How can we be sure?

@north,

north I am being patient here with you...we are talking about certainty !
...I am not saying the opposite of what you believe to be the case...it probably is the case ! nevertheless you have no way of knowing for sure what is to be the case, once "you" are the only referent ground for the entirety of the experience of your life...if whatever goes on in your brain, all the memory´s, all the ideas, all the knowledge, are the only thing you have (as an experience) as a subject, how are you to be sure there is anything beyond them without keeping on resorting to those very same ideas very same memory´s ? mind that I am solely asking how are you to be sure ! (I am not defending that such is the case)

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...it is not the case that "you" are able to get out of "you" to go "outside" and check for yourself once "you" keep being your own thoughts at all times...
(you are the experience and beyond that nothing can be said with certainty)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

north I am being patient here with you...we are talking about certainty !
...I am not saying the opposite of what you believe to be the case...it probably is the case ! nevertheless you have no way of knowing for sure what is to be the case, once "you" are the only referent ground for the entirety of the experience of your life...if whatever goes on in your brain, all the memory´s, all the ideas, all the knowledge, are the only thing you have (as an experience) as a subject, how are you to be sure there is anything beyond them without keeping on resorting to those very same ideas very same memory´s ? mind that I am solely asking how are you to be sure ! (I am not defending that such is the case)

because I question or inquire

1 Reply

@north,

...and just how does that changes anything it has been said?

0 Replies

@north,

Quote:

so your saying that the only way that a wave length of of light becomes a colour is if we , Humans , absorb this wave length via neurology

yet the wave length of light obviously has that colour as a nature unto itself

does it not ?

We will perceive a certain wavelength as the same color every time we look at it. But color is in the looking, not in the wavelength. If no one was looking there would be no color to it, and there would be no need for color to it. Even wavelengths is a matter of our experience. It might be that beings with completely different physical condition would classify things completely differently.

If we had no eyes, but instead some kind of sonar hearing perception, as some sea dwelling animals do, we would "see" our surroundings by sound. You could stand in a quiet room and clap your hands, and for the instant the sound of it travelled to the walls and back to your ears you would perceive the room in a flash. And you wouldn't have any need to turn your head to look around to get it all.
But instead we do this with our senses that can perceive wavelengths of a much higher frequency. And our receptors are located in the front of our skulls, so we have only a limited perception of whatever waves happen to hit our eyes. But still it's the same thing. Waves hit our eyes, and we use them to paint a coherent picture we then name reality.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

North does make an interesting point, i.e., that "the wave length of light obviously has that colour as a nature unto itself." I agree, but this applies to the wavelength not as an ABSOLUTE trait but only RELATIVE to particular species. That is to say, the "colour" entailed in the wave length will differ with different species of nervous systems.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

...well, that entails precisely that the colour you perceive is not an absolute trait of wavelengths, but a relative phenomena in between them and brains...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...well, that entails precisely that the colour you perceive is not an absolute trait of wavelengths, but a relative phenomena in between them and brains...

and that implies that the wave length of the light is either slowed down by the nervous system or speeded up ( unlikely of course ) prismed so to speak

the only way to solve this problem is to use the technology that is avaible to see what is true

1 Reply

@north,

...all the technology you can think of still would be passing through your perception of such technology in the brain and thus subjected to the same problem...(imagine it as a sophisticated simulation from which your brain can´t ever escape)(again not saying it is the case but only explaining you the problem of induction)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...all the technology you can think of still would be passing through your perception of such technology in the brain and thus subjected to the same problem...(imagine it as a sophisticated simulation from which your brain can´t ever escape)(again not saying it is the case but only explaining you the problem of induction)

understood

but the way I have looked at this , is that , we are all made from the Universe , there is no getting around this fact

every element that we need to be made , is from the Universe

so there comes a point where we must accept this

the Universe is built into the perception , meaning that the brain and the Universe are connected in a fundamental way , so that there fundamental perceptions that are real and true , such the enviroment , beyond the blue sky , stars

thats how I look at us and the Universe

1 Reply

@north,

...everything which we perceive is true in its own right, that is, it is a true perception...the problem rather lies with final location of each perceived bit...where does it fit...external and internal are rendered useless words in a final comprehension of the problem...they relate points of view, and partial ones of course...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...

Quote:

everything which we perceive is true in its own right, that is, it is a true perception...

true

Quote:

the problem rather lies with final location of each perceived bit...where does it fit...external and internal are rendered useless words in a final comprehension of the problem...they relate points of view, and partial ones of course...

first , what perceived " bit " ?

1 Reply

@north,

...each perceived "bit" or sequence reports to each chosen segment of a final string having a proper context where it can fit and be true...meaning that the value of being true or false is ultimately dependent on the right location for it...thus the right context imply´s in a final string the right location, but such location cannot ever be computed by any entity which itself is a integrated spatio/temporal part on the final string which is atemporal and a priori...thus the final string itself although true cannot ever be aware of having a true value as ultimately it does not need to question the validity of its entire domain nor it can compare itself with anything else, it is everything by definition !

0 Replies

M.C. Escher nicely illustrated the paradox of subject and object, observer and observed, and self-reference in his lithograph, "Prentententoonstelling" ("Print Gallery").

$http://escherdroste.math.leidenuniv.nl/images/scan450.jpg$

Some mathmeticians at Leiden University were able to fill in the blank space at the center of the illustration and it results in a strange loop.

Here is a downloadable mpg video that can be repeated or looped in a media player.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Exactly. If we define colour and sound as subjective phenomena, then it is the interaction between "objective" physical conditions and neurological processes that produces subjective colour and sound.
And, by the way I also agree that all perceptions--qua subjective phenomena--are real: even a mirage is a real mirage, but don't expect it to satisfy your thirst.

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

AND, "points of view" are partial by definition. An omincompetent perspective is central to a definition of God, and that is true only in a sense so transcendental we cannot discuss it.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

AND, "points of view" are partial by definition. An omincompetent perspective is central to a definition of God, and that is true only in a sense so transcendental we cannot discuss it.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Exactly. If we define colour and sound as subjective phenomena, then it is the interaction between "objective" physical conditions and neurological processes that produces subjective colour and sound.
And, by the way I also agree that all perceptions--qua subjective phenomena--are real: even a mirage is a real mirage, but don't expect it to satisfy your thirst.

...first of all it is my opinion that such subjective phenomena is itself grounded on objective causes "you" being the witness of its working context...
...second you must distinguishing in between, being able to describe the function of a phenomena, as for instance in your mirages, and it being real or not...a mirage is not meant to feed you but if you admit its realness as a mirage, you equally have no reason to doubt the realness of everything else including those other things that end up having the working function of feeding you...it follows that while I admit the inherent difficulty´s of the induction problem on what we can know with certainty, that in turn does n´t ad or subtract a bit to the trivial truth of whatever is the case to be real being real...the problem of knowing is not the problem of being.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

...describing what an algorithm is does not amount to demonstrate its process or extension...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I would answer your general point if I understood it, but let me comment on a piece of it, namely: "...it is my opinion that such subjective phenomena [are] grounded on objective causes [,] "you" being the witness of its working context..."
Yes, that is what I said, but "you" are not the witness; you are part of what is being witnessed. You-as-Witness is, as I understand it, what Buddhism refers to as anatman, a "Self" that sees the construct, "self." Anatman is "no-mind" (beyond ego consciousness) that witnesses the illusion of mind-and-its-content.
How shameful to be so obscure.

1 Reply

How can we be sure?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know