The Myth Called Matter

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I've been browsing the internet and came upon a particularily interesting article called 'The Little Man in the Tower'.

Well, here's the introduction of the article:
[QUOTE]What kind of world do you live in?

A world of solid ground with people and trees, oceans with clouds above it and, higher still, the enormous emptiness of space?

Are you one of the billions of people in that world?

If you answer "yes" to those questions, then you are mistaken!

If you were able to answer "yes" to them, then that means that throughout the course of your life you have probably ignored a most important truth.

The fact is, you do not live in the kind of world described above at all. In your world, there is no distance of even a few meters, let alone of billions of kilometers or galaxies light years away. Actually you live in a very small enclosed space-in a tiny, locked room at the top of a giant tower. You have never left that room. You have never stepped outside it or been anywhere else. All you have seen are different shapes, people and spaces reflected on the walls of that room. You have heard only the sounds emitted from loudspeakers concealed in there. In fact, in that little room at the top of the tower, there is nobody else but you. You are entirely alone!

The "tower" we are speaking of is your body, and the little room atop it (in other words, your world) is your brain.

Your brain is a locked room which you can never step out of, because everything you imagine to be the "outside world" in reality consists of perceptions you experience in the visual or hearing centers of your brain. You can never get past those perceptions and experience directly what we refer to as "real matter"-if such a thing even exists. You can watch the electrical signals arriving at the brain's visual center, but you can never see those signals' true source. You literally watch the cinema screen on the walls of your "room," but can never directly experience the originals of those images.

We shall be setting out that truth in this book. What we explain here will, in all likelihood, contradict a great many ideas and concepts that you've become familiar with so far. Yet it is a concrete fact based on scientific proof. Therefore, it's impossible to reject this truth when one thinks about it in a reasoned and logical manner, instead of sticking to familiar preconceptions.

Never forget that ignoring the truth or refusing to think about it gains a person nothing. If anyone says, "No, I live on a planet in an enormous universe, not in a closed room," then he needs to prove the fact. If he cannot do so, then blind belief in any such idea will only lead to his remaining deceived.
[/QUOTE] To read the full article click [URL=http://www.harunyahya.com/books/deep_thinking/little_man/littleman1.php]here[/URL].

Anyway, what do you all think of this theory?[/COLOR]

[Zidargh]

This article is no real groundbreaking topic, it's just a simple argument for the Philosophies of Realism and Empiricism.

It is true that a majority of the world are Realists - where everything you come across is what you think [i]is[/i] without considering the 'external world'. However, it's difficult to see what this article's trying to say when it merges together Empiricism, which is where knowledge is derived from our sense-experiences.

I do agree with the article however, for it seems that the writer understands that if Empiricism is the belief that all knowledge derives from our sense-experiences (Like being [i]taught[/i] something through vision, hearing, etc etc) then Realism surely must be a simply form that derives itself from Empiricism.

The description of ourselves being locked into a tower, AKA our bodies, is a very nice way of putting across the belief that nothing matters except for our minds. I mean, in the future, it wouldn't surprise me if the human race consisted of human brains in vats, to be honest.

If this kind of stuff interests you, look up Empricism, Realism, Rationalism, Foundationalism, Coherentism, etc. There's so much. Try and stay away from Plato stuff though.

Despite revolutionising the Philosophical world of thought over a millenia ago, alot of his theories show references to that of Rationalism for he discusses that Innate Ideas stem from the Forms. He's damn interesting but there's so much that needs to be read on him for he often only reveals how he came about his train of thought in a sort of circle.

[Morpheus]

It can never be proven, as this person states that all our interactions are fake. Even if it is true, who cares? Does it really make a difference?

[Delta]

[COLOR=#7C0201][SIZE=1]"[b]Solipsism[/b] is a philosophical theory that everything is in the imagination, and there is no reality outside one's own mind. As a philosophical theory it is interesting because it is internally consistent and, therefore, cannot be disproved. But as a psychological state, it is highly uncomfortable. The whole of life becomes a long dream from which an individual can never wake up. Each person is trapped in a nightmare. Even friends are not real, they are a part of the dream. A person feels very lonely and detached, and eventually becomes apathetic and indifferent."
[RIGHT][b]-Wikipedia[/b][/RIGHT]

Probably related, especially to the chapter on "Our Body and Our Dreams".

I think the guy isn't saying everything is fake but we experience things like sight and sound in our brain. Says there that our world is actually pitch black and that the thing we perceive as "light" is just our brain's interpretation of photons that hit our eyes (or something like that). It's like infrared light being interpreted into visual light through thermal goggles. But that matter doesn't exist? Surely, the stimulation that the brain interprets as "matter" isn't something we sent ourselves. Must've come from something else, IMO.

One thing I don't get is what he means by "direct contact". And could somebody explain this:
[QUOTE]Here we are referring only to someone who glimpses a car. Consider a person seeing a valley several miles long. If he claims that he sees the original valley, then his visual center must, in the same way, occupy an area of at least several square miles. If so, then the person' brain, internal organs, arms and legs must all be proportionate-and of colossal dimensions.[/QUOTE]o_O
Waiting for someone to crack a Matrix joke.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Morpheus]

[QUOTE] Here we are referring only to someone who glimpses a car. Consider a person seeing a valley several miles long. If he claims that he sees the original valley, then his visual center must, in the same way, occupy an area of at least several square miles. If so, then the person' brain, internal organs, arms and legs must all be proportionate-and of colossal dimensions.[/QUOTE]
This is simply being an idiot. What if we see it on TV? Is our tv several miles long too?

[James]

[color=#737373][font=franklin gothic medium]I think that this is an interesting concept for discussion, but realistically (or not realistically), it holds no real weight.

Yes, we experience the world via our bodies and from behind our eye sockets. We experience the world in first-person, in a sense.

But does this mean that everything we perceive isn't actually there? I don't think so.

I do agree that perception is very important though. But I think that this type of perception mostly relates to intangibles - things such as morality, laws, ethics, principles, spirituality and so on. I would say then that the perception being discussed in the article above relates to human constructions in particular - not physical, but psychological.

How do I know that the road in front of me is ten miles long? Well, I could always drive a car and measure the distance that way. How do I know that the wall there is real? I could throw things at it and observe the results. There is a consistency to such things, which goes beyond one's perception. More importantly still, the physical existence of such things is what provides the basis for science and many human endeavours - it would be impossible to develop a rocket if people didn't understand the nature of chemicals in the atmosphere and the concept of breaking away from the pull of gravity.

There are those who argue that we are basically just brains in vats, much like what you see in The Matrix. These philosophical arguments are interesting - all of our experiences in the world ultimately are a result of chemicals and internal biological functions. But if our world was only perceived, it would presumably be possible for us to change it at will...or there would be the possibility that everyone would perceive it differently.

That's true to a degree (for example, colour blind people perceive the world differently). However, these perceptions usually deal with the aesthetic qualities of the world (including things that go beyond colour). Such perceptions don't eliminate the fundamentals behind human inventions, which themselves require an understanding of our surroundings.

The concept of perception mentioned above, if it were true, would definitely raise some very serious questions about the human theoretical constructions that I mentioned earlier.[/font][/color]

[Semjaza]

[QUOTE]Therefore, it's impossible to reject this truth when one thinks about it in a reasoned and logical manner, instead of sticking to familiar preconceptions.[/QUOTE]

The funny thing is that if I thought in a "reasoned and logical manner" I'd disagree with that article in almost every way to begin with.

[Godelsensei]

[quote name='Generic NPC #3']The funny thing is that if I thought in a "reasoned and logical manner" I'd disagree with that article in almost every way to begin with.[/quote]

Basically.

Perception [i]is[/i] everything, however there needs to be something to perceive. True, some organisms see mostly in shades of grey and some not at all, but that doesn't mean what they're perceiving doesn't exist.

Also, I do not understand how this fellow or lady can go on about "real matter, if it exists", while maintaining that we are trapped in our brains. Our [i]brains[/i] exist. *eyebrow*

This reminds me of the claim that "The Matrix" series were conceived to make us think living in a computer script is impossible.

[Zidargh]

[QUOTE=James][color=#737373][font=franklin gothic medium]

How do I know that the road in front of me is ten miles long? Well, I could always drive a car and measure the distance that way. How do I know that the wall there is real? I could throw things at it and observe the results. There is a consistency to such things, which goes beyond one's perception. More importantly still, the physical existence of such things is what provides the basis for science and many human endeavours - it would be impossible to develop a rocket if people didn't understand the nature of chemicals in the atmosphere and the concept of breaking away from the pull of gravity.
[/font][/color][/QUOTE]

But then, if you were to measure something like a road and found out it was ten miles long, then surely this would be contingent?

Rationalists argue that for some reason, our ideas of Mathematics and Geometrics are innate, in that we comprehend and hold these ideas within our mind before we are born, much like that of God. However, in my belief, Mathematics in terms of measurements was someone who I'll call T, stating that some stick (S) was a metre long. But what is a metre? Well, we all know a metre is made up of an object being 100 centimetres in length,width etc. However, a metre could've been something completely else in a different world, it's just T stating S is 1 metre in length.

I mean, I could say I have 2 arms, but in another world, I could have 6 trillian arms.

However, in this sense you are right. I mean, we as human beings are simply incapable of saying that something is true. I say true, with the meaning that it is certain and is what [i]is[/i]. But in this case, just because we've settled for that road being 10 miles long, doesn't mean it is actually 10 miles long. For example, if a mile is what is [i]true[/i] (which is surreal if you ask me), and we say that the road is 10 miles and believe that, the possibility still remains that we have founded our beliefs on other false believes, and thus 10 miles could be in fact double of what we think it is.

[QUOTE=James][color=#737373][font=franklin gothic medium]
But if our world was only perceived, it would presumably be possible for us to change it at will...or there would be the possibility that everyone would perceive it differently.[/font][/color][/QUOTE]

But how could we change it or everyone percieve it differently? This perception is just one perception of so many other perceptions, whilst another perception that differs will see your perception is different. There's no one who can say, "This is the right perception."

We could see things differently, sure, but we couldn't change the 'world', because this would generally mean that it would have changed for everyone else. But if everyone percieves differently, then there'd be no sufficient evidence to say the world has [i]really[/i] changed for noone would come to an agreement. In a sense, the possibility to someone else would seem as if you were on some hallucinagetic drug. We would only change things aesthetically.

Here I am just playing devil's advocate to prove my point, I'm not disregarding your points James at all, I agree with a lot of them, just using these arguments as an example.

The problem with the subject of perception, knowledge, belief or whatever the hell we use to make up what we know of the world is that it's impossible to acquire the truth behind everything. For example, Innate Ideas are universal concepts that we hold before we are even born. Then, if we use God in this case, then how can it really be Innate? Why are so many people ignorant of God if it is so Innate? - At least, this would be the Empiricist's view regarding a Rationalist's argument about Innate Ideas.

Another problem with perception is something that is surely in an Empiricist's stand point. Everything we see, hear, learn, etc is brought upon by acquiring this knowledge through our senses. But how can we really rely on these things we regard as 'knowledge'? After all, the possibility remains that what we think we know is a complete load of crap that was wrong since day one.

This is the problem with Philosophy - You can simply never know.

Personally, I feel it's better that we stand by what we believes whilst accept other's beliefs. There's no one who can just say what is right, this world that we know today is a manmade concept, that is, if we are human beings. For example, time is a manmade thing, science is a manmade concept. Of course all these points are arguable.

I hate the idea behind us that we are simply made up of chemical and biological reactions. If it's true then is there any point of living? We will eventually fall under experiments from a superior kind that manipulate our bodily functions and train of thought. Like in the Matrix for example, Robots.

If human beings are simply chemical and bodily functions, then once someone understands how to implement these into a piece of metal, then what separates us from them?

Personally, I believe it is the mind that counts. However, I'm getting really depressed as a right this and want to take some time out. Philosophy is a wonderful thing, but it does express issues of whether there is any point to live.

[quote name='godelsensei']Also, I do not understand how this fellow or lady can go on about "real matter, if it exists", while maintaining that we are trapped in our brains. Our brains exist. *eyebrow*[/quote]

I don't think you're understanding what the article's intended to say. It's just a philosophical statement that a large amount of people agree with. Personally, I don't, but read Revue's statement regarding Solipsism. They knock it on the head there.

And also, yes, our brains do exist according to the article. They're saying that the 'real matter' exists solely in our mind. The writer is a Global Sceptic. They believe, compared to Ordinary Doubt, that because our senses often mistake us, why should we trust them at all?

The idea of being 'plugged into a machine' is becoming realised by many.

[Brasil]

I laugh whenever I see someone take Solipsism a bit too far. Even Descartes, who mildly flirted with "I think therefore I am" (proving the Internal mind exists but claiming it's impossible to prove the External exists) never said:

[quote]Your brain is a locked room which you can never step out of, because everything you imagine to be the "outside world" in reality consists of perceptions you experience in the visual or hearing centers of your brain. You can never get past those perceptions and experience directly what we refer to as "real matter"-if such a thing even exists. You can watch the electrical signals arriving at the brain's visual center, but you can never see those signals' true source. You literally watch the cinema screen on the walls of your "room," but can never directly experience the originals of those images.[/quote] Because that's just taking things too far. That basically amounts to "nothing you see, hear, touch, experience is real." Brain is a locked room my butt. lol

And really, I think that's the biggest problem with the entire idea of the Internal vs the External. People take it way too literally. Yes, Descartes' wax experiment was a literal development on the conflict between Internal and External, but any sound and rational person wouldn't use that to jump into some outrageous argument like the provided article.

The writer challenges us to prove him wrong, to prove that the external world actually exists...I'd invite him to step in front of a moving vehicle.

That in itself is proof the external world exists, I'd think, because when you get run over by an 18-wheeler...I don't think Solipsism is going to help you survive. Yes, one could counter that with "The perceptions of the perceivers of the event create the perception that the man is dead."

But they'd be missing the point, because if the physical body doesn't move...to [i]anyone's[/i] perception...what does that say about Solipsism? That it's wrong, perhaps? lol. That there's definitely an external realm that we can see and fully experience in the most physical sense possible?

[quote]You can never get past those perceptions and experience directly what we refer to as "real matter"-if such a thing even exists.[/quote] If you walk in front of a tanker truck speeding at 50 miles per hour, you're going to experience directly "real matter," as that "real matter" shatters a few of your bones, crushes your legs, cracks your skull open, etc.

While the idea that nothing we see/touch/taste/smell/hear is real is certainly entertaining...it's only that. Entertainment. Like The Matrix.

A better, more sound application of that idea ("limited perceptions") is in affections...how an event affects us. For example, while a friend of mine may perceive the Hayden Christiansen digital edit in RotJ as disgusting and horrible, I may not have a problem with it.

And really, [i]that's[/i] the real idea behind the perception debate. Any other times you hear some nut ranting about how bumper-to-bumper traffic on a local highway during rush hour doesn't really exist...just write them off completely. No matter what they say, just write them off completely, because they're trying to argue something that misses the point [i]entirely[/i].

[elfpirate]

[QUOTE=Siren]
A better, more sound application of that idea ("limited perceptions") is in affections...how an event affects us. For example, while a friend of mine may perceive the Hayden Christiansen digital edit in RotJ as disgusting and horrible, I may not have a problem with it.
[/QUOTE]
[b][font=Comic Sans MS]That really made me throw up a bit--lol.

Seriously, though-- the article writer sounds like they're stuck on some kind of acid trip or paranoid delusion--the kind that make people jump off a 50-story building because "gravity doesn't really exist" and is "all in our heads".

Whether they want to admit it or not, matter and physics are a reality, whether we percieve them the exact same way our peers do or not.

Just because my mate sees pink fields instead of green ones is irrelevant--the field is still there.

Perhaps the issue of matter being "solid" can be debated to an extent, if relativity is disregarded, but it's a ridiculous notion to say that we are immobile, mind-trapped creatures in a universe of nothingness.

If I throw a hammer at the back of someone's head, it will hit them, regardless of whether they perceived the flying hammer in the first place--ergo--it can't just be perception.
[/font][/b]

[Break]

Solipsism is an egotistical way of looking at the world.

[quote][size=1]If I throw a hammer at the back of someone's head, it will hit them, regardless of whether they perceived the flying hammer in the first place--ergo--it can't just be perception.[/size][/quote]

What? Perception isn't just what you see with your eyes. It's what you touch, smell, see and hear. Of course touch is also a perception; if you threw a hammer at the head of a really drunk or stoned person, they would not feel it as much. Or if you threw it at a baby's head they would feel it a lot. Perception, despite what a lot of people say, is altered by what we physically and mentally possess. What we touch, smell, see and hear depends on our state of mind at the time and also our physical abilities, e.g. being able to see further (Australian aborigine), having a high pain threshold, being blind, having good hearing.

So what you say is certainly not true. Everything in this world is a perception - as long as it can be picked up by at least one of our senses. Take for example a table. One half of a table has the light from a window across it, the other half is in shade. If one were to touch [i]only[/i] the bright side, one would say that the table is warm, however if one were to touch only the shaded side, one would say that the table is cold. Also, if from one angle one was to only see the bright side, you would say that the table is a light brown colour (also depending on whether you were wearing sunglasses or not the table would appear a different colour). Again, however, if seen from another angle so that one was only to see the shaded side the table would appear a darker brown.

"Ergo" it can be, will be, was, had been and is merely a perception.

[Morpheus]

[QUOTE=Break]Solipsism is an egotistical way of looking at the world.



What? Perception isn't just what you see with your eyes. It's what you touch, smell, see and hear. Of course touch is also a perception; if you threw a hammer at the head of a really drunk or stoned person, they would not feel it as much. Or if you threw it at a baby's head they would feel it a lot. Perception, despite what a lot of people say, is altered by what we physically and mentally possess. What we touch, smell, see and hear depends on our state of mind at the time and also our physical abilities, e.g. being able to see further (Australian aborigine), having a high pain threshold, being blind, having good hearing.

So what you say is certainly not true. Everything in this world is a perception - as long as it can be picked up by at least one of our senses. Take for example a table. One half of a table has the light from a window across it, the other half is in shade. If one were to touch [i]only[/i] the bright side, one would say that the table is warm, however if one were to touch only the shaded side, one would say that the table is cold. Also, if from one angle one was to only see the bright side, you would say that the table is a light brown colour (also depending on whether you were wearing sunglasses or not the table would appear a different colour). Again, however, if seen from another angle so that one was only to see the shaded side the table would appear a darker brown.

"Ergo" it can be, will be, was, had been and is merely a perception.[/QUOTE]

Just because you hear a hammer doesn't mean it hits you. If that was true, then a lot more people would have died in the Boston Massacre or The Storming of the Bastille. Everyone heard gunshots, but only those in the bullets path were hit.

[r2vq]

First: [quote name='Morpheus']Just because you hear a hammer doesn't mean it hits you. If that was true, then a lot more people would have died in the Boston Massacre or The Storming of the Bastille. Everyone heard gunshots, but only those in the bullets path were hit.[/quote]

Morpheus, Break never said that if you perceive something you will perceive it in all aspects. All Break was saying was that perceptions exist. His comment was a reply to elfpirate.
Elpirate stated that a person may be influenced by an external force even if they did not perceive it occurring. He used this as an example to prove that the world isn't just perceptions.
Break argued with elpirate's last line that denounced perceptions. Break explained that anything you see is a perception. Anything you feel is a perception. Anything you smell, taste, or hear is a perception. Everything is perceived through the senses. And in that sense, even if a person did not expect it, the effects of an external force are perceived.

Morpheus, I'm not sure how you came to your conclusions.

I could be misinterpreting what people are saying, but it seems that most people are agreeing that this author is claiming nothing exists outside of your mind. I disagree. His arguments are reminding me of Immanuel Kant.
Kant basically believed that although things exist in this world, we cannot experience something unless we experience it first through our senses, and then through our mind. Since our senses and or mind has preconceptions, the perceptions we experience are affected by these presconceptions and are never experienced in their true form.

[quote=Morpheus]
[i]Quote:
Here we are referring only to someone who glimpses a car. Consider a person seeing a valley several miles long. If he claims that he sees the original valley, then his visual center must, in the same way, occupy an area of at least several square miles. If so, then the person' brain, internal organs, arms and legs must all be proportionate-and of colossal dimensions.[/i]


[b]This is simply being an idiot. What if we see it on TV? Is our tv several miles long too?[/b][/quote]

Well, no. What I believe the quote says (I'm new, correct me if I'm wrong) is that what we see is modified by our eyes and our minds so that we can perceive and understand it in time and space. Although we may /see/ something, we don't know it in its truest form because our eyes may be flawed, or the mind that interprets what our eyes see may be flawed. Also, what we see is also modified to fit our logic and reasoning.

The Television that you watch something on is also modified by the camera that is recording it. The camera can only record certain things in time and space. It is not the actual subject that is inside the television set. It is not the actual subject that is being experienced.

The thing I hate about Philosophy is that it takes so long to read anything. >.<

-ArV

[Brasil]

[quote name='r2vq']The Television that you watch something on is also modified by the camera that is recording it. The camera can only record certain things in time and space. It is not the actual subject that is inside the television set. It is not the actual subject that is being experienced.[/quote]
Exactly why Morpheus was like "WTF mate?!?"

If we were to treat the original author's statements as having any validity whatsoever, everything we use to perceive our environments would be radically changing in size all the time, whether it be TV, our optic nerves, our cerebral cortex, our cameras, our photographs...the list goes on into infinity.

Clearly, that's not happening, so that would make the original author's statements completely incorrect. Our brains aren't expanding to the size of a small country when we tour the countryside, after all.

[r2vq]

[quote name='Siren']Our brains aren't expanding to the size of a small country when we tour the countryside, after all.[/quote]

I believe, the point isn't that our brains are supposed to be expanding.
The point is that we are limited. And we just cannot experience something [i]as is[/i]. We cannot recreate something in our head [i]exactly[/i] because we would have to recreate it, practically physically.

Our brains process what we perceive through our senses and convert it into knowledge and experience.

Everything in our head is logic and experience and therefore we shall never experience something perfectly [i]as is[/i].

-ArV

[elfpirate]

[QUOTE=Break]

What? Perception isn't just what you see with your eyes. It's what you touch, smell, see and hear. Of course touch is also a perception; if you threw a hammer at the head of a really drunk or stoned person, they would not feel it as much. Or if you threw it at a baby's head they would feel it a lot. Perception, despite what a lot of people say, is altered by what we physically and mentally possess. What we touch, smell, see and hear depends on our state of mind at the time and also our physical abilities, e.g. being able to see further (Australian aborigine), having a high pain threshold, being blind, having good hearing.

So what you say is certainly not true. Everything in this world is a perception - as long as it can be picked up by at least one of our senses. Take for example a table. One half of a table has the light from a window across it, the other half is in shade. If one were to touch [i]only[/i] the bright side, one would say that the table is warm, however if one were to touch only the shaded side, one would say that the table is cold. Also, if from one angle one was to only see the bright side, you would say that the table is a light brown colour (also depending on whether you were wearing sunglasses or not the table would appear a different colour). Again, however, if seen from another angle so that one was only to see the shaded side the table would appear a darker brown.

"Ergo" it can be, will be, was, had been and is merely a perception.[/QUOTE]
[font=Comic Sans MS][b]*Sighs heavily*
I never said anything about eyesight being the only perception, did I?[/b][/font]

[b][font=Comic Sans MS]What I said was that it's not [i]just [/i]perception that makes our reality.

Whether a person's perception of pain is altered by chemicals is irrelevant--it does not make the hammer any softer just because the head it hits is inebriated and the neurons within it aren't firing at optimum rates. The hammer is still real and the head is still going to suffer some damage to its very real cellular structure.

My point was that matter exists, physics exist, and though our perceptions of those realities may differ slightly, it does not negate the existence of matter and physics.

Our eyes only truly perceive two dimensions, and our brain adds the third dimension (and therefore depth perception) but that doesn't mean that a two-hundred foot drop is not a two-hundred foot drop just because I have crappy depth perception. Get my point?

I do not denounce perceptions one bit-- but what would there be to perceive in the first place if there was no matter and physics to begin with?

Our world is made up of these things and we perceive it to be so. It's our perceptions that prove false, if anything-- not the reality of the world around us.
[/font][/b]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=r2vq]I believe, the point isn't that our brains are supposed to be expanding.
The point is that we are limited. And we just cannot experience something [i]as is[/i]. We cannot recreate something in our head [i]exactly[/i] because we would have to recreate it, practically physically.

Our brains process what we perceive through our senses and convert it into knowledge and experience.

Everything in our head is logic and experience and therefore we shall never experience something perfectly [i]as is[/i].

-ArV[/QUOTE]
There's no figurative meaning in what the author says, though. The figurative meaning would be what you're saying, that our perceptions are limited, and that our visual centers, body parts, etc., aren't really required to be huge.

But nothing the author was saying was meant to be figurative. That's the key point here. He's treating it as totally literal.

[quote][i]Here we are referring only to someone who glimpses a car. Consider a person seeing a valley several miles long. If he claims that he sees the original valley, then his visual center must, in the same way, occupy an area of at least several square miles. If so, then the person' brain, internal organs, arms and legs must all be proportionate-and of colossal dimensions.[/i][/quote]
The author makes some disastrous leap from a person seeing a valley that measures a few miles long, to that person's "visual center" occupying the same space or more, and then from that to a faulty conclusion that because the "visual center" (and he doesn't even define what that term means from what I can tell) must be miles wide, the [i]physical[/i] (i.e., literal) parts of the person's body must also be huge.

That is faulty logic, and I think Morpheus' reaction to it is a valid one, because the author was not intending any figurative metaphors...he has been focusing almost exclusively on the physicality of perception. And the above statement only confirms this.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Wow, it's nice seeing this topic actually sparked some discussion. Go Philosophy!

Anyway....
[quote name='James']But does this mean that everything we perceive isn't actually there? I don't think so.[/quote] While some of us took the author's statement about this metaphorically, others took it literally. Okay, no problem. Literally speaking, I think it's still a possibility that our world doesn't exist. If you can dream that something is touching you, you actually feel it, but it's not actually there, then what proof is there that what you feel now is real? I had a dream once that a panda pounced on me and started licking my feet (okay, wierd...). I felt the panda's weight on my back and his slobber on my feet. But it wasn't real. So then why would I feel it? Well, obviously my senses were tricking me. But then couldn't they be tricking me right now while I'm awake? Dreams show that you don't need stimuli to actually feel things. Couldn't this world of ours be just a dream?

And then there's the idea of whether matter exists or not, and we're all agreeing that it does indeed exist. But then, what is matter? Okay, it's that which has mass and occupies space. But is it really accupying space? But that's according to our senses. Space is what we feel as emptiness, and matter is what we feel as solid. But what if it's not like that in reality? What if space is solid and matter isn't, but our senses trick us into percieving it that way?

Yeah I know, crazy. If the truck moving towards me isn't really matter, then why would I get crushed by it? That would only work if all our senses and their stimuli interact in such a mixed up manner to make us percieve it this way.[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]Wow, it's nice seeing this topic actually sparked some discussion. Go Philosophy!

Anyway....
While some of us took the author's statement about this metaphorically, others took it literally. Okay, no problem. Literally speaking, I think it's still a possibility that our world doesn't exist. If you can dream that something is touching you, you actually feel it, but it's not actually there, then what proof is there that what you feel now is real? I had a dream once that a panda pounced on me and started licking my feet (okay, wierd...). I felt the panda's weight on my back and his slobber on my feet. But it wasn't real. So then why would I feel it? Well, obviously my senses were tricking me. But then couldn't they be tricking me right now while I'm awake? Dreams show that you don't need stimuli to actually feel things. Couldn't this world of ours be just a dream?

And then there's the idea of whether matter exists or not, and we're all agreeing that it does indeed exist. But then, what is matter? Okay, it's that which has mass and occupies space. But is it really accupying space? But that's according to our senses. Space is what we feel as emptiness, and matter is what we feel as solid. But what if it's not like that in reality? What if space is solid and matter isn't, but our senses trick us into percieving it that way?

Yeah I know, crazy. If the truck moving towards me isn't really matter, then why would I get crushed by it? That would only work if all our senses and their stimuli interact in such a mixed up manner to make us percieve it this way.[/color][/QUOTE]
Chabi, while the panda dream is...er...interesting, it's ultimately a lousy example, because there's a very real difference between dreaming you're getting hit by a truck versus actually getting hit by a truck.

And that's pretty much why that entire article is a load of horse****. The guy's trying to say that in order for us to see great distances, our bodies must also cover great distances--which is absurd in and of itself.

He says that our brains are essentially locked rooms, and that we don't experience "real matter"--which is absurd in and of itself.

He's making an argument that holds little validity or relevance to begin with, an argument best left to popular entertainment like Dark City, The Matrix, eXistenZ, etc.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Siren']And that's pretty much why that entire article is a load of horse****.[/quote]Now now, there's no need for profanity.
[quote name='Siren']The guy's trying to say that in order for us to see great distances, our bodies must also cover great distances--which is absurd in and of itself.[/quote]Yes it would indeed be absurd, if the author did in fact say that, which he did not.
[QUOTE]Consider a person seeing a valley several miles long. If he claims that he sees the original valley, then his visual center must, in the same way, occupy an area of at least several square miles. If so, then the person' brain, internal organs, arms and legs must all be proportionate-and of colossal dimensions.[/QUOTE]Note the word "original", though the use of it may be somewhat incorrect. I think he means that if we want to see something huge in its entirety and it's original size, we must be of "colossal dimensions". When you look at someone from far away, they appear quite small don't they? Their head could even fit between your thumb and index finger. To see their entire body up close, in it's true size, you would indeed have to be quite a bit larger than them, wouldn't you?

[quote name='Siren']He says that our brains are essentially locked rooms, and that we don't experience "real matter"--which is absurd in and of itself.[/quote]I'm fairly certain the use of the term "locked up room" is metaphorical. Our brains certainly aren't rooms, and there certainly isn't an actual lock on them. It's just to imply that one is trapped within one's own mind, and that one only has access to the world through one's own senses and their brain's perception.

[quote name='Siren']He's making an argument that holds little validity or relevance to begin with...[/quote]Relevance to what?

Edit: I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the article, I just think it's an interesting idea to discuss.[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']Now now, there's no need for prafinity.[/color][/quote] Pardon my "prafinity," but the article [i]is[/i] a load of horse****. lol

[quote][color=#004a6f]Yes it would indeed be absurd, if the author did infact say that, which he did not.[/color][/quote] Believe it or not, that is precisely what he's saying.

[quote][color=#004a6f]Note the word "original", though the use of it may be somewhat incorrect. I think he means that if we want to see something huge in its intirety and it's original size, we must be of "colossal dimensions". When you look at someone from far away, they appear quite small don't they? Their head could even fit between your thumb and index finger. To see their intire body up close, in it's true size, you would indeed have to be quite a bit larger than them, wouldn't you?[/color][/quote] Let's break that excerpt down. First,

[quote]Consider a person seeing a valley several miles long.[/quote] You and I both see a valley several miles long.

[quote]If he claims that he sees the original valley[/quote] We claim we see the original valley.

[quote]Then his visual center must, in the same way, occupy an area of at least several square miles.[/quote] We claim we see the original valley, but are our "visual centers" (a term that the author still does not define, even in the later "chapters") occupying an area of several square miles?

I think not. We can see into the horizon, but our visual cortex (if that's what he's referring to) stays the same size 100% of the time.

His statement is false.

[quote]If so, then the person' brain, internal organs, arms and legs must all be proportionate-and of colossal dimensions.[/quote] Because we claim to see the "original" valley, does that mean our arms, legs, organs, etc., are insanely huge? I don't know about you, but I'm quite average height, with an average build, with limbs that are no longer than most men--well, maybe [i]one[/i] of my organs is bigger than most. ~_^

But because I claim to see the "original" valley, I must be several miles tall?

I'm not several miles tall, yet I still see the original valley.

[i]Everything[/i] in that excerpt points [i]exclusively[/i] to the author referring [i]quite directly[/i] to a [i]totally literal and physical[/i] bit of stretchy logic, Chabi. He's not trying to be figurative at all. He's being completely serious and when he says our bodies would be miles tall...he means our bodies would be miles tall. He refers to the [i]physical[/i] size of the [i]perceiver's[/i] "visual center." He refers to the [i]physical[/i] size of the [i]perceiver's[/i] body.

What you're describing is a matter of physical perspective (think art perspective). What he's talking about is a matter of metaphysical perception.

[quote][color=#004a6f]To see their intire [sic] body up close, in it's true size, you would indeed have to be quite a bit larger than them, wouldn't you?[/color][/quote] No, you would just have to move closer to them. Actual body size has very little to do with seeing things from a distance--unless you're morbidly obese and trying to see your toes.
[color=#004a6f]
[/color][quote][color=#004a6f]I'm fairly certain the use of the term "locked up room" is metaphorical. Our brains certainly aren't rooms, and there certainly isn't an actual lock on them. It's just to imply that one is trapped within one's own mind, and that one only has access to the world through one's own senses and their brain's perception.[/color][/quote] Who's calling it an actual, physical room with a lock on the door? I'm certainly not.

[quote]Your brain is a locked room which you can never step out of, because everything you imagine to be the "outside world" in reality consists of perceptions you experience in the visual or hearing centers of your brain. You can never get past those perceptions and experience directly what we refer to as "real matter"-if such a thing even exists. You can watch the electrical signals arriving at the brain's visual center, but you can never see those signals' true source. You literally watch the cinema screen on the walls of your "room," but can never directly experience the originals of those images.[/quote] Translation: Your mind as a prison...and our mind isn't a prison, because going back to that speeding train...if we see a speeding train coming at us, chances are, there's a speeding train coming at us. Only in extreme cases (i.e., schizophrenia, delusional psychosis, paranoia, etc) will that come into question...and those extreme cases are too few and far between for the author's "points" to hold water for us "real life" people.
[color=#004a6f]
[/color][quote][color=#004a6f]Relevance to what?[/color][/quote] Real life. To claim that we don't experience "real matter," that things are all just perceptions in our brain, to flirt heavily--almost devoting oneself entirely--with Solipsism...has absolutely no relevance to real life, because that takes what is almost guaranteed to be a purely figurative/affective idea of perceptual faults and twists it into a mutilated "The External World Does Not Exist" mantra is as irrelevant to real life as one can get, because in real life, the external world definitely exists, because the external world (i.e., the physical realm) can (and will) physically hurt you if you give it the opportunity.

That's why.

[quote][color=#004a6f]Edit: I'm not saying I neccessarily agree with the article, I just think it's an intersting idea to discuss.[/color][/QUOTE] Interesting? Only if you haven't studied Descartes, Rationalism, Empiricism...basically every single thing that Zidargh listed in his post early on in the thread.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]OK. So, we cannot trust our senses to show us the world around us. Everything we see is false, and there is no proof of it ever actually existing.

The question is, where to now? If it doesn't exist, why eat? You may feel like you're starving to death, [b]but you won't be?[/b] If we assume that everything we are being 'told' by our senses is not true, then what exactly do we do? This kind of philosophy leads to abstractism and detatchment from life. Essentially, if you believe all of that article, the odds are that you're a useless weight on society.

Sure, it may be an interesting idea, but can it ever be proved [seeing as all sensory input we recieve from any source is wrong], and if it could, what would the implicaitons be?

And is it pointless to argue this? What colour do other people see? We won't ever know, and it doesn't aid society in any way.[/size]

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Siren']Interesting? Only if you haven't studied Descartes, Rationalism, Empiricism...basically every single thing that Zidargh listed in his post early on in the thread.[/quote]Yup, I definitely haven't studied any of those, but I really don't care if you have.

[quote name='Siren']Who's calling it an actual, physical room with a lock on the door? I'm certainly not.[/quote]Okay, that's good to hear.

[QUOTE=Siren]Real life. To claim that we don't experience "real matter," that
things are all just perceptions in our brain, to flirt heavily--almost devoting
oneself entirely--with Solipsism...has absolutely no relevance to real life,
because that takes what is almost guaranteed to be a purely figurative/affective idea of perceptual faults and twists it into a mutilated "The External World Does Not Exist" mantra is as irrelevant to real life as one can get, because in real life, the external world definitely exists, because the external world (i.e., the physical realm) can (and will) physically hurt you if you give it the opportunity.

That's why.[/QUOTE]Well, obviously this isn't an idea we're supposed to dwell on. I'm definitely not devoting my life to it, I just think it's an interesting way of looking at things. Whether or not our world is "real" ( though I do believe it is), or different than what we sense, we should just keep living our lives normally in accordance to what we percieve. Stepping in front of a moving vehicle will cause serious injury or death, and since both are most unpleasant, you avoid them, whether they're real or not.

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi]And is it pointless to argue this? What colour do other
people see? We won't ever know, and it doesn't aid society in any
way.[/QUOTE]Actually, I think there's some evidence that we do in fact see the same colors, and it's because of the way colors mix.

We all agree what the three primary colors are: Red, Yellow and Blue. So even if we did see different colors, you can only mix these three up and start mixing them from there.

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v149/Chabichou/colors.bmp[/IMG]

But then, why is it that we all agree that yellow is difficult to see, and therefore avoid using white on a yellow background?

I think this shows (but maybe not proves) that we see the same colors.

Meh.
[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']Yup, I definitely haven't studied any of those, but I really don't care if you have.[/color][/quote]
Chabi, had you studied anything related to Rationalism, Empiricism, etc., the article wouldn't be as interesting to begin with. Fact remains that the article there isn't providing any new, groundbreaking, or revolutionary ideas about anything..."reveal great truths and break great misconceptions, challenge the way of things" etc., my ***. lol It's just misquoting an older philosophy.

[quote][color=#004a6f]Okay, that's good to hear.[/color][/quote]
So what became of your original point here? Your original point that I wasn't "fair" in my assessment of the invalidity of the article's "points"?

[quote][color=#004a6f]Well, obviously this isn't an idea we're supposed to dwell on. I'm definitely not devoting my life to it, I just think it's an interesting way of looking at things. Whether or not our world is "real" ( though I do believe it is), or different than what we sense, we should just keep living our lives normally in accordance to what we percieve. Stepping in front of a moving vehicle will cause serious injury or death, and since both are most unpleasant, you avoid them, whether they're real or not.[/color][/quote]
Obviously isn't an idea we're supposed to dwell on? The guy wrote an entire book on that [i]one idea[/i], Chabi...that's pretty strong evidence that we're supposed to really dwell on that one idea. And that one idea has been proven wrong in just about every way possible in this thread.

And I don't see what relevance your final sentence there has, because...the proof that Solipsism is a load of horse**** is the moving vehicle test. Bad idea to step in front of a moving vehicle. Why?

Because you will get injured...and physical injury proves Solipsism (and the author's "point") wrong. The very fact that death can result from an 18-wheeler (or even a Honda Civic) running someone over would make any statements like "[color=#004a6f]and since both are most unpleasant, you avoid them, whether they're real or not[/color]" utterly irrelevant, because the only way for those events to be unpleasant is if those events actually happen...which is the complete antithesis of Solipsism. In fact, it utterly castrates the entire idea behind Solipsism.

Same thing when someone's in combat. We've seen what happens to soldiers when bullets rip through their bodies. Those bullets aren't imaginary. Those soldiers aren't imaginary. Those wounds and missing limbs aren't imaginary.