Holy craaaap, dude, I've been searching for you forever after you got formatted off my iPod (the damn thing,) and what do you know, my google chrome decided to randomly link me to you again! Nice ^^
oh my gosh you replied!!!!! I didn't think you would notice a comment like that, but you have such a nice accent and seem very intelligent so thats why I wrote that. I just recently subscribed to you so keep up the good work!
What if 2 people are 'entangled' in the same 'internal' perceptions. Two people having the same, thoughts, ideas, fantasies, dreams, grammar etc.?
You start by emphasizing a need to blur the boundaries between 'internal' and 'external' perceptions (why?) but then you use a criteria of overlapping shared experiences for defining a distinct 'concrete or physical world', I assume as different from an internal one.
Let's take the example of Sunday mass. The people at church will share the same basic perception of the physical place, the vaulted ceiling, the pews, the priest etc. At some point they may also a share the experience of 'God's love' within them or about them.
In a Venn diagram, the overlapping section of perception may contain things such as 'the pews', 'the priest', and 'God's love'. But I don't suppose you mean to conflate these two sort of phenomena?
Start off by thinking that there is only physical reality and nothing else. Physical reality is the same for everyone. Everything that ever happens is a physical process and this includes consiousness.
By using our senses and brain, we can try to reproduce what physical reality must be like. We'll never fully succees in this, because we are limited in what we can sense and process. However, we can express our understanding of reality to others through language. These processes are physical too.
What I really don't understand though is: why do we experience stuff in the first place? Why aren't we all like computers or zombies... Wouldn't it make just as much sense if we did all the things we do in our everyday lifes, without being aware of it? My computer is processing information, just like I am, but it's not aware of anything, as far as I know!
I don't know of any computer that is aware of it's own existence. And I'm pretty sure that I'm aware of mine... to me that's a pretty big difference...
The problem I have is not with thinking there is only physical reality, but in the sense that our 'reproduction' of this reality has a very different quality to the reality itself.
Maybe I don't understand things properly, but what's the problem really? The 'reproduction' of reality has a different quality to the reality itself? This seems so obvious to me that I'm afraid I'm missing the actual point...
I think you're absolutely right: that external reality as we perceive it is best placed within the contents of consciousness, along with dreams, memories etc. and that 'intersubjective tangling' of the contents of our consciousness is exactly what we're engaged in when we practice science, compare experience, model reality etc.
I think this approach more accurately marks the division between 'representation' (mental) and 'represented' (underlying physical reality).
The question I would have is about the representation/represented schema you suggest and what you call the 'underlying physical reality'. What process would assign the status of physical reality to the category of the represented rather than the representation?
On re-reading, I realise my last para's ambiguous/misleading. I think, in traditional usage, the terms 'mental' and 'physical' have tended to correspond to 1st and 3rd person perspectives of the 'world as perceived'. (How does the bruise feel? vs. What's the bruise's shape/colour?)
However, I think when we divide 'representation' from 'represented' more accurately, the terms 'mental' and 'physical' become subsumed by the larger 'Mental' category of 'reality as perceived'. In other words...
Category 1. The phenomenal world, aspects of which we can label 'mental' or 'physical' depending on which perspective is of interest/relevance. Eg. Surgeon may want to know 'where it hurts' ('mental') before investigating ('physical') - even though his 'physical' examination is also (from his perspective) a Mental experience.
Category 2. Underlying reality, which we attempt to describe through physics etc. but which lies beyond our 'veil of perception'.
i used to sit for hours, thinking about this same thing, when i was about 12 years old. i don't have the brain to put it into words the way you do, i had weird theorys on the matter such as colour being determind by the eyes we look through, so what maybe be green to somebody with blue eyes is different to somebody with brown eyes, yet we still call it the same thing. anyway, consider me a free subscriber :)
I'm having difficulty understanding what you're talking about, but i do know this: there is no internal and external perception. There is the world and there's perception. There is no middle ground between them. The nerve signals themselves are already interpretations along with concepts of lines, objects, permanence and language.
I imagine the difficulty is less in your understanding and more to do with my lack of clarity in explaining what I'm thinking about. I'm still working on it and hope I can get it more comprehensible (although it may still be crap of course). Regarding the 'middle ground' you mention; if by 'the world' you mean the empirical world as described, for example, by science, then I would say the phenomenal world of human experience might be thought of as lying between that world and perception.
You're trying to find similar experiences among the perceptions of others. These similarities would define the physical world. Is that what you're trying to say?
Kind of. I'm also trying to find a way of talking about it that doesn't involve talking about two different things; 'the mind' and 'the physical world'. Does that make any sense?
Well, of course. If you were to act upon the physical world, you'd directly effect the entanglement of minds. I suppose, that because the world is always changing, so are the entanglements.
The best synonym, that I can think of, is "scenario". But that might be to broad.
PS- Sorry for my lacking the use of hyphens/quotation marks. It's an unhealthy habit, I know.
I think it's more usefull to think of "mind" as a collection of filters that build up as a result of our experience in life. The photons that get bounced off the tree and excite your optical nerve are essentially the same as mine, as is your optical nerve. But out mental filters may be different. That tree might appear different in the eyes of a lumber baron, a botanist, or a romantic poet. We can never be 100% certain that our mental image is exactly the same.
Faith in what? and to do what? I'm talking about the physical basis of perception and you draw faith as an inference. I don't understand why. The reason I don't see things exactly as you might is that your experiences have not impinged directly on my perceptual apparatus (my brain) and therefore I have not built up the same filters as you. These filters, as with all mental constructs, are artifacts of the physical world. They are extremely ephemeral but can be stored biochemically in memory.
No problem. Unlike the New Age woo woo queens, I believe that modern physics has proven materialist monism, not spiritual monism. The basic "stuff" of the universe is matter. The physiology of consciousness and perception is also matter. But this matter produces some very peculiar "stuff", which can only be known subjectively. The interplay between subjective and objective is the basis of dialectic logic. You can take the buddhist, intuitionist approach or the Hegelian rational approach.
I like your train of thought regarding perception.
I myself have often wondered if the world I
observe is the same as the one you see. I see a red fire engine you see the same red fire engine. but did we see the same color or do we just call the two different colors red because we always have. Oh well I have been thinking about this since I was 5. so...
Also if the day seems to drag on at work. Did I live longer because my perception of time is slowed. This is a much better use of youtube
minds can be influenced from perceptions, so there is some overlap that can happen between minds. their "degrees of freedom" will be similar --the venn diagram you speak of would be the determining factor for the "degrees of freedom".
dog named youtube...? nice. what's his handle so I'll make sure and read his comments.
I'm not so much thinking of mind as being influenced by perceptions as being partially composed of perceptions. What you see is as much part of your thought as a memory or an act of imagination. The difference is that some parts of thoughts, those we call 'perceptions' are also available to other. Does that make any sense?
agree that mind is partially perceptions. if minimal memory is allocated for a precept, however, the perceptions will be much less granular when recalled.
ah, so "come on, you two" was the utterance.
do you mind if pirate and transform your audio on this one as a reply?
Holy craaaap, dude, I've been searching for you forever after you got formatted off my iPod (the damn thing,) and what do you know, my google chrome decided to randomly link me to you again! Nice ^^
demonicrubberducky 1 year ago
you remind me of sean connery
anakarina1011 1 year ago
@anakarina1011
I cannot begin to tell you how flattered I am right now
conferencereport 1 year ago
@conferencereport
oh my gosh you replied!!!!! I didn't think you would notice a comment like that, but you have such a nice accent and seem very intelligent so thats why I wrote that. I just recently subscribed to you so keep up the good work!
anakarina1011 1 year ago
Maybe here's an interesting video for you conference: watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y&NR=1
(Richard Feynman - Ways of thinking)
SpacingAstronut 2 years ago
I wish I could be so lonely as you can (judging by your video records). This atmosphere option surely must gives you a plain contact with God.
vls174 2 years ago
Comment removed
vls174 2 years ago
Comment removed
vls174 2 years ago
What if 2 people are 'entangled' in the same 'internal' perceptions. Two people having the same, thoughts, ideas, fantasies, dreams, grammar etc.?
You start by emphasizing a need to blur the boundaries between 'internal' and 'external' perceptions (why?) but then you use a criteria of overlapping shared experiences for defining a distinct 'concrete or physical world', I assume as different from an internal one.
Grayto 2 years ago
Let's take the example of Sunday mass. The people at church will share the same basic perception of the physical place, the vaulted ceiling, the pews, the priest etc. At some point they may also a share the experience of 'God's love' within them or about them.
In a Venn diagram, the overlapping section of perception may contain things such as 'the pews', 'the priest', and 'God's love'. But I don't suppose you mean to conflate these two sort of phenomena?
Grayto 2 years ago
Start off by thinking that there is only physical reality and nothing else. Physical reality is the same for everyone. Everything that ever happens is a physical process and this includes consiousness.
By using our senses and brain, we can try to reproduce what physical reality must be like. We'll never fully succees in this, because we are limited in what we can sense and process. However, we can express our understanding of reality to others through language. These processes are physical too.
SpacingAstronut 2 years ago
What I really don't understand though is: why do we experience stuff in the first place? Why aren't we all like computers or zombies... Wouldn't it make just as much sense if we did all the things we do in our everyday lifes, without being aware of it? My computer is processing information, just like I am, but it's not aware of anything, as far as I know!
SpacingAstronut 2 years ago
like a computer ? computers are like you as far as i know .
kedordu 2 years ago
I hope not!
I don't know of any computer that is aware of it's own existence. And I'm pretty sure that I'm aware of mine... to me that's a pretty big difference...
SpacingAstronut 2 years ago
@SpacingAstronut
The problem I have is not with thinking there is only physical reality, but in the sense that our 'reproduction' of this reality has a very different quality to the reality itself.
conferencereport 2 years ago
well I agree with that :)
Maybe I don't understand things properly, but what's the problem really? The 'reproduction' of reality has a different quality to the reality itself? This seems so obvious to me that I'm afraid I'm missing the actual point...
SpacingAstronut 2 years ago
I think you're absolutely right: that external reality as we perceive it is best placed within the contents of consciousness, along with dreams, memories etc. and that 'intersubjective tangling' of the contents of our consciousness is exactly what we're engaged in when we practice science, compare experience, model reality etc.
I think this approach more accurately marks the division between 'representation' (mental) and 'represented' (underlying physical reality).
QualiaSoup 2 years ago 2
@QualiaSoup
The question I would have is about the representation/represented schema you suggest and what you call the 'underlying physical reality'. What process would assign the status of physical reality to the category of the represented rather than the representation?
conferencereport 2 years ago
On re-reading, I realise my last para's ambiguous/misleading. I think, in traditional usage, the terms 'mental' and 'physical' have tended to correspond to 1st and 3rd person perspectives of the 'world as perceived'. (How does the bruise feel? vs. What's the bruise's shape/colour?)
However, I think when we divide 'representation' from 'represented' more accurately, the terms 'mental' and 'physical' become subsumed by the larger 'Mental' category of 'reality as perceived'. In other words...
QualiaSoup 2 years ago
... we have:
Category 1. The phenomenal world, aspects of which we can label 'mental' or 'physical' depending on which perspective is of interest/relevance. Eg. Surgeon may want to know 'where it hurts' ('mental') before investigating ('physical') - even though his 'physical' examination is also (from his perspective) a Mental experience.
Category 2. Underlying reality, which we attempt to describe through physics etc. but which lies beyond our 'veil of perception'.
QualiaSoup 2 years ago
i used to sit for hours, thinking about this same thing, when i was about 12 years old. i don't have the brain to put it into words the way you do, i had weird theorys on the matter such as colour being determind by the eyes we look through, so what maybe be green to somebody with blue eyes is different to somebody with brown eyes, yet we still call it the same thing. anyway, consider me a free subscriber :)
SatchJimmy 2 years ago
I'm having difficulty understanding what you're talking about, but i do know this: there is no internal and external perception. There is the world and there's perception. There is no middle ground between them. The nerve signals themselves are already interpretations along with concepts of lines, objects, permanence and language.
GKCanman 2 years ago
I imagine the difficulty is less in your understanding and more to do with my lack of clarity in explaining what I'm thinking about. I'm still working on it and hope I can get it more comprehensible (although it may still be crap of course). Regarding the 'middle ground' you mention; if by 'the world' you mean the empirical world as described, for example, by science, then I would say the phenomenal world of human experience might be thought of as lying between that world and perception.
conferencereport 2 years ago
You're trying to find similar experiences among the perceptions of others. These similarities would define the physical world. Is that what you're trying to say?
EretzvajuFan 2 years ago
Kind of. I'm also trying to find a way of talking about it that doesn't involve talking about two different things; 'the mind' and 'the physical world'. Does that make any sense?
conferencereport 2 years ago
Well, of course. If you were to act upon the physical world, you'd directly effect the entanglement of minds. I suppose, that because the world is always changing, so are the entanglements.
The best synonym, that I can think of, is "scenario". But that might be to broad.
PS- Sorry for my lacking the use of hyphens/quotation marks. It's an unhealthy habit, I know.
EretzvajuFan 2 years ago
I think it's more usefull to think of "mind" as a collection of filters that build up as a result of our experience in life. The photons that get bounced off the tree and excite your optical nerve are essentially the same as mine, as is your optical nerve. But out mental filters may be different. That tree might appear different in the eyes of a lumber baron, a botanist, or a romantic poet. We can never be 100% certain that our mental image is exactly the same.
pirbird14 2 years ago
So are you inferring that a degree of faith is necessary?
SouthernContrarian 2 years ago
Comment removed
SpacingAstronut 2 years ago
Naw, i was asking "pirbird14".
SouthernContrarian 2 years ago
Faith in what? and to do what? I'm talking about the physical basis of perception and you draw faith as an inference. I don't understand why. The reason I don't see things exactly as you might is that your experiences have not impinged directly on my perceptual apparatus (my brain) and therefore I have not built up the same filters as you. These filters, as with all mental constructs, are artifacts of the physical world. They are extremely ephemeral but can be stored biochemically in memory.
pirbird14 2 years ago
I see where you coming from now. Just trying to get clarity for myself, thanks.
SouthernContrarian 2 years ago
No problem. Unlike the New Age woo woo queens, I believe that modern physics has proven materialist monism, not spiritual monism. The basic "stuff" of the universe is matter. The physiology of consciousness and perception is also matter. But this matter produces some very peculiar "stuff", which can only be known subjectively. The interplay between subjective and objective is the basis of dialectic logic. You can take the buddhist, intuitionist approach or the Hegelian rational approach.
pirbird14 2 years ago
I like your train of thought regarding perception.
I myself have often wondered if the world I
observe is the same as the one you see. I see a red fire engine you see the same red fire engine. but did we see the same color or do we just call the two different colors red because we always have. Oh well I have been thinking about this since I was 5. so...
Also if the day seems to drag on at work. Did I live longer because my perception of time is slowed. This is a much better use of youtube
TheOmnipotentKiller 2 years ago
i had no idea what you were talking abou tlol
murrymurrymurrymurry 2 years ago
That's OK. I don't always know what I'm on about myself.
conferencereport 2 years ago
minds can be influenced from perceptions, so there is some overlap that can happen between minds. their "degrees of freedom" will be similar --the venn diagram you speak of would be the determining factor for the "degrees of freedom".
dog named youtube...? nice. what's his handle so I'll make sure and read his comments.
egoistorms 2 years ago
I'm not so much thinking of mind as being influenced by perceptions as being partially composed of perceptions. What you see is as much part of your thought as a memory or an act of imagination. The difference is that some parts of thoughts, those we call 'perceptions' are also available to other. Does that make any sense?
(p.s. the dogs are called Guy and Phoebe)
conferencereport 2 years ago
agree that mind is partially perceptions. if minimal memory is allocated for a precept, however, the perceptions will be much less granular when recalled.
ah, so "come on, you two" was the utterance.
do you mind if pirate and transform your audio on this one as a reply?
egoistorms 2 years ago
Pirate away. 'Come on youtube'. Of course, now I get it.
conferencereport 2 years ago