Perception, Conception, Interpretation (Royce)

[billygundum]

it's funny, my first attempts @ understanding of religion had a similar title.

[TheFlanker35]

Prof. Anton,

View this video of a girl with apparently no philosophy background defending the existence of God, or at least a god. Her arguments citing common language and communication strongly echo Royce and her other arguments reflecting the ability to interpret sensation in the form of concepts echo Peirce's "Neglected Argument". 

youtube.com/watch?v=rj5V5mqZ56­8

[Drregaleagle]

Well put. Royce was on the right track.

[Professoranton]

@Drregaleagle Thanks. He really is under-appreciated in some ways

[HigherPlanes]

@Professoranton Hey Corey, where can I find your book Selfhood and Authenticity? Thanks!

[Professoranton]

@HigherPlanes It is available on line, Barnes and Noble, Amazon, etc. SUNY is the publisher.

[inverhillsphilo]

@Drregaleagle James was better, and more accurate, at least in terms of what we are now learning about neurological processes.

[emblemOFbeing]

Animals may very well return to the hive or community and warn of danger or location of food, etc. cf. Meerkat manor on the discovery channel. I disagree w/ Kant; much of perception is non-conceptual (think of the way the body moves even during dreamless sleep, adjusting to the milieu) although, likely, our 'concepts' certainly do feed-in in a hermeneutical manner. Ultimately 'concepts' are too simple neway. Last, animals do not institute signs for others still to come, external symbols. bleh

[pointyhead1]

Do you understand your dog better than your dog understands you ? Can you "read" him better than he "reads" you ? Tthink so ?

Are you able to talk "Parrot" to the bird ? Understand it's concepts, as it understands some of ours ?

[Professoranton]

Shoot a video and quit trolling. Can you not see the difference between interpretation, conception, and perception?

Please see:

/watch?v=2hIy1JrPjAo

[pointyhead1]

You are too defensive. You simply are failing to communicate, as Randy mentions correctly.

You have excellent moments, when you are merely explaining what an author's points are.

You directed me here.

but you give bogus response..

[pointyhead1]

Is this how you mark your students? If they start to challenge, or even pick at the edges, they fail ?

[Professoranton]

What are you talking about? Are you a student? You seem to want it both ways. You want to tell me how I am wrong at all points but then when I suggest that you are mistaken you start to cry "foul." Why provoke fights if you don't want an honest, non-kid gloves, response?

[pointyhead1]

because you bring in the word "trolling'.

on internet venues that is precursor to expulsion.

in case you didn't know.

[pointyhead1]

and you pick on me, but others' serious queries also given the ingore, the "Danger, Will Rogers!" treatment.

"Perception itself entails interpretation and evaluation: raw data at the retinal level MUST be compressed into (important and irrelevant) objects and qualities in order to fit within the limited "modelling..."

[pointyhead1]

and you referred me here from another problem area.

Me, to be removed soon, I bet.

[Professoranton]

Pick on YOU!? Look man. Just shoot a video that explains your views and criticisms of me or my views. I welcome them but not like this. You sound defensive and hurt, accusatory and somewhat hostile. If you want unsubscribe, or shoot a video that helps us to understand your view but I don't want to just sit and bicker like this.

[pointyhead1]

Bicker ?

I wonder if we can say that Royce would use the term "dyadic processes" when reflecting on the nature of that ?

Yes,, I am defensive when you say "trolling". thatdefensiveness is a justifiable condition due to cause, and normal response.

My enquiry method is my method. I follow conversational trees of thought and find anomalies or self -disagreements and so on.

Then it may turn out to be my own mistaken apprehension, as when I thought Randy was saying ants are not individuals.

[Professoranton]

There does seem to be an issue of the difference between individual, individuation, and self, which include self-relation.

/watch?v=R05To4czJnM

[pointyhead1]

However, my method is so very analog that it is right even when wrong on details.

Randy DOES think ants are robots and we are not.

That's how it works.

Other times I find stuff that the Learned refuse to answer to.

They presumably could just point of out a logical fallacy in my words. You know, three words to tell my error.

But no. I get no conversational response from people who have the three letters or wish they did.

Instead they tell me I need to learn, and point me to their Bible.

[pointyhead1]

When I question A Learned One in real time, I get responses less covered by artifice; the real feeling they have about their knowledge.

[Professoranton]

This is, admittedly, not the best medium for genuine exchange of ideas. It is not a kind of growing older together.

[pointyhead1]

It's the very best ever, ProfessorAnton.

the

Great Unwashed never could get access to the Learned ones before, or even to corporate response beyiond the reception desk.

when you can say you've linked five interested internet fora together and all are watching, we have power previously withheld by Ivory Tower and other corporate bodies.

[pointyhead1]

we are quorum seekers too, you see.

we get our quorum and can overcome your protective devices, once critical mass is achieved.

[pointyhead1]

Thusly is humanity able to re create real, responsive social structure once more.

[pointyhead1]

cancer knowing dogs have been seen to try and nibble cancers off their owners.

this is not insignificant.

[Professoranton]

I agree.

[pointyhead1]

"Neighbour's Mind" is potential. Due to the multiplicity of factors to consider, perceiving it's potential is to conceive of anything conceivable.

To note it's past evidenced ( to you) activity, though, is possible, much as tracking an animal is possible.

Even forecasts are possible on any given branch of thinking during dialogue,

[breezyspreezy]

if i understand what you're saying then the only productive statement or question towards your neighbour would be "why?". and then "why?" again and again.

[clearshquarter]

I dont really know what I am saying, using the phrase "spiritual perceptual communication" btw especially using the word 'spiritual' because we might have different uses for that word. I guess my reason for using it was to draw a connection to some kind of practical conception of what is spiritual....I dont know though...!!

[clearshquarter]

insects can communicate to each other...ants and bee's especially. I thought fish can communicate by emerging together when they're threatened by a predator.

Instinct seems to be a special communication, that i wonder if we're just overly complex and maybe disconnected from a more distilled type of spiritual perceptual communication?! I would think that spiritual-ness is closely related to this seemingly invisible kind of connection making that happens through certain strands of perception .

[0ThouArtThat0]

Evidence of fish conceptualization? --- reuters. com/article/scienceNews/idUSTR­E55F7OT20090616

I agree with Royce that solving the problem of other minds while avoiding solipsism requires a triadic relation between conception, perception, and interpretation. This was very helpful.

[prhughes0]

Perception itself entails interpretation and evaluation: raw data at the retinal level MUST be compressed into (important and irrelevant) objects and qualities in order to fit within the limited "modelling space" of "perception": megapixels per second just don't fit, and can't "mean" food or danger without these conceptual processes.

Feedback (comparison of results with aims) adjusts the tendencies (feeds forward) for future responses to future perceptions.

A principle task of "consciousness".