• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reason and Observation

lifegazer, nobody but you seems to think that the distinction between perception and reality is an issue - I covered that when I was a kid and it's a starting point in any philosophy of science course.
Science demonstrated acausality. It is only your silly pile of disconnected statements posing as an argument that cannot explain it without going into severe denial. I do not assert that acausality proves materialism (hammegk et al could cover it in seconds). It is your "theory" that cannot explain that which is proven to exist. Note again that I do not claim it is proof of the material. I claim you cannot explain it.
 
lifegazer said:

Explain to this forum why the conclusion of acausality has been attributed (deduced) to sensed-things. Can you do that?
Can anybody here really do that?
It's impossible (read my previous post to upchurch).
What's happened here is that science cannot observe (nay sense!!) any cause of these sensed-things. Consequently, these sensed-things are deemed to be acausal.
However, ALL SENSED THINGS HAVE A CAUSE (the same cause as the senses themselves) (again, read my previous post to upchurch). Thus, the conclusion is absolute pooh. Incorrect.

The conclusion would only apply if the things we were observing were in fact real. But this conversation has made the distinction between sensed-things & real things. And we observe sensed-things (we sense sensed-things), not real things.
Thus, the conclusion is dependent upon a belief in the fact that these sensed-things are in fact real.
... But sensed-things are not real.
Why is this so difficult for everyone here to understand? I'm completely puzzled by the responses here.

My philosophy predicts quantum indeterminism. I once explained why the existence of a primal-cause for ALL perceived existence would necessitate a base indeterminism for the base-energy of perceived order. I'll do it again upon request. So spare me the lectures of distinction between classical and quantum physics.
Click to expand...

Hi LG,

I think that I did not do a good job of explaining my point. Sorry, I am not a philosopher or student thereof.

You contend that there are only 'sensed-things' and what science dubs 'real-things' don't exist. But this can be shown to be incorrect. As I stated, observers observe the same 'thing' in various ways. For example, a person who is color-blind sees a red rose as gray color. A blind person does not see the rose, but can still feel it. Is the rose's color actually gray (the 'sensed-thing')? Does it reflect light even if one person cannot see it? Well, their friend is not color-blind and is looking at the exact same red rose. To him, the rose is red. These are subjective determinations, each observer has a different subjective response ('sensed-thing') dependent upon their sensory limitations and ambient conditions.

But, a device (all devices capable of doing so) will record the reflected light as a frequency compliant with our idea of "red". This goes for light meters, thermometers, cameras, and so on. There is an overwhelming (beyond your ability to argue against) plethora of evidence that equates what we sense as RED with a frequency band of electromagnetic energy.

So, no matter how the thing is sensed, it can be shown to have qualities independent of the sensing (objective quantities can be measured reliably and repeatedly). Therefore, there MUST be a difference between the 'sensed-things' (which are subjective and subject to the limitations of each observer) and the 'real-things' (which are objective and measured thus independent of any observer or their limitations).

This says ABSOLUTELY nothing about whether the 'real-things' are internal or external structures. It does show that there is a difference between 'sensed-things' and 'real-things'.

Your intimation that since we can only sense 'sensed-things', therefore there are no 'real-things' does not hold. And down the toilet goes your argument against acausality.

Kuroyume
 
Nice reasoning, kuro. I like it.

In LGs eyes, he is only perceiving you perceiving the rose, and The Mind (ominous music plays) is creating all this in an orgiastic dance of mind shadows. LG realizes the difference between the perception of a thing and the thing-in-itself. He just thinks there is no true existence from our POV. Our perception of the thing is created by The Mind, which also created the thing-in-itself, but only evidenced through our perception of it (please stop me if I am misinterpreting), which is also created by the mind and we are all lost as The Mind perceiving parts of itself.

Now, LG, there is a very important question here. Do instruments that record information (say, a video camera) have their "perceptions" created by the Mind, or are they still not real and the image is created by The Mind when you perceive it? Also, are things-in-themselves real within The Mind. I.e. when I percieve a table, am I The Mind perceiving itself as me, and also percieving another part of The Mind that is the table?

My guess is, from previous statements, that the perception, our mind, and the table are all parts of the Mind.

If so,

What, if any, is the difference between this double-mindf*ck construction of The Mind, and an external reality?

All you have done is say "There is no physical reality, but it all works because every thing is in The Mind." That's great, LG, you just switched the monism, that is all. What people have been trying to show you is that if I stack your GOD (the source of everything, perceiving itself as you, the acausal source, etc.) against PER (physical, external reality), there is no difference.

To wit:

LG: "You are lost in GOD that is perceiving itself as you, you do not exist as anything special, just part of GOD."
G : "You are lost in the PER that is perceiving itself as you, you do not exist as anything special, just part of PER."

LG: "GOD is beyond perception, we can only percieve ourselves as part of it, and experience parts of it through this."
G : "PER is beyond perception, we can only perceive ourselves as a part of it, and experience parts of it through this."

LG: " GOD is the source of all, and everything eventually has its origin there, and nothing you perceive is the thing-in-itself."
G : "PER is the source of all, and everything eventually has its origin there, and nothing you perceive is the thing-in-itself."

Everyone here realizes that perceptions are not the thing-in-itself, you just suppose this great super-mind is responsible.

I guess my point is, I can't see a damn bit of difference between your pantheistic idealism and athiestic materialism at all on a comparative, metaphysical level. You just change the terms, metaphors, and frame of reference. In yours, you have the Magic Mind that somehow creates the illusion there is matter. In mine, I have a Magic Reality that somehow creates the illusion there is mind.

Is anyone else willing to agree with this statement:

"All metaphyical philosophies are reducible to each other, simply because they must explain reality. We just attach different words, metaphors, and mental patterns of understanding, and approach it from different sides." Reality exists, like it or not, and the metaphysical portions of philosphies must account for it. How we formulate it into our language is irrelevant (except that when we communicate, we have rules such as grammar and logic, of course).

Edited for clearer language.
 
kuroyume0161 said:
But, a device (all devices capable of doing so) will record the reflected light as a frequency compliant with our idea of "red". This goes for light meters, thermometers, cameras, and so on. There is an overwhelming (beyond your ability to argue against) plethora of evidence that equates what we sense as RED with a frequency band of electromagnetic energy.
Click to expand...
And the blind man could use the device to determine the color of the flower (assuming it were connected to a computer or other device that could provide output for the blind).
 
An announcement.

Most of you will be pleased to hear that my visitations to this forum are about to decrease substantially. This is not due to choice, but to unforeseen circumstances in my personal life.
I'm not sure how long this situation will continue for or how limited my visitations will be. But after tomorrow, it will be difficult for me to participate much, I think. Hopefully, I'll still be able to contribute to a lesser degree.
I'm hoping that this situation is a short-term problem for me - so don't cheer too loudly. I'm hoping to return with my usual quota
of posts asap. But I am not sure whether I'll be able to.
I like this forum. Arguing with skeptics sharpens my mind/philosophy. I want to stay here as long as people will talk to me.

I'm hoping that none of you will see my absence or limited participation as a retreat or as a defeat of my philosophy, which is why I'm making this announcement. I give you my word that I have no other options here.
I don't want to make a big deal about this. I just thought I owed the regular readers of my conversations an explanation.
Thanks.
 
RandFan said:
And the blind man could use the device to determine the color of the flower (assuming it were connected to a computer or other device that could provide output for the blind).
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Even without seeing the color, a device with voice output (like a computer) could rattle off the frequency and even determine the color and speak it. And if the blind person were color-blind before being blind, the device would not say "grayscale 200, 200, 200". :)
 
Re: An announcement.

lifegazer said:
Most of you will be pleased to hear that my visitations to this forum are about to decrease substantially. This is not due to choice, but to unforeseen circumstances in my personal life.
I'm not sure how long this situation will continue for or how limited my visitations will be. But after tomorrow, it will be difficult for me to participate much, I think. Hopefully, I'll still be able to contribute to a lesser degree.
I'm hoping that this situation is a short-term problem for me - so don't cheer too loudly. I'm hoping to return with my usual quota
of posts asap. But I am not sure whether I'll be able to.
I like this forum. Arguing with skeptics sharpens my mind/philosophy. I want to stay here as long as people will talk to me.

I'm hoping that none of you will see my absence or limited participation as a retreat or as a defeat of my philosophy, which is why I'm making this announcement. I give you my word that I have no other options here.
I don't want to make a big deal about this. I just thought I owed the regular readers of my conversations an explanation.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

As much as we have fun at your expense, I do find these arguments very informative and sharpening. As in my most recent post to you, I am a student of math and science, not philosophy, so this forces me to learn something new as well as see your point of view.

I don't totally disagree with your argument either which you may find a plus.

Get back as often as you can and remember that our enmity here during discourse shouldn't effect our mutual admirations.

Kuroyume
 
Re: Re: An announcement.

kuroyume0161 said:
I don't totally disagree with your argument either which you may find a plus.
Click to expand...
Neither do I.

As I said in the other thread. God speed lifegazer.

RandFan
 
kuroyume0161 said:
Yes, exactly. Even without seeing the color, a device with voice output (like a computer) could rattle off the frequency and even determine the color and speak it.
Click to expand...
The scale of any machine, like the machine itself, is built by man. A machine will only voice that a specific frequency is red, for example, because we've programmed it to state that a specific frequency is red.
Machines don't see colours.
So, no matter how the thing is sensed, it can be shown to have qualities independent of the sensing (objective quantities can be measured reliably and repeatedly). Therefore, there MUST be a difference between the 'sensed-things' (which are subjective and subject to the limitations of each observer) and the 'real-things' (which are objective and measured thus independent of any observer or their limitations).
Click to expand...
The senses indicate the presence of things, but are not things in themselves. Red, for example, is a concept - not an object. In fact, this argument holds for any sensation that you can possibly have - all sensations are abstract and intangible experiences. They are not things in themselves and are even different from the "things" they conspire to create within awareness.

Give an artist two different sets of colours-of-paint and ask him to do two paintings of a specific landscape from a specific spot.
The only significant difference in his paintings should be the colours themselves. The objects he wishes to present in those colours should still look the same. I.e., we should be left with two different sensory-experiences of the same design.

I contend that our sensations are conspiring to present the same design, similar to the above example. In fact, this is obviously the case. The sensations (like the sets-of-paint) may differ between individuals, but the "things" they conspire to portray mirror a singular design.

Think of the universe as a singular design within The Mind and the senses as pots-of-paint, trying to present a singular portrait of that design.
This is the simplest way I can think of to answer your post.

Machines do not indicate that there is a reality of things as distinct from the sensation of them. Machines indicate that there is a singular design to which the senses conspire to obey. That's all that machines show us.
 
lifegazer said:
The senses indicate the presence of things, but are not things in themselves. Red, for example, is a concept - not an object. In fact, this argument holds for any sensation that you can possibly have - all sensations are abstract and intangible experiences. They are not things in themselves and are even different from the "things" they conspire to create within awareness.
Click to expand...
There is so much wrong with your post gazer that I hardly know where to start. I know that you are trying to extricate yourself from the JREF for awhile so I will keep it simple.

According to your philosophy all things are intangible. All things are but concepts. The rose is no more real than the color we sense. We physically perceive neither the rose nor the color since there are no cones or rods in our eyes, no light, no "thing" with which to sense or be sensed and no eyes.

To be coherent your philosophy must be consistent. The rose is an illusion and the color is an illusion. Therefore there is no value to separate the concept of color from any physical "thing". Both are the same ethereal illusion. You cannot have your cake and eat it to. Either we are all sharing the same illusion (roughly) and color is no more a concept than the rose and the rose has no intrinsic value beyond the illusion of color or the illusion of a rose. Or the rose is real and color is indeed a concept that is perceived by our minds from the physical waves of light that strike our retinas and is transferred to our brains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom