New perspectives on Relativity

[wraith]

That's a nonsense question. You're asking to describe something he's sensed without sensing it.

Not really. You should be able to do this if there really was something "out there"?

Further, there are things that we can be told exist, beyond our perception, which we can later perceive. Finally, we can be told that effects may occur relating to phenomenon which we cannot perceive, but we can perceive the effects, therefore allowing us to infer through perception their existence.

Again, how does this show that there really is matter beyond mind?

So, again, the ball lays in the solipsist court - what reason do you have to deny matter existing beyond its perception?

Actually, this question lies in everyones court. The reason that I deny matter existing beyond the perception of it is purely because there hasnt been any case where matter has been shown to exist beyond perception of it.

Where does the "matter" in your dreams come from?

 

[wraith]

I don't know, it's your philosophy

Im talking about that starwars analogy with the deathstar.
Who is hosting the server?

 

[Z]

Not really. You should be able to do this if there really was something "out there"?

Another nonsense statement. How do you sense a thing if you cannot sense a thing? NOW, you are demonstrating willful ignorance.

Are you saying a congenitally blind person should be able to sense the color of a rose?

I suggest thinking before you type.

Actually, this question lies in everyones court. The reason that I deny matter existing beyond the perception of it is purely because there hasnt been any case where matter has been shown to exist beyond perception of it.

Certainly there has. Plenty of it. You just need to, I don't know, do some learning.

Where does the "matter" in your dreams come from?

Where does the "matter" in a computer game come from? Where does the "matter" in a flight simulator come from?

*sigh* Another Dreamer nut.

OK, wraith, listen: there is no matter in a dream. A dream is nothing more than your brain activity wherein your sensory input has been tuned down. There is no relation between dreams and a real world because a) there is no consistancy between dreams or dreamers; b) dreams do not follow natural laws; c) dreams leave no permanent mark or affect upon those who are mentally sound; d) dreams can be controlled, manipulated, even erased as they occur at will by those trained to do so.

Reality is completely different from dreams, because there is something out there which is consistant, follows natural laws, leaves permanent affects, and cannot be easily controled or manipulated, and absolutely cannot be erased.

Anyway, ask a few more questions once you've grown up a bit.

 

[wraith]

Another nonsense statement. How do you sense a thing if you cannot sense a thing? NOW, you are demonstrating willful ignorance.

No wrong.
Until you show me something without the perception of it, your arguments mean nothing.

Are you saying a congenitally blind person should be able to sense the color of a rose?

No. But you're saying that this can be so. Are you saying that colour exists without the perception of it?

I suggest thinking before you type.

I suggest that you do the same.

Certainly there has. Plenty of it. You just need to, I don't know, do some learning.

Alright. Teach me.

Where does the "matter" in a computer game come from? Where does the "matter" in a flight simulator come from?

From the programmers.

OK, wraith, listen: there is no matter in a dream. A dream is nothing more than your brain activity wherein your sensory input has been tuned down.

So what's the difference when your senory input detects a "rock"?

There is no relation between dreams and a real world because a) there is no consistancy between dreams or dreamers;

What does this mean?

b) dreams do not follow natural laws; c) dreams leave no permanent mark or affect upon those who are mentally sound; d) dreams can be controlled, manipulated, even erased as they occur at will by those trained to do so.

Reality is completely different from dreams, because there is something out there which is consistant, follows natural laws, leaves permanent affects, and cannot be easily controled or manipulated, and absolutely cannot be erased.

How does this show that matter exists beyond mind? The rules that govern my dreams and the reality that I perceive are different, but both are confined to mind.

 

[Z]

Like I said, ask more questions when you grow up a bit.

Yes, colour exists without the perception of it. Matter exists without the perception of it. That's part of the consistancy of the material world. But you cannot sense colour or matter without perceiving it. Perception and sensation do not equal existence; the two are not related in that way. If your sensory input detects a rock, you sense a rock; you have no reason to believe that rock does not exist. But in a dream, you are not receiving sensory input, so there is no rock. Your senses are tuned down and what you are perceiving are internal random firings within your brain. The difference is, the rock you sense in waking life, others will also sense, and will remain when you are dead and buried. The one in your dream will vanish the second you awaken... or even sooner, given the ephemeral nature of dreams.

This is all grade-school stuff, wraith - either you are a solipsist in some form, an acosmist, or you believe real stuff exists 'out there'. And if 1) or 2), you can't argue about anything at all, because there is no logical consistancy in the universe, and no truth, and no absolutes, and nothing to prove anything - it's ALL illusion.

Occam's Razor favors the materialist.

Anyway, what DO you believe? Are you lifegazer's bud, and a fellow acosmist? If so, what does acosmism promise for the experiential individual above and beyond materialism?

Are you a solipsist? Then you are clearly wrong - to me. (think about it... )

Even interactive dualists have to agree that something exists beyond our perceptions of it. So (in a sense) dualists are materialists as well - just not sole-materialists.

 

[wraith]

Yes, colour exists without the perception of it.

Does it now? Describe "red" to a blind person.

Matter exists without the perception of it. That's part of the consistancy of the material world.

What's all this "consistency" talk about? I don't see how the consistency of physics helps show that matter exists beyond mind.

But you cannot sense colour or matter without perceiving it.

Yet you're certain they exist beyond perception?
What exactly is matter doing when it's not being looked at?
Is a "tree" still a "tree"?

Perception and sensation do not equal existence; the two are not related in that way. If your sensory input detects a rock, you sense a rock; you have no reason to believe that rock does not exist.

The "rock" exists, but not in a permanent state of matter, as you would have me believe. What would a tree be like if evolution didn't invent the eye?

But in a dream, you are not receiving sensory input, so there is no rock. Your senses are tuned down and what you are perceiving are internal random firings within your brain. The difference is, the rock you sense in waking life, others will also sense, and will remain when you are dead and buried. The one in your dream will vanish the second you awaken... or even sooner, given the ephemeral nature of dreams.

So what? Whether you're awake or dreaming, the perception of "rock" is exactly the same. But how can this be since you're saying that only matter has authority over our senses?

This is all grade-school stuff, wraith - either you are a solipsist in some form, an acosmist, or you believe real stuff exists 'out there'.

Like I said before, a "rock" does exist, but not in the default form of solid matter. That's when your perception kicks in. The perception of a rock is not the same as the true form of the rock. If it were, then every liviing thing would have the same perception of a rock. Would a grasshopper perceive a rock in the same way that we do?

Occam's Razor favors the materialist.

Thanks for the joke.

Anyway, what DO you believe? Are you lifegazer's bud, and a fellow acosmist? If so, what does acosmism promise for the experiential individual above and beyond materialism?

I believe that matter is a product of consciousness.
I do not deny the existence of the universe. I deny the existence of a universe existing beyond anyones mind.

Are you a solipsist? Then you are clearly wrong - to me. (think about it... )

No I'm not. But if I was, then I would tell myself that you're just a figment of my imagination saying to me "Are you a solipsist? Then you are clearly wrong - to me. (think about it... )"

Even interactive dualists have to agree that something exists beyond our perceptions of it. So (in a sense) dualists are materialists as well - just not sole-materialists.

I have nothing against dualists. Sure they see a material world, but they don't base their consciousness on matter.

 

[Z]

Wraith, you are clearly an acosmist - and not a very intelligent one, at that. I wash my hands of you. There is no point explaining anything to you, nor replying to your posts - there is no logical consistancy in the universe, and no truth, and no absolutes, and nothing to prove anything - it's ALL illusion.

However, for the Gentle Reader, I shall...

 

[Z]

Does it now? Describe "red" to a blind person.

Describe "ultraviolet" to a human. It's a wavelength of light. Red falls around 650 nm, and is a common coloration of apples, fire engines, and blood.

We can't see x-rays, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. We can't see atoms (directly), but they still exist, independent of our perceptions of them.

What's all this "consistency" talk about? I don't see how the consistency of physics helps show that matter exists beyond mind.

Because matter exists whether a mind is present to detect it or not... and is the same, no matter what mind detects it.

Yet you're certain they exist beyond perception?
What exactly is matter doing when it's not being looked at?
Is a "tree" still a "tree"?

Matter does what matter does, whether being looked at or not. A tree is a tree no matter who may be perceiving it, or not.

The "rock" exists, but not in a permanent state of matter, as you would have me believe. What would a tree be like if evolution didn't invent the eye?

Exactly like a tree in this reality. What proof do you have that the "rock" is not in a permanent (semi-permanent would be more accurate) state of matter? I'm all ears.

So what? Whether you're awake or dreaming, the perception of "rock" is exactly the same. But how can this be since you're saying that only matter has authority over our senses?

You appear to confuse senses with sensations. Our senses exist on our periphery, bringing in such information as they are capable of detecting. Sensations are patterns within the brain, usually generated by senses, but also capable of being generated by the brain itself. Again, simple stuff, Wraith.

Like I said before, a "rock" does exist, but not in the default form of solid matter. That's when your perception kicks in. The perception of a rock is not the same as the true form of the rock. If it were, then every liviing thing would have the same perception of a rock. Would a grasshopper perceive a rock in the same way that we do?

Why do you feel this should be true? Does a grasshopper have the exact same senses that we do? No, of course not. But the limitations of perception which all species has does not alter the nature of matter. A rock exists, and each being perceives that rock slightly differently.

Are you telling me that you and I should perceive everything absolutely the same, in spite of the fact that I am mildly color-blind , slightly deaf, and have dulled touch sensations? Are you telling me that we each ought to enjoy a concert in precisely the same way, if those sonic vibrations were real, in spite of the damage to my ears?

And this is why I wash my hands of you. lifegazer at least tries, sometimes; you are just choosing stupidity.

I believe that matter is a product of consciousness.
I do not deny the existence of the universe. I deny the existence of a universe existing beyond anyones mind.

That is your right to believe, of course. However, the evidence says otherwise. So does logic, reason, and science.

Since consciousness arises from matter, claiming that matter is a product of consciousness is not only counter-intuitive, but very primitive thinking.

No I'm not. But if I was, then I would tell myself that you're just a figment of my imagination saying to me "Are you a solipsist? Then you are clearly wrong - to me. (think about it... )"

Yes, exactly. At least you understand that point. There can only be one solipsist - and as a result, anyone claiming to be a solipsist is wrong unless it is you.

I have nothing against dualists. Sure they see a material world, but they don't base their consciousness on matter.

[/quote]

Careful - some dualists do just that. Some are smart enough to realize the dependency upon matter.

 

[wraith]

Red falls around 650 nm, and is a common coloration of apples, fire engines, and blood.

Ok thanks, so the blind man now "sees red"?

We can't see x-rays, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. We can't see atoms (directly), but they still exist, independent of our perceptions of them.

The existence of "red" is not the same as the existence of the correlated wavelength. You can tell a blind person the wavelength, but where is the red? You can't explain it.

Because matter exists whether a mind is present to detect it or not... and is the same, no matter what mind detects it.

You're fatal assumption...

Matter does what matter does, whether being looked at or not. A tree is a tree no matter who may be perceiving it, or not.

Again, this is based on your unfounded assumption that matter exists beyond mind. How can you tell if you're looking at a tree? By perceiving the colour, shape etc...which is all within your awareness.

Now if you please, tell me how "red" exists to a blind person?

Exactly like a tree in this reality. What proof do you have that the "rock" is not in a permanent (semi-permanent would be more accurate) state of matter? I'm all ears.

Because the "tree" is being decoded by your senses and "seen" within your awareness. Do you think that the perception of a tree to a dog or a bird is the same as yours?

You appear to confuse senses with sensations. Our senses exist on our periphery, bringing in such information as they are capable of detecting. Sensations are patterns within the brain, usually generated by senses, but also capable of being generated by the brain itself. Again, simple stuff, Wraith.

You say that sensations are patterns within the brain, generated by senses. Ok, so you sense an object. Your senses detects the colour, shape etc...which gives you the sensation of a rock.
How can you say that this sensation of a "rock" exists as matter beyond your senses?

Why do you feel this should be true? Does a grasshopper have the exact same senses that we do? No, of course not. But the limitations of perception which all species has does not alter the nature of matter. A rock exists, and each being perceives that rock slightly differently.

It can't be slightly different under your belief. The grasshopper and I should have the exact same sensation of the rock. The rock is objective matter.

Are you telling me that you and I should perceive everything absolutely the same, in spite of the fact that I am mildly color-blind , slightly deaf, and have dulled touch sensations?

No. That's what you're saying because matter is defining our reality.

Are you telling me that we each ought to enjoy a concert in precisely the same way, if those sonic vibrations were real, in spite of the damage to my ears?

No. Ok, so you admit that you and I experience the concert in different ways because you hear the concert differently due to your damaged ear?

But the trumpet produces a sound wave with a certaiin wavelength. Shouldn't we be experiencing the same sensation of the music?

That is your right to believe, of course. However, the evidence says otherwise. So does logic, reason, and science.

haha
Where is this evidence? Produce.

Since consciousness arises from matter, claiming that matter is a product of consciousness is not only counter-intuitive, but very primitive thinking.

Since matter arises from consciousness, claiming that consciousness is a product of matter is not only counter-intuitive, but very primitive thinking.

Your religion is insane.

Yes, exactly. At least you understand that point. There can only be one solipsist - and as a result, anyone claiming to be a solipsist is wrong unless it is you.

Thanks for that.

careful - some dualists do just that. Some are smart enough to realize the dependency upon matter.

True, there are branches of dualism that believe in just that.
However, the die hard materialist has lost the plot completely. Smart you say?

haha sure tell yourself that

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Now if you please, tell me how "red" exists to a blind person?

It doesn't. It is out of her reference frame, because she is unable to perceive that part of the outside world. If "red" was indeed a pure product of the mind, why would it be inaccessible to a blind person?

Because the "tree" is being decoded by your senses and "seen" within your awareness. Do you think that the perception of a tree to a dog or a bird is the same as yours?

If matter is a product of the mind, how can different entities all perceive it, yet differently?

It can't be slightly different under your belief. The grasshopper and I should have the exact same sensation of the rock. The rock is objective matter.

Strawman

But the trumpet produces a sound wave with a certaiin wavelength. Shouldn't we be experiencing the same sensation of the music?

No. (Trademark only applies when replying to Kumar)

Since matter arises from consciousness, claiming that consciousness is a product of matter is not only counter-intuitive, but very primitive thinking.

Circular argument .

Hans

 

[Z]

Thank you, Hans - nicely put.

Wraith, the 'sensation' of a thing is a subjective matter. I certainly won't say otherwise. But the source of that sensation is an objective one.

The problem is (let's use vision), once wavelengths of light go anywhere, there is the possibility for perceptual variation. If light scatters, due to atmosphere, an observer 1m away from the red object will perceive it differently from an observer 10m away. This is entirely due to matter. Then the light still has to pass through the eye, stimulate the perceptual nerves in the back; those nerves have to generate chemical signals that begin the trip into the brain, where they are processed by brains that are invariably different... The chance for variation in sensations is all over this process, explaining why sensation of a thing varies in spite of the fact that a thing remains the same.

As Hans pointed out, if all sensations were given by The Mind, why aren't they all the same?

A blind man may easily know what Red is without knowing what Red looks like. I know what Ultraviolet is, but have never seen it. I know what Atoms are, but have never seen them. I know what a neutrino is, but have never seen one. Our lack of sensory organs for such things doesn't mean they don't exist.

Typical uneducated acosmist.

Anyway, Wraith, you should be quiet and let lifegazer handle your religion, because he, at least, is entertaining... well, he was, prior to his latest breakdown.

Are all acosmists rude and ignorant?

 

[wraith]

It doesn't. It is out of her reference frame, because she is unable to perceive that part of the outside world. If "red" was indeed a pure product of the mind, why would it be inaccessible to a blind person?

How can a person think up "red" if he/she has never seen it?
Since you know what red looks like, can you still picture it when you close your eyes?

If matter is a product of the mind, how can different entities all perceive it, yet differently?

Because we're all perceiving a reality via the laws of nature. You think that your perception of matter exists as matter beyond perception. This is totally unfounded.

Strawman

No it's not.
Are you trying to avoid the question?

wraith: But the trumpet produces a sound wave with a certaiin wavelength. Shouldn't we be experiencing the same sensation of the music?

Hans: No. (Trademark only applies when replying to Kumar)

Just a "no"?
Care to expland?

wraith:Since matter arises from consciousness, claiming that consciousness is a product of matter is not only counter-intuitive, but very primitive thinking.

Hans: Circular argument .

Ahhh Hans...I hope you realise that I was making a mockery zaayrdragon's argument - Since consciousness arises from matter, claiming that matter is a product of consciousness is not only counter-intuitive, but very primitive thinking.

 

[wraith]

Wraith, the 'sensation' of a thing is a subjective matter. I certainly won't say otherwise. But the source of that sensation is an objective one.

But not as matter.

The problem is (let's use vision), once wavelengths of light go anywhere, there is the possibility for perceptual variation. If light scatters, due to atmosphere, an observer 1m away from the red object will perceive it differently from an observer 10m away. This is entirely due to matter.

But that's not the argument. Those two people will have a slightly different input variation. We're talking about the actual sensation of the colour.

Then the light still has to pass through the eye, stimulate the perceptual nerves in the back; those nerves have to generate chemical signals that begin the trip into the brain, where they are processed by brains that are invariably different... The chance for variation in sensations is all over this process, explaining why sensation of a thing varies in spite of the fact that a thing remains the same.

Ok, so there is a difference in sensation of colour. So colour is defined by our sensations. Do you think that the light exists as "red" before you sense it?

As Hans pointed out, if all sensations were given by The Mind, why aren't they all the same?

Because the mind of a bird is different to a mind of a person wouldn't you say?

A blind man may easily know what Red is without knowing what Red looks like.

How so?

I know what Ultraviolet is, but have never seen it. I know what Atoms are, but have never seen them. I know what a neutrino is, but have never seen one. Our lack of sensory organs for such things doesn't mean they don't exist.

In no way am I negating their existence. Just as a blind person can not see red, does not mean that the lightwave does not exist.

Typical uneducated acosmist.

Anyway, Wraith, you should be quiet and let lifegazer handle your religion, because he, at least, is entertaining... well, he was, prior to his latest breakdown.

Are all acosmists rude and ignorant?

If I am rude and ignorant, then I am simply repaying the favour.
Live and learn slick.

 

[Z]

Wraith, you're not even consistant in your arguments.

Welcome to ignore.

ETA - Shoulda known. He's either a wanna-be, claiming 'special forces', which means he's gonna act like an a-- anyway, or he's in SF, which means he IS an a--hole.

Never met an SF who could find his backside without a user manual. Plenty who could find their battle buddy's, though.



Goodbye, slick.

 

[wraith]

....dear zaayrdragon...

You're a perfect example of someone breaking down in the face of defeat. Your arguments have been shot to 5hit and as your last serenade you have decided to side step the issues at hand and attack me.

bahaha
So long Tosser.

 

[uruk]

How can a person think up "red" if he/she has never seen it?
Since you know what red looks like, can you still picture it when you close your eyes?

well what about the first time you ever saw red?
Well, if what you say is true and that it is our minds that creates the matter. Then anything we encounter is instantly created by our minds. Right so far? Well, the how do you explain the first time you encouter something? Let's for example, say you've never seen a cat before and you come across one.(Like when you were a child. There always a first time to experiance anything). How did your mind know how to create the cat if you had never before knew of the existance of a cat? Now also explain how that two people, if you are with someone who has also never seen a cat before that point, both give similar descriptions of that cat (i.e. furry, four legged, white or whatever color, tail, wiskers, etc..)?

Because we're all perceiving a reality via the laws of nature. You think that your perception of matter exists as matter beyond perception. This is totally unfounded.

where, exactly do nature and her laws exist? And where is this reality that we are pericieving? and if it is not external to our minds, then why do peoples perceptions of thier internal realities coincide? Also, If all we are periceving is internal, then how do you know that I or other people exist? If our interactions are all through our perceptions then why do accept our existance as external to your own yet you do not accept the existance of a world external to your perception?

Again, this is based on your unfounded assumption that matter exists beyond mind.

Why did you say this when you also posted this:

In no way am I negating their existence. Just as a blind person can not see red, does not mean that the lightwave does not exist.

What exactly do you believe?

 

[Z]

well what about the first time you ever saw red?
Well, if what you say is true and that it is our minds that creates the matter. Then anything we encounter is instantly created by our minds. Right so far? Well, the how do you explain the first time you encouter something? Let's for example, say you've never seen a cat before and you come across one.(Like when you were a child. There always a first time to experiance anything). How did your mind know how to create the cat if you had never before knew of the existance of a cat? Now also explain how that two people, if you are with someone who has also never seen a cat before that point, both give similar descriptions of that cat (i.e. furry, four legged, white or whatever color, tail, wiskers, etc..)? where, exactly do nature and her laws exist? And where is this reality that we are pericieving? and if it is not external to our minds, then why do peoples perceptions of thier internal realities coincide? Also, If all we are periceving is internal, then how do you know that I or other people exist? If our interactions are all through our perceptions then why do accept our existance as external to your own yet you do not accept the existance of a world external to your perception? Why did you say this when you also posted this: What exactly do you believe?

He doesn't seem to know. That's why he's on ignore. That, and he lacks the ability to have a rational discussion.

lifegazer is Aristotle compared to this joker.

 

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

hello all,

Did lifegazer start this thread? I like this one A LOT! why do many seem to dislike his thinking? Very facinating thinking and relational thought from all of you. I am impressed! I like the interaction here. with permission I will interject. I will ask first!

I "seem" to also get "beat up" becuse my perception may be "skewed" a little at times so thats why I ask for concensus from the group! DO i really need it? I tend to think we should find similarities in science and self evident truths and then trust one another. Then I can see great discovery for us all!!

This is where I think true unified field theory will be "found", in humble relation with no assumptions or pre judging! Thats what many in the past believe too!

I can see we all will have some good comments to add !

aok with lifegazer and you all? this will be fun! heavy philosophy here! very good!

gdnpd
p.s. I am on vacation and fishing but will "chime in" now and then!

 

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

I can think this is a relativity and therefore relational issue of perception and trust, the relation and the relative perception of each in the "frame" is dependent on how many are in that "frame". so If one man see's and one man is blind, then one man see's red while the one blind man may only "feel" it if i were to say there is infra red in the light (which there really is in all light) But lets say there is not for this senario. Also the man seeing can tell the "blind" man is "blind" by his "lack of response" to the red light. So does this mean the blind man knows the one who see's the light can see? Not really unless he is "told" by sound for instance"Hey blind man, I can see the red light". Then the blind man must "trust" the seeing man and say well ok, lets follow the light or similar, because the existance of the light must have a purpose in argument and their trust must be formed for interaction to occur. where am i going with this. It is late and I am tired. So maybe this means nothing but I do think I know that if we can "see" the light we must interact with it because we absorb it more through the eyes then the skin. This is because our eyes amplify it so there we must absorb it more through our eyes, e.g. like a vacuum or black body would? Maybe the same goes for trust? we absorb the blind mans trust? can some one help me here! its late and i am tired, I will do better in the morning!

 

[Atlas]

... I "seem" to also get "beat up" becuse my perception may be "skewed" a little at times so thats why I ask for concensus from the group! DO i really need it?

Nice of you to ask Gdnpd. Relativitywise your question strikes me as, "Is it ok with everyone if I stick my head into this meatgrinder?"

I think I speak for everyone when I say: Permission granted.

My own take on the last part of this long interchange goes something like this. There is a real physical world and we are a part of it. Human consciousness evolved with and from that physical universe. Our consciousness is limited by our position on the evolutionary continuum. We have only those faculties that aid our species in survival.

What we perceive of the world and the universe is an illusion. We do not have perfect knowledge or perception of any phenomenon. Our small brains take full advantage of this limitation by processing small subsets of reality efficiently.

There is just too much instantaneous information available in the universe for us to process. We are fortunate that our illusion of reality has much less information to deal with. Can you imagine how frozen mother nature would be if she really had to compute pi every time she wanted to make a single bubble in the ocean froth? Pi is a useful illusion on our part as we reconstruct real world relationships. I think nature must operate with integer arithmetic. It works with real whole quanta. We, however, see it all differently.

This discussion has me pondering a middle reality. While I accept the underlying physical reality of the individual constituents of the world and universe this discussion seems to be about the apparent universe. I can agree with wraith and lifegazer up to a point. The universe that we know is manufactured out of the substance of imagination. I disagree with them in the assumption of whether true reality exists independent of consciousness.

I would argue that real world phenomena interact according with the true laws of physics, many which are known to us. Imagination is only one of several energies being applied at any given event. Arising from the interchange is a real instantaneous energy pattern that represents all the knowable information about that event. I will call it the "appearent" because I like making up words as much as the next guy.

The appearent is not the rock. It is not the sun. It is the available information reflected by the interchange. The appearent is omnidirectional. We apprehend the appearent and call the apprehension apparent or appearance. But our apprehension is limited two ways. First, by perspective. We do not apprehend the totality of the omnidirectional appearent. We apprehend just what impacts our senses. The tall man sees the rock differently than the snake does. The distant observer apprehends something different than the close observer.

Second, by faculty. The blind man apprehends less of the appearent because he lacks a faculty. The pit viper snake "sees" a different reality because of an added faculty.

So is the ball really "red". Well, yes and no. It's like the tree falling in the forest question. Does it make a sound if there is no one there to hear? For me, the light reflection appearent from the ball and the fullness of the information available in the "tree crashing" appearent are neither red nor sounding. They are full of the unprocessed information that will become "red" and "noise" when a consciousness with those faculties happens to have a perspective on the scene that enables them to process the available information.

That is, we manufacture our universe within our faculty to do so. But that is in no way limiting to the real universe any more than our appreciation of the incalculable pi limits the ability of mother nature to make bubbles. Wraith and Lifegazer have this all bass-ackwards. They see that we are manufacturing our personal universes and do not think pragmatically that a common material existence underlies those subjective appreciations.

Anyway, that's my take on the issue. I hope it makes sense. I'm tired but I couldn't sleep - that doesn't usually lead to clarity of thinking, so this may not be as clear to the reader as it all seems to me. Welcome to the discussion Gdnpd.