it I'm sure you agree)

I don't care if you want to call it naive realism or whatever. I think what you don't like about naive realism is this:

We perceive them as they really are.

But that's a guess, because again Bodhi you are so devoid of offering thought or content that I can't even tell if you know what naive realism is. All I can tell is that you can link the page, but you don't seem to address its content, which is part of your failure in communicating your point.

I don't advocate that our perceptions are what really is reality, but at the very least we're just a probe of reality, from receptor to brain, all based on chemistry. Which is why I don't get HOW you guys completely skip the problem that our brain is just summating stimuli which occurs FROM real world stimuli (brain summates stimuli from chemical reactions of opsins, which occurs from an external source from your brain). It can even summate stimuli NOT from the real world, drugs or brain damage give you a false perception (and here's where me and yy2 butt heads) it's false IF you want to claim that the perception represents the same visual stimuli you get from reality, which I'm saying you don't have. Graphemes may give different color perceptions to a synesthetic, but if it's drawn in graphite, then it reflects dark charcoal colors, not green/orange, ESPECIALLY if the color changes occur due to shapes of grapheme. If you are seeing colors like than, then you have a false perception of what you're seeing. I don't think this is arbitrary either.

So what, I guess I'm saying that our brains DO transduce reality? I dunno, I'm starting to think the ability to communicate this has been problematic.

[Jonesboy]

Not really, you can pretend that they are, but there is no way to tell the difference. For us, we could all be godthought, butterfly dreams, dancing energy and BIVs. The end result is teh same no matter what.

You can suppose that there are differences, but there would be no way to tell.

So how could you tell, this is an idea that many have rejected but those who ponder will understand.

Thanks to HammeGK for this understanding.

You can argue but there is no way to tell the two apart, yet it could be that the Great Mind manifests as 'material objects', idealists often speculate that there would be a difference. Many materialists disagree until they ponder it.

But this is just speculation...

I do know the difference. Material objects can be hidden, and other objects, like colours and sounds, cannot be hidden, they only vanish and appear.

[Jonesboy]

You didn't answer my question.

And no, nothing you post has anything to do with science, nor does it demonstrate even a basic understanding of either the scientific method or contemporary scientific work.

Nor is this "skepticism" on your part.

Skepticism means basing your conclusions on evidence.

What you're doing is certainly not being skeptical of science.

Rather, it is attempting to posit non-scientific ideas as alternatives to science.

And yes, it all reeks of New Age.

How does a skeptic find evidence for colour?

[Jonesboy]

Are you saying that trees are sentient?



Yes, you can - and do! Boy, do you - talk about it, but apparently you can't do so coherently or with any idea of communicating to someone else.

woof

[Jonesboy]

It is and it isn't "down to us".

The way we "carve up" reality depends on two things: (1) the properties of the external reality, and (2) the properties of our brains/bodies.

We do not have an arbitrary level of freedom.


We are completely free in the way we carve up the wporld. SCientoists are doing it all the time.

[Jonesboy]

What do you meant it "can't be found anywhere"? If that were true, it wouldn't exist.

The "sound" is the result of an interaction between movements in air (or water, or wood, or whatever) and the physical apparatus of your body.

Of course it can be spatially located.

Sooner or later the skeptic must come to grips with perceptions.

[Jonesboy]

I selected the instruments when I bought them. This is a concept that Jonesboy will find hard to understand.

so why didn't you select the kerbstone?

I will tell you.

It is because you already had a template in your head of what counts as an instrument, and an instrument that you like. The instrument never selected itself.

[Jonesboy]

Pick it up and move it! Its boundaries relative to the rest of the world are immediately apparent without ever touching on its function or its reason for being there.


Yes but by doing that you are appealing to a similar model of a TV that the alien holds.

So, why wouldn't the alien think that you were mad or that your "TV" was broken because you did not include the carpet?

[dafydd]

I see Jonesboy is posting on the drip again. Surely a genius would have worked out how to multi-quote by now.

[Jonesboy]

Thank you, but you seem to define color, sound, nervous system, mind in such a way as to produce the result you would like -- either toward some form of property dualism or idealism.

To a physicalist, both sound/color/etc. and nervous system are physical -- so there is no issue in their interaction and interaction is not simply a reference to metaphor.


Physicalists speak of physical 'things' that act in the world and part of that action is interaction between two physical 'things'. The deeper insight is that those physical 'things' are themselves actions or interactions. We do not have a proper definition of 'energy'.

If you want to speak about interaction between the physical and non-physical, perhaps you could provide a mechanism? How do such things happen? Isn't interaction defined in physical terms and so impossible for the non-physical? I've yet to encounter a proper explanation of mind body dualism if that is what you are after, so I would appreciate your explanation if you have one.

As to the physical limits of a TV, properly speaking there is no precise physical limit when examined at an extremely small scale. At the scale in which we carry out our daily lives the physical limit, for vision, is created by edge detectors that begin their processing in the retina and carry on their processing in our brains. That aspect of object/ground distinction does not depend on language or the concept of function. The function of the TV produces another aspect of how we distinguish such an object from others that surround it, though.

But we can still define objects that serve one function in one setting as performing another function in another setting. That, in itself, should tell you that defining the function of an object is not the sine qua non of determining what is and what is not an object. We already saw the rock as different from its background because of those edge detectors (and other processing) before we ever decided to define its function as a table.

And, just to drive the point home, a physicalist views the 'mental' processes involved in all those perceptions as physical and not non-physical.

I wasn't arguing for or against the idea that material objects or our understanding of them is only approximate. I was arguing that are none, that material objects are objects drawn upon materiality by our own templates, templates like a TV. These templates aren't found in materiality.
And some objects don't have materiality. Like colours and sounds.

[Jonesboy]

If there are no material objects what is Jonesboy using to post here?

THERE ARE MATERIAL OBJECTS.

But their status as objects is not a material property or is not identified materially. It's about how we carve up the phrase "material objects".

[dafydd]

I don't suppose that I am missing much.

[Jonesboy]

I see Jonesboy is posting on the drip again. Surely a genius would have worked out how to multi-quote by now.

I have tried. Multiquoting does not work.

[Jonesboy]

That is patently ridiculous. The TV has dimensions that are the same for everybody, even robots. Please step into reality, or peddle your elementary school philosophy somewhere else.



Nonsense.

But my question is, how is it decided when and where to stop measuring? I will tell you. You decide to stop measuring because you have an idea in your head about what sort of an object you expect a TV to be. There is no TV out there that informs you of this idea.

[Jonesboy]

And, if you take this to its last consequences, you cant talk about "physical limits", or "sentient creatures", because both are constructions.

Yes.
but the curious thing is that life-forms seem to be the only objects that are self-defining.

[Jonesboy]

Yes, you claim to be a chemist who has synthsized novel compounds. No special training or knowledge needed for that. All you need is common sense. :rolleyes:

ferd

That's right. If you notice crystals forming in the sink when you throw the waste liquids away, you might suddenly hit upon a new method of purification.

[Jonesboy]

It's all a construction--all definitions are arbitrary, attempts to define a universe as yet beyond our comprehension. Time is a direction, consciousness is an illusion, and everything is just weird vibrations whacking against each other.
But none of that changes the reality of what is being defined. The Buddhists nailed this in the BCs--there are two truths. One for contemplating the idea of a rock and the nature of self, and one for responding when yourself is about to get hit with a rock.

Definitions aren't arbitrary...sorry to keep disagreeing with everyone here...
Definitions are words in the shared public domain, with shared meaning. The only thing that is arbitrary about them is the sign we hook our meanings up to. Time is an illusion, consciousness creates objects, and nothing is weird.

[Jonesboy]

Shorter Jonesboy:

"Words mean what I want them to mean, nothing more, nothing less."

Words are in the public domain.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy View Post
EVERYTHING has recognizably distinct properties. What you have to say is why you chose THESE particular properties. The properties themselves don't choose themselves for you.

I chose them because they are the ones that make a difference for me. An object may have other properties, which I ignore, or are unaware of, because they appear to have no bearing on my relationship to the object.

Hans

Yes, and the "object" you refer to is itself assembled from the particular properties that you have chosen.

[bruto]

Yes but by doing that you are appealing to a similar model of a TV that the alien holds.

So, why wouldn't the alien think that you were mad or that your "TV" was broken because you did not include the carpet? Seeing objects as part of a set doesn't mean the objects cease to exist in their own right. A place setting is broken if you take away the fork, but the fork and the knife are not a single object. You can break the knife in half and it becomes two objects, too, neither of them a knife any more. Whether or not the alien sees the TV and the carpet as conjoined or functioning together, they are separable. You don't need any model of function to perceive that two things exist independently of each other.

[bruto]

I have tried. Multiquoting does not work.Yes it does.

[yy2bggggs]

Yup, but I'm not talking directly about all the photons I'm talking about the light reflected from the apple, a particular photons of a particular wavelength being reflected off the apple and hitting our photoreceptors. I don't understand how that is being understood the way you're thinking it is, that I refer to spectroscopic wavelength in the singular.
It's because at a minimum, you're using the wrong words, and the wrong example. Spectroscopy studies the effects of material on spectral distributions, which is not a single wavelength. A prism might be used as a spectroscope, and if you're performing a spectroscopic study, you'd be looking for something like the missing bands in the spectrum, or the bands that are present in the spectrum. The adjective "spectroscopic" clashes when you try to use it to modify the singular noun "wavelength"; wavelength per se sounds fine, but spectroscopic wavelength sounds wrong already.

This is compounded by your example, where you're talking about the wavelength (singular) of the light coming from an apple; in particular, in a context in which you're explaining why that apple is green. I can assure you that no normal apple is green because it emits 500nm wavelength photons... I would put my money that any natural apple you yourself choose, under any sort of normal lighting conditions, will be reflecting light pretty much all across the visible spectrum.

If you're simply oversimplifying it, then you're not only cutting corners in a specific way that favors your viewpoint that you need not refer to a reference brain or similar criteria; but you're cutting corners in such a way that only the inaccuracies supports this view.
I brought up the color wheel mostly because you proposed (or rather implied) that there is a dilemma to the color "blue" versus 460nm and 461nm and I am just saying you have the same problem with a color wheel too. That's all.
But I don't try to use color as spectroscopy, nor do I use 19th century color models.
As for naive realism, I really think you're trying to label me that and I just think you're wrong =\ if naive realism were summed up as "needing reference brains for meaning" then the wikipedia page for it is wrong.
I summed up naive realism for you in a previous post--that's not what it means. Naive realism is the notion that our perceptions somehow measure the world directly as it really is. This is precisely the point of our disagreement--I say that there's no way you can say that a particular color that we see is the "wrong" color, without referencing at least some sort of criteria for wrong. The only opposing view I can think of, is that "just wrong" simply means "not seeing the light the way it is 'supposed' to be seen", which looks pretty much like your objection.
Cute exercise, but all you're saying is that your perception is consistently correct for all the wrong reasons mechanistically.
No, quite the opposite. I'm saying that if my perceptions are consistent, and they correlate to a particular pattern, and that pattern is where the meanings lie, then they are ipso facto right.

You are saying, if I'm not mistaken, that the perceptions are only right if I have the right one when I look at a particular stimulus. That's entirely different from saying that the perceptions are right if they're merely consistent and they correlate.
Alright, I don't know how else I can try to explain this because I agree with most of what you say, you don't seem to address it. Okay we'll have a million dollar contest. Photons are reflected off an object at 510nm. If I'm up there, I'd call it green. Do 490nm and it'd be more blue. I'd win a million dollars.

if someone else went up there, received the same stimulus of 510nm and 490nm and called them red, which is NOT the wavelength of light consistent with green or blue, then they'd NOT win a million dollars.
Well, again, the problem here is quite the reverse--you're working in an artificial world that favors your viewpoint; and that artificial world that favors your viewpoint is in all relevant ways a complete fiction. The real world is nothing like that.

If you take a real, genuine green apple and put it in front of me, and that apple is only reflecting light at 500nm, then I can pretty much guarantee you that the entire environment is lit with a monochromatic light source with photons of 500nm. Under this light source, everything appears to either be green, or a shade of green, or black--no matter what color it "really is".

Introduce realistic light sources, and you're forced to contend with the reality that color vision in us humans is a feature of the way us humans are built, which is precisely my point. You have to face the fact that there are spectra that our trichromatic makeup simply cannot distinguish. You have to realize that there's no such thing as a reference light source; that materials of different compositions actually change colors relative to each other simply by going from one light source to another. Or, you have to talk about colors in a context in which it has nothing to do with anything we give color names to.

Or you simply have to invent something that nobody uses.
Now I understand that you'd call this naive realism, but I doubt that's really what naive realism is because I understand that the brain generates a perception, which may be accurate to reality,
But there it is again; in the same sentence in which you tell me that you don't think this is naive realism, you are telling me that there is such a thing as a perception that is "accurate to reality".

There is no such thing. There may be perceptions that correlate well with how "normal" people perceive things; and there may be perceptions that correlate to a particular pattern reflected in reality. But the perception is never the same thing as the reality, and as such, it is meaningless to say that a given perception is the "proper percept" of reality.

The perception doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the correlations; if whatever I perceive, I am capable of judging to be the same in whatever particular way the concept you're describing demands the objects to be the same.

If a Z is a particular shape, and I perceive it to be a grapheme, I have to be able to recognize that it's the same category of graphemes when you show me a "different Z that is nonetheless still a Z". Whether I see it simply as a grapheme, or as a grapheme with a tinge of color in my "mind's eye", shouldn't matter--at least in principle. In practice, it does matter, because we're a lot faster in color judgments than shape judgements; and, as a result, color-grapheme synesthetes have an advantage when it comes to tasks of this nature. (So whose brain is the broken one again?)
and probably should be only because the chemistry of opsins and the chemistry of the pigments IS consistent. There is nothing mechanistically that should change color all the way up until you hit the brain.
Not exactly. Before that signal even leaves your eye to travel up the optic nerve, ganglial cells combine the signals between the cones from the various photopsins into the opponent color channels. Furthermore, our eyes are not exactly RGB displays either--blue signals are fairly weak since S cones are few and far between (or, as in the case of our foveolas, entirely absent). So if you've got a cable hooked up to the optic nerve before it reaches the brain for processing and you somehow manage to actually find the pixels and decode them, you have to do a lot of work that requires specific knowledge of the layout of the eye in order to reconstruct a reasonable color facsimile of the image on the retina. (Incidentally, you shouldn't say "opsins and pigments"--color vision in humans doesn't use color filters; the opsins themselves probabilistically photoisomerize according to their respective chemical makeups and the frequency of the photon that hits them; should you want to refer to the opsins themselves, that would be sufficient).

[Craig4]

But my question is, how is it decided when and where to stop measuring? I will tell you. You decide to stop measuring because you have an idea in your head about what sort of an object you expect a TV to be. There is no TV out there that informs you of this idea.

What's the application for thinking of the TV this way?

[Ron_Tomkins]

THERE ARE MATERIAL OBJECTS.

But their status as objects is not a material property or is not identified materially. It's about how we carve up the phrase "material objects".

So in other words: "Yes, there are material objects but they're not really material. "Material" is just a word we made up"

That was my best shot at trying to make sense of what you said.

[JoeBentley]

Okay so basically the entire thread has been Jonesboy finally realizing that language is a human made construct and acting as if he made the the philosphical discovery of the epoc because of it?

"Guys! Guys! You aren't going to believe this! Guess what I've just discovered! You know that sounds and markings we use to describe things? We made them all up! That's right a bunch of people made them all up! They weren't inscribed into the very nuclei of atoms at the big bang like I thought they were! Words are just things people made up to describe things.

This changes everything!"

*Dryly* Wow Jonesboy that's quite the Paradigm Shift you've got there. Better publish it before someone else thinks of it.

[Lowpro]

It's because at a minimum, you're using the wrong words, and the wrong example. Spectroscopy studies the effects of material on spectral distributions, which is not a single wavelength. A prism might be used as a spectroscope, and if you're performing a spectroscopic study, you'd be looking for something like the missing bands in the spectrum, or the bands that are present in the spectrum. The adjective "spectroscopic" clashes when you try to use it to modify the singular noun "wavelength"; wavelength per se sounds fine, but spectroscopic wavelength sounds wrong already.

This is compounded by your example, where you're talking about the wavelength (singular) of the light coming from an apple; in particular, in a context in which you're explaining why that apple is green. I can assure you that no normal apple is green because it emits 500nm wavelength photons... I would put my money that any natural apple you yourself choose, under any sort of normal lighting conditions, will be reflecting light pretty much all across the visible spectrum.

If you're simply oversimplifying it, then you're not only cutting corners in a specific way that favors your viewpoint that you need not refer to a reference brain or similar criteria; but you're cutting corners in such a way that only the inaccuracies supports this view.

Alright I'm really starting to miss something with what you're saying here. I need to ask questions and stop making assertions it seems.

If I get an apple, and that sucker has the pigments (whatever conjugated chemistry they are) it's going to absorb and reflect parts of visible light. In this case I would say it reflects green light (~510nm), a piece of all visible light. Now, what am I missing by stating many times that this piece of light travels and hits your photoreceptors which are sensitive to this wavelength* and transduce it to your brain did I miss?

*By the way, I don't mean that this wavelength is singular, I just haven't willed myself to go find a good lambda to copy/paste. And I use 460, 510nm because those incidentally are the wavelengths I test for in spectroscopy and OD; they're the first numbers that pop in my head so I just run with em in conversation. I don't mean to imply they are the ONLY singular wavelength that gets reflected though. I should keep a lambda around somewhere...

Now if we want to get technical (and maybe this is important) there's probably more than one particular pigment/chemical reflecting that light and it gets summated as the green we see, but it occurs because there's still a photon coming in and hitting the photoreceptors.

Naive realism is the notion that our perceptions somehow measure the world directly as it really is. This is precisely the point of our disagreement--I say that there's no way you can say that a particular color that we see is the "wrong" color, without referencing at least some sort of criteria for wrong. The only opposing view I can think of, is that "just wrong" simply means "not seeing the light the way it is 'supposed' to be seen", which looks pretty much like your objection.

Well now reading that, I agree with most all of this. I've been saying that seeing color without a corresponding photon is "wrong" but I guess that's an arbitrary thing then. I might as well call it "consistently mechanistically wrong" if the assumption is made that what you're claiming to see needs to come from something providing the proper photons to be seen.

Remember, this all started because Bodhi said (paraphrased and possibly out of context, I can't remember and honestly can't be bothered to check it anymore, it doesn't matter if he said it or not) that the guy on acid who was "seeing" things was "just as real" but I said something to the effect of "No".

If the deadhead saw glass spontaneously melt, pour over their shoes, and then their shoes became glass, and said "he saw it" well that's fine, he saw it. I'm not arguing that he saw it. I'm saying what he saw wasn't real. If it was, some laws of physics musta been broken, and LSD doesn't dick with physical laws in reality.

That's where I started, then we got into optical illusions because I called them brain failures.

We've come a long way from that, but mostly it's been an issue of spectroscopic correspondence of photon wavelength with the color correspondence of however the brain summates them (I'll be honest, I have no in depth understanding of how the brain "makes" color but I'm sure it's interesting)

No, quite the opposite. I'm saying that if my perceptions are consistent, and they correlate to a particular pattern, and that pattern is where the meanings lie, then they are ipso facto right.



Sort of like how a color-blind person is consistent in the correlation of their color association (I hope that word works, we haven't used it yet) for red, even if they're missing their red cones so red is really just dark colors, but not red. It's consistent even if the corresponding photons for red aren't perceived.

I understand that actually. Now what I've been trying to say is that this to me doesn't really matter. It's consistent and perceived consistently, but not accurate. If the conjugated chemicals that make a pigment reflect red light don't get picked up that doesn't mean the conjugated chemical isn't there, it means that there's a mechanistic failure (in this case, lacking the photoreceptors) if a color-blind kid were a spectrophotometer, he'd be a broken spectrophotometer.

If you take a real, genuine green apple and put it in front of me, and that apple is only reflecting light at 500nm, then I can pretty much guarantee you that the entire environment is lit with a monochromatic light source with photons of 500nm. Under this light source, everything appears to either be green, or a shade of green, or black--no matter what color it "really is".

Gotta ask the question. Chlorophyll in a well lit room. It's green and you probably (unless your genetics favored the long odds) see it as green. It's this way due to conjugation. It requires light to be green (how else will it reflect it) but you made a good point, that particular light WILL change its color (shading etc) oh NOW I think I see what you are referring to. Question answered...

But there it is again; in the same sentence in which you tell me that you don't think this is naive realism, you are telling me that there is such a thing as a perception that is "accurate to reality".

There is no such thing. There may be perceptions that correlate well with how "normal" people perceive things; and there may be perceptions that correlate to a particular pattern reflected in reality. But the perception is never the same thing as the reality, and as such, it is meaningless to say that a given perception is the "proper percept" of reality.

I'm not saying that there is an immutable proper percept to reality, but there's definitely ways to get FAAAAR away from an accurate percept of reality. LSD will get you FAAAAR from an accurate percept of reality. Seeing colors that don't correspond to the stimulus from your photoreceptors seems to be FAAAAR from an accurate percept of reality. I thought that's what I had been saying. You can even get CLOSER than others to an accurate percept of reality I'm sure.

But is our perception of reality actually reality (that's naive realism, right?) no I don't subscribe to that idea. But I do know that our perceptions are very good, and there is physical evidence to tell us what's the more accurate.

If a Z is a particular shape, and I perceive it to be a grapheme, I have to be able to recognize that it's the same category of graphemes when you show me a "different Z that is nonetheless still a Z". Whether I see it simply as a grapheme, or as a grapheme with a tinge of color in my "mind's eye", shouldn't matter--at least in principle. In practice, it does matter, because we're a lot faster in color judgments than shape judgements; and, as a result, color-grapheme synesthetes have an advantage when it comes to tasks of this nature. (So whose brain is the broken one again?)

Alright so color (shapes, and all the rest) is just a gestalt of what reality is and this is what we call perception (stop me if I am wrong)

Incidentally, you shouldn't say "opsins and pigments"--color vision in humans doesn't use color filters; the opsins themselves probabilistically photoisomerize according to their respective chemical makeups and the frequency of the photon that hits them; should you want to refer to the opsins themselves, that would be sufficient

I didn't mean there are pigments in or around opsins; only that pigments for our apple give us the reflected light that then hits our opsins. But, they are consistent to each other. Pigments reflect their light due to their chemistry, and that light shouldn't change (that's a VERY weak "shouldn't" though, but the changes, if they occur, are explicable and localized only to their structure*) They hit their corresponding opsin which isomerizes to begin stimulus transduction.

*This probably isn't a "true enough" statement as there are things that occur after the light's reflected or transmitted from/through the pigment that may alter it further, but that's just not altogether relevant.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

heh you can drop the attitude guy. Now, I really can't find that summarizing of your view unless it's this:.

Sorry if you find my post disrespectful, and yes you spoted my summary. I might have to rephrase it, but the thing is that, it is a shift in points of view, so, to see it, you have to change your own POV... as a side point, this is why, in general, people rarely reach an agreement in the forums (I mean woo's versus skeptics and the like, their own POV is so persuasive that it is difficult to grasp the other person's POV, and so, the validity of their arguments is only seen partitially. Of course, this is leaving aside validity of arguments, facts, etc).

Now, if you think experiences precede reality, I doubt that.

I didn't say that. All you have are experiences and beliefs, thats all you have and you will ever have. What we call reality is then extrapolated from experiences, we model what we think it is, and then assume that what we think is "how reality really is". Now, something is causing those experiences, that much is correct, and in this sense, such a thing precedes experiences.

As far as reality is concerned, chemical interactions between light and proteins occur and are demonstrable and measurable, and they are the direct cause of stimuli for our vision (yes, they're the direct cause, there are problems that can occur along the way as it's transduced). Now, the brain does summation, AND the brain can even be WRONG about the stimuli.

This is a problem. How can the brain be wrong about the stimuli? Wron in which sense? I believe you said that an altered perception (using drugs for instance) can create wrong experiences. I believe that's not the case, every experience is just that, an experience, and it is as real as other experiences. Now, the world you would be able to draw from those experiences might be usable or not, but that doesn't discard the fact that the experiences are real. Now.. this can be tricky, because there are (at least) two assumptions running simultaneously, one is that what we normally perceive is "how the world really is", and the other that altered perceptions does not reflect "how the world really is". This lead us to naive realism as the background idea.

When someone perceives a spider as a monster, and other as a beautiful creature, are you telling me one of them is wrong and the other is right? This is an important point.

(in this case I've been referring to external light hitting photoreceptors) versus which is real chemical interactions in your brain giving you perceptions that AREN'T part of the same external reality? Is this distinction proper to you Bodhi? Care to actually comment on my content besides throw out a link and stroke yourself? (Feel free to add that to the list of funny insults thrown at you, but you've earned it I'm sure you agree).

"Part if the same external reality" this is a connundrum, and again, it is just a naive version of what is called reality. I know you don't like the links, that's why I have tried to give you better answers this time (sorry, I really don't have that much time to spend it on the forums). Oh and the insults are not against me ;) normally they are for any believers in "the supernatural", I just find it funny that the people using them (most of the times) are obtuse and fanatical in a way that reminds me religious fundamentalists.


I don't care if you want to call it naive realism or whatever. I think what you don't like about naive realism is this:. "we perceive them as they really are"

It is not matter of liking it, it is just the way it is. And yes, that's exactly the point, your perception is a highly biased abstraction of whatever it is "out there".



But that's a guess, because again Bodhi you are so devoid of offering thought or content that I can't even tell if you know what naive realism is. All I can tell is that you can link the page, but you don't seem to address its content, which is part of your failure in communicating your point..

Again, sorry, I don't have the time I would like to have to properly discuss the subject. I pointed you to that page because it is a fairly good resume on why such realism is naive.

So what, I guess I'm saying that our brains DO transduce reality? I dunno, I'm starting to think the ability to communicate this has been problematic.

Yes, but it is nevertheless very interesting to try to communicate :)

[Dancing David]

I do know the difference. Material objects can be hidden, and other objects, like colours and sounds, cannot be hidden, they only vanish and appear.

That makes no sense, I suppose you care to explain and expand yourself?

Do you see better if your pluck out your eye?

[Dancing David]

Sooner or later the skeptic must come to grips with perceptions.

Those which you ignore, sure...

Perceptions are part of the body, they are all part of the apparent monism

[Dancing David]

I wasn't arguing for or against the idea that material objects or our understanding of them is only approximate. I was arguing that are none, that material objects are objects drawn upon materiality by our own templates, templates like a TV. These templates aren't found in materiality.
And some objects don't have materiality. Like colours and sounds.

So do you see better if you pluck out your eye?

i mean really Jonesboy, it is a question from one of the greatest philosophers of all time.

So what is the answer?

[Dancing David]

I have tried. Multiquoting does not work.

First you push the " in a bunch of posts then you push 'quote' in the last post. :)

[Dancing David]

Yes.
but the curious thing is that life-forms seem to be the only objects that are self-defining.

Really, so when was the last time your cup fell through your table?

[Dancing David]

Words are in the public domain.

definitions are idiomatic and self referencing, they are fluid and change on context, the idiom shifts among sub groups.

So when a student of mine five years ago said "My girlfriend is a dime", he meant she is coin valued at 10 cents?

No he meant she is a 'ten'.

[dafydd]

First you push the " in a bunch of posts then you push 'quote' in the last post. :)

That should be simple enough for a self confessed genius.

[Leumas]

I have tried. Multiquoting does not work.


On the bottom right of each post there is a button with the " symbol in it...between the Quote and Reply buttons.

For each post you want to multi-quote press that button. Go through all of them pressing the " button.

When done with all the ones you want go to the bottom of the thread page and find the button that says "Post Reply".

Press that button.

Now you will be in the editor with all the posts you pressed " for in the text all nicely surrounded with [quote] and ready for you to edit etc.

I hope that works for you.

[bruto]

On the bottom right of each post there is a button with the " symbol in it...between the Quote and Reply buttons.

For each post you want to multi-quote press that button. Go through all of them pressing the " button.

When done with all the ones you want go to the bottom of the thread page and find the button that says "Post Reply".

Press that button.

Now you will be in the editor with all the posts you pressed " for in the text all nicely surrounded with {quote} and ready for you to edit etc.

I hope that works for you.You can also hit the multiquote button for all but the last, and use the regular quote button for that.

[dafydd]

deleted

[Ron_Tomkins]

Okay so basically the entire thread has been Jonesboy finally realizing that language is a human made construct and acting as if he made the the philosphical discovery of the epoc because of it?

"Guys! Guys! You aren't going to believe this! Guess what I've just discovered! You know that sounds and markings we use to describe things? We made them all up! That's right a bunch of people made them all up! They weren't inscribed into the very nuclei of atoms at the big bang like I thought they were! Words are just things people made up to describe things.

This changes everything!"

*Dryly* Wow Jonesboy that's quite the Paradigm Shift you've got there. Better publish it before someone else thinks of it.

Yup.
In other words, the OP is a classic example of this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=220314)

[yy2bggggs]

Alright I'm really starting to miss something with what you're saying here. I need to ask questions and stop making assertions it seems.

If I get an apple, and that sucker has the pigments (whatever conjugated chemistry they are) it's going to absorb and reflect parts of visible light. In this case I would say it reflects green light (~510nm), a piece of all visible light. Now, what am I missing by stating many times that this piece of light travels and hits your photoreceptors which are sensitive to this wavelength* and transduce it to your brain did I miss?

*By the way, I don't mean that this wavelength is singular, I just haven't willed myself to go find a good lambda to copy/paste.
Well, first off, you're speaking very, very loosely--way too loosely to even describe the situation properly. Let's just start with a problem statement; imagine it's phrased in the form of a question. "What color is the apple?" Now let's suppose you're building a robot to try to figure out the answer to this question. Your robot is equipped with a detector, and that detector registers 510nm photons coming from the apple. Does your robot then say that the apple must be green?

If so, here's the problem with your robot. Just about every object in nature reflects 510nm photons. Imagine a poor photographer who tries to take a film picture of a scene, but he has the camera set for a much dimmer environment. Well, predictably, his camera will be overexposed; when he develops his film, he's going to find that everything in the photo is white.

Now process that for a second... every thing in the photo is white... why? Because everything is reflecting photons all across the spectrum. That's why your robot will fail. There's a lot more you need to do to your robot than to add a 510nm photon detector.

As an alternate example, suppose you're about to watch a movie using a projector. The screen is white. Now note something significant--projectors cannot erase light... they can only add light. And yet, while the movie plays, you see black objects in it. Think about that as well--somehow, by only adding light, we made a spot on a white projector look black.

When you build your robot, make sure it can figure out what objects are black in a movie projected on a white screen as well.
Sort of like how a color-blind person is consistent in the correlation of their color association (I hope that word works, we haven't used it yet) for red, even if they're missing their red cones so red is really just dark colors, but not red. It's consistent even if the corresponding photons for red aren't perceived.
That's a fair example. Let's suppose Mary is one of those rare tetrachromats rumored to exist. Both of us I presume are trichromats. George is a protanope.

We have objects A, B, C, D, E, and F, all with different spectra. Let's say that A, B, and C are red; D is green; and E and F are blue. Since trichromats like us define what red, green, and blue means, this would imply that you and I can tell which of those six objects are red, which are green, and which are blue by looking at them. Mary can do this just as well as we can. However, even though A, B, and C are all red (and look identical to us), Mary can see that they are in fact different; A and B may look the same to her, but C looks like "the other kind of red" as she might describe it (or "rich red" or some other invented term meant to convey the distinct percept she gets from it).

George cannot tell red from green, but he can play us off each other and figure out that we're not making up the category green. He does this by asking you which of A, B, C, and D are green (he knows enough to know E and F are definitely not green), get your answer, and then independently ask me without telling me you already told him. Since I'm able to independently produce the same answers you produce, then he knows there's a real category of objects called green.

We can do the same test with Mary, though because there's only one of her, we have to settle for a different format. We can shuffle the A, B, and C objects randomly, while having C labeled on the bottom out of sight somehow, to where neither of us knows which is C is but either could figure it out by looking at the bottom label. We can then ask Mary which is the odd one out, and verify her choice. (We can use this same kind of testing to figure out if someone has a psychic sense, speaking of the forum at large).

The ability to distinguish these categories of objects is all perception has to do to be useful; we want to be able to tell that this is the green banana and that that is the yellow one. We learn that green bananas are hard to peel, tough to eat, and not so sweet; and that yellow bananas are easy to peel, soft in the mouth, and nice and sweet. By divining the color of the banana we can get the rewarding properties every time.

Mary might similarly be able to pick out the good avacados.

That's where the real meanings and utility lie. How exactly it's perceived doesn't matter. Now remember this... we have a real percept, and it correlates to some real thing, and that correlation is the measure of the utility of the percept. We still have to figure out what it correlates to and how to exploit it, as well as be able to.
Remember, this all started because Bodhi said (paraphrased and possibly out of context, I can't remember and honestly can't be bothered to check it anymore, it doesn't matter if he said it or not) that the guy on acid who was "seeing" things was "just as real" but I said something to the effect of "No".
I don't have an immediate objection to Bodhi. It is, in fact, true that no matter what we perceive, there is something in reality that correlates to that perception. A different way of phrasing this is to say that all perception is the result of some arrangement of electrochemical processes or some similar real thing. In this sense, all perception is "real".

I don't think Bodhi is saying that dafydd's shoes were made of glass. I think he's just saying that if dafydd perceived his shoes turned into glass, then something in reality must have occurred correlating to that. It could be "all in his head", but even if it is, it might be a useful sort of thing, or might not. It might, for example, be an indicator of a particular psychological trait, or problem. Or it could simply mean that particular neurons somewhere in his head have more receptors that are blocked by the drug. Whatever it is, his perception has some real world correlate, because only the real world causes perception.

It's only when you're stuck on what the perception is "supposed" to correlate to that you run into these sort of issues; if seeing glass shoes is "supposed to" mean that my shoes actually were glass, then the perception doesn't reflect that my shoes actually were glass. This doesn't mean the perception doesn't correlate to reality though; it only means the interpretation doesn't. The perception may still mean that particular neurons in dafydd's head have more receptors to be blocked by the drug, however useful that factoid may be.
I understand that actually. Now what I've been trying to say is that this to me doesn't really matter. It's consistent and perceived consistently, but not accurate.Accuracy in this case is part definition. If we can always identify that A, B, and C are the red objects, then we have a pretty accurate sense of red. But the concept of "red objects" relies on our particular form of trichromaticity. Mary the tetrachromat thinks B and C are different colors. Maybe you can say her perceptions are more accurate, but how would you compare if it so happened that Mary's two additional L clones did not in fact line up to our L cones, and she couldn't reliably pick out the red objects? She can still pick out more colors than we can, and maybe spot useful properties, but would her perceptions then be "less accurate"? (Maybe she cannot tell red from green, meaning she has difficulty finding berries--but she can still pick out ripe bananas just as easy as we can, and can pick out the good avacados from their color unlike us).

As I said, you need to have a criteria here.
Alright so color (shapes, and all the rest) is just a gestalt of what reality is and this is what we call perception (stop me if I am wrong)
Hopefully I answered that above. A perception is "good" if we can correlate the perception in the same way that some external property correlates; if we can pick out the sweet and soft bananas from the sour and hard ones, or if Mary can pick out the ripe avacados from the bad ones.

[Lowpro]

Well, now I wonder how we disagreed in the first place...

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I don't think Bodhi is saying that dafydd's shoes were made of glass. I think he's just saying that if dafydd perceived his shoes turned into glass, then something in reality must have occurred correlating to that. It could be "all in his head", but even if it is, it might be a useful sort of thing, or might not. It might, for example, be an indicator of a particular psychological trait, or problem. Or it could simply mean that particular neurons somewhere in his head have more receptors that are blocked by the drug. Whatever it is, his perception has some real world correlate, because only the real world causes perception.

It's only when you're stuck on what the perception is "supposed" to correlate to that you run into these sort of issues; if seeing glass shoes is "supposed to" mean that my shoes actually were glass, then the perception doesn't reflect that my shoes actually were glass. This doesn't mean the perception doesn't correlate to reality though; it only means the interpretation doesn't. The perception may still mean that particular neurons in dafydd's head have more receptors to be blocked by the drug, however useful that factoid may be.

Yep, that's another way to put it. I might be more radical in the epistemology behind this, but that is irrelevant to the point in case.

[dafydd]

Yep, that's another way to put it. I might be more radical in the epistemology behind this, but that is irrelevant to the point in case.

Why?

[Elizabeth I]

I see Jonesboy is posting on the drip again. Surely a genius would have worked out how to multi-quote by now.

I have tried. Multiquoting does not work.

Yes it does.

Seems to work for most everyone else in the forum.

[dafydd]

Seems to work for most everyone else in the forum.

Maybe Jonesboy isn't big enough to see over the keyboard yet.

[bruto]

Maybe Jonesboy isn't big enough to see over the keyboard yet.Perhaps he just can't find the button. Its boundaries are arbitrary, after all. Perhaps in the world his computer inhabits it's not even there.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Why?

Because what I believe is, in essence, different to what most people believe. In this forum, for instance, full of naive materialists, people believe that supernatural stuff is ridiculous, that using empirical approaches, and letting the "facts talk" it is obvious that the only thing that exists is matter.

In contrast, I believe that we shouldn't go that far, it is not necessary. We don't need a magical "ultimate substance" of any sort. I believe that all we have is a set of systems of thought that matches, with various degrees of certainty, empirical facts. My own one only holds that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules. Here the implications are that matter (and every kind of stuff, like geometries, ideas or the value of a coin), are relational objects that (it can be said) follow sets of rules. If such rules allows us to predict phenomena, then they work as descriptions, but nothing can be said about their ontological status beyond our models. Our theories are, and will always be, just functional descriptions, out of this, nothing should be said.

[dafydd]

Because what I believe is, in essence, different to what most people believe. In this forum, for instance, full of naive materialists, people believe that supernatural stuff is ridiculous, that using empirical approaches, and letting the "facts talk" it is obvious that the only thing that exists is matter.

In contrast, I believe that we shouldn't go that far, it is not necessary. We don't need a magical "ultimate substance" of any sort. I believe that all we have is a set of systems of thought that matches, with various degrees of certainty, empirical facts. My own one only holds that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules. Here the implications are that matter (and every kind of stuff, like geometries, ideas or the value of a coin), are relational objects that (it can be said) follow sets of rules. If such rules allows us to predict phenomena, then they work as descriptions, but nothing can be said about their ontological status beyond our models. Our theories are, and will always be, just functional descriptions, out of this, nothing should be said.

Can I have some dressing for that word salad?

[JoeBentley]

Seriously did Mad Libs release a "Bad First Year Philosophy Student on Weed" addition recently or something?

[Dancing David]

Ah yes, someone asks a person to explain themselves and then they ridicule their opinion.

If you do not care to understand then why do you ask?

I do not always agree with BDZ, as I am a utilitarian and they tend more to phenomenology,

"If such rules allows us to predict phenomena, then they work as descriptions, but nothing can be said about their ontological status beyond our models. Our theories are, and will always be, just functional descriptions"

This phrase is however exact in its terms and usage, and it is correct. If you think that theories are more than just approximate models then you are wrong, there is no way to determine ontology.

So perhaps some people should remember that we all have opinions, just like we all have...

And if you do not understand what BDZ said then perhaps you should think rather than ridicule.

[dafydd]

Ah yes, someone asks a person to explain themselves and then they ridicule their opinion.

If you do not care to understand then why do you ask?

I do not always agree with BDZ, as I am a utilitarian and they tend more to phenomenology,

"If such rules allows us to predict phenomena, then they work as descriptions, but nothing can be said about their ontological status beyond our models. Our theories are, and will always be, just functional descriptions"

This phrase is however exact in its terms and usage, and it is correct. If you think that theories are more than just approximate models then you are wrong, there is no way to determine ontology.

So perhaps some people should remember that we all have opinions, just like we all have...

And if you do not understand what BDZ said then perhaps you should think rather than ridicule.

'I'm the same as you mate, I don't really know' would have been a more succinct statement by BZN. No need to break out the thesaurus.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This phrase is however exact in its terms and usage, and it is correct. If you think that theories are more than just approximate models then you are wrong, there is no way to determine ontology.

So perhaps some people should remember that we all have opinions, just like we all have...

And if you do not understand what BDZ said then perhaps you should think rather than ridicule.

Indeed. What is sad about this, is that the JREF is supposed to be full of critical thinkers and skeptics. On the other hand, it is interesting to see the results when they are confronted by something they can't trash like beliefs in supernatural stuff, and can't also tackle using reason. Oh well, at least this time the answers are hilarious :)

[dafydd]

Indeed. What is sad about this, is that the JREF is supposed to be full of critical thinkers and skeptics. On the other hand, it is interesting to see the results when they are confronted by something they can't trash like beliefs in supernatural stuff, and can't also tackle using reason. Oh well, at least this time the answers are hilarious :)

Goodbye. Enjoy your King's New Clothes, they suit you.

[Elizabeth I]

Ah yes, someone asks a person to explain themselves and then they ridicule their opinion.

If you do not care to understand then why do you ask?

I do not always agree with BDZ, as I am a utilitarian and they tend more to phenomenology,

"If such rules allows us to predict phenomena, then they work as descriptions, but nothing can be said about their ontological status beyond our models. Our theories are, and will always be, just functional descriptions"

This phrase is however exact in its terms and usage, and it is correct. If you think that theories are more than just approximate models then you are wrong, there is no way to determine ontology.

So perhaps some people should remember that we all have opinions, just like we all have...

And if you do not understand what BDZ said then perhaps you should think rather than ridicule.

Indeed. What is sad about this, is that the JREF is supposed to be full of critical thinkers and skeptics. On the other hand, it is interesting to see the results when they are confronted by something they can't trash like beliefs in supernatural stuff, and can't also tackle using reason. Oh well, at least this time the answers are hilarious :)

You are both ignoring the possibility that people understood the post perfectly well, but just think it's silly.

[Xero]

You really should not stop taking your meds jonesboy, all you do is embarrass yourself. :)

[tsig]

You are both ignoring the possibility that people understood the post perfectly well, but just think it's silly.

It's apparently impossible to say something so stupid that someone else won't think it's profound.

[dafydd]

You are both ignoring the possibility that people understood the post perfectly well, but just think it's silly.

Or just sesquipedelian.

[dafydd]

Theories of objective experience are nothing more than cultural constructs related to cognitive viability. Knowledge can be stripped of its metaphysics thus providing a framework for phenomena that have no counterpart in orthodox descriptions of reality. Intrinsic causuality incoprporates indwelling realities which appear as metaphorical templates,thus negating logical models of conciousness.

[dlorde]

Theories of objective experience are nothing more than cultural constructs related to cognitive viability. Knowledge can be stripped of its metaphysics thus providing a framework for phenomena that have no counterpart in orthodox descriptions of reality. Intrinsic causuality incoprporates indwelling realities which appear as metaphorical templates,thus negating logical models of conciousness.

How true... our a-posteriori concepts are a representation of the real phenomena, yet our judgements of them constitute the whole content for metaphysics; the unity of our apperception relies on the paralogisms of natural reason. However, metaphorical templates are only modalities of separated modes of consciousness. Consciousness becomes adjusted to noetic acts, and the predominant task of uncovering noetic acts by conscious conversion into the corresponding multiplicities of the whole of conscious life is ongoing.

I particularly like how its reflexive irony highlights the OP's unstated but fundamental similarity to random philosophy generation (http://www.tandj.net/~jpoirier/little_hacks/kant/) :p

[dafydd]

deleted

[dafydd]

How true... our a-posteriori concepts are a representation of the real phenomena, yet our judgements of them constitute the whole content for metaphysics; the unity of our apperception relies on the paralogisms of natural reason. However, metaphorical templates are only modalities of separated modes of consciousness. Consciousness becomes adjusted to noetic acts, and the predominant task of uncovering noetic acts by conscious conversion into the corresponding multiplicities of the whole of conscious life is ongoing.



You're darn tootin'! Yet how can a constructivist view of deconstructionism be maintained in an epiphenomenalistic universe? This is a fertile field of study, but paradoxically it is a sterile form of fertiltity, allowing non-cognitive, quasi-realistic reasoning.

[Elizabeth I]

Or just sesquipedelian.

That too.

[dafydd]

Some Geese Oliver Hertford


Every child who has the use
Of his senses knows a goose.
See them underneath the tree
Gather round the goose-girl's knee,
While she reads them by the hour
From the works of Schopenhauer.

How patiently the geese attend!
But do they really comprehend
What Schopenhauer's driving at?
Oh, not at all; but what of that?
Neither do I; neither does she;
And, for that matter, nor does he.

[dafydd]

And if you do not understand what BDZ said then perhaps you should think rather than ridicule.

Enough thinking for the time being. More word salads available on request.

[dlorde]

Yet how can a constructivist view of deconstructionism be maintained in an epiphenomenalistic universe?
Ah, the eternal question... I hesitate to admit I don't know, for fear that admitting that lack of knowledge will be taken as evidence of a deeper wisdom.

[dafydd]

Ah, the eternal question... I hesitate to admit I don't know, for fear that admitting that lack of knowledge will be taken as evidence of a deeper wisdom.

Or, the FSM forbid, that we are capable of demonstrating rational thought. After all, one only has a propensity toward ridicule. This stems from never having perused a philosophy book in one's life.

[punshhh]

You're darn tootin'! Yet how can a constructivist view of deconstructionism be maintained in an epiphenomenalistic universe? This is a fertile field of study, but paradoxically it is a sterile form of fertiltity, allowing non-cognitive, quasi-realistic reasoning.

Gibberish!

[dafydd]

Gibberish!

Gordon Bennett, I don't believe it! LOL and yet more LOL. It was meant to be gibberish. Do try and keep up.

[Elizabeth I]

Gibberish!

Gordon Bennett, I don't believe it! LOL and yet more LOL. It was meant to be gibberish. Do try and keep up.

And more, it was meant to be gibberish for a specific reason. Punshhh, can you guess what that reason might be?

[dafydd]

And more, it was meant to be gibberish for a specific reason. Punshhh, can you guess what that reason might be?

Give him time for the penny to drop.

[yy2bggggs]

And more, it was meant to be gibberish for a specific reason. Punshhh, can you guess what that reason might be?
I'd like to know what that reason is.

[dafydd]

I'd like to know what that reason is.

The reason? Making word salads is easy. Being accused of not being able to think figures heavily too.

[yy2bggggs]

The reason? Making word salads is easy.Okay, sure. Making word salads is easy. So, what's the specific reason for your gibberish then? Are you trying to prove by example that making word salads is easy?

If so, who are you proving it to, and why? Did someone make a claim that it's difficult to make word salads?
Being accused of not being able to think figures heavily too.
I don't understand this either. Could you please connect how it relates to the above posts? In particular, what is this figuring heavily into?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Look ma, I don't get it, so I'm sure its just the product of a random word generator"....

So, just because there is a bunch of you, clapping your hands all together, then you are right? :rolleyes:

[tsig]

"Look ma, I don't get it, so I'm sure its just the product of a random word generator"....

So, just because there is a bunch of you, clapping your hands all together, then you are right? :rolleyes:

Are you trying to make an argument here?

[dafydd]

Are you trying to make an argument here?

It doesn't look like it. I am not clapping my hands. Sounds like an overdose of Zen woo.

[dafydd]

Okay, sure. Making word salads is easy. So, what's the specific reason for your gibberish then? Are you trying to prove by example that making word salads is easy?

If so, who are you proving it to, and why? Did someone make a claim that it's difficult to make word salads?

I don't understand this either. Could you please connect how it relates to the above posts? In particular, what is this figuring heavily into?

I pointed out that Dancing David posted a sesquipedal word salad and I was accused of not being able to think. It that good enough for you or do I have to couch it in polysyllabic words? To get back on topic, are we all agreed that there are material objects?

[yy2bggggs]

I pointed out that Dancing David posted a sesquipedal word salad and I was accused of not being able to think.
Then I'm missing something. I thought this started when in post #343 you accused Bhodi Dharma Zen of a word salad in post #342.

Could you use post numbers, and explain to me what point you're trying to make? For starters, could you please phrase very clearly what it is people are doing wrong along the way?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Are you trying to make an argument here?

The arguments have been presented, followed by a cascade of, jokes from other members. If you are interested, please comment on the arguments, I would be glad to have a nice discussion.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It doesn't look like it. I am not clapping my hands. Sounds like an overdose of Zen woo.

Whats exactly the "woo" in Zen?

It is just than you and a bunch of other members, appear to have zero understanding about what is a philosophical discussion, calling it a "word salad".

[Twiler]

Whats exactly the "woo" in Zen?

It is just than you and a bunch of other members, appear to have zero understanding about what is a philosophical discussion, calling it a "word salad".

I think dafydd meant woo of the Zen variety, not the woo of Zen.

[Dancing David]

You are both ignoring the possibility that people understood the post perfectly well, but just think it's silly.

Sometimes true statements are silly, as stated I disagree with BDZ on this issue, however I can not assert that an ontology is true.

[dafydd]

I think dafydd meant woo of the Zen variety, not the woo of Zen.

I've lost interest in this. Semantics bore me. I have a life to get on with.

[Dancing David]

I pointed out that Dancing David posted a sesquipedal word salad and I was accused of not being able to think. It that good enough for you or do I have to couch it in polysyllabic words? To get back on topic, are we all agreed that there are material objects?

No I suggested that you should consider what BDZ wrote, I did not post a word salad at this juncture.

Now what BDZ says is true, ontology is not possible to determine.

My POV is that it is moot, and therefore we can go with appearances, regardless of the phenomenology. So while it may be godthought, butterfly dreams, dancing energy or BIVs, the end result is the same.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

No I suggested that you should consider what BDZ wrote, I did not post a word salad at this juncture.

Now what BDZ says is true, ontology is not possible to determine.

My POV is that it is moot, and therefore we can go with appearances, regardless of the phenomenology. So while it may be godthought, butterfly dreams, dancing energy or BIVs, the end result is the same.

Absolutely, what matters is the regularity of "whatever it is beyond our concepts". Instrumentalism, in this sense, is an interesting approach. We shall also remember that in the everyday life this topics are irrelevant.

[punshhh]

Gordon Bennett, I don't believe it! LOL and yet more LOL. It was meant to be gibberish. Do try and keep up.

If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and has a beak its gibberish. What ever reason you give to say its not a duck.

[punshhh]

Whats exactly the "woo" in Zen?

It is just than you and a bunch of other members, appear to have zero understanding about what is a philosophical discussion, calling it a "word salad".

Woo Zen, like all the other woos are are any ideas which don't fit the skeptical/critical thinking remit.

You just have to ignore the woo skeptics and look for the posters who are actually interested in a discussion.

[dafydd]

If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and has a beak its gibberish. What ever reason you give to say its not a duck.

It's 'It's'. That was deliberate gibberish on my part. Post some of my alleged gibberish from another thread. And once again you miss getting the point by a country mile.

[dafydd]

Woo Zen, like all the other woos are are any ideas which don't fit the skeptical/critical thinking remit.

You just have to ignore the woo skeptics and look for the posters who are actually interested in a discussion.

The discussion would have to include a thing called proof. Mystics don't do proof.

[punshhh]

My POV is that it is moot, and therefore we can go with appearances, regardless of the phenomenology. So while it may be godthought, butterfly dreams, dancing energy or BIVs, the end result is the same.

Not necessarily.

[punshhh]

It's 'It's'. And once again you miss getting the point by a country mile.
Given the state of my back today it would take me an infinite time to walk/waddle a country mile.

[Andrew Wiggin]

The flsshlight of enlightnement is my phrase, usually when I am rude and accuse people of casing into it

I'm not sure the fleshlight offers much in terms of enlightenment. (I'm not posting a link from work. You can do your own googling, if you need to)

[dafydd]

What does 'casing into it' mean?

[Dancing David]

Not necessarily.

So how would you tell the difference?

The end result is the same.

[Dancing David]

What does 'casing into it' mean?
It was meant to be gazing, I was typing too fast at work.

BTW where is my alleged word salad?

:D

[punshhh]

The discussion would have to include a thing called proof. Mystics don't do proof.

Proof is a rare beast outside maths.

[dafydd]

It was meant to be gazing, I was typing too fast at work.

BTW where is my alleged word salad?

:D

One page back, and dis-ingenuousness does not suit you.

[dafydd]

Proof is a rare beast outside maths.

No. I can prove that an uncloudy daytime sky is blue by looking out of the window. I can prove that I can play the guitar by strumming a tune. There is no proof of the paranormal. Campfire stories are not proof no matter how many women look at you through a window.

[yy2bggggs]

One page back, and dis-ingenuousness does not suit you.
Post number?

[dafydd]

Post number?

Come off it, you all know which post it was.

[Dancing David]

One page back, and dis-ingenuousness does not suit you.

Neither is your false claim that I made a word salad.

[Dancing David]

Come off it, you all know which post it was.

Psst, it wasn't me.

[yy2bggggs]

Come off it, you all know which post it was.
First, I am not "you all", I am just me. Second, I don't waste posts.

I suspect you're confused about the history, and are being defensive; either that, or I missed something. Either way, I certainly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

No. I can prove that an uncloudy daytime sky is blue by looking out of the window. I can prove that I can play the guitar by strumming a tune. There is no proof of the paranormal. Campfire stories are not proof no matter how many women look at you through a window.

And so, you now claim that Zen is "paranormal"? Excuse me for asking, have you grasped what Zen is about? You accuse people of making word salads when you don't understand, and everything indicates you are lost about what Zen is.

[punshhh]

Neither is your false claim that I made a word salad.

I wonder if gibberish is an ingredient of word salad?

[punshhh]

So how would you tell the difference?

The end result is the same.

Yes the end result we are a part of is the same as far as we can determine.

However in reality it is likely to be entirely different or impossible and using the intellect in a logical reductionist/scientific way renders it impossible to determine.

And yet there are other approaches to a true ontology. Of course they all fall into the category of woo here.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

However in reality it is likely to be entirely different or impossible and using the intellect in a logical reductionist/scientific way renders it impossible to determine.

And yet there are other approaches to a true ontology. Of course they all fall into the category of woo here.

What you mean by "true ontology"?

[dafydd]

And yet there are other approaches to a true ontology. Of course they all fall into the category of woo here.

Everywhere else too. So there is only one true specification of a conceptualization?

[dafydd]

I wonder if gibberish is an ingredient of word salad?

You ought to know. After all you coined the phrase 'behind the event horizon of the formless', a prime example of gibberish.

[dafydd]

deleted

[Twiler]

And so, you now claim that Zen is "paranormal"? Excuse me for asking, have you grasped what Zen is about? You accuse people of making word salads when you don't understand, and everything indicates you are lost about what Zen is.

I thought everyone was lost about what Zen was. I thought that was the whole point.

[dafydd]

I thought everyone was lost about what Zen was. I thought that was the whole point.

It's a Japanese way of wasting time.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It's a Japanese way of wasting time.

er... ok

:rolleyes:

I will make aguess, you are one of those individuals who believe that if you can't see the point, then its absurd... Interesting.

[punshhh]

What you mean by "true ontology"?

I am referring to an ontology which is close to the truth* or at least as close as the human mind can get.

You see Bodhi I am a truth seeker, a rare breed on a forum like this;)


*what actually exists and its consequences.

[punshhh]

I thought everyone was lost about what Zen was. I thought that was the whole point.

Maybe skeptics and the like are lost as to what Zen is. There are many who know what it is and practice it with much reward.

[punshhh]

Everywhere else too. So there is only one true specification of a conceptualization?

I don't know if I am on your ignore list yet. But let me give you a hint.

Truth or what the concept of truth refers to has nothing to do with the machinations of the human mind.

[dafydd]

I don't know if I am on your ignore list yet. But let me give you a hint.

Truth or what the concept of truth refers to has nothing to do with the machinations of the human mind.

Truth only exists in the human mind. I doubt that dogs and horses are concerning themselves with it. Where was truth two billion years ago when the main form of life on Earth was stromatolites? While we're here, name one thing that mysticism has done to benefit mankind. You keep dodging this question, mainly because you have no answer. Do we all agree now that there are material objects?

[punshhh]

Truth only exists in the human mind. I doubt that dogs and horses are concerning themselves with it. Where was truth two billion years ago when the main form of life on Earth was stromatolites? While we're here, name one thing that mysticism has done to benefit mankind. You keep dodging this question, mainly because you have no answer. Do we all agree now that there are material objects?

The concept of truth exists in the human mind along with all the other concepts.

The truth is and always was(before humanity evolved) what is true and is an unfathomable mystery for the human mind.

Mysticism has enabled many to adopt a realistic perspective on reality, subsequently impacting their activity in the human world.

Yes there are some material objects, of course no one knows what one is.

[yy2bggggs]

I am referring to an ontology which is close to the truth* or at least as close as the human mind can get.
Truth or what the concept of truth refers to has nothing to do with the machinations of the human mind.
You seem to almost but not quite be aware that truth is a description of reality. To be true, sure, it does have to describe reality. But to be true, it also has to be a description. And descriptions are a property of the human mind. You cannot escape your mind.

I've highlighted two references to the term "human mind" that you made within the span of a few posts presumably describing the same thing. One of them conflicts with the other.
You see Bodhi I am a truth seeker, a rare breed on a forum like this;) This is hubris and rude.
*what actually exists and its consequences.
So, when you tell me about the true ontological nature of water, are your words wet?

[dafydd]

The concept of truth exists in the human mind along with all the other concepts.

The truth is and always was(before humanity evolved) what is true and is an unfathomable mystery for the human mind.

Mysticism has enabled many to adopt a realistic perspective on reality, subsequently impacting their activity in the human world.

Yes there are some material objects, of course no one knows what one is.

Where was truth before life existed on Earth? Truth exists only in the human mind. Name one thing that mysticism has done to benefit mankind? It wasn't mystics who gave you the internet to air your misguided views.

[dafydd]

You see Bodhi I am a truth seeker, a rare breed on a forum like this


This is hubris and rude.

And hilariously funny. Punshh wouldn't recognize the truth even if it jumped up and bit him on the backside. Hubris is misplaced in a man who spells the brake on his car as 'break'.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I am referring to an ontology which is close to the truth* or at least as close as the human mind can get.

You see Bodhi I am a truth seeker, a rare breed on a forum like this;)


*what actually exists and its consequences.

Under which parameters an ontology would be able to be true?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Maybe skeptics and the like are lost as to what Zen is. There are many who know what it is and practice it with much reward.

Indeed. I guess doing yoga, or muay thai, would be also woo for them :rolleyes:

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Do we all agree now that there are material objects?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

[Sideroxylon]

deleted

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Where was truth before life existed on Earth? Truth exists only in the human mind. Name one thing that mysticism has done to benefit mankind? It wasn't mystics who gave you the internet to air your misguided views.

You are being obtuse and ignorant. Read the previous link, maybe, I'm hoping, and eye opener. Hint, a naive materialist is not an skeptic, nor a critical thinker.

[Resume]

Indeed. I guess doing yoga, or muay thai, would be also woo for them :rolleyes:

Stretching is good!

[dafydd]

Stretching is good!

I do Hatha yoga every day. But Siddhis, Chakras and all the Nirvana crap, nah. Fantasies.

Here are some Siddhis

Doorshravan: to hear, sitting at one place, speech from however distant a place.
Dudarshan: to see simultaneously events and things in all the realms.
Manojava: the body can travel at the speed of thought to any place.
Kaamaroopa: to assume any form. Shapeshifting.
Parakayapravesh: ability to enter into another's body, whether they are dead or alive.
Swachchandamrutyu: to die at one's own will, death having no control over one.
Sahakridanudarshanam: to see the sports of gods in heaven and have capacity and prowess to participate in it.
Yathaasamkalpa samsiddhi: to attain whatever is desired.
Ajnaapratihataagatih: whereby one's command and movement have no obstruction
Anima: the reduction of one's form to one atom. Invisibility
Mahima/Garima: the body can be made to be very heavy.
Laghima: the body can be made to be extremely light
Prapti: abilty to acquire objects of sense pertaining to the respective organs.
Prakaashya: to see invisible things in other realms.
Ishitaa: to stimulate bodies and creatures Control of forces of nature.
Vashita: to have control or dominion over the senses.
Yatkamastadavasyati: To obtain joy by willing it so. The cessation of misery and desire. This is considered to be the highest state of bliss

They forgot Conmanama: The ability to get sums of money out of gullible Westerners.

[dafydd]

I would be more impressed by our mystics if they could post here using the mystical internet.

[Resume]

I would be more impressed by our mystics if they could post here using the mystical internet.

They're doing it now. And as you can see, no difference between doing it, and not doing it.

[dafydd]

They're doing it now. And as you can see, no difference between doing it, and not doing it.

And existing and not existing.

[Lowpro]

...
Yatkamastadavasyati: To obtain joy by willing it so. The cessation of misery and desire. This is considered to be the highest state of bliss

They forgot Conmanama: The ability to get sums of money out of gullible Westerners.

All that this "Zen" stuff is is teaching yourself to masturbate without using your hands.

[dafydd]

All that this "Zen" stuff is is teaching yourself to masturbate without using your hands.

That was Jean Cocteau's party trick.

[Dancing David]

Where was truth before life existed on Earth?

Next to the Cosmic Dustpan and Broom.

[dafydd]

Next to the Cosmic Dustpan and Broom.

I'm not familiar with that astrological sign.

[Dancing David]

I'm not familiar with that astrological sign.

They are in the Closet of the Ineffable Form...

[Elizabeth I]

The truth is and always was(before humanity evolved) what is true and is an unfathomable mystery for the human mind.

So the truth is what is true? Why do so many people think tautologies are profound?


Indeed. I guess doing yoga, or muay thai, would be also woo for them :rolleyes:
Doing yoga is fine. Thinking you are straightening out your chakras or unblocking your chi, not so much.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Doing yoga is fine. Thinking you are straightening out your chakras or unblocking your chi, not so much.

Who said it was?

[JoeBentley]

I will make aguess, you are one of those individuals who believe that if you can't see the point, then its absurd... Interesting.

No it makes him (and me) the kind of person that finds things that don't have a point... you know... pointless.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

No it makes him (and me) the kind of person that finds things that don't have a point... you know... pointless.

And so, whats the difference between you, and an inquisitor? There are countless of reasons people actually do things, life is a big thing, and many many things that are pointless for you, like for instance (put inside here whatever else is pointless for you), mean a life for someone else. Grow up, the world is a big place, and every mind is a universe.

[Lowpro]

And so, whats the difference between you, and an inquisitor? There are countless of reasons people actually do things, life is a big thing, and many many things that are pointless for you, like for instance (put inside here whatever else is pointless for you), mean a life for someone else. Grow up, the world is a big place, and every mind is a universe.

And for those who think every mind is a mind?

[punshhh]

Everywhere else too. So there is only one true specification of a conceptualization?

Blinkers Dafydd;)

[punshhh]

Truth only exists in the human mind. I doubt that dogs and horses are concerning themselves with it. Where was truth two billion years ago when the main form of life on Earth was stromatolites? While we're here, name one thing that mysticism has done to benefit mankind. You keep dodging this question, mainly because you have no answer. Do we all agree now that there are material objects?

You are discussing the use of the word truth in its use in language, which is a relative term and has no bearing on the truth of existence or ontologies.

Truth is a word., I'm addressing the truth of existence, its a different thing, or hadn't you realised?

[punshhh]

You seem to almost but not quite be aware that truth is a description of reality. To be true, sure, it does have to describe reality. But to be true, it also has to be a description. And descriptions are a property of the human mind. You cannot escape your mind.When discussing ontology, a true ontology is one which describes, or knows accurately the true nature of existence.

You can escape your human mind, this is a cornerstone of the mystical quest for truth.

I've highlighted two references to the term "human mind" that you made within the span of a few posts presumably describing the same thing. One of them conflicts with the other.They may appear to conflict, perhaps we need to go to a deeper level to determine the difference.
The human mind is capable of intellectually understanding a certain level of truth.
Also the human mind is capable of beholding and knowing a certain level of truth.
The later includes truths which the human mind is not capable of understanding intellectually.

This is hubris and rude.I appologise if it is rude, I remain to be convinced that many people on this forum are seeking truth.

So, when you tell me about the true ontological nature of water, are your words wet?Provided I'm not spitting the words out no. I cannot tell you about the true ontological nature of water as I don't know.

[punshhh]

Under which parameters an ontology would be able to be true?To be close in nature to what actually exists.
My approach which is the only approach not entirely confined to the mind is that the true ontology is nature itself.

Nature is a perfect expression of the true ontology, one need only open ones eyes.

Woo spoiler alert!

Or to use a theological analogy, only heaven exists, we are already in this heaven and dwelling in paradise. But blind to the truth as our eyes are as yet closed to reality we stumble around tripping over perfection and gorging ourselves on reflections of our own inadequacies.

Woo spoiler alert!

[Sideroxylon]

When discussing ontology, a true ontology is one which describes, or knows accurately the true nature of existence.

Which is impossible because we only have access to existence through a limited perspective.

You can escape your human mind, this is a cornerstone of the mystical quest for truth.


What a load of rubbish. Or can you support that?

They may appear to conflict, perhaps we need to go to a deeper level to determine the difference.
The human mind is capable of intellectually understanding a certain level of truth.
Also the human mind is capable of beholding and knowing a certain level of truth.
The later includes truths which the human mind is not capable of understanding intellectually.

Well, yes.


I appologise if it is rude, I remain to be convinced that many people on this forum are seeking truth.

I think a lot of people on this forum are quite content to say "I don't know" in the face of insufficient evidence rather than just make things up.


Provided I'm not spitting the words out no. I cannot tell you about the true ontological nature of water as I don't know.

Its not hard, is it.

[punshhh]

I do Hatha yoga every day. But Siddhis, Chakras and all the Nirvana crap, nah. Fantasies.

Here are some Siddhis

Doorshravan: to hear, sitting at one place, speech from however distant a place.
Dudarshan: to see simultaneously events and things in all the realms.
Manojava: the body can travel at the speed of thought to any place.
Kaamaroopa: to assume any form. Shapeshifting.
Parakayapravesh: ability to enter into another's body, whether they are dead or alive.
Swachchandamrutyu: to die at one's own will, death having no control over one.
Sahakridanudarshanam: to see the sports of gods in heaven and have capacity and prowess to participate in it.
Yathaasamkalpa samsiddhi: to attain whatever is desired.
Ajnaapratihataagatih: whereby one's command and movement have no obstruction
Anima: the reduction of one's form to one atom. Invisibility
Mahima/Garima: the body can be made to be very heavy.
Laghima: the body can be made to be extremely light
Prapti: abilty to acquire objects of sense pertaining to the respective organs.
Prakaashya: to see invisible things in other realms.
Ishitaa: to stimulate bodies and creatures Control of forces of nature.
Vashita: to have control or dominion over the senses.
Yatkamastadavasyati: To obtain joy by willing it so. The cessation of misery and desire. This is considered to be the highest state of bliss

They forgot Conmanama: The ability to get sums of money out of gullible Westerners.

Don't tell me you were a Harri Krishna? and I bet you don't know the remarkable thing about Hatha yoga.

[punshhh]

So the truth is what is true? Why do so many people think tautologies are profound?

I am not concerned with profundities, unfortunately when delving into these topics tautologies keep cropping up.

Doing yoga is fine. Thinking you are straightening out your chakras or unblocking your chi, not so much.It works for me, I wouldn't be without it.

[JoeBentley]

And so, whats the difference between you, and an inquisitor?

I have no idea because I don't know the rules to "Meaningless wall of text doublespeak word salad posing as some kind of deep philosphy" and I doubt I would enjoying playing it if I did.

[dafydd]

Don't tell me you were a Harri Krishna? and I bet you don't know the remarkable thing about Hatha yoga.

It's Hare Krishna, can't you get anything right?. You practice yoga to unblock your 'chakras' and you can't even spell Hare Krishna? Come off it. Why should I have been a Hare Krishna just because I do a bit of yoga each day to keep in trim? Hare Krishnas are not noted for practicing Hatha Yoga. I know about siddhis because I have read about them. I try to learn something about a subject before I comment on it. You should try that someday. How old are you and what is your IQ? No,I don't know whatever 'fact' you are about to make up regarding Hatha yoga.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

When discussing ontology, a true ontology is one which describes, or knows accurately the true nature of existence.

You can escape your human mind, this is a cornerstone of the mystical quest for truth.

They may appear to conflict, perhaps we need to go to a deeper level to determine the difference.
The human mind is capable of intellectually understanding a certain level of truth.
Also the human mind is capable of beholding and knowing a certain level of truth.
The later includes truths which the human mind is not capable of understanding intellectually.

I appologise if it is rude, I remain to be convinced that many people on this forum are seeking truth.

Provided I'm not spitting the words out no. I cannot tell you about the true ontological nature of water as I don't know.

To be close in nature to what actually exists.
My approach which is the only approach not entirely confined to the mind is that the true ontology is nature itself.

Nature is a perfect expression of the true ontology, one need only open ones eyes.

Woo spoiler alert!

Or to use a theological analogy, only heaven exists, we are already in this heaven and dwelling in paradise. But blind to the truth as our eyes are as yet closed to reality we stumble around tripping over perfection and gorging ourselves on reflections of our own inadequacies.

Woo spoiler alert!

Sorry but no. This is why some members are naive materialists, they are completely woo, and what makes it interesting, is that they believe they are skeptics and all... :rolleyes: nope.. they are believers, in a particular ontology called materialism.

No ontology is possible, and truth is relative to the observer, to the theory at hand, to the world view we use to "determine" what is "truth".

[yy2bggggs]

When discussing ontology, a true ontology is one which describes, or knows accurately the true nature of existence.But a description of a thing isn't the thing. It's just a description. No matter how I describe a cup of water, I'm only describing it.
You can escape your human mind, this is a cornerstone of the mystical quest for truth.That it is the cornerstone of your brand of quest does not entail it's possible. Good luck with your quest; though I've a feeling that luck might be inadequate for pulling off this particular trick.
They may appear to conflict, perhaps we need to go to a deeper level to determine the difference.Or perhaps at a third even deeper level, there is no difference. I don't think I'm going to buy the "you're not thinking deep enough" line.The human mind is capable of intellectually understanding a certain level of truth.
Also the human mind is capable of beholding and knowing a certain level of truth.
The later includes truths which the human mind is not capable of understanding intellectually.The human mind is capable of believing things that are not true. This pretty much robs you of the ability to claim knowledge in many situations where you simply believe in something on a non intellectual level.
I appologise if it is rude, I remain to be convinced that many people on this forum are seeking truth.What are they seeking?
Provided I'm not spitting the words out no. I cannot tell you about the true ontological nature of water as I don't know.
Does the water know? If you don't know, and the water doesn't know, then where do I find its true nature?

[punshhh]

It's Hare Krishna, can't you get anything right?. You practice yoga to unblock your 'chakras' and you can't even spell Hare Krishna? Come off it. Why should I have been a Hare Krishna just because I do a bit of yoga each day to keep in trim? Hare Krishnas are not noted for practicing Hatha Yoga. I know about siddhis because I have read about them. I try to learn something about a subject before I comment on it. You should try that someday. How old are you and what is your IQ? No,I don't know whatever 'fact' you are about to make up regarding Hatha yoga.

Dafydd practices woo every day:eye-poppi

[punshhh]

Which is impossible because we only have access to existence through a limited perspective. I'm not referring to a human ontology, rather a hypothetical ontology, or one used by a more advanced intelligence(the nature of which we cannot comment on through our limited perspective).

What a load of rubbish. Or can you support that?Yes I can understand your response. I am referring to a technique of bypassing the thinking mind, or more precisely the contents of what I regard as the lower mind.
The tools with which to achieve this are everything which exists around us in our world. It is quite possible to experience existence while bypassing the lower mind and to realise aspects of existence free of the rose tinted glasses of the lower mind.
Well, yes.

I think a lot of people on this forum are quite content to say "I don't know" in the face of insufficient evidence rather than just make things up.
This may be so and I join them in not knowing most things. However You won't find me making anything up. It is almost impossible to do.



Its not hard, is it. who was it who said we are adrift in a sea of unknown unknowns?

[dafydd]

Dafydd practices woo every day:eye-poppi

Pathetic. Not true. Not funny. How old are you? You're not even ashamed that you can't spell Hare Krishna or brake. I do a little physical exercise every day. Perhaps you should try some mental exercise every day.

who was it who said we are adrift in a sea of unknown unknowns?

You did. Or have you changed your mind again. How old are you? My guess is around fifteen.

I am referring to a technique of bypassing the thinking mind,

You are a master at bypassing thinking, that is obvious.


You won't find me making anything up

You do nothing else.

[punshhh]

Sorry but no. This is why some members are naive materialists, they are completely woo, and what makes it interesting, is that they believe they are skeptics and all... :rolleyes: nope.. they are believers, in a particular ontology called materialism.

No ontology is possible, and truth is relative to the observer, to the theory at hand, to the world view we use to "determine" what is "truth".

Talk about naive, you appear to be falling into your own trap of naive materialism.

I have already explained to you the difference between "truth" in the mind, or in common discourse. As apposed to "the truth of what actually exists", a phrase referring to what exists, rather than notions of what exists.

Are you going to accept this distinction or deny that anything exists?

[dafydd]

Talk about naive, you appear to be falling into your own trap of naive materialism.

I have already explained to you the difference between "truth" in the mind, or in common discourse. As apposed to "the truth of what actually exists", a phrase referring to what exists, rather than notions of what exists.

Are you going to accept this distinction or deny that anything exists?

Look up the meaning of 'explained' in a dictionary. The highlighted part is yet more classic punshhh gibberish. Notions of what exists, that is priceless, although I can see why you think it makes sense. Keep on amusing us. Harri Krishna, Barri Krishna.....

[punshhh]

But a description of a thing isn't the thing. It's just a description. No matter how I describe a cup of water, I'm only describing it.
That it is the cornerstone of your brand of quest does not entail it's possible. Good luck with your quest; though I've a feeling that luck might be inadequate for pulling off this particular trick.
Or perhaps at a third even deeper level, there is no difference. I don't think I'm going to buy the "you're not thinking deep enough" line.The human mind is capable of believing things that are not true. This pretty much robs you of the ability to claim knowledge in many situations where you simply believe in something on a non intellectual level.
What are they seeking?

Does the water know? If you don't know, and the water doesn't know, then where do I find its true nature?

I respect your comments on most issues, but I do find you can go into a lot of detail in your explanations, which can be a head ache sometimes, especially when I'm pressed for time. I would appreciate it if we can try to be concise here.

Yes I'm well aware that a description is not a thing, it is a symbol for a thing.

Ref' my post to Syderoxylon, it is possible to know and experience things without the use of the thinking mind.

Regarding knowledge it is well documented that during epiphany, hallucination, along with various experiences in life people have come to know something, which cannot be imparted intellectually.

The true nature of water is what it is wether the water or anything else knows what it is or not. It is a part of what truly exists.

[dafydd]

The true nature of water is what it is wether the water or anything else knows what it is or not. It is a part of what truly exists.

And how would the water 'know'? You really are in a world of your own. And the word is spelled 'whether'. We know what exists. You are always banging on about things that don't exist.

[Sideroxylon]

I'm not referring to a human ontology, rather a hypothetical ontology, or one used by a more advanced intelligence(the nature of which we cannot comment on through our limited perspective).Special pleading is a nice way of avoiding having to support a claim, isn't it.

Yes I can understand your response. I am referring to a technique of bypassing the thinking mind, or more precisely the contents of what I regard as the lower mind.
The tools with which to achieve this are everything which exists around us in our world. It is quite possible to experience existence while bypassing the lower mind and to realise aspects of existence free of the rose tinted glasses of the lower mind.
Start another thread to explain and support that claim if you like.


This may be so and I join them in not knowing most things. However You won't find me making anything up. It is almost impossible to do.
At the very least you make bold claims without supporting them.


who was it who said we are adrift in a sea of unknown unknowns?

Don't know but do like Otto Neurath's, “We are like sailors who must rebuild the ship on the open sea, never able to dismantle it in dry-dock and to reconstruct it there out of the best materials.”

[JoeBentley]

It's simple.

Punshhh can post up all the wall of text world salad ramblings he wants to.

He can pontificate all he wants about "Oh you're a materialist. Oh you're not taking into account the ontological metaphysical difference between the truth outside and the truth inside your head on a Thursday when the moon is waxing and you had scrambled eggs for breakfast."

He can sit there with the Thesaraus open to the word "philosphy" and just post up every word that essentially means the same thing over and over.

And it doesn't change a thing.

It's simple. This whole "Wise on Man on the Mountain" act is total BS and not only can I prove it, I can prove they know it as well.

If you throw a rock a solipist's head, they are still gonna duck.

If you tell a woo-slinger that you have a mystical paranormal supernatural rock that's invisible but still solid and you pretend to throw it at their head, they ain't gonna duck.

Reality is not as easy to pretend isn't there and things that aren't there aren't as easy to pretend really are there as people make it seem like when they want to play this semantic, pseudo-philosphical, childish crap.

You can sit here and split metaphysical hairs about how reality might be an illusion or how there could be some shadowy netherworld of mysterious crap just outside our current perception... but no one really believes that.

[dafydd]

Dafydd practices woo every day:eye-poppi

So you don't know what Hatha Yoga is.

[dafydd]

If I electrolyze water do the two resulting gasses 'know' that they were once water?

[dafydd]

If you throw a rock a solipist's head, they are still gonna duck.

.

I did once ask punshhh what he would do if he glanced up and saw a piano plummeting down on course for his head. The 'mystics' would jump out of the way just like the rest of us.

[Bram Kaandorp]

If I electrolyze water do the two resulting gasses 'know' that they were once water?

If you invoke the power of homoeopathy, they will.

But, since we are somewhat rational human beings, we won't (invoke the power of homoeopathy).

[dafydd]

If you invoke the power of homoeopathy, they will.

But, since we are somewhat rational human beings, we won't (invoke the power of homoeopathy).

I bet you that punshhh will.

[dafydd]

Isn't is amusing that all 'mystics' are about as mystical as a pint of brown ale?

[Elizabeth I]

unfortunately when delving into these topics tautologies keep cropping up.

Do you really think that wandering around exclaiming, "Look! X = X!" has any utility at all? What significance could you possibly find in the fact that it's possible to repeat yourself? Do you honestly believe that "truth is what is true" communicates anything at all (outside offering a small clue into the way your mind works, and we already knew that)?

[Resume]

Do you really think that wandering around exclaiming, "Look! X = X!" has any utility at all? What significance could you possibly find in the fact that it's possible to repeat yourself? Do you honestly believe that "truth is what is true" communicates anything at all (outside offering a small clue into the way your mind works, and we already knew that)?

Naive materialist.

[Resume]

Isn't is amusing that all 'mystics' are about as mystical as a pint of brown ale?

Naive materialist.

[Elizabeth I]

Naive materialist.

Them's what we here in Texas call fightin' words. If you Kant back 'em up you'd better get on Hume or I'll hand you a Plato whup-ass.

[Resume]

Them's what we here in Texas call fightin' words. If you Kant back 'em up you'd better get on Hume or I'll hand you a Plato whup-ass.

I would, but I ain't that Jung anymore.

[punshhh]

Special pleading is a nice way of avoiding having to support a claim, isn't it.Nonsense, Did you miss the first part of my sentence,"when discussing ontologies", when a philosopher discusses ontologies, all forms of ontologies are on the table.

Start another thread to explain and support that claim if you like.I'll stick with the less esoteric ideas at this stage;)

At the very least you make bold claims without supporting them.Here we go again, I am apparently making claims left right and centre. I am suggesting philosophical scenarios here and there and hinting that there may be more to simple materialism than meets the eye.

Don't know but do like Otto Neurath's, “We are like sailors who must rebuild the ship on the open sea, never able to dismantle it in dry-dock and to reconstruct it there out of the best materials.”
Nice quote, I was quoting myself before.

[Dancing David]

You are discussing the use of the word truth in its use in language, which is a relative term and has no bearing on the truth of existence or ontologies.

Truth is a word., I'm addressing the truth of existence, its a different thing, or hadn't you realised?

Yup that is three words.

Petard hoist!

[Dancing David]

Talk about naive, you appear to be falling into your own trap of naive materialism.

I have already explained to you the difference between "truth" in the mind, or in common discourse. As apposed to "the truth of what actually exists", a phrase referring to what exists, rather than notions of what exists.

Are you going to accept this distinction or deny that anything exists?

Now with fifty percent more words.

[Dancing David]

Ref' my post to Syderoxylon, it is possible to know and experience things without the use of the thinking mind.


And what false dichotomy does that involve?

Your mind is not compartmentalized, it is a rubric for brain processes.

[punshhh]

Do you really think that wandering around exclaiming, "Look! X = X!" has any utility at all? What significance could you possibly find in the fact that it's possible to repeat yourself? Do you honestly believe that "truth is what is true" communicates anything at all (outside offering a small clue into the way your mind works, and we already knew that)?

You don't know how my mind works, I don't recall you cottoning on to much I have said. Unless you are referring to the chemical reactions in my brain as a basis for my thinking patterns. The patterns and arguments I am using are crafted to engage folk on this forum and bear little resemblance to how my thinking occurs in my own head.

Anyway how many truths are there, one?

I merely suggested two or perhaps three depending on context. In context they have different meanings.

[Sideroxylon]

Here we go again, I am apparently making claims left right and centre. I am suggesting philosophical scenarios here and there and hinting that there may be more to simple materialism than meets the eye.

And that you are doing. Your scenarios don't become philosophical until you attempt to support them through argument.

[Resume]

Anyway how many truths are there, one?


Want to see some truth? For a few months, try not paying your mortgage/light/cable bill. See where that gets you. On the street in the dark examining your navel lint with no TV, that's where.

[dafydd]

You don't know how my mind works, I don't recall you cottoning on to much I have said. Unless you are referring to the chemical reactions in my brain as a basis for my thinking patterns. The patterns and arguments I am using are crafted to engage folk on this forum and bear little resemblance to how my thinking occurs in my own head.

Anyway how many truths are there, one?

I merely suggested two or perhaps three depending on context. In context they have different meanings.

You have presented nothing to cotton on to. All you are doing is playing a childish game of let's pretend. How many truths are there? There is a very long list. It is true that I am typing this now. It is true that I am in Flanders. It is true that the Earth is a planet. You do ask the daftest questions. How old are you?

[dafydd]

And that you are doing. Your scenarios don't become philosophical until you attempt to support them through argument.

Punshhh seems to think that philosophy consists of asking a series of foolish questions.

[JoeBentley]

Punshhh seems to think that philosophy consists of asking a series of foolish questions.

That really does seem to be the idea a lot of people have.

"I asked a bunch of indecipherable gibberish questions and no one could answer them! I must be a genius!"

[yy2bggggs]

I respect your comments on most issues, but I do find you can go into a lot of detail in your explanations, which can be a head ache sometimes, especially when I'm pressed for time. I would appreciate it if we can try to be concise here.Just be it known that I do not go into detail out of habit, but rather, out of intent. If I don't feel a post would be valuable in at least some way, I don't post it. Were I to just opine to you, I wouldn't think that would be too valuable; anyone can opine at you just as well as I can.

So if by concise you mean that I should forgo the details, then as kindly as possible I decline your request.
Yes I'm well aware that a description is not a thing, it is a symbol for a thing.
No, descriptions are not symbols. Any old string of characters is a set of symbols, even if it's not grammatically correct, or even readable. Only a small subset of those characters are descriptions.

What makes the description a description is that it's a model, not a symbol. In particular, descriptions are mind models that attempt to correlate mental invariants to external invariants. The measure of a description's accuracy is how well the mental models actually model the external entities.

That means there's a mapping from the model to the external entities, in the sense that everything the model predicts will change under a certain condition varies as the model says it does, and everything that remains the same varies as the model says it does. And that's it for models.
Ref my post to Syderoxylon, it is possible to know and experience things without the use of the thinking mind.
That's kind of irrelevant. Even in your non-thinking mind, it's only a model. You cannot describe what the water "really is" because water isn't made of models. It's made of water. All you can do is form an accurate model of the water.

It's when you confuse the primitives that the non-thinking mind works with (like objects, ideas, and so on) with the extensions they refer to (like that cup of water) that you get the illusion that there is such a thing as an ontological description. It seems to me that you're referring to this illusion, which means you don't quite realize that your non-thinking mind is only working with models itself.
The true nature of water is what it is wether the water or anything else knows what it is or not. It is a part of what truly exists.
If I have a cup of water, and I have all of the latest best books on ontology, and I put them side by side, then the true nature of the water is in the cup, not the books. I cannot get the true nature of water into my head by studying it, by contemplating it, by meditating, or by using my non-thinking mind.

The only reasonable way to get the water into my head is to drink it.

[dlorde]

The patterns and arguments I am using are crafted to engage folk on this forum and bear little resemblance to how my thinking occurs in my own head.

The punshhh disclaimer - Excellent! :D

Best before Nov.2011. Contents may become meaningless in transit. Quality may disappoint. For entertainment purposes only. With care - risk of choking for the well-informed.

[dlorde]

Punshhh seems to think that philosophy consists of asking a series of foolish questions.

It doesn't?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Deleted

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Pathetic. Not true. Not funny.

Well, if you are a materialist, then you are a woo... Sorry.

[dafydd]

That really does seem to be the idea a lot of people have.

"I asked a bunch of indecipherable gibberish questions and no one could answer them! I must be a genius!"

Did you know that punshhh once accused me of posting gibberish? When challenged he promised to post some examples of my gibberish. None have been forthcoming. Following the mystical tradition, he has never admitted that he was wrong. Yea,the mystics are truly gutless.

[dafydd]

It doesn't?

Most philosophy books that I have perused seem to be walls of meaningless text with impressive sounding words. Sound familiar?

[Resume]

Well, if you are a materialist, then you are a woo... Sorry.

Bare assertion. Bad position for a philosopher I would think.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Bare assertion. Bad position for a philosopher I would think.

True, thanks for pointing it out. The arguments are there, I have argued extensively in the JREF against every kind of woo, including materialism. I have started many threads, and received lots of input, and yes, maybe I'm just stating this (apparently) out of nowhere.

Oh, and I'm not a philosopher, I just like to think, and yes, I like philosophical inquiry, specially about epistemology, and analytic philosophy, I also find philosophy of science very appealing.

[Elizabeth I]

You don't know how my mind works, I don't recall you cottoning on to much I have said. Unless you are referring to the chemical reactions in my brain as a basis for my thinking patterns. The patterns and arguments I am using are crafted to engage folk on this forum and bear little resemblance to how my thinking occurs in my own head.

Anyway how many truths are there, one?

I merely suggested two or perhaps three depending on context. In context they have different meanings.

So it looks pretty foolish when reduced to "X=X," does it?

[dafydd]

True, thanks for pointing it out. The arguments are there, I have argued extensively in the JREF against every kind of woo, including materialism. I have started many threads, and received lots of input, and yes, maybe I'm just stating this (apparently) out of nowhere.

Oh, and I'm not a philosopher, I just like to think, and yes, I like philosophical inquiry, specially about epistemology, and analytic philosophy, I also find philosophy of science very appealing.

Materialism is the very antithesis of woo.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Materialism is the very antithesis of woo.

Yes, for naive materialists, that's indeed what they believe. I have news for you, education, critical thinking and skepticism are the antidote for woo, not a poor ontological assumption.

[Twiler]

Yes, for naive materialists, that's indeed what they believe. I have news for you, education, critical thinking and skepticism are the antidote for woo, not a poor ontological assumption.

I think dafydd meant that science is opposed to woo, and science is based on materialism.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think dafydd meant that science is opposed to woo, and science is based on materialism.

Wrong again! Science is based on Naturalism. Materialists are a remain from the pretended duality "matter-spirit" which comes from religion. Is like atheism, it only exists because of god believers.

Science is a bag of tools, and philosophical mechanisms, not a world view on its own.

[Twiler]

Wrong again! Science is based on Naturalism. Materialists are a remain from the pretended duality "matter-spirit" which comes from religion. Is like atheism, it only exists because of god believers.

Science is a bag of tools, and philosophical mechanisms, not a world view on its own.

I think people embrace materialism because they don't believe in cartesian dualism (i.e. they don't believe in non-material entities), not because they do believe in cartesian dualism.

What do you think the difference between naturalism and materialism is?

[tsig]

Yes, for naive materialists, that's indeed what they believe. I have news for you, education, critical thinking and skepticism are the antidote for woo, not a poor ontological assumption.

You keep using that word but I don't think it means quite what you think it means:

Ontology, in analytic philosophy, concerns the determining of whether some categories of being are fundamental and asks in what sense the items in those categories can be said to "be". It is the inquiry into being in so much as it is being, or into beings insofar as they exist—and not insofar as, for instance, particular facts obtained about them or particular properties related to them.


Are you saying he made a poor assumption about beginnings? If so maybe you could point out the exact ones he made rather than throwing around your favorite buzz words.

[dafydd]

You keep using that word but I don't think it means quite what you think it means:

.

He doesn't. And he just makes statements, he never explains anything, In my own simple way I will say that woo deals with non-existent subjects such as the paranormal, gods, ley lines, pyramid energy, telepathy, telekinesis, alien abductions and the whole rag-bag of delusional beliefs. Materialism deals with reality. Now we will count down to BZN's self-satisfied wordy put down.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think people embrace materialism because they don't believe in cartesian dualism (i.e. they don't believe in non-material entities), not because they do believe in cartesian dualism.

What do you think the difference between naturalism and materialism is?

They don't like dualism and so embracing one of its poles makes it vanish? On the contrary, it perpetuates the myth. As long as there are materialists there will be immaterialists, it is as simple as that.

Regarding Naturalism, from Wikipedia:

"Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) belief that the natural universe is a closed system and that only natural laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_laws) and forces (as opposed to supernatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural) ones) operate in the universe, and that either nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism#cite_note-0) Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe) is a product of these laws and that the goal of science is to discover and publish them systematically."

[Twiler]

They don't like dualism and so embracing one of its poles makes it vanish? On the contrary, it perpetuates the myth. As long as there are materialists there will be immaterialists, it is as simple as that.

Why?


Regarding Naturalism, from Wikipedia:

"Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) belief that the natural universe is a closed system and that only natural laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_laws) and forces (as opposed to supernatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural) ones) operate in the universe, and that either nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism#cite_note-0) Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe) is a product of these laws and that the goal of science is to discover and publish them systematically."

So you don't think the natural universe is made solely of material entities?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You keep using that word but I don't think it means quite what you think it means:

Ontology, in analytic philosophy, concerns the determining of whether some categories of being are fundamental and asks in what sense the items in those categories can be said to "be". It is the inquiry into being in so much as it is being, or into beings insofar as they exist—and not insofar as, for instance, particular facts obtained about them or particular properties related to them.


Are you saying he made a poor assumption about beginnings? If so maybe you could point out the exact ones he made rather than throwing around your favorite buzz words.

"favorite buzz words" LOL :D Well, I use words that are easily defined using a dictionary, nothing really fancy if you ask me. Now, ontology has a different meaning in analytic philosophy, but I'm sticking (for the purpose of the thread) to the first definition:

"Ontology is the philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) study of the nature of being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being), existence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence) or reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality) as such, as well as the basic categories of being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_of_being) and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics), ontology deals with questions concerning what entities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entities) exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy), and subdivided according to similarities and differences."

[dafydd]

As long as there are materialists there will be immaterialists, it is as simple as that.

Education might take care of that. Please list some of the immaterial things that the universe contains.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

He doesn't. And he just makes statements, he never explains anything, In my own simple way I will say that woo deals with non-existent subjects such as the paranormal, gods, ley lines, pyramid energy, telepathy, telekinesis, alien abductions and the whole rag-bag of delusional beliefs. Materialism deals with reality. Now we will count down to BZN's self-satisfied wordy put down.

I have given you arguments and you ignore them. Want a good read? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3425375#post3425375

[Jonesboy]

..