The Myth Called Matter

[elfpirate]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]
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][/QUOTE]
[b][font=Comic Sans MS]I believe Baron wasn't questioning the fact that most people have distinct perceptions of red, yellow, blue, etc...

The point was that what I call red may look entirely different than what you call red-- because our perceptions are subjective... but what difference does it make? Does this argument really have an impact on our world?

Thanks for the colour charts, though... ^_^
[/font][/b]

[r2vq]

[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]
I have to stand by my old post.
And it's actually because of Descartes successors that I have to. Immanuel Kant argued that we can only know objects as they "appear" in time and space rather than the "things in themselves". Transcendental Idealism.
Since our minds, eyes, noses, and other sensual organs influence what we experience, they are all subjective. In that sense nothing that we experience is the "thing in itself" but an interpretation of it. We never "see" the original object because we would have to recreate it [b]exactly[/b] to call it the [u]original[/u] object. If we cannot recreate it exactly, it is not the original object, but a perception of it.

[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.[/quote]

When we see the original valley, what we are experiencing is light bouncing off the objects in front of us and into our eyes. Our eyes converts the light into impulses transferable to the brain. The brain then converts it into information.

Along that process, the brain, the eye, and anything affecting the light (like glasses) affects what we experience. We can never take in its original form because of these things that affect what we see.

The proof that we do not have the original valley in our minds is that what may be on the other side of a hill is still a mystery. What may be hidden beneath the grass may surprise us. If the [b]original[/b] valley were in our mind, this would not happen since we have the entire valley perceived. But since we can only see, hear, touch, smell, or taste the valley to a point, we do not know the original valley. We only know our perceptions. If I were to know the original valley, it would have to be recreated exactly in my mind. And due to subjective nature of our own senses, that is impossible.

-ArV

[Bloodseeker]

Can anyone say "technicalities"? On the boat, it doesn't really matter if you can see the lighthouse as long as you can see the light. Its the same here. It doesn't matter if we can see what's giving off the signals. We can still see the signals, and we at least have an idea as to what gives those signals off. And we obviously percieve them well enough, because as far as we can tell, we're the dominate species on this planet.

Of course, new doors will open once we understand how to fully manipulate energy and matter, and percieving is the first step to solving any puzzle, but the kind of philosophising that the posted article had is pretty useless and just restates what everybody already knows.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Siren']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]Okay it's fine if it's not "groundbreaking news". I just posted it to see what everyone thought of this philosophy.

[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.[/QUOTE]Okay, the [I]author[/I] is dwelling on the idea. I never said that I suuport the author, I just thought the article (actually book) was interesting that's all. But [I]I[/I] don't think we should dwell on the idea ourselves like he did.[/COLOR]

[Sapphire Flare]

[color=darkred][SIZE=1]what? If it's all in out imagination do we IMAGINE eating food or do we actually eat it? When our body whithers away and dies does our [I]imagination[/I] live on? Or are they somehow timed to react perfectly to eachother? :animestun blegh my head hurts...

And I also agree with Morpheus, it can't be proven, so why ponder about it? perhaps it is all in our minds. I don't feel any different, and I don't care any less :/[/SIZE][/color]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=r2vq]I have to stand by my old post.
And it's actually because of Descartes successors that I have to. Immanuel Kant argued that we can only know objects as they "appear" in time and space rather than the "things in themselves". Transcendental Idealism.
Since our minds, eyes, noses, and other sensual organs influence what we experience, they are all subjective. In that sense nothing that we experience is the "thing in itself" but an interpretation of it. We never "see" the original object because we would have to recreate it [b]exactly[/b] to call it the [u]original[/u] object. If we cannot recreate it exactly, it is not the original object, but a perception of it.

When we see the original valley, what we are experiencing is light bouncing off the objects in front of us and into our eyes. Our eyes converts the light into impulses transferable to the brain. The brain then converts it into information.

Along that process, the brain, the eye, and anything affecting the light (like glasses) affects what we experience. We can never take in its original form because of these things that affect what we see.[/quote] Then wouldn't that be saying this red, rubbery, medium-sized dodgeball isn't entirely what we perceive it to be? If our sensory data is so limited as to open up such a wide argument about "original" objects versus "perceived" objects, is that red, rubbery, medium-sized dodgeball not going to remain a red, rubbery, medium-sized dodgeball when it's flung at our heads? I don't see how someone could argue that they're not experiencing the "original" dodgeball when they're getting knocked out in gym class. lol

I won't argue that there aren't minute physical differences in how people (and animals) perceive things. To do that would be inane and pointless, because dogs can see in a much wider spectrum than humans can.

But light spectrums are largely irrelevant for what we're discussing here, because the focus of this discussion is centered squarely on what humans can perceive (or not perceive), and largely, how a human actually sees the world around them (in the physical sense) is dependent on where they're standing.

For example, Verne Troyer and Mike Myers view the physical world differently, but only because of their body sizes. It's a matter of perspective, not perception.

If Mini-Me can't see over a table, while Dr. Evil can, they're viewing the table differently, sure, but that doesn't mean they're not viewing the original (and the same) table.

There may be something on that table (like a mini-piano) that Mini-Me doesn't know is there, but is that a sensory data limitation or merely a limitation of physical perspective?

[quote]The proof that we do not have the original valley in our minds is that what may be on the other side of a hill is still a mystery. What may be hidden beneath the grass may surprise us. If the [b]original[/b] valley were in our mind, this would not happen since we have the entire valley perceived. But since we can only see, hear, touch, smell, or taste the valley to a point, we do not know the original valley. We only know our perceptions. If I were to know the original valley, it would have to be recreated exactly in my mind. And due to subjective nature of our own senses, that is impossible.

-ArV[/QUOTE] You're saying our perception is limited because we can't see through solid objects? We don't have the original valley because the grass may be covering something? Or because there may be something beyond one of the hills?

Again, this brings me back to one of my initial points that this kind of idea (our senses can entirely deceive us) is best left to popular entertainment, because Superman can see through solid objects (except lead). Neo can punch holes in the very fabric of the Matrix (which in itself is a fabrication).

Because if we were to actually incorporate that philosophy into our daily lives, we wouldn't get anything done, because we'd be doubting nearly every single thing we experience.

And like I said before, is it ("it" being the valley example) a metaphysical perceptual issue or just a simple matter of physical perspective, in that we can't see something because we're just too far away, or not at the right angle, and not because our senses are primitive?

[Delta]

[COLOR=#7C0201][SIZE=1][QUOTE=Siren] There may be something on that table (like a mini-piano) that Mini-Me doesn't know is there, but is that a sensory data limitation or merely a limitation of physical perspective?

You're saying our perception is limited because we can't see through solid objects? We don't have the original valley because the grass may be covering something? Or because there may be something beyond one of the hills?[/QUOTE]Oh no, I think r2vq's reference to what's "hidden beneath the grass" ain't about being able to look through solid objects. But yeah, our perception's limited.

Let's see...
Where the flower's covered with chemicals responsible for painting the parts with UV patterns, a bee sees blue fields. They sense these signals because they need help zeroing in on the nectar. We, on the other hand, can't see these patterns because we don't reallly need the nectar...

In any case, whether or not we can perceive some extrasensory trait of the hill (like the amount of thermal radiation it emits), won't help us make decisions on what to do with the hill (climb it or just view it from afar?). The way I see ([i]think of[/i], rather) it, we simply don't need such information in choosing among possible courses of actions.

That's probably why we can't react to all stimuli the hill can offer. Can't go around wasting brain space on useless info, yeah?[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Ok, so there is a hill. But what we see, and what we feel isn't the original hill. As we climb it, the brushing of the grass on our legs is not what grass feels like. The chill we recieve from the wind blowing westwards is not what it actually feels like, and what we see when we reach the crest of the hill is not what it really appears. We do not run out of breath, because air itself is not what we percieve it to be. Hunger and pain are not what we percieve it to be.

Now, what?

Oh, and Chabichou, I'm not sure how to answer what you've said. What I was saying was that we have no guarantee that the yellow we see is the yellow another sees. We cannot know what another person feels. When that person gets a nail-gun fired through their hand, we know that it hurts. But do we know how much it hurts in comparison to what we may feel? Are things that we percieve to be universal truths perhaps subjective? Think about taste, for example. I hate brussel sprouts, but not everybody does. Are they tasting the same things? That is arguable.[/size]

[r2vq]

Hm. Maybe I can be a bit more specific.

According to how I understand Kant... (I could be wrong)

The valley before us is a real valley.
The dodgeball is real.

What we see, though, is not necessarily the valley.
What we beleve we see is the valley.
What we actually experience is the image of the valley created by light reflections and our mind processing what our eyes take in.
The original valley does not enter our head.

What hits us, is the dodgeball.
What we believe, is that we feel the dodgeball.
What we actually experience is the ball stimulating our nerves, sending messages to our brain.
Our brains tell us that we feel pain.
Our brains tell us that a rubbery substance is smacking us upside the head.
Or if it's not fast enough, our brain will not tell us much before being knocked out.
If we're knocked out, our brains tell us nothing, hence blacking out.

There [b]is[/b] a real dodgeball and valley involved, I do not deny that. It is really the valley in front of us. It is really a dodgeball that hits us.
But, what is in our minds is a recreation of the object based on our perceptions.
If we do not smell the valley, we will not know its smell.
If we do not taste the ball, we do not know its taste.

In that sense, since our mind-pictures of the objects are not whole, they are not the exact objects. What we have in our mind is not the original objects, but just what we know based on our perspective.

We will [b]never[/b] know the original object, but only what the object is [b]for us[/b] since our perceptions will forever be biased.

[quote name='Siren']And like I said before, is it ("it" being the valley example) a metaphysical perceptual issue or just a simple matter of physical perspective, in that we can't see something because we're just too far away, or not at the right angle, and not because our senses are primitive?[/quote]

Everybody has their own perspective. But even if we could see the valley from every perspective, our minds only interpret the information. This is important in metaphysics because before Kant proclaimed this (transcendental idealism ---- transcendental not transcendential) everybody -including Descartes and Hume- treated natural and universal truths as if attainable through reason or a combination of reason and empirical observation. Kant's transcendental idealism created a copernican revolution in philosophy and metaphysics.

Even if you don't have to think about it every day.

-ArV

[grecords]

[quote]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]Thats a weak arguement they would be starting on both sides. These kind of thoughts are better left to be thought deeply about instead of promoting arguements. I don't really see how you could argue that the side with widely accepted perception on reality would have to prove their case. Normally it should be the challenging party that would have to promote evidence. In this case the challenging party basically said "well you can't prove us wrong so we're right" which isn't a credible defense.

Other than that its a neat Idea they plant in your head. It reminds me of the end of MIB 2 [spoiler]where Kay shows Jay that our universe is actually in the locker of another galaxy's train station.[/spoiler] Someone else mentioned this however, that this type of thought has been brought up before, so I hope they're not claiming it for their own.

[Bloodseeker]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if this is you talking or this Kent guy, but....

[QUOTE=r2vq]The valley before us is a real valley.
The dodgeball is real.

What we see, though, is not necessarily the valley.
What we beleve we see is the valley.
What we actually experience is the image of the valley created by light reflections and our mind processing what our eyes take in.
The original valley does not enter our head.[/quote]

Seeing means recieving the light's reflection and having our translate it into an "image". So, since the light is reflecting off of and showing us the valley, we do see the valley.

[quote=r2vq]What hits us, is the dodgeball.
What we believe, is that we feel the dodgeball.
What we actually experience is the ball stimulating our nerves, sending messages to our brain.
Our brains tell us that we feel pain.
Our brains tell us that a rubbery substance is smacking us upside the head.
Or if it's not fast enough, our brain will not tell us much before being knocked out.
If we're knocked out, our brains tell us nothing, hence blacking out.[/quote]

And feeling refers to what? It refers to our nerves sending our brain signals and our brain translating it. So yes, we do actually feel the dodgeball. If our brain is fast enough.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=r2vq]Hm. Maybe I can be a bit more specific.

According to how I understand Kant... (I could be wrong)

The valley before us is a real valley.
The dodgeball is real.

What we see, though, is not necessarily the valley.
What we beleve we see is the valley.
What we actually experience is the image of the valley created by light reflections and our mind processing what our eyes take in.
[u][b]1) The original valley does not enter our head[/b][/u].

What hits us, is the dodgeball.
[u][b]2) What we believe, is that we feel the dodgeball.
What we actually experience is the ball stimulating our nerves, sending messages to our brain.[/b][/u]
Our brains tell us that we feel pain.
Our brains tell us that a rubbery substance is smacking us upside the head.
[u][b]3) Or if it's not fast enough, our brain will not tell us much before being knocked out.
If we're knocked out, our brains tell us nothing, hence blacking out[/b][/u].

There [b]is[/b] a real dodgeball and valley involved, I do not deny that. It is really the valley in front of us. It is really a dodgeball that hits us.
But, what is in our minds is a recreation of the object based on our perceptions.
[u][b]4) If we do not smell the valley, we will not know its smell.
If we do not taste the ball, we do not know its taste.[/b][/u]

In that sense, since our mind-pictures of the objects are not whole, they are not the exact objects. What we have in our mind is not the original objects, but just what we know based on our perspective.

We will [b]never[/b] know the original object, but only what the object is [b]for us[/b] since our perceptions will forever be biased.[/quote]
I've underlined (and numbered) a few things that seem a bit iffy.

1) I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this. I'd agree that the original valley isn't entering our heads, but I'd also say that no valley is actually entering our heads when we see it...in fact, nothing is actually entering our heads when we look at things.

And to say that we only believe we see the valley is going somewhere that is actually pretty dangerous, because then that can be applied to virtually anything, like we [i]only believe[/i] a freighter train is speeding along the track towards us.

2) Again, we do more than believe we feel the dodgeball, because whether or not our brains tell us anything, we're still getting hit...which means we totally feel the actual (original) dodgeball.

3) You actually misinterpreted what I meant by "knocked out." In the game of dodgeball, if you get hit by the ball, you get knocked out (eliminated from the game). That's what I mean. True, some can get knocked unconscious from a particularly powerful throw, but what I meant was something purely related to the game's rules themselves.

Because if we were to adopt Kant's ideas here, someone could get hit with the dodgeball in the game and claim they're not actually eliminated, because according to Kant, what we all perceive the dodgeball to be is inaccurate because of a limited metaphysical perception.

And that's a load of crap. lol. I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who wouldn't lay a beatdown on someone playing Kant's argument in a game of dodgeball.

4) I don't see what taste has to do with sight. And likewise, I don't see what touch has to do with sound.

What you're saying here is that if we don't lick something with our tongue, we won't know its taste. Fair enough. If we don't smell something with our nose, we won't know what it smells like. Fair enough. If we don't taste, we don't know what it tastes like. If we don't smell, we don't know what it smells like.

By that same logic, if we don't see something, we don't know what it looks like. If we don't hear something, we don't know what it sounds like.

Two things about that.

One, we see something, we do know what it looks like, which makes the whole argument of "we don't know the object in its original state" kind of silly, because if we see an object, we know what it looks like, and if our perceptions and physical experiences with that object only confirm what we see it to be...why say we aren't actually seeing the original object?

Two, regarding the "not hearing something" idea, I'd refer to the tree falling in the woods. Even though we're not there to hear the tree actually falling, we know what kind of sound it makes, for a variety of reasons: we've heard trees falling before; we know that air molecules react to moving objects the same way regardless of what perceivers are around to witness the event; we know that bashing two objects together is going to make a sound--noise, rather. "Sound" indicates meaning.

What that sound issue ultimately boils down to is the only reason we don't fully experience something is not due to a faulty metaphysical perception; it's due to a physical perspective. We don't hear the tree falling because we're physically not there. We don't know what's on the other side of the hill in the valley because we're physically not there. We don't know what may be underneath the grass on that hill because we're physically not there.

We can doubt whether or not we're seeing (and experiencing) things accurately all we want, but what everything ultimately comes down to is if we're not actually experiencing the original anything...our experiences would be (and would have been) radically different.

But things are remaining largely constant. Baseball bats to the groin hurt. Snowfalls and blizzards are cold. People think they see oases in deserts due to heat mirages. Badly-cooked shrimp is stringy as hell. The sun is bright. Nighttime is dark. Certain pencils leave traces of lead that smear like nothing else.

And nearly everyone experiences these things. Is that a sign of everyone not experiencing those events in their full "original-ness"? Or is that a sign of what we experience is actually what things are?

Kant's an interesting guy, for sure, and surely, the ideas of faulty metaphysical perceptions are interesting, but they're based purely on theory, and the brief real-world examples one introduces to support that theory are weak to begin with, because [i]they[/i] all point much more strongly to the idea that what we experience/perceive is actually what is going on (the "original-ness").

[quote]Everybody has their own perspective. But even if we could see the valley from every perspective, our minds only interpret the information. This is important in metaphysics because before Kant proclaimed this (transcendental idealism ---- transcendental not transcendential) everybody -including Descartes and Hume- treated natural and universal truths as if attainable through reason or a combination of reason and empirical observation. Kant's transcendental idealism created a copernican revolution in philosophy and metaphysics.[/quote]
I don't think you quite understand what I said. We were talking about the distorted image one sees as one views a valley from a hill. You were saying that our perception of that valley is limited because of something along the lines of metaphysical limitations of our perceptions.

I'm saying that's not the case, because our perception of a table drastically changes if we sit on top of it rather than underneath it. How we view something (whether that something be a valley, a table, a midget, etc) is related to a matter of physical perspective...where we are physically standing/sitting/etc.

From whatever physical perspective, our minds are interpreting the information, yes. But the differences we see are not a result of any flawed perception. The differences we see are results of a different perspective.

Like I said above, Kant was a smart guy. I'm not about to debate that. But you have to consider just what else he was saying. I mean, he's the same guy who adamantly declared everyone should tell the truth all the time, no matter what. I tend to take most of what he says with a rather large grain of salt.