8
   

Perception and physical reality

 
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2010 08:15 pm
the truth is , is that , perception is based fundamentaly on the physical reality of the fundamental forms which allows perception in the first place

the quarks coalesce , into atoms , atoms coalesce into molecules , molecules coalesce into macro structures

biology and the Universe

so what came first is the physical reality of things THEN perception

rationally
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2010 09:25 pm
@Arjuna,
Quote:
Fil, you always have pity on me until I can catch up to you.


On the contrary...you have a far vaster and better Education then me...your Writing is Elegant and sensible...on Top you have the humbleness of the Wise...

I on turn, am just an "young foul", with a pretentious attitude, which sometimes is very willing to get to the bottom of some stuff...

...besides, we don´t always know that we already know...and that, that is so good ! ...such a good sign... I mean, being really really able to doubt oneself ! How many do that ? How many do really serve Philosophy ?

Nice to have you around ! Wink
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2010 09:31 pm

the physical reality comes first , always
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2010 09:35 pm
@north,
I don´t know what "Physical" gets to mean...What is "matter" bottom of bottom ? Is it Information ? What ?

This "stuff" goes far beyond that old friend... Smile
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2010 09:52 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I don´t know what "Physical" gets to mean...What is "matter" bottom of bottom ? Is it Information ? What ?[


physical means that , if we try to reach to the very depth of matter , we come to energy , matter is the form that energy takes at a lower energy state

from quantum to the macro , planets , moons , asteriods etc , its a matter ( no pun intended ) of energy level

Quote:
This "stuff" goes far beyond that old friend... Smile


not really

we tend at times to make things more complicated than they really are

simple> complex , complex>simple , both go hand in hand

the simplest thing in the universe is Hydrogen , the complexity is understanding hydrogen
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2010 11:24 pm
@north,
Niels Bohr Quotations

Quote:
We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.
In his first meeting with Werner Heisenberg in early summer 1920, in response to questions on the nature of language, as reported in Discussions about Language (1933); quoted in Defense Implications of International Indeterminacy (1972) by Robert J. Pranger, p. 11, and Theorizing Modernism : Essays in Critical Theory (1993) by Steve Giles, p. 28


Quote:
The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based.
"Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)


Quote:
Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.
"Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)


Quote:
What is it that we humans depend on? We depend on our words... Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character ... We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. The word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly.
Quoted in Philosophy of Science Vol. 37 (1934), p. 157, and in The Truth of Science : Physical Theories and Reality (1997) by Roger Gerhard Newton, p. 176


Quote:
For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealisations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence.
Speech on quantum theory at Celebrazione del Secondo Centenario della Nascita di Luigi Galvani, Bologna, Italy (October 1937)
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2010 11:32 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Niels Bohr Quotations

Quote:
We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.
In his first meeting with Werner Heisenberg in early summer 1920, in response to questions on the nature of language, as reported in Discussions about Language (1933); quoted in Defense Implications of International Indeterminacy (1972) by Robert J. Pranger, p. 11, and Theorizing Modernism : Essays in Critical Theory (1993) by Steve Giles, p. 28


Quote:
The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based.
"Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)


Quote:
Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.
"Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)


Quote:
What is it that we humans depend on? We depend on our words... Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character ... We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. The word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly.
Quoted in Philosophy of Science Vol. 37 (1934), p. 157, and in The Truth of Science : Physical Theories and Reality (1997) by Roger Gerhard Newton, p. 176


Quote:
For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealisations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence.
Speech on quantum theory at Celebrazione del Secondo Centenario della Nascita di Luigi Galvani, Bologna, Italy (October 1937)



mean-while in 2010 the thinking has changed
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2010 11:37 pm
@north,
Quote:
mean-while in 2010 the thinking has changed


Oh yes ? Lets have the evidence/quotations then !
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2010 11:43 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

Fido wrote:

We accept because we desire to know without the ability to know, because the truth is what works on the one hand and what we deny with the other because while it is life it is also death, and if we were ever to know all we would be God, but the pursuit that gives our lives meaning would be over...
Preach on, brother!

For you, anything... For my wife: Everything!!!...
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2010 11:52 pm

Quote:
Quote:
We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.
In his first meeting with Werner Heisenberg in early summer 1920, in response to questions on the nature of language, as reported in Discussions about Language (1933); quoted in Defense Implications of International Indeterminacy (1972) by Robert J. Pranger, p. 11, and Theorizing Modernism : Essays in Critical Theory (1993) by Steve Giles, p. 28


yet Rutherford showed that atoms have substance
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2010 11:57 pm
@north,
Smile
I suggest you get your time line sorted out !
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 12:10 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Smile
I suggest you get your time line sorted out !


I suggest that the time is just fine and true ( 1909 )

the experiment showed the evidence , of the existence , of the atomic nucleus
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 12:27 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Niels Bohr Quotations

Quote:
We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.
In his first meeting with Werner Heisenberg in early summer 1920, in response to questions on the nature of language, as reported in Discussions about Language (1933); quoted in Defense Implications of International Indeterminacy (1972) by Robert J. Pranger, p. 11, and Theorizing Modernism : Essays in Critical Theory (1993) by Steve Giles, p. 28


Quote:
The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based.
"Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)


Quote:
Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.
"Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)


Quote:
What is it that we humans depend on? We depend on our words... Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character ... We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. The word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly.
Quoted in Philosophy of Science Vol. 37 (1934), p. 157, and in The Truth of Science : Physical Theories and Reality (1997) by Roger Gerhard Newton, p. 176


Quote:
For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealisations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence.
Speech on quantum theory at Celebrazione del Secondo Centenario della Nascita di Luigi Galvani, Bologna, Italy (October 1937)


I agree with these statements, but they are not only true of nuclear physics, but of all reality... We can only approximate an understanding of reality and it is that approximation, what we would call an abstraction, a concept, a form, an idea, or a notion that is communicatated... Accuracy has nothing to do with the process and meaning has everything to do with it...
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 12:39 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

fresco wrote:

Niels Bohr Quotations

Quote:
We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.
In his first meeting with Werner Heisenberg in early summer 1920, in response to questions on the nature of language, as reported in Discussions about Language (1933); quoted in Defense Implications of International Indeterminacy (1972) by Robert J. Pranger, p. 11, and Theorizing Modernism : Essays in Critical Theory (1993) by Steve Giles, p. 28


Quote:
The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based.
"Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)


Quote:
Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.
"Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)


Quote:
What is it that we humans depend on? We depend on our words... Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character ... We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. The word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly.
Quoted in Philosophy of Science Vol. 37 (1934), p. 157, and in The Truth of Science : Physical Theories and Reality (1997) by Roger Gerhard Newton, p. 176


Quote:
For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealisations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence.
Speech on quantum theory at Celebrazione del Secondo Centenario della Nascita di Luigi Galvani, Bologna, Italy (October 1937)


I agree with these statements, but they are not only true of nuclear physics, but of all reality... We can only approximate an understanding of reality and it is that approximation, what we would call an abstraction, a concept, a form, an idea, or a notion that is communicatated... Accuracy has nothing to do with the process and meaning has everything to do with it...


is air , water , an approximate , understanding of abstraction to Human survival then ?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 12:48 am
@Fido,
...hence the idea of "reality" as a social construction, reified by common language and physiology. This view also led to the idea of language being the substrate or foundation of "reality" rather than "substance" (materialism) or "consciousness" (idealism).
Such a view is also suggested by Wittgenstein's "meaning is use", or more criptically by Heidegger's "language speaks the man".
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 01:01 am
@north,
Code:I suggest that the time is just fine and true ( 1909 )


I'm still waiting for your "evidence" regarding your statement about "2010 thinking".
GoshisDead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 07:51 am
@fresco,
One cannot make a credible assessment of 2010 thinking until at least 2011, maybe 2015. The thinking has to be compiled catalogued and reinterpreted through the lense of "history" first
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 07:57 am
@GoshisDead,
Technically correct !.....however I am merely highlighting the lack of coherence of North's "modern" objections to the Bohr 1930's quotations. Citing Rutherford 1909 is self-evidently ridiculous.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 08:04 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

...hence the idea of "reality" as a social construction, reified by common language and physiology. This view also led to the idea of language being the substrate or foundation of "reality" rather than "substance" (materialism) or "consciousness" (idealism).
Such a view is also suggested by Wittgenstein's "meaning is use", or more criptically by Heidegger's "language speaks the man".

I am starting to like you... Ideas are not just social constructs, arrived at socially, used socially to reach our goals... Ideas are our mental reality... The world we think, by way of ideas, is the world that IS, to us...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 09:30 am
@Fido,
Note that as soon as you say "we" or "us" you are evoking "the social".
And more generally, in the view of "self" as "a committee", all internal conversation (aka "thinking")is social !
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/01/2021 at 11:25:22