Perception and physical reality

@Fil Albuquerque,

Sorry, I did not reply to your "primary substance" post.

You are in effect talking about establishing a "bed rock" or "fixed frame of reference" against which we can conceive of "change". This may be an idealistic requirement but it is not a pragmatic requirement...your chicken and egg problem does not interfere with our utilization of either. In systems theory the solution is to look at "the system" both from the bottom up (determinism) and the top down (functionalism). e.g. in biology where the "understanding" of an organ involves both its components and its function with respect to "the body".
A similar view can be taken for communication between selves as components of groups with respect to linguistic exchanges.

At the end of the day, "fixed frames" amount to a religious "Absolute".

1 Reply

@fresco,

(Lets bring them both together) Deterministic Functionalism is very appealing indeed...one can look at it as an algorithmic process. The idea is to look at the Evolution of Evolution and stablish a pattern, a function of functions...what´s the maximum of functions a system can self contain between its entire set of elements in which they all interact and its time distribution ?
This is perspective in a system...any element can be a spatial/temporal starting or ending point in algorithmic relation with all the others...they all stablish a path to all the remaining elements thus building their "identity" from them to its specific location inside the set...what each of them is, is established by all the others around them in a given priority order inside a "Meta-function"...

...Now of course...since I am not a mathematician nor a programmer this is troublesome for me given my own limitations on this field...(I only have a conceptual glimpse)
...nevertheless I clearly feel the intuitive need to look at the problem this way.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

FA, I believe that's a good starting point, but the communication of it in more understandable language for those who are not familiar with those $1000 dollar words will provide for more participation. What is "deterministic functionalism?"

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

In short, a closed system program...or to use a more down to earth image, on Hollywood pop conceptual art, a self sustained "Matrix". (No Creators needed)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Some would suggest that it is not true that they are reading this post, since this post is my post an not theirs, once theirs is the one they are actually reading at this moment, which is not my moment which was my post...and yet, their post which is not mine, is theirs because mine is mine...thus the LANGUAGE in this post...
Truth is an AXIS between entangled "opposites". (perspectives)

So if two people are looking at a table, there are actually two tables. One for each viewer. That the viewers agree that there's only one table being viewed by both results because neither can see the other's table.

Both hold an objective mental picture of two people looking at one table. Both will say this objective picture is the truth. And it concurs with the subjective truth: there's only one table.

You could say the objective picture is a kind of communication.

2 Replies

@Arjuna,

I can´t tell exactly how many "tables" there can be...probably as many as the atoms in this universe...nevertheless 2 perspectives are certainly better then 1.
If the count of perspectives can ever end, then there is a "visible" Truth at the end of the tunnel, even if not to ever "touch" it...otherwise, Truth is just the rules of Evolution, and "Communication" is certainly about that.

...Communication is on an a priori necessary unity, phenomenologically shown a posteriori.
(...I guess one could say that far and away is just an illusion...and maybe this is just why to the wise Love is Truth.)

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I can´t tell exactly how many "tables" there can be...probably as many as the atoms in this universe...nevertheless 2 perspectives are certainly better then 1.

Artful how you dodge this question... What good is your model of perception if it cannot account for simple things like these?

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Some would suggest that it is not true that they are reading this post, since this post is my post an not theirs, once theirs is the one they are actually reading at this moment, which is not my moment which was my post...and yet, their post which is not mine, is theirs because mine is mine...thus the LANGUAGE in this post...
Truth is an AXIS between entangled "opposites". (perspectives)

So if two people are looking at a table, there are actually two tables. One for each viewer. That the viewers agree that there's only one table being viewed by both results because neither can see the other's table.

Both hold an objective mental picture of two people looking at one table. Both will say this objective picture is the truth. And it concurs with the subjective truth: there's only one table.

You could say the objective picture is a kind of communication.

If you look at a table, and you step to the side then you see an entirely new view of the table, and you may reconcile your view with the thought that light hitting the table from every possible angle is reflecting off in every possible direction with something of the color and shape of the table with it... We bring knowledge and reason to all our perspectives... We are an essential element to all we perceive because we give it meaning, and not all possible meaning since that meaning is a quality of all life, that we paint on everything perceived in each our own unique fashion, and it is that meaning we attempt, and always fail to communicate...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I can´t tell exactly how many "tables" there can be...probably as many as the atoms in this universe...nevertheless 2 perspectives are certainly better then 1.
If the count of perspectives can ever end, then there is a "visible" Truth at the end of the tunnel, even if not to ever "touch" it...otherwise, Truth is just the rules of Evolution, and "Communication" is certainly about that.

...Communication is on an a priori necessary unity, phenomenologically shown a posteriori.
(...I guess one could say that far and away is just an illusion...and maybe this is just why to the wise Love is Truth.)

Illusion of multiplicity.

1 John 4:8 (New International Version)
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love"

Sorry, Christian upbringing.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I can´t tell exactly how many "tables" there can be...probably as many as the atoms in this universe...nevertheless 2 perspectives are certainly better then 1.
If the count of perspectives can ever end, then there is a "visible" Truth at the end of the tunnel, even if not to ever "touch" it...otherwise, Truth is just the rules of Evolution, and "Communication" is certainly about that.

...Communication is on an a priori necessary unity, phenomenologically shown a posteriori.
(...I guess one could say that far and away is just an illusion...and maybe this is just why to the wise Love is Truth.)

Illusion of multiplicity.

1 John 4:8 (New International Version)
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love"

Sorry, Christian upbringing.

To the wise; LOVE is everything..

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Hi Cyr !
Does your model on knowledge account for these "simple things" ?
...And again let me remind you that I was not addressing the epistemic problem although confronted with an epistemic question...

0 Replies

@Fido,

Quote:

If you look at a table, and you step to the side then you see an entirely new view of the table, and you may reconcile your view with the thought that light hitting the table from every possible angle is reflecting off in every possible direction with something of the color and shape of the table with it... We bring knowledge and reason to all our perspectives... We are an essential element to all we perceive because we give it meaning, and not all possible meaning since that meaning is a quality of all life, that we paint on everything perceived in each our own unique fashion, and it is that meaning we attempt, and always fail to communicate...

It may well be that the question is more of why do we perceive the way we do...
...the search for the Onto´s of Knowledge itself...or what does knowledge communicate.

To say that the Social of Humanity brings up meaning is to forget the "social" of Meaning itself...Meaning is function between two or more "agents" through code...and then perhaps, just from code through code, and nothing else. I guess Occam´s razor makes sense...now what does remains intact, if not the very rules of change ?

...It may well be that Man is yet more meaning...that Conscience as an emergent epiphenomenon is all about another layer of meaning...

On my account, Man does n´t make meaning, but instead its Meaning, who does makes man...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
If you look at a table, and you step to the side then you see an entirely new view of the table, and you may reconcile your view with the thought that light hitting the table from every possible angle is reflecting off in every possible direction with something of the color and shape of the table with it... We bring knowledge and reason to all our perspectives... We are an essential element to all we perceive because we give it meaning, and not all possible meaning since that meaning is a quality of all life, that we paint on everything perceived in each our own unique fashion, and it is that meaning we attempt, and always fail to communicate...

It may well be that the question is more of why do we perceive the way we do...
...the search for the Onto´s of Knowledge itself...or what does knowledge communicate.

To say that the Social of Humanity brings up meaning is to forget the "social" of Meaning itself...Meaning is function between two or more "agents" through code...and then perhaps, just from code through code, and nothing else. I guess Occam´s razor makes sense...now what does remains intact, if not the very rules of change ?

...It may well be that Man is yet more meaning...that Conscience as an emergent epiphenomenon is all about another layer of meaning...

On my account, Man does n´t make meaning, but instead its Meaning, who does makes man...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Life is meaning... And if you look at meaning as value then all things are rated in value according to their effect, positive or negative, on our lives...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

On my account, Man does n´t make meaning, but instead its Meaning, who does makes man...

Classical "religious thinking", right ut to the personification of meaning by giving it a capital letter and then phrase yourself with "who does make man"...
But reality doesn't unfold according to some meaningful intention of some supreme ideal of truth. Truth and meaning are merely expressions of reality, only meaningful within the relationships of reality, from which they also arise.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Truth and meaning are merely expressions of reality, only meaningful within the relationships of reality, from which they also arise.

1 - So does the property of "meaning" it is or it is not intrinsic to Reality ? And just what do you mean with "Reality" without Truth ? because I can´t make heads or tails from what you said...

2 - I though I just justified Meaning as FUNCTION a couple of posts above...hardly there´s anything Religious in it, although you certainly want to make it seam so...Why ? Can´t you get another "technique" for argument ?

3 - You just jump my questions as if they were n´t there while I do my best to answer yours, where´s the debate ???

From instance:(From a similar thread)

Quote:

And I am OK with your confidence...Truth does n´t have to be fully known or simply to be know at all, in order to be...granted we "grasp" the rules, we can leave the chain alone...
God is also out of my perspective on this...
Now out of common sense, I just want to believe in something rather then nothing...without Truth there is no substance, whatever that substance might be, you have a building on air, or if to take you to the full, you don´t even have a building...in fact and without any sense of provocation on this, what is it that you have ? Meaning ? Meaning on what ? Social ? Social is just more meaning...what is there, that you can have ?

...without any referents, nothing is left standing...no change, no meaning no relativity, nothing at all...an absolute in itself !

0 Replies

But I can go deeper on your on beliefs...would you agree that meaning is true ? No ? Yes ?
What´s the meaning of meaning ? and the meaning of "man" and "social" without truth ? Did´n t you just said they are concepts, that all is concept ? So is n´t actually true that Meaning makes concepts like "man" and "social" ???

...this kind of "theory" lacks internal consistency thus fore collapses on itself without much effort...and this is just what you get with Relativity without referents...Nothing !

0 Replies

Meaning that refers to meaning is self circular and achieves nothing besides (irony of irony´s) an empty absolute...and that unless of course, at the very least you convey True value to a final Definition of it (meaning) or to any other primal referent for your on beliefs...fact is that without rules (truth) you can´t even disagree with any system since you can´t actually form any kind of thesis or antithesis...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

0 Replies

Since what's meaningless is inadmissible, I've thought of it as a fundamental demand. I haven't really thought past that.

Meaninglessness itself is a demand of meaning. For anything to be meaningful, it has to be compared to something else... it's negative or opposite. What partakes of meaninglessness? It's the far end of the pendulum swing where the negative is absent. Like if everything in the universe was green, the word green would have no meaning.

Communicate implies unity... commune. As with Plato's reminiscence. You can't teach somebody something they don't already know.

Meaning also implies structure. The will to speak leaves the one bound to the rules required to say something meaningful. I've imagined that the will to speak created the structure of language in the first place. But maybe the structure was a translation of something deeper. If there's ony one will, perhaps there's only one structure.

1 Reply

basically , physical reality ( the Universe ) is the basis of perception
which means were talking , discussing biology
which then means we are then talking , eyes and brain
which then again means that we are actually discussing the make up of biology which is from the Universe , which is the essence of biology

therefore , perception is because of the physical reality

1 Reply

@north,

It's not only biology; it's also our environment.

1 Reply

Perception and physical reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know