Perception and physical reality

Again we tend to mistake the Thing which must be, with the discourse, the speech as the way we share perspectives on it...(Wave/Particle duality is a good example on this) nevertheless, perspectives must refer to something with Identity and form, be it "Information" or anything else...in such light Language is therefore about the "angles" of approach to knowledge which do not necessarily undermine the Nature of Reality as a True cohesive Whole in itself as its object...

It does n´t much matter what particular "substance" gets to be described as fundamental to Reality, which again its yet another descriptive angle of approach...nevertheless, what is necessary to bare in mind, is that although information and meaning can be converted in more information and meaning, thus changing angles and perspectives, they all still refer to the same thing, to the very same, lets call it, "Meta-Object".
That which is True !
Change imply´s, IT MUST, something to be changed in the first place...that, which may be called, Discourse, Language, or Information in Relationship still underlies something else !
Yet is it, Logos, Order, as the "Rules of Discourse" in Information conversion bring up the algorithms of What Truth gets to be behind that !
Truth its about "Grammar" !

1 Reply

Again we tend to mistake the Thing which must be, with the discourse, the speech as the way we share perspectives on it...(Wave/Particle duality is a good example on this) nevertheless, perspectives must refer to something with Identity and form, be it "Information" or anything else...in such light Language is therefore about the "angles" of approach to knowledge which do not necessarily undermine the Nature of Reality as a True cohesive Whole in itself as its object...

It does n´t much matter what particular "substance" gets to be described as fundamental to Reality, which again its yet another descriptive angle of approach...nevertheless, what is necessary to bare in mind, is that although information and meaning can be converted in more information and meaning, thus changing angles and perspectives, they all still refer to the same thing, to the very same, lets call it, "Meta-Object".
That which is True !
Change imply´s, IT MUST, something to be changed in the first place...that, which may be called, Discourse, Language, or Information in Relationship still underlies something else !
Yet is it, Logos, Order, as the "Rules of Discourse" in Information conversion bringing up the algorithms of What Truth gets to be behind that !
Truth its about "Grammar" ! (and the "Language" may well be the Binary one)

0 Replies

@fresco,

I was just agreeing tongue in cheeks with the highlight

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

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 !

no bout adoubt it... Children withut language, ferril children have brains more like monkeys than humans...Knowledge is social, and what we do with knowledge, thought, is social to, and so is life social and all individuals are a part of an organic whole; and in addition, all life is the same life, and yet because we experience life and death individually, whether we are mistaken or not, we see thought, life, and consciousness as individual, and that preception rather than the understanding of it, is what holds sway in most of our minds, in my opinion, so I can say: These are my thoughts... My thoughts, rationally would not be much or mean much without a great deal of knowledge and experience supplied culturally... We think of our selves as the product of our own wills, to live, to know, to understand...I think Schopenhaur warned against the individuation of the will... Better to think of our experience as human experience, and make it available for others through communication, so we can live and learn together, and pass it on...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Again we tend to mistake the Thing which must be, with the discourse, the speech as the way we share perspectives on it...(Wave/Particle duality is a good example on this) nevertheless, perspectives must refer to something with Identity and form, be it "Information" or anything else...in such light Language is therefore about the "angles" of approach to knowledge which do not necessarily undermine the Nature of Reality as a True cohesive Whole in itself as its object...

It does n´t much matter what particular "substance" gets to be described as fundamental to Reality, which again its yet another descriptive angle of approach...nevertheless, what is necessary to bare in mind, is that although information and meaning can be converted in more information and meaning, thus changing angles and perspectives, they all still refer to the same thing, to the very same, lets call it, "Meta-Object".
That which is True !
Change imply´s, IT MUST, something to be changed in the first place...that, which may be called, Discourse, Language, or Information in Relationship still underlies something else !
Yet is it, Logos, Order, as the "Rules of Discourse" in Information conversion bring up the algorithms of What Truth gets to be behind that !
Truth its about "Grammar" !

I don't know if this agrees with you or not... I slowed down for a moment and find myself drowsy... In any event, in-form-ation, having the root of form, is meaning... Meaning is what we take from reality and what we give when communicte...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Yeah...I told our vision would not differ but in details...
The problem resides that you still insist that there is no Truth and I just say the opposite practically with the same argument...don´t forget the "Grammar" is my bottom line remark remember ?...
There are underlying rules to it although discourse on the matter is of course perspective in change, no big news there...but to say, that all is Truth and Path, is quite a long way from a sounding, there´s no Truth at all !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Yeah...I told our vision would not differ but in details...
The problem resides that you still insist that there is no Truth and I just say the opposite practically with the same argument...don´t forget the "Grammar" is my bottom line remark remember ?...
There are underlying rules to it although discourse on the matter is of course perspective in change, no big news there...but to say, that all is Truth and Path, is quite a long way from a sounding, there´s no Truth at all !

I am not saying there is not truth.. Pretty insubstantial, is what I would say.. I wouldn't bet on it in a horse race...

1 Reply

@Fido,

There´s were you get it wrong...in fact, nothing could be more Substantial then Rules of Nature. (otherwise, and you probably would be crossing walls and so on...)

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I really don't know what you are talking about when you use words like "grammar". I am aware of the usage of "grammar" as the substrate of particular aspects of"reality" such as the evocation of "self as an agent"(subject) in relationship to action (verb). However you seem to wander off into a private semantic realm involving capitalised (hence mystical) terms like "Truth" , "Rules" and "Nature". Is this merely a leaning towards the "word magic" which underlies the verbal aspects of religion (prayer,chanting,ritual,holy writ, logos etc) ? If so, it is linked to hypnosis which some psychologists have explained as a regression to a child state in which the utterance of words like "ball" produce objects/realities "as though by magic" from the all powerful adult. Hence the semantic chain..Logos...God the Father...Truth.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Further..

You appear to have a concept of "fundamental truth" or "fundamental reality" which perhaps you take to be connected with the phrase "rules of nature". I put it to you that those "rules" are an anthropocentric expressions of our cognitive urge to "predict and control". Taking a non-anthropocentric stance (Capra for example) it can be argued that this aspect of human cognition is a chauvinistic vanity fuelled by the apparent "progress of science" in our recent history. I am not a political ecologist, but ecologists do have a cynical view of such "progress".

In short, it may be the case, as some phenomenologists argued, that we can dispense with "fundamental reality" as superflous to an understanding of what we call "perception", but that requires a re-evaluation of the term "understanding".

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I really don't know what you are talking about when you use words like "grammar". I am aware of the usage of "grammar" as the substrate of particular aspects of"reality" such as the evocation of "self as an agent"(subject) in relationship to action (verb). However you seem to wander off into a private semantic realm involving capitalised (hence mystical) terms like "Truth" , "Rules" and "Nature". Is this merely a leaning towards the "word magic" which underlies the verbal aspects of religion (prayer,chanting,ritual,holy writ, logos etc) ? If so, it is linked to hypnosis which some psychologists have explained as a regression to a child state in which the utterance of words like "ball" produce objects/realities "as though by magic" from the all powerful adult. Hence the semantic chain..Logos...God the Father...Truth.

I think there are two things being considered by these two posts, and I like them, the second more than the first... The first post has to deal with words and word magic, and the other has to do with the order we impose upon nature a'priori out of our need for order and control, and I think this as much as the first has to do with human Psychology, but is negative because old ideas must be violently shoved aside by new ideas, and the ideas don't get hurt; but people do... There was order in the universe before copernicus offered a new order, but science was hurt because he was timid, just as science was hurt because Galaleo was bold in ridiculing the old order, and he was hurt too... Our rules and laws which we presume of nature may be blinding us to the true-er state of affairs... How many years after Darwin are we still fighting his battle against metphysics??? Both sides have their order, and their laws; but what does that have to do with the true state of affairs which does not follow either course exactly???

Of the first, Word Magic, which I agree is at work here, is at work everywhere... People do not escape their childhood simply because they grow up, and humanity does not escape its childhood simply by growing older... We say: speak of the Devil when the subject of a conversation shows up; and we tell tales like Rumplestilskin... Into recent times primitive peoples would not reveal their true names to strangers for fear of giving power over themselves, and rhymes were once curses, and Carmen, Latin for song, and a girl's name meant: Charm... It is not just to primitive minds that the word is the thing... Thought would not be possible without being able to reference objects with names... Yes; supernatural beings can be invoked with a name... And so can every concept which the name is identical to be summoned into consciousness with a word... I make no claim to understanding of how minds work, but I do recognize that when humanity found how to share experience and problems, and pass knowledge between generations -that we took off as a species... Speech makes us human as our most essential tool because it brings the social mind to bear on all our problems... Perhaps it was this fact that gave primitives such an awe of names, because what people could talk about by name they could in time come to control...

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I really don't know what you are talking about when you use words like "grammar". I am aware of the usage of "grammar" as the substrate of particular aspects of"reality" such as the evocation of "self as an agent"(subject) in relationship to action (verb). However you seem to wander off into a private semantic realm involving capitalised (hence mystical) terms like "Truth" , "Rules" and "Nature". Is this merely a leaning towards the "word magic" which underlies the verbal aspects of religion (prayer,chanting,ritual,holy writ, logos etc) ? If so, it is linked to hypnosis which some psychologists have explained as a regression to a child state in which the utterance of words like "ball" produce objects/realities "as though by magic" from the all powerful adult. Hence the semantic chain..Logos...God the Father...Truth.

No ! "Grammar" is just the assembling metaphor to the subtract of Language as a meaningful construction, reporting on how information is "glued" together and how through patterns and functions it converts meanings and operational referents through algorithms in relation to the observer standing point without changing the Truth of that which is (through context locality)...but by means of changing the perspective through which you look at it...just like when you observe any object from different standing points you get to a different sensory experience on its appearance and therefore on how you can describe it and yet the very object of your attention just remains plainly the same...

If to further the deep meaning of such words into its epistemic potential you can take by Universal "Language" one of the simplest there can be like binary code for instance, and by "Observer" or "Subject" you can pick anything which is in relation to something else...the Moon and the Earth for instance they "observe" each other through gravity...now the problem resides in that there are several layers on what words like "observation" or "language" can be considered to mean, being that just a matter of complexity and inter disciplinary Intelligence in replacement of mediocrity and compartmentalising classical box thinking, of which you are just another ordinary example unfortunately...

Finally to say that I could n´t care less on how you perceive my Cosmogony or what is worth in it, simply because you´re out of my "target market potential" sort to speak and I would n´t expect anything different from you...

Further more, what actually gets to be magical and mystique in such misconceptions as yours or Fido´s concerning the accurate description of what Reality addresses or on how it should be addressed was pointed out earlier with the rhetorical question that neither you or Fido cared to answer so far and that fully exposes the weakness of your grounds on this issue...WHAT IS IT THERE THAT CHANGES ? (from which ACTUAL form to which actual form ???)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

That was still mostly unintellible. What I conclude about your "cosmology" is that you believe in "things in themselves" which might "observe" each other. This is diametrically opposed to the non-dualistic views of those epistemologists (and the views of Bohr cited above) who see observer and observed as ontologically complementary (two sides of the same coin), Indeed, Maturana the biologist, even claims that what call "observation" is always "reported" and therefore an epiphenomenon of human language. Your "earth observing moon" statement would consequently fall into the category of esotericism (a la Gurdjieff) with its own mystical semantic agenda, hence your general incoherence to the uninitiated.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Thank you for your response.
As regards "fighting metaphysics" is concerned, this may be the case in the fundamentalist backwoods of the USA etc, but appears to be less of a problem here in Europe. IMO the division between "physical" and "metaphysical" becomes somewhat blurred if I define "physicality" as merely one potential aspect of the two-way relationship between "observer" and "observed".

0 Replies

@fresco,

The obscure and self arrogant tendency of dividing Human as "artificial" from that which is natural in the World as confusing the epiphenomenon of further emergence of complexity in Awareness and Conscience with what Observation might refer to in a more primary level, well demonstrates the degree of illiteracy that some "Dinosaurs" carry with them and their old rotten paradigms...
In such light, as in Einstein´s Relativity, "Subjectivity" can be simply considered a feature of Locality, meaning, that which is my relative position in relation to several referents and that thus changes my operative functionality with such different agents instead of imagining a particular magical feature of the subject as an interpreter...
Interpretation is therefore based in a different yet actual relation between a set of agents that occupied different "local contexts" when referents are changed...

Finally, let me just ad in conclusion given the dichotomous abuse of such linear perspectives that I am absolutely convinced that old timers like you are ultimately doomed to failure when it comes to properly building a valid comprehensive model of the World and its operational features.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Finally, let me just ad in conclusion given the dichotomous abuse of such linear perspectives that I am absolutely convinced that old timers like you are ultimately doomed to failure when it comes to properly building a valid comprehensive model of the World and its operational features.

This made me laught out loud. Laughing

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Me too ! Best word salad this week !

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Laugh all you want you ignorant fool...I pity your laugh for lack of better argument...I wish you could actually see how pathetic and ridicule is your position...Zero upon zero times zero...

0 Replies

Binary code its a Language, DNA its also a Language, English is yet another language...

Language its not a specific human feature just as observation also it is n´t...

In fact there are several theory´s occurring in Science right now respecting what "Observation" might mean regarding for instance the Schroedinger´s cat paradox...

...To say that frozen water is different from frozen oil does n´t mean that frozen is not correct description for their actual states...Just as to say that Human Observation although with its specificity is different from any other simpler or more complex layer of observation does n´t fit the bill...

Relativity is actually a very good example once it speaks in observers getting different perceptions on an event not because they are imagining but precisely because they relative speed varies in relation to different moving targets thus getting an specific standing point in relation to an event when considering the speed of light...
Thus accepting to refer such effect as "Subjective" perfectly applies to the situation at hand but with the particularity of not endorsing the idea that such events are not actual or "Real" only because they might conflict with the perspective of any other observer with a different space/time referent...

Again some people´s lack of insight is the only thing around, not to laugh, but to cry at...pointless !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I was laughing at your attempt to ridicule fresco. Reminds me of a child who has just learned 2+2 trying to teach a mathematician how to do his job.

For the rest, I would advise you to take a good look at the assumptions you put at the foundation of your logic.

3 Replies

Perception and physical reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know