Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because we cannot experience reality directly. We can only experience reality indirectly through our senses. The world we see, touch, and smell is really a construct in our minds based on the information from our senses.
And unless you're on some hallucinogen, you're experiencing stimuli that's really there. So yes, we experience reality directly.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why can a magician fool you? Or Why can we be fooled by optical illusions? Can you see infrared? Can you see behind your head?
That was dumb. If I turn my head around or put on infrared goggles, I am experiencing what's there directly.
Now when I used to do acid, the anthropomorphic talking animals that my eyes were telling me I was seeing and my ears telling me I was hearing weren't really there, and a mounted camera or infrared camera would confirm that.
untrue. the expirience of reality is not the reality in itself just like the image of the moon made by interpreting reflected photons isnt really the moon in itself. inevitably, all things will have to be interpreted and certain sensation associated with it. this sensation may DEPICT the difference in things around you as you INTERPRET it, but they can not give an uninterpreted input of the world around you nor can they do any more than define the DIFFERENCES between things with which u can recognise the thing. the sensation of the wrold around is exactly that- a "sensation", it isnt really the true WORLD.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Exactly what I was attempting to convey. You hit the nail on the head.😊
actually I was making a joke
I find it remarkable that religion is looking to Post Modernism now as a last ditch attack on the scientific method.
clearly you don't understand the application of that logic, namely that if there is no way to understand the truth about reality, then religion is just as false as science...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because we cannot experience reality directly. We can only experience reality indirectly through our senses. The world we see, touch, and smell is really a construct in our minds based on the information from our senses.
wait, if "we" doesn't include our sensory inputs, then what is the we you are speaking of?
That sounds way too dualistic for you 😉
Originally posted by leonheartmm
untrue. the expirience of reality is not the reality in itself just like the image of the moon made by interpreting reflected photons isnt really the moon in itself. inevitably, all things will have to be interpreted and certain sensation associated with it. this sensation may DEPICT the difference in things around you as you INTERPRET it, but they can not give an uninterpreted input of the world around you nor can they do any more than define the DIFFERENCES between things with which u can recognise the thing. the sensation of the wrold around is exactly that- a "sensation", it isnt really the true WORLD.
So I'm confused. (big surprise). Are you saying that the world does in fact exist independently of human awareness, but since we experience it through sensory apparati (apparatuses?) we can not be sure of the truth of our experience? Or are you saying that since our senses can be fooled, the world may not exist independently of our consciousness?
Either world view seems to place a large amount of emphasis on the ability of our senses to be fooled, and pays not enough attention to the fact that throughout history the average input has been constant. By this I mean that there are not many accounts of gravity being repealed, time going backwards, etc. The long history of consistent information seems to be proof that the world can indeed be understood.
not true. think about this. what you see on the computer screen seems to make sense to you as readable, understandable content which seems to have a reality{for instance this forum board EXISTS as a program on line}. yet what you expirience as a result of this is your PERCEPTION of a board which you FEAL exists. in fact, this is nothing more than electrical impulses in a lotof copper wires and photonic pulses in fibres. which lead to electrical channels of low resistance in you pc which leads affects the molecules in your electron projector which interact with other molecules to excite them and emit {at random from all logical perspectives} photons which your eyes see.
now tell me, which part of that is the UNDERSTANDABLE FORUM BOARD you think exists ? none. its only your interpretation of the photons hitting the back of your eyes and sending signals to your brain. true, you can INTERPRET it as a forum board, as you can interpret it as photons or elctrical impulses, but are any of the definitions u use, a TRUE definition of what the THING really is? not really, they are all just interpretation of the thing/form form different perspectives.
its like a map. you can create an interpretive image of a things{i.e. the world/geographics} to be able to recognise or define it for convenience/survival. it helps in differentiating its characteristis form other things and gives it "uniqueness" from a certain perspective{i..e. 2d drawing, 3d model creation by clay, colour coding, elemental composition, structure, physical prperties, emotional significance, perceived beauty etc etc} but are any of those INTERPRETATION = the actual object??? not really. the map isnt the geography any more than a painting or a mental image is mount everset.
it has nuthing to do with MISINTERPRETING information. although it is true that we can never really see the whole picture as our senses are limited like that. but my point is that even if we could, inevitable, wed still not be able to understand what the TRUE world is, only OUR interpretation of it.
assume that x is the world and the function f(x) -------> the world as we see it. reguardless of the values of x being clearly defined or obscure, we sill still never understand what X truly is, only "f"(x), i.e. our interpretation.
I think I understand what you mean. The world exists, but our senses are not the world. I have to disagree though. Just because this 'message board' is not a physical plank of wood, does not mean that it doesn't exist. It exists in the packets of info that are beamed to our separate computers. Yes our brains use something similar to "3-D modeling", but that does not mean that we can't understand the world. If I punch you in the mouth for misspelling "FEEL", then it won't just be your interpretation of the universe that you got punched. the molecules that make up my hand would exert force on the molecules in your jaw, irregardless of whether or not you had just had Novocaine, making your jaw numb. It wouldn't matter that you didn't interpret my fist into your mouth, it still would have happened.
please don't take this the wrong way, it is just an analogy. if my religion permitted me to say :LOL 🙂.... I would. But since I am morally barred from doing so, please accept my apology for the violent metaphor. 💃 💃
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And unless you're on some hallucinogen, you're experiencing stimuli that's really there. So yes, we experience reality directly.
Not exactly.
Our experiences only touch the surface of reality. There are 300 colors that exist, which we cannot see. There are sounds we cannot hear, and there are vibrations that we cannot feel, but other living things can.
What we see is our brain's translation of what's there. Did you know every human eye has a blind spot ? There's an interesting trick you can do:
Close your right eye. Keep your left eye open.
Pull your left index finger up so it covers this character: @
Then, slowly, move your left index finger over to your left. Keep your left eye on the "@", while your right eye remains closed.
As you slowly move your left index finger towards your left, in line with the @, you will notice that in one spot the top of your index finger dissapears.
That is your blind spot.
What your brain does is take surrounding information, and covers the blind spot up with it.
What we experience is a translation of what we interact with. That doesn't invalidate our responses to the environment, but what we need to keep in mind is that we can only experience what our brain recognizes.
Originally posted by inimalist
lolso "we" are separate from this "translation"? 😉
That's assuming that "we" even exist (as an entity of self), but that's another philosophical argument that I would rather leave out of this thread, if you don't mind.
I am not trying to say that the "translation" is invalid. Some say that Perspective is Reality.
And it can be. Whether or not something is real or fake doesn't ultamately matter if it has the same affect on a person.
God may or may not exist. But the idea of his existance shapes the lives of millions of people, determining their decisions, paths, health, and ways they treat other people. Whether or not God exists, the effect is still the same.
Likewise, as with anything, whether or not the reality we recognize is true or illusion, it doesn't matter if we beleive in it. If you beleive in something, or accept something, it becomes real to you, and its affect on your life is the same -whether it truly exists or not.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
That's assuming that "we" even exist (as an entity of self), but that's another philosophical argument that I would rather leave out of this thread, if you don't mind.I am not trying to say that the "translation" is invalid. Some say that Perspective is Reality.
And it can be. Whether or not something is real or fake doesn't ultamately matter if it has the same affect on a person.
God may or may not exist. But the idea of his existance shapes the lives of millions of people, determining their decisions, paths, health, and ways they treat other people. Whether or not God exists, the effect is still the same.
Likewise, as with anything, whether or not the reality we recognize is true or illusion, it doesn't matter if we beleive in it. If you beleive in something, or accept something, it becomes real to you, and its [b]affect
on your life is the same -whether it truly exists or not. [/B]
I am just pointing out, i think it is funny that we conceptualize the neurological/physical processes of sight as being different from what "we see".