User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 3:25:23 PM EDT
[#1]
I can prove that to be false with just two people. One blind and one with sight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 3:28:31 PM EDT
[#2]
"There is no spoon"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 3:29:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
"There is no spoon" I know, like, kung-fu and stuff. And it's totally bodacious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 3:31:10 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"There is no spoon" I know, like, kung-fu and stuff. And it's totally bodacious. Here's another one to think about: “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” – Albert Einstein |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 3:35:02 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Discuss Kind of true. We can only know the world through our perception of it, so in that sense, yes, perception is reality. But that's not very useful by itself. To be useful, we must be able to DO something with it, so in that sense, our perception matching some kind of "objective" reality is what counts. Generally, we can determine how "real" our perception is by seeing if others pereive reality the same way. Of course, that's its own can of worms! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 3:36:50 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: I can prove that to be false with just two people. One blind and one with sight. it's not as simple as you suggest. the person with "sight" can't know if his perception is actually correct or merely a convincing illusion. consider ESP and remote viewing, which are both a kind of apparent sensory stimulation. to someone who is convinced that he possesses such perception, you are the "blind" one, yet like most people, you would probably laugh at such an assertion. so any such proof that you attempt involves either a circle or a regress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 3:38:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Generally, we can determine how "real" our perception is by seeing if others pereive reality the same way. hence the problem––that which we call reality is determined by vote. knowledge (traditionally construed) is a social construction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 3:48:44 PM EDT
[#8]
"There are four lights!"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 3:56:30 PM EDT
[#9]
In the military perception is not always reality but its a damn good indicator
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 3:57:19 PM EDT
[#10]
Things are not always what they seem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 3:57:21 PM EDT
[#11]
Of course it is. It couldn't really be any other way.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 3:58:00 PM EDT
[#12]
I think that there is some objective reality outside my own perception.
I cant really act on it though, since the only way I have knowledge of it is through my own perception. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:01:16 PM EDT
[#13]
The Einstein quote nails it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:07:27 PM EDT
[#14]
At work, yes...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:09:54 PM EDT
[#15]
No matter how many people agree on it, 2 + 2 != 5.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:12:29 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
No matter how many people agree on it, 2 + 2 != 5. Because every one agrees (perceives) that 2+2=4? How did math start? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:16:38 PM EDT
[#17]
As a solipsists, I'd have to argue that my perception is definitely reality.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:17:43 PM EDT
[#18]
Does this have something to do with that German guy Sherbert's cat?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:22:22 PM EDT
[#19]
It may not literally be true, but you'll go farther living by this concept than ignoring or denying it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:23:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can prove that to be false with just two people. One blind and one with sight. it's not as simple as you suggest. the person with "sight" can't know if his perception is actually correct or merely a convincing illusion. consider ESP and remote viewing, which are both a kind of apparent sensory stimulation. to someone who is convinced that he possesses such perception, you are the "blind" one, yet like most people, you would probably laugh at such an assertion. so any such proof that you attempt involves either a circle or a regress. Not at all. You could easily prove remote viewing as a factual sense to someone who lacked that ability through repeatable, unimpeachable experiments, if remote viewing wasn't a hoax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:26:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
I can prove that to be false with just two people. One blind and one with sight. "Perception" and "sight" are not even remotely the same ting. Perception is ANY sensory input - sight, taste, smell, touch, etc. By definition, it has to be processed, converted into electrical and chemical signals in your brain, and interpreted by your cognitive functions. There is NO objective way to know reality, because by definition, it has to be filtered through our perception and cognition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:28:37 PM EDT
[#22]
Timothy Leary would disagree.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:31:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: No matter how many people agree on it, 2 + 2 != 5. sorry bud, but math is a language, not reality. if "5" was the symbol for this many [* * * *], then 2 + 2 would absolutely equal 5. there is nothing whatsoever special about the words "two" and "five", or the shapes "2" and "5". they are completely arbitrary, made-up symbols. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:31:38 PM EDT
[#24]
For me? I'd like to think not.
But to most people? Oh, yeah. Repeat a complete falsehood enough, and most people will believe it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:32:15 PM EDT
[#25]
"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and a hit of acid will disprove the perception is reality issue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:33:12 PM EDT
[#26]
It can be, sure. It's not a yes or no question.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:33:48 PM EDT
[#27]
Of course it is.......albeit your reality.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:41:03 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can prove that to be false with just two people. One blind and one with sight. it's not as simple as you suggest. the person with "sight" can't know if his perception is actually correct or merely a convincing illusion. consider ESP and remote viewing, which are both a kind of apparent sensory stimulation. to someone who is convinced that he possesses such perception, you are the "blind" one, yet like most people, you would probably laugh at such an assertion. so any such proof that you attempt involves either a circle or a regress. Not at all. You could easily prove remote viewing as a factual sense to someone who lacked that ability through repeatable, unimpeachable experiments, if remote viewing wasn't a hoax. sorry man, but you're presuming that some kind of objective, mind-independent reality can be apprehended. that's a comfortable assumption, but a wrong one. the person who is experiences the phenomenon can't know if it is real, and the person to whom the proof is presented cannot know that he is apprehending the proof correctly. after all, he couldn't be in both places (the event and the remote location) at the same time, and he can't know that the experience is isomorphic with the event (of even if the language of the remote sensor reflects the experience itself). human experience is intrinsically perspectival, and a perspective by its very nature distorts that which is perceived. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:42:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can prove that to be false with just two people. One blind and one with sight. it's not as simple as you suggest. the person with "sight" can't know if his perception is actually correct or merely a convincing illusion. consider ESP and remote viewing, which are both a kind of apparent sensory stimulation. to someone who is convinced that he possesses such perception, you are the "blind" one, yet like most people, you would probably laugh at such an assertion. so any such proof that you attempt involves either a circle or a regress. Not at all. You could easily prove remote viewing as a factual sense to someone who lacked that ability through repeatable, unimpeachable experiments, if remote viewing wasn't a hoax. sorry man, but you're presuming that some kind of objective, mind-independent reality can be apprehended. that's a comfortable assumption, but a wrong one. the person who is experiences the phenomenon can't know if it is real, and the person to whom the proof is presented cannot know that he is apprehending the proof correctly. after all, he couldn't be in both places (the event and the remote location) at the same time, and he can't know that the experience is isomorphic with the event (of even if the language of the remote sensor reflects the experience itself). human experience is intrinsically perspectival, and a perspective by its very nature distorts that which is perceived. Precisely |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:42:54 PM EDT
[#30]
You won't perceive that 440v in that wire but the reality of it zapping your arse is quite shocking. The same stupidity as the question of whether a tree makes a sound when it falls in the forest.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:46:45 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:46:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can prove that to be false with just two people. One blind and one with sight. it's not as simple as you suggest. the person with "sight" can't know if his perception is actually correct or merely a convincing illusion. consider ESP and remote viewing, which are both a kind of apparent sensory stimulation. to someone who is convinced that he possesses such perception, you are the "blind" one, yet like most people, you would probably laugh at such an assertion. so any such proof that you attempt involves either a circle or a regress. Not at all. You could easily prove remote viewing as a factual sense to someone who lacked that ability through repeatable, unimpeachable experiments, if remote viewing wasn't a hoax. sorry man, but you're presuming that some kind of objective, mind-independent reality can be apprehended. that's a comfortable assumption, but a wrong one. the person who is experiences the phenomenon can't know if it is real, and the person to whom the proof is presented cannot know that he is apprehending the proof correctly. after all, he couldn't be in both places (the event and the remote location) at the same time, and he can't know that the experience is isomorphic with the event (of even if the language of the remote sensor reflects the experience itself). human experience is intrinsically perspectival, and a perspective by its very nature distorts that which is perceived. This thread cannot be a figment of my imagination. I would never be so cruel to myself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:49:23 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can prove that to be false with just two people. One blind and one with sight. it's not as simple as you suggest. the person with "sight" can't know if his perception is actually correct or merely a convincing illusion. consider ESP and remote viewing, which are both a kind of apparent sensory stimulation. to someone who is convinced that he possesses such perception, you are the "blind" one, yet like most people, you would probably laugh at such an assertion. so any such proof that you attempt involves either a circle or a regress. Not at all. You could easily prove remote viewing as a factual sense to someone who lacked that ability through repeatable, unimpeachable experiments, if remote viewing wasn't a hoax. sorry man, but you're presuming that some kind of objective, mind-independent reality can be apprehended. that's a comfortable assumption, but a wrong one. the person who is experiences the phenomenon can't know if it is real, and the person to whom the proof is presented cannot know that he is apprehending the proof correctly. after all, he couldn't be in both places (the event and the remote location) at the same time, and he can't know that the experience is isomorphic with the event (of even if the language of the remote sensor reflects the experience itself). human experience is intrinsically perspectival, and a perspective by its very nature distorts that which is perceived. This thread cannot be a figment of my imagination. I would never be so cruel to myself.  edit: i'm bored at work, and have already completed the busy work i created for myself. so this thread is my only hope! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:50:19 PM EDT
[#34]
There is only one thing that is reality and that is reality.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:52:04 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can prove that to be false with just two people. One blind and one with sight. it's not as simple as you suggest. the person with "sight" can't know if his perception is actually correct or merely a convincing illusion. consider ESP and remote viewing, which are both a kind of apparent sensory stimulation. to someone who is convinced that he possesses such perception, you are the "blind" one, yet like most people, you would probably laugh at such an assertion. so any such proof that you attempt involves either a circle or a regress. Not at all. You could easily prove remote viewing as a factual sense to someone who lacked that ability through repeatable, unimpeachable experiments, if remote viewing wasn't a hoax. sorry man, but you're presuming that some kind of objective, mind-independent reality can be apprehended. that's a comfortable assumption, but a wrong one. the person who is experiences the phenomenon can't know if it is real, and the person to whom the proof is presented cannot know that he is apprehending the proof correctly. after all, he couldn't be in both places (the event and the remote location) at the same time, and he can't know that the experience is isomorphic with the event (of even if the language of the remote sensor reflects the experience itself). human experience is intrinsically perspectival, and a perspective by its very nature distorts that which is perceived. Precisely To bad you can't ask Helen Keller about her "perception of reality"!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:54:08 PM EDT
[#36]
Perception is the mind's interpretation of the input received from the rest of the body.
Human minds are fallible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:55:14 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
No matter how many people agree on it, 2 + 2 != 5. sorry bud, but math is a language, not reality. if "5" was the symbol for this many [* * * *], then 2 + 2 would absolutely equal 5. there is nothing whatsoever special about the words "two" and "five", or the shapes "2" and "5". they are completely arbitrary, made-up symbols. The symbols are arbitrary. What they're describing is not. Your just engaging in ontological masturbation: no matter what words you used to describe the parts, the underlying equation would remain unaffected. Complain all you want about the limited ability of language to convey meaning but that's all you're saying. It has no bearing on an objective reality. If we transposed the words "knife" and "towel" we'd still use a tongue of sharpened metal to cut things and a piece of woven fiber to dry ourselves with. I absolutely knew someone was going to completely miss the point and argue minutiae. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 4:57:27 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can prove that to be false with just two people. One blind and one with sight. it's not as simple as you suggest. the person with "sight" can't know if his perception is actually correct or merely a convincing illusion. consider ESP and remote viewing, which are both a kind of apparent sensory stimulation. to someone who is convinced that he possesses such perception, you are the "blind" one, yet like most people, you would probably laugh at such an assertion. so any such proof that you attempt involves either a circle or a regress. Not at all. You could easily prove remote viewing as a factual sense to someone who lacked that ability through repeatable, unimpeachable experiments, if remote viewing wasn't a hoax. sorry man, but you're presuming that some kind of objective, mind-independent reality can be apprehended. that's a comfortable assumption, but a wrong one. the person who is experiences the phenomenon can't know if it is real, and the person to whom the proof is presented cannot know that he is apprehending the proof correctly. after all, he couldn't be in both places (the event and the remote location) at the same time, and he can't know that the experience is isomorphic with the event (of even if the language of the remote sensor reflects the experience itself). human experience is intrinsically perspectival, and a perspective by its very nature distorts that which is perceived. This thread cannot be a figment of my imagination. I would never be so cruel to myself.
edit: i'm bored at work, and have already completed the busy work i created for myself. so this thread is my only hope! I'm waiting for dough to rise.  Why do you think I started this thread? I suppose I could start a thread titled "pics of my yeast infection" and post pictures of the dough for lulz.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 5:00:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Still no monkey.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 5:05:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Without conscience observation, everything collapses into nothing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 5:05:39 PM EDT
[#41]
Perception is reality. Reality can be altered.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 5:07:31 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Still no monkey. I didn't promise a monkey  I can give you 14 pieces of 338 Marlin EXP brass though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 5:08:46 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Without conscience observation, everything collapses into nothing. Consciousness has jack shit to do with quantum mechanics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 5:15:44 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: There is only one thing that is reality and that is reality. we only know the one reality and thats the reality we perceive with our limited abilites. our limited perception creates the reality we understand. A = A becuase all the input our brain receives interprets it as thus. that does not make it true, it simply means we as humans can cannot perceive it any other way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 5:17:24 PM EDT
[#45]
Ragun Cajun,
Math isn't real either. It's a logical construct that is often used to aproximate reality, but it is just an idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 5:23:04 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No matter how many people agree on it, 2 + 2 != 5. sorry bud, but math is a language, not reality. if "5" was the symbol for this many [* * * *], then 2 + 2 would absolutely equal 5. there is nothing whatsoever special about the words "two" and "five", or the shapes "2" and "5". they are completely arbitrary, made-up symbols. The symbols are arbitrary. What they're describing is not. Your just engaging in ontological masturbation: no matter what words you used to describe the parts, the underlying equation would remain unaffected. Complain all you want about the limited ability of language to convey meaning but that's all you're saying. It has no bearing on an objective reality. If we transposed the words "knife" and "towel" we'd still use a tongue of sharpened metal to cut things and a piece of woven fiber to dry ourselves with. I absolutely knew someone was going to completely miss the point and argue minutiae. the symbols only describe derivations of sensory experience. your ability to individuate (the conceptual basis of mathematics) derives from your cognition of the world, which is unreliable. you can squirm all you want, but sans cognition, any language is conceptually empty. you would have nothing to count. i will repeat my point at the outset––the only reason you have to believe that your senses approximate that which actually exists is by consensus––that you agree with other people about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 5:26:24 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
It may not literally be true, but you'll go farther living by this concept than ignoring or denying it. Correct. It's basically a saying that is supposed to encourage people to focus on positive things. Do that, and you'll be happier. Dwell on the negative side of things, and you'll be miserable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 5:31:55 PM EDT
[#48]
The truth (reality) shall set you free. Worry about other people's perceptions and you will be a slave to them for the rest of your life.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2011 3:49:49 PM EDT
[#49]
In business-yes
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2011 3:55:47 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can prove that to be false with just two people. One blind and one with sight. it's not as simple as you suggest. the person with "sight" can't know if his perception is actually correct or merely a convincing illusion. consider ESP and remote viewing, which are both a kind of apparent sensory stimulation. to someone who is convinced that he possesses such perception, you are the "blind" one, yet like most people, you would probably laugh at such an assertion. so any such proof that you attempt involves either a circle or a regress. Not at all. You could easily prove remote viewing as a factual sense to someone who lacked that ability through repeatable, unimpeachable experiments, if remote viewing wasn't a hoax. sorry man, but you're presuming that some kind of objective, mind-independent reality can be apprehended. that's a comfortable assumption, but a wrong one. the person who is experiences the phenomenon can't know if it is real, and the person to whom the proof is presented cannot know that he is apprehending the proof correctly. after all, he couldn't be in both places (the event and the remote location) at the same time, and he can't know that the experience is isomorphic with the event (of even if the language of the remote sensor reflects the experience itself). human experience is intrinsically perspectival, and a perspective by its very nature distorts that which is perceived. Precisely To bad you can't ask Helen Keller about her "perception of reality"!!! Helen Keller didn't have a functioning brain? She had NO sensory input? No taste, to tactile sensation, no temperature sensitivity, no experience of pressure and balance in her inner ear? Of course she perceived reality - she just had a more limited perception of it. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
