Any Philosophers?

[Milky Jade 138]

I love you.

O mani padme hum.

 

I love you for 'om mani padme hum'

 

brohoof'd and such

 

bedtime

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

 

 

it gives us a close approximation - which contains the implicit statement that it is reliable.

 

Reliable up until the point that it's not. Predators in the wild that use camouflage depend on this unreliability of vision.

 

 

 

A perception is satisfied with what stimulates it. To ask it to be stimulated by more than it is, is to in turn ask it to be 'omniperceptive', because that'd be the prerequisite for 'omniscience'. The fact that it isn't, makes it invalid insofar you think that validity is equal to 'omniperception', which is in turn incompatible with our identity: that we're human beings, not omniscient beings. The entire colour argument is, more or less, a strawman.

 

Oh, I wasn't using this in any sort of counterargument to what you were saying, I was merely stating that literally because my perception is limited, it does not give me a 100% perfectly accurate representation of the world, only the pieces that I need, up to a point.

 

I wish I had the ability to see in the UV spectrum at night. That'd be useful.

 

I'm actually undecided on how to feel about your whole argument. I need to crunch the information down and think on it.

 

 

I love you for 'om mani padme hum'

 

brohoof'd and such

 

bedtime

 

Night!

[Milky Jade 138]

Reliable up until the point that it's not. Predators in the wild that use camouflage depend on this unreliability of vision.

 

If you have trouble with my argument, maybe you can start by asking yourself just why exactly "reliability" has to be equivalent to "100% accurate", and how the fact that it's not is conducive to my argument.

 

See you after the weekend, dearie.

[Discordian 6,015]

I initially wanted to make a big detour around philosophy threads because I'm no good at making a proper case, half of the time.

 

 

Essentially, what happens in these threads is that you are trying to prove somebody wrong, or yourself right, and that's where the "fun" only begins.....

 

So, you've brought up "different views", "subjectivity" and "meaning".

 

In order to resolve these, you first have to ask the questions that they presuppose:

 

"what is the decisive factor in the validity of a view?"

 

"of meaning to whom?"

 

If you go ahead and assume that everyone's view is equally valid, in their own minds, then you are basically saying that no one's view is valid. This is where I'll need to explain 'identity'.

 

You said: "It's possible for an object to be one thing and also another"

 

This idea is incompatible with the philosophical idea of identity - namely, "A equals A" - the idea by which a delineated object with specific nature made of specific attributes is separated from the nothingness of nonexistence. In order to arrive here, you will have to start with existence, because identity is concerned with existence.

Do things exist? Well, you should find evidence aplenty in your porn folder, so there's that. Do things have an identity?

 

Generally speaking, can you have your cake and eat it, too?

 

The idea of identity is concerned with things as they are - because in order to assert the state of something to be something, you have to assume that it cannot be another thing outside of its delineation - which is to say, you cannot be both in New York and Hong Kong, you cannot be a human and a crocodile, nor can you be right and wrong at the same time. The law of identity is similar to an axiom because it affects you in your most basic, inescapable assumptions. However, the thinkable objections are not pertinent to the kind of identities that we are discussing: Things as they are - and a thing is what it is. The attributes that constitute its identity is what a thing is. An existence apart from its attributes would be an existence apart from its identity, a nonexistence.

 

 

 

It is said thus that your white view and my black view don't make an object grey. The next step from this is subjectivity, which stands in direct contradiction with knowledge yet again (surprise, surprise), and is famous for statements along the line of "true for me", "that's just, like, your opinion, man", and so on. If you want an object to maintain its identity, you have to grant it the possibility to be understood by people that care to understand it. Kant obviously doesn't, but we're better than that.

 

You mentioned "meaning", and showing a book to a dog. A book is a book. It has a different meaning to us (comparing humans to dogs is kind of "silly", considering how they aren't rational beings) than it has to dogs - sure, but does that constitute a good example?

 

"Meaning" is the direct consequence of a meaning-giver, the corollary of intent. Things that weren't intended, have no meaning - such as rocks, for example.

 

Books, however.. are being printed to be sold, read, shelf'd, maybe even burned.

 

That, and nothing else, is the proper definition of "meaning". The presupposed question of "meaning" is: "of meaning to whom? and for what reason?". This, however, is not to be united or confused with the law of identity. A rock's identity is a rock - being a bear's back-scratcher doesn't make it "not a rock". The bear's hypothetical subjective view cannot impede on the rock's identity, because it is not capable of altering its delineations or reality. A book will still be a book, no matter if it is intelligible to a dog. The identity of things does not require all sentient beings to parse it equally.

And that's kind of what I'm saying. Core identity and meaning given by other things create a whole, not just one or the other. If four people saw one side of a four-sided object, each side being made of a different material, the four will all say it's made of different things and disagree on what made the identity of the object. A basic and arbitrary example, I know. Imagine if we knew all four sides and gave it that definition but still didn't know what was inside and had no way of finding out. We would have to guess at it.

 

Possibilities. One of the greatest curiosities of the universe, known and unknown. There are a lot of things we don't know and the very definition of things we do know can change if we know more about it. The change doesn't necessarily affect what it's made of but will change how it's viewed or how it's thought of.

 

You get into more intangible ideas such as dreams, alternate dimensions and thoughts in general and you have to start thinking about things not as an identifiable object but as a collection of possibilities until one is absolutely proven to be true. And even one proof doesn't necessarily identify the whole, just one aspect of it as we understand it. There are a lot of things that can't be described with any words I know of, maybe none in any human language, but they exist nonetheless. To me that suggests that are things we also can't comprehend with our senses or ability to think, not at this time with what we know.

 

I totally agree that one's perception of something doesn't necessarily change the truth. A truth can exist without knowledge of it's existence. But perceptions do add to that little ball of existence one way or another. There's more to existing than what we can sense. As Kelgrym said, it's not that we aren't seeing, it's that we aren't seeing fully. We can't see everything an object is made up of and we most certainly can't see something as intangible as a thought.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Discordian

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

 

 

But I'll choose to harp on that: Why do you assume that you don't see things how they are?

 

This is the question I am answering. Why do I assume that I don't see things how they are. For the record, I am just answering this question, and not in any context with any of the arguments you are making with anyone else.

 

Upon review, I've realized that I have answered this very simply.

 

There is a clear difference between what something IS, and what it appears to be.

 

Consider a perfectly camouflaged octopus.

 

 

We really are not seeing how things are. We are only seeing what our brain tells us to see.

 

How things ARE is to the objective, as How they appear is to the subjective.

 

We do not see things as they really are, only as they appear to be. This is accurate. This is true.

 

 

If you have trouble with my argument, maybe you can start by asking yourself just why exactly "reliability" has to be equivalent to "100% accurate", and how the fact that it's not is conducive to my argument.

 

I don't think any of this is actually necessary. In fact, as as answering your question I first quoted, I've done so appropriately.

 

Everything else is...red herring.

 

But to answer it, reliability does not mean having to be 100% accurate, if I implied that, then I was in error. Reliability implies being accurate enough to avoid being eaten in the wild.

 

And to further drive home my point, no matter how reliable the sense of vision is, it is still a picture painted by the brain. It gives you an appearance of what's out there, but that is distinguishable from what is objectively out there.

 

I see things in dreams. That does not mean what I see has an objective reality in my dreams.

 

Why do I assume that I don't see things as how they are? Because we only see things as how they appear.

 

No matter how close an approximation to the reality, it is only an approximation. Not the reality.

[Discordian 6,015]

Time to throw out a random theory to get this topic rolling again:

 

We are seemingly alone in this part of the universe but is that because we happen to be a random combination of particles that came together to create a specific group of lifeforms or are we maybe intentionally sequestered away from the rest of civilization?

 

Imagine: Humans are a greedy species. Look at what we've done to the world we live on. We've completely dominated it to the point of overpopulation, entire species' going extinct and most of the natural structures of the world being destroyed and replaced with their own husks.

 

What if we're quarantined away because of the fact that we do this and have maybe done it in the past? The rest of the universe doesn't want us going to war with them and dominating their resources.

 

What do you guys think? Why does it seem like of all the space there is, we just happen to be here and only here?

[Cuddleshy 49]

Im Roman Catholic and some of my philosophy is based off the Bible.

[Nine 707]

@@Discordian, 

mrehhhhhhhh 

I don't think humans are as bad as humans say they are.

 

But .. anyway .. how would the aliens know to put us in the corner before now?

[Milky Jade 138]

There is a clear difference between what something IS, and what it appears to be.

 

Consider a perfectly camouflaged octopus.

 

We really are not seeing how things are. We are only seeing what our brain tells us to see.

 

How things ARE is to the objective, as How they appear is to the subjective.

 

We do not see things as they really are, only as they appear to be. This is accurate. This is true.

 

And that's the strawman - I've asked about the validity of your perception. I already stated that in order to make a countercase for camouflaged creatures, hallucinations and approximations, you've spun 540° and coast towards the misunderstanding I suspected to be at work. It can be boiled down to "perceptions are invalid because they are not perfect" (read: absurd).

There is a reason people are not selling their eyes on ebay.

 

I'm willing to ignore all of this nonsense to pose a different question: Are our perceptions the only means we have of gathering knowledge?

And the corollary question: Do we have knowledge?

 

 

Unless of course you disagree that we do... now that this has been finally resolved:

 

 

And to further drive home my point, no matter how reliable the sense of vision is, it is still a picture painted by the brain. It gives you an appearance of what's out there, but that is distinguishable from what is objectively out there.

 

I see things in dreams. That does not mean what I see has an objective reality in my dreams.

 

Why do I assume that I don't see things as how they are? Because we only see things as how they appear.

 

No matter how close an approximation to the reality, it is only an approximation. Not the reality.

 

See, colour is not a property of things per se. Colours are 'added' by our brain. The shape of things as we see them is appropriate to our sense of depth and distance. This is why we don't constantly walk into walls.

 

Now, is what we see 'different' from how something is? Well... who can really say? What *is* the reality? If I see the camouflage of a creature, I still see that creature, but I'm not aware that it is a creature - because there's no actual difference between itself and the surrounding - hardly a case for invalid eyes... so what would an eye be able to see in order to be generally reliable?

 

Down to the electrons and quarks?

 

Our eyes use the information that is important. A lot of the information that you drown in, is being discarded right off the bat.

You wouldn't be able to make sense of what you see, if it weren't like that. Approximation or not, eyes serve a specific end. I think they are valid for the reason that they developed and evolved to this point (from a tiny hole that is able to tell the difference between light and dark), because faulty eyes don't serve constructive ends. The onslaught on perception is not unlike the onslaught on knowledge - by saying that our perceptions are invalid, you are in effect saying that only absolute knowledge is proper, and since we do not have that, our 'intrinsically subjective' perceptions can never be a proper means of attaining knowledge.

 

I shouldn't think I need to explain why I abhor these baleful ideas.

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

 

 

It can be boiled down to "perceptions are invalid because they are not perfect" (read: absurd).

 

Perceptions are invalid when it comes to representing what an object fully IS.

 

This is not a straw man.

 

I don't even understand your reasoning. It seems like you have a difficult time making the distinction between appearance and objective reality.

 

Are our perceptions the only means we have of gathering knowledge? And the corollary question: Do we have knowledge?

 

We gather information via our senses. What we put together out of that information we may call knowledge, but may be mistaken. Information would be a more appropriate word to call it than knowledge

 

 

 

See, colour is not a property of things per se. Colours are 'added' by our brain. The shape of things as we see them is appropriate to our sense of depth and distance. This is why we don't constantly walk into walls. Now, is what we see 'different' from how something is? Well... who can really say? What *is* the reality? If I see the camouflage of a creature, I still see that creature, but I'm not aware that it is a creature - because there's no actual difference between itself and the surrounding - hardly a case for invalid eyes... so what would an eye be able to see in order to be generally reliable? Down to the electrons and quarks? Our eyes use the information that is important. A lot of the information that you drown in, is being discarded right off the bat. You wouldn't be able to make sense of what you see, if it weren't like that. Approximation or not, eyes serve a specific end. I think they are valid for the reason that they developed and evolved to this point (from a tiny hole that is able to tell the difference between light and dark), because faulty eyes don't serve constructive ends. The onslaught on perception is not unlike the onslaught on knowledge - by saying that our perceptions are invalid, you are in effect saying that only absolute knowledge is proper, and since we do not have that, our 'intrinsically subjective' perceptions can never be a proper means of attaining knowledge. I shouldn't think I need to explain why I abhor these baleful ideas.

.

 

Before you had my curiosity, then you merely vexed me, now you have my full attention.

 

Having considered your argument and everything you said, I'm making a change in positions and reaffirmation of assertions.

 

We do not see the world as it truely IS, because that would require omniperception and omniscience.

 

To perceive anything, we require that somethings are hidden from us. In a room with no light, we are blind, in a room filled with too much light, we are blind.

 

Knowledge as we experience it, requires a dualistic frame work of thinking. Everything is rooted in its opposite. You can't know what black really is without knowing the white.

 

To be able to perceive all things as they really are, right down to quarks and everything, would be akin to a mystical experience, which sums up to nothing more than mental orgasm. Or epilepsy.

 

We, however, do not know anything, except for what our brains tell us. On base observation alone, we may only know the appearance of a thing, but we may run tests on an object and determine more about its properties.

 

However, what this is still gathering information. And that's what we really have, information. Our tests may have been flawed, and the information we gathered may be wrong.

 

We may gather information, and that information may be knowledge if it's accurate to reality.

 

However we still only see things as they appear. Not as they really are.

 

That does not mean we can not learn and deduce what things really are.

[Bbplsloveme 42]

 

Philosophy just makes me think too much and makes me want to kill myself so I just avoid it. I do enjoy brainf**k movies though. That could count. Big fan of donnie darko. xD

[Milky Jade 138]

Perceptions are invalid when it comes to representing what an object fully IS.

 

This is not a straw man.

Well, actually, it is, because I'm arguing for the validity of our perceptions, and you chose to ignore that in favour of arguing besides, along the lines of "validity = omniscience".

 

Look: Generally, there are two options. Either you attain knowledge with a willfull act of cognition, by integrating the information gathered by your senses into percepts, and those into concepts –– Or you find yourself to be the vessel of knowledge that takes no effort to attain - that it comes to you naturally - whether by divine inspiration or otherwise.

 

Since we clearly are not the recipients of free knowledge, the only thing proper for us is to use our senses - and it would be improper to ask of these senses to, well, not exist - because our senses only exist on the basis that we are not omniscient and therefore need them.

 

 

I don't even understand your reasoning. It seems like you have a difficult time making the distinction between appearance and objective reality.

 

No, that is your straaaw maaan.

 

I don't care about being omniscient - i.e., being able to see things without the 'middle man', our senses, which are tuned to use only the needed information; and are 'fallible'. Omniscience is the only way of "perceiving" objective reality. Do you see me arguing the entire time that omniscience is not pertinent to the validity of our senses? You do? Good.

 

Just to get it straight - again - the validity of our senses is perpetually confirmed in daily life. Thinkable objections would be hallucinations (though we're constantly being drugged by our brains anyway, technically, perception is a drug trip), and ailments.

If you punch someone, you see your fist connect with their face, you feel the pain in your hand and then in your face.

It shouldn't come to you as a surprise, unless you actually saw yourself watering flowers or something. When I asked Discord, I was trying to get to a point where it would be obvious why his statement has no meaning in philosophy.

 

Yes, we are contingent on our perceptions - while Kant (and Discord) think that this means that they are naught therefore, I think it proves the opposite. The evolution of the eyeball, whatever - just punch Kant in the face to prove him wrong.

 

 

Knowledge as we experience it, requires a dualistic frame work of thinking. Everything is rooted in its opposite. You can't know what black really is without knowing the white.

 

We, however, do not know anything, except for what our brains tell us. On base observation alone, we may only know the appearance of a thing, but we may run tests on an object and determine more about its properties.

 

However, what this is still gathering information. And that's what we really have, information. Our tests may have been flawed, and the information we gathered may be wrong.

 

We may gather information, and that information may be knowledge if it's accurate to reality.

 

However we still only see things as they appear. Not as they really are.

 

That does not mean we can not learn and deduce what things really are.

 

And we can't know the white without first knowing the black. That's brilliant - knowledge comes only in pairs?

 

Don't children experience happiness, generally, before they experience suffering?

 

There is no such requirement.. a 'knowledge barometer' doesn't exist. However, we *do* have some kind of barometer, which differentiates pleasure and pain.

 

Bold Italic Underlined: Re: willful act of cognition

 

I thought i'd be getting there eventually - you cannot make sense of the information you conclude in experiments, without perception. What you said is right, for the reasons I gave above: To escape the subjection of using your brain, and to be conscious, you can do easily - on the other hand, the alternative is to be unconscious or omniscient - so in order to acquire knowledge, you have to make a decision here.

 

You cannot have both.

 

The rest of what you said is perfectly agreeable. Precisely my point, actually. You wouldn't trust yourself to acquire knowledge if you assume that your perception is invalid. Experiments and testings and endless confirming requires your perception, too - this is where I've lost a number of people before, I think - validity does not imply instant, accurate information. It can be instant and inaccurate, cumbersome to acquire and accurate, neither or both - but the fact remains that in order to assume that we *can* have knowledge, the first step is to assume that you can form the prerequisite percepts to integrate the information at hand, into knowledge.

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

 

 

Just to get it straight - again - the validity of our senses is perpetually confirmed in daily life. Thinkable objections would be hallucinations (though we're constantly being drugged by our brains anyway, technically, perception is a drug trip), and ailments.

 

Ok, I think I know what to concentrate on.

 

Your main assertion is that the validity of our senses are perpetually confirmed in daily life.

 

I think the wall were hitting comes from the question of how we define validity.

 

To me, validity would be a perfect match between our senses and the objective world.

 

The way I see it, your use validity where utility is more appropriate.

 

If I concede that validity equates to utility, would we be in agreement?

 

 

 

And we can't know the white without first knowing the black. That's brilliant - knowledge comes only in pairs? Don't children experience happiness, generally, before they experience suffering?

 

Children may experience happiness before they experience suffering, but they do not understand what happiness is until it is defined by suffering...and to be technically accurate, children most often experience suffering first, when they are born. They aren't crying for no reason.

 

But my duality argument is feeling a bit weak and unneeded in this argument, so valid or not, I withdraw this point to avoid going on unneeded tangents.

 

 

 

I thought i'd be getting there eventually - you cannot make sense of the information you conclude in experiments, without perception. What you said is right, for the reasons I gave above: To escape the subjection of using your brain, and to be conscious, you can do easily - on the other hand, the alternative is to be unconscious or omniscient - so in order to acquire knowledge, you have to make a decision here.

 

Can't make sense of information without perception. Agreed. Check...

 

But when you say, "To escape the subjection of using your brain, and to be conscious"...I'm confused. Were stuck using our brain. Cognitive thoughts are dictated by the brain...can you word this more concisely? Maybe I'm stupid, but this statement seems ambiguous to me.

 

 

 

but the fact remains that in order to assume that we *can* have knowledge, the first step is to assume that you can form the prerequisite percepts to integrate the information at hand, into knowledge.

 

I agree. To assume that we can have knowledge we must assume that we have the cognitive capability to put together that knowledge.

 

My initial argument however, wasn't that we can't have knowledge or anything like that. My assertion was, that I don't see what is there, but that I see only the appearance of the thing. This does not deny my ability to have knowledge of a thing, I do have sensory knowledge of the thing's appearance and from there I can deduce more about it.

 

Does this still conflict with your argument?

 

I really want to figure out a way through this wall were having, cause we seem to agree on a lot.

[Cstriker 737]

Hello all! I am a Computer Science major, however philosophy has always interested me. I enjoy the works of Freiderich Nietzsche, David Hume, and the whole ideologies of Solipsism, Utilitarianism, and Humanism.

 

Perhaps we can all chat and discuss different philosophies, world views, and help each other get closer to attaining the higher truth?

 

I have at great length studied and learned from the many philosophies. However after a time I came to my realization that Humes Skepticism, Utilitarianisms pleasure seeking, and systems that focused around self and without absolute morality were hollow and ultimately with applied with Kant's universalism leads to facism and cruelty. I have heard students say, "Hey we are not going to run around raping and killing and stealing." Which may be true for most, but there are those that rise up as leaders that do exactly that, kill and destroy.

 

Look at history with the implimentation of a subjective morality: holocaust, Stalin's rise, the Red Guard rebellion and Boxer Rebellion. Facism lead by a lack of moral conscience driven by progress, fear, and atheistic pursuits led to the the bloodiest century in humanity. There are many that would then argue "WO Cstriker, Hitler was Christian and therefore a absolute moralist!" Ney, he was not. At Nuremberg he was quote to have stated "I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of conscience - imperious, relentless and cruel." (to the Hitler Jungen). Hitler was devoid of conscience and morality, kept his own people living in fear, forcing many to flee before the outset of war.  

 

Even Jean-Paul Sarte stated before he died, Atheism and Exestentialism as practiced now are "Unbearable and Unlivable."

 

 

A higher truth? I am an absolute moralist, Kantian and Pragmatic (love some William James). I find pascals wager simple yet profound when revisited after further study of opposing systems.

[Milky Jade 138]

1. If I concede that validity equates to utility, would we be in agreement?

 

2. They aren't crying for no reason.

 

3. But when you say, "To escape the subjection of using your brain, and to be conscious"...I'm confused. Were stuck using our brain. Cognitive thoughts are dictated by the brain...can you word this more concisely? Maybe I'm stupid, but this statement seems ambiguous to me.

 

4. I agree. To assume that we can have knowledge we must assume that we have the cognitive capability to put together that knowledge.

 

5. My initial argument however, wasn't that we can't have knowledge or anything like that. My assertion was, that I don't see what is there, but that I see only the appearance of the thing. This does not deny my ability to have knowledge of a thing, I do have sensory knowledge of the thing's appearance and from there I can deduce more about it.

 

6. Does this still conflict with your argument?

 

1: I have been trying to tell you that 'perception' isn't just perception, but it's a specific, delineated means of gathering information. This is what properly defines your perception - so in order to make a statement about the validity of it, you must ask yourself " is our perception doing its job alright? " - not "does our perception make us aware of how reality >actually< looks like? If you want like, know all the quantum states and arrangements and Kant-punch Heisenberg, go ahead, because you're now literally God. The reason we have perception is because we aren't omniscient, so it is not proper to our perception to be called upon to be omniscient, and therefore its validity is not dependent on it.

 

2. Well I guess they're crying to get their lungs working, but I'd be willing to argue that you *can* know what fresh air tastes like, without having had a cigarette in your life. If you then smoke it, and yearn for fresh air, you now have a better reference point (if smoking is like, rock bottom), but your first taste of fresh air is therefore not less real than it is now....

 

3. I think I've been bumping the issue somewhere before.. we are left to be with two choices - to be conscious, or to not be conscious. Our brains are forcing our hands on that decision. You can stay conscious by integrating the sense data around you with your consciousness and form it into concepts(ideas) in your "subconscious" (let's be very careful with this word). This is a willful act of cognition that requires effort (it actually burns calories, if you want proof). To choose the opposite - to not do it, is to act at chance whims, without following anything that would require to "leaf through" your values and act according to them: it would be the mental equivalent of being a zombie, to which knowledge has no use. This is to be unconscious.. but there's another alternative: the case in which you don't have to make an effort at all - being omniscient. To be omniscient means to be somehow, directly tied to knowledge, naturally. It comes to you unsolicitedly, to be omniscient means to have no choice in the matter. Maybe you've now started to develop a distaste for the idea of omniscience? I really hope I did something to at least get your suspicion activated.

 

4. Well, that's true, but knowledge presupposes other things. Generally, this is how it goes down:

Senses perceive data -> perception retains multiple stimuli -> separation and abstraction of percepts -> cognition -> mental integration -> concepts -> higher concepts -> and even higher concepts... (-> concretes -> language -> knowledge -> sciences)

 

"Let the witch doctor who does not choose to accept the validity of sensory perception, try to prove it without using the data he obtained by sensory perception."

 

5. Which is true. Does that mean we agree?

 

6. I think we should find no further points of contention. To be honest, we discussed this extensively. There is no way I'm going to continue writing these beasts, if the need exists, I'll keep it short... they say you can do things beyond necessity.

 

Hanyway, I think we pretty much wrapped up. Give me a call whenever. I suggest leaving room for the other folks, too...

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

I have been trying to tell you that 'perception' isn't just perception, but it's a specific, delineated means of gathering information. This is what properly defines your perception - so in order to make a statement about the validity of it, you must ask yourself " is our perception doing its job alright? " - not "does our perception make us aware of how reality >actually< looks like?

 

I can't argue with that. But either question can be ask and each question has to different answers.

 

Is our perception doing it's job right? - Yes or No.

 

Does our perception make us aware of how reality actually is? - The absolute "Is-ness" of reality is incomprehensible. We can't know everything.

 

 

 

If you want like, know all the quantum states and arrangements and Kant-punch Heisenberg, go ahead, because you're now literally God. The reason we have perception is because we aren't omniscient, so it is not proper to our perception to be called upon to be omniscient, and therefore its validity is not dependent on it.

 

Limited perception is the only possible perception. Omniscient perception is impossible.

 

Where; validity = x

 

and Where X = 100% accuracy with objective reality

 

Then Perception is not X = Valid

 

But, Where; validity = Y

 

and where Y = Utility or 'it just does what its suppose to do'

 

Then Perception is Y = Valid

 

 

 

think I've been bumping the issue somewhere before.. we are left to be with two choices - to be conscious, or to not be conscious. Our brains are forcing our hands on that decision. You can stay conscious by integrating the sense data around you with your consciousness and form it into concepts(ideas) in your "subconscious" (let's be very careful with this word).

 

Subconscious is scientifically inaccurate and more of a new ager word. The proper term is the unconscious. No serious academic will use the word subconscious, except by accident.

 

 

 

To choose the opposite - to not do it, is to act at chance whims, without following anything that would require to "leaf through" your values and act according to them: it would be the mental equivalent of being a zombie, to which knowledge has no use. This is to be unconscious..

 

I think your bordering on tautology and its precisely this kind of weird way of writing that frustrates people who do debate with you.

 

For example, you cannot choose to not be unconscious, except by going to sleep or by knocking yourself out. Consciousness is a state of awareness. So when I read what you say, I'm scratching my head trying to figure that out, when I'm sure you already made your point, but now your adding a lot of verbosity to back that point up, which serves to obfuscate it.

 

This, I think is what you meant to say.

 

Either we are conscious, using our brains to put together sensor data, or knowledge, or we are omniscient which is clearly impossible.

 

This is really all you had to say.

 

Being unconscious and aware, is impossible. Unconscious = knocked out. I still don't make heads or tails out of this. You've argued well enough for the validity of perception. It doesn't have to be %100 accurate to objective reality, that's impossible, and perception is only possible in it's limited sense anyways, and our perceptions have validity in their necessary utility.

 

Perceptions are real in of themselves, objectively caused, and reliable enough to deduce the rest of the world, therefore valid. (forgive me if I'm sounding tautological now)

 

Trim the fat in your arguments and you're golden.

 

 

 

"Let the witch doctor who does not choose to accept the validity of sensory perception, try to prove it without using the data he obtained by sensory perception."

 

Good quote.

 

 

 

5. Which is true. Does that mean we agree?

 

I think we are. We just differ in our semantic terminology and methods of argument to come to this agreement.

 

New topic?

I have at great length studied and learned from the many philosophies. However after a time I came to my realization that Humes Skepticism, Utilitarianisms pleasure seeking, and systems that focused around self and without absolute morality were hollow and ultimately with applied with Kant's universalism leads to facism and cruelty. I have heard students say, "Hey we are not going to run around raping and killing and stealing." Which may be true for most, but there are those that rise up as leaders that do exactly that, kill and destroy.

 

Look at history with the implimentation of a subjective morality: holocaust, Stalin's rise, the Red Guard rebellion and Boxer Rebellion. Facism lead by a lack of moral conscience driven by progress, fear, and atheistic pursuits led to the the bloodiest century in humanity. There are many that would then argue "WO Cstriker, Hitler was Christian and therefore a absolute moralist!" Ney, he was not. At Nuremberg he was quote to have stated "I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of conscience - imperious, relentless and cruel." (to the Hitler Jungen). Hitler was devoid of conscience and morality, kept his own people living in fear, forcing many to flee before the outset of war.  

 

Even Jean-Paul Sarte stated before he died, Atheism and Exestentialism as practiced now are "Unbearable and Unlivable."

 

 

A higher truth? I am an absolute moralist, Kantian and Pragmatic (love some William James). I find pascals wager simple yet profound when revisited after further study of opposing systems.

 

I'm fixing to go to work, but I'll take an opposing side of debate with some of the things you stated.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Minister KelGrym

[Milky Jade 138]

I can't argue with that. But either question can be ask and each question has to different answers.

 

Is our perception doing it's job right? - Yes or No.

 

Does our perception make us aware of how reality actually is? - The absolute "Is-ness" of reality is incomprehensible. We can't know everything.

 

 

 

 

Limited perception is the only possible perception. Omniscient perception is impossible.

 

Where; validity = x

 

and Where X = 100% accuracy with objective reality

 

Then Perception is not X = Valid

 

But, Where; validity = Y

 

and where Y = Utility or 'it just does what its suppose to do'

 

Then Perception is Y = Valid

 

If you understood what I've ruminated times over, then there was no need to make this.. entire block.

 

 

Subconscious is scientifically inaccurate and more of a new ager word. The proper term is the unconscious. No serious academic will use the word subconscious, except by accident.

 

Philosophically, the subconscious has different connotations. But: I don't have to use the consciousness to prove it to you philosophically.

 

Anyway, I've written rhapsodic about this topic in a different thread, about the neuroscience and information theory of consciousness.. anyway, I think you can find yourself able to trust me when I say that I think the subconscious is not a 'real' thing, as far as it's ascertained, but philosophically, it definitely is. Dunmatter, this discussion is as good as over.

 

 

1. For example, you cannot choose to not be unconscious, except by going to sleep or by knocking yourself out. Consciousness is a state of awareness. So when I read what you say, I'm scratching my head trying to figure that out, when I'm sure you already made your point, but now your adding a lot of verbosity to back that point up, which serves to obfuscate it.

 

2. Being unconscious and aware, is impossible. Unconscious = knocked out. I still don't make heads or tails out of this. You've argued well enough for the validity of perception. It doesn't have to be %100 accurate to objective reality, that's impossible, and perception is only possible in it's limited sense anyways, and our perceptions have validity in their necessary utility.

 

1. And this is where it gets philosophical.

 

My case starts in the following: To make a meaningful differentiation, you have to differentiate between your mind which is in current focal awareness, and your mind which is not. Percepts actually act to encapture more than just a single sense at a time, that is to say, we can perceive things as 'entities', rather than a sum of senses. However, our perceptual awareness is limited, in a way that we may not visualize a thousand grains or a distance of 100 light years. What your conscious awareness allows you to do, is exactly that.

 

Whether people like it or not, the act of staying conscious is the act to stay focused. No, of course I don't bloody mean the difference between being asleep or knocked out and otherwise. I mean the differentiation between staying consciously aware, and unfocused.

 

Think... GIGO. Scientists like to use it to declare that with any given tool (formula, computer..), if you feed it nonsense (Garbage In), it will give you appropriate returns of nonsense (Garbage Out). The philosophical "subconscious" can be best explained using a programmed computer as an example. Side note: It's not necessary that you agree there exists a subconscious. I don't really, either. But we don't need neuroscience and psychology to disprove it: the terms we use may as well be substituted with "frog" and "umbrella", and it would still hold.

 

So.. GIGO. The output of your computer is determined by the quality of the input. Your conscious mind is the one that programs the computer that is your subconscious.. the code you write for it with your conscious awareness is like programming yourself to react in a specific way automatically, according to your values, and the output will be the corresponding emotion. If however you have an empty code, you're letting your subconscious default, a decision that takes less effort and a large contingent of humanity could be accused of having made and which leaves no mystery as to why everything is so severely fucked up.

 

2. To be unconscious means to not be in focal awareness, as I pointed out. This presupposes a choice.

If your entire consciousness shuts down, that is a pity, but to wake up does not mean that you are conscious, aware, and focussed by default. People like to think that consciousness and awareness are something you cannot opt out of, unless of course they drift on clouds inside their heads without so much as a single mental utterance.

 

Since three is golden: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/focus.html

 

I really don't want to run circles with you, again. Sometimes you have to think "nah, she couldn't've been that stupid". Think the alternative, or something.

No, I'm not saying that you have to focus in order to not instantly fall asleep or knock yourself out. I'm saying that to lose your focus, essentially, is to deactivate the part of consciousness that doesn't instantly boot up when you wake from your sleep...

 

 

Also: we can continue to PM, if you'd rather have that.

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

@@Milky Jade,

 

Well I understand what your saying now and were not in disagreement then.

 

This was silly. I like you.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

Whenever I'm riding in a car, I always look out the window and think about things. Does that make me a philosopher?

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

Whenever I'm riding in a car, I always look out the window and think about things. Does that make me a philosopher?

 

If it's about life and what's the meaning of things, and other questions of that nature, then yes.

 

If it's about porn, then no.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

But what if I think about the meaning of porn? I think that's philosophical enough.

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

But what if I think about the meaning of porn? I think that's philosophical enough.

 

...I just opened up pandora's box.

 

If...you are thinking about the nature of porn, what porn says about the human race, what constitutes as porn, and how that relates to ethics then...

 

Yes.

 

If you are thinking about the qualities that make good porn vs. bad porn, then you are involved in aesthetic thought, and aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the principles of beauty and artistic taste.

 

Dammit...you're a clever opponent to be sure. I lost that debate in a matter of seconds.

 

New record.

[Milky Jade 138]

@@Cstriker,

 

I don't think you want to be caught saying that the holocaust was the result of a subjective morality.

[Cstriker 737]

@@Cstriker,

 

I don't think you want to be caught saying that the holocaust was the result of a subjective morality.

I do want to say that. The holocaust was absolutly subjective to the morality of a facist government and a tyrannical leader. The holocaust was the outcome of Hitlers agenda for racial purity and dual purpose of destorying opposition by murdering rivals and enemies of the state. The behavior absolutely stems from a clarity of purpose. He was methodical, and purposeful in his actions. Hitler, Eichmann, Mengele, Oberhauser, Clauberg...this are some of histories most evil and purposeful individuals and the atrocities were absolutely subjective morality. The castration of children and gassing of women and babies are CERTAINLY NOT the work of a culture or person with absolute morality found in a personal God, or if one does not believe in God, in Kants Categorical Imperitive and the "Good Will."

 

Subjective morality being subjective to the a single individual or culture that is in stark contrast to the absolute morality and permeation of the greek cardinal virtues that you see stemming through almost every culture on the planet.

 

Eichmann before he was hung, stated he did NOT want a priest and said there was no time to waste as he was to die in 2 hours. He then refused a blind fold and restraints saying it impeded him from standing tall and he was diginified, and with his last breath shouted "Long live Germany, Long live Argentina!"

 

David Berlinksi even quotes Richard Dawkins in an interview, where even Dawkins stated he would not want to live in a world of subjective morality. The question was could he live with the moral and metaphysical ramifcations of the Darwinian world view. He said "No, the result could be Facism." The result usually is Facism. Look currently at North Korea, Atheistic state venerating the "Glorious Leader" and forces thousands into labor camps and commits executions on its own populace. Read the North Korean refugee statements to the U.N. that were recently released.

 

What do you think the Nazi Party was? Facist with no moral basis in absolute ethical virtues. Stalin, executed millions of his own people and stated by his Daughter he cursed God and wanted nothing to do with him. Stalin killed millions of his own people through execution, torture, famine, and forced exile upon millions to siberia starting in the 1930s. AGAIN! His morality subjective to his own desires and motivations instead of towards the good will of any human being for his purpose of rule, as a tyrannt. History for whatever reason seems to be kinder to Stalin, however that man was no Saint. He was certainly a force of evil as well.

 

@Milky Jade I appreciate you looking out for me, however there is a deeper purpose to my statement that is quite exact and holds itself true.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Cstriker

[Apologies.MC 50]

Immanual Kant surely seems to be a favourite in my school, though I find his writings hard to follow and prefer Socrates myself.