Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do we know if we grasp a concept?

Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 9:44:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.

Concept being a result of a thought process, is expressed through "term/s" . Choose essential (necessary & sufficient) words to define that concept-terminology. Provide genus & diferencia of your concept, necessary to grasp it.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 10:09:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You believe all people able to grasp all concepts if the concept is explained properly?

At 5/6/2015 9:44:10 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.

Concept being a result of a thought process, is expressed through "term/s" . Choose essential (necessary & sufficient) words to define that concept-terminology. Provide genus & diferencia of your concept, necessary to grasp it.
VainApocalypse
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 2:02:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.

To "grasp a concept" is a flawed idea because it's binary.

I posit that no one fully understands any concept, because there are always either deeper layers of complexity or unforeseen realizations of a concept or ways for one strongly understood concept to interact with a weakly understood one.

Do you understand evolution? It's easy to digest its general theme, so you probably think you do, but can you describe the Hardy-Weinberg law? If you can't describe factors affecting allele stasis or divergence, how can claim to grasp the concept of evolution?

Because you can always find something about a concept that remains ungrasped, a better description is non-binary. You might grasp 33% of a new concept or 99.999% if you have studied it for many years. There always remains the potential for someone to present something new to you.

When comparing who understands more on a topic, it's generally easy to tell whether someone is 30 percentage points above you or below you, because the difference would mean huge failures in someone's predictive ability or mean discarding high concept-completion in other, contingent concepts. For example, someone who very poorly understood evolution will make predictions that don't pan out in the laboratory or will ask you to throw out concepts that you're very sure of, like the heritability of traits.

Small differences in concept completion are harder to pin-down but also less important to. If you correcting someone's misconception only gains them a fraction of a fraction of a percentage point toward concept-completion, was it really worth the effort and opportunity costs?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 2:28:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
lol basically you saying its not worth the effort. But you missing my point. If two people disagree on a issue, how do you know for certain that you are the one with a better grasp on the concept? Others may join the argument but again, their opinion is based on their ability to grasp the concept. You could end up in an argument where nobody but you grasps a concept and everyone else is mistaken. They on the other hand would see you as the fool. So how do we know if we are the genius or the fool?

At 5/12/2015 2:02:57 AM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.

To "grasp a concept" is a flawed idea because it's binary.

I posit that no one fully understands any concept, because there are always either deeper layers of complexity or unforeseen realizations of a concept or ways for one strongly understood concept to interact with a weakly understood one.

Do you understand evolution? It's easy to digest its general theme, so you probably think you do, but can you describe the Hardy-Weinberg law? If you can't describe factors affecting allele stasis or divergence, how can claim to grasp the concept of evolution?

Because you can always find something about a concept that remains ungrasped, a better description is non-binary. You might grasp 33% of a new concept or 99.999% if you have studied it for many years. There always remains the potential for someone to present something new to you.

When comparing who understands more on a topic, it's generally easy to tell whether someone is 30 percentage points above you or below you, because the difference would mean huge failures in someone's predictive ability or mean discarding high concept-completion in other, contingent concepts. For example, someone who very poorly understood evolution will make predictions that don't pan out in the laboratory or will ask you to throw out concepts that you're very sure of, like the heritability of traits.

Small differences in concept completion are harder to pin-down but also less important to. If you correcting someone's misconception only gains them a fraction of a fraction of a percentage point toward concept-completion, was it really worth the effort and opportunity costs?
VainApocalypse
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 3:14:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 2:28:50 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
lol basically you saying its not worth the effort. But you missing my point. If two people disagree on a issue, how do you know for certain that you are the one with a better grasp on the concept? Others may join the argument but again, their opinion is based on their ability to grasp the concept. You could end up in an argument where nobody but you grasps a concept and everyone else is mistaken. They on the other hand would see you as the fool. So how do we know if we are the genius or the fool?


At 5/12/2015 2:02:57 AM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.

To "grasp a concept" is a flawed idea because it's binary.

I posit that no one fully understands any concept, because there are always either deeper layers of complexity or unforeseen realizations of a concept or ways for one strongly understood concept to interact with a weakly understood one.

Do you understand evolution? It's easy to digest its general theme, so you probably think you do, but can you describe the Hardy-Weinberg law? If you can't describe factors affecting allele stasis or divergence, how can claim to grasp the concept of evolution?

Because you can always find something about a concept that remains ungrasped, a better description is non-binary. You might grasp 33% of a new concept or 99.999% if you have studied it for many years. There always remains the potential for someone to present something new to you.

When comparing who understands more on a topic, it's generally easy to tell whether someone is 30 percentage points above you or below you, because the difference would mean huge failures in someone's predictive ability or mean discarding high concept-completion in other, contingent concepts. For example, someone who very poorly understood evolution will make predictions that don't pan out in the laboratory or will ask you to throw out concepts that you're very sure of, like the heritability of traits.

Small differences in concept completion are harder to pin-down but also less important to. If you correcting someone's misconception only gains them a fraction of a fraction of a percentage point toward concept-completion, was it really worth the effort and opportunity costs?

As I said, the best measures of correctness or percentage of concept completion are the predictive power yielded by a model and the congruence with other concepts that are very well understood.

If you have a belief about how the world works but that belief is very bad at predicting outcomes and also requires people to abandon other reliable models that are mutually exclusive with yours, then your conceptions may be inferior to ones that are highly predictive and fit with the rest of the world.

For example, if your belief is that apples speak Latin, we should predict to hear it say something. If that prediction never comes to fruition and also requires us to abandon everything we seem to know about vocalization, sound, fruit and cognition then your belief is probably garbage relative to someone's who is not similarly disadvantaged.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:10:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.

The Socratic Method can help.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:27:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
logic is based on perception. As we all know, perceptions are flawed. So how does one decide if logic itself is in question? If I percieve something differently from someone else my logic will be different from their logic. How can I tell if my perception is correct or theirs is? Majority rule? Fools outweight intelligent people by at least 10 to 1.

At 5/12/2015 7:10:12 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.

The Socratic Method can help.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:56:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 7:27:38 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
logic is based on perception. As we all know, perceptions are flawed. So how does one decide if logic itself is in question? If I percieve something differently from someone else my logic will be different from their logic. How can I tell if my perception is correct or theirs is? Majority rule? Fools outweight intelligent people by at least 10 to 1.


At 5/12/2015 7:10:12 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.

The Socratic Method can help.

What about a focal point? For example, say I climb a tree and look down at a house. The lines that make up the edges of the house will all fall towards a certain focal point. If you're at the bottom of the tree and look at the same house, your focal point will be different. But if you were to stand where I'm standing, it would be the same. Doesn't that show some sort of truth to perception? However, you could never stand exactly where I stand and your eye sight might be different than mine, so you will never perceive exactly as I perceive, but you can still know that what you're looking at is true. The colors and other details may "appear" different, but when we walk to the house and go inside, we agree that house is physically there.

That is how I feel about logic. Though the details of how we reach our conclusions may be different, if we take away all contradictions and keep our mind set on the focal point, we can all reach the same conclusion. However, men love contradictions and base their entire philosophy and theology on such things. That is why we must pay very close attention when we are learning a new concept. One word or one comma (any minor detail) can change our entire perception, but as long as our focal point is True, we will see these minor details for what they are and know that the logical conclusion still remains. Does that make any sense?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:09:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 2:28:50 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
lol basically you saying its not worth the effort. But you missing my point. If two people disagree on a issue, how do you know for certain that you are the one with a better grasp on the concept? Others may join the argument but again, their opinion is based on their ability to grasp the concept. You could end up in an argument where nobody but you grasps a concept and everyone else is mistaken. They on the other hand would see you as the fool. So how do we know if we are the genius or the fool?

Are you basically asking how to know if you are right about something?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:11:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
lol yes.

At 5/12/2015 9:09:26 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:28:50 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
lol basically you saying its not worth the effort. But you missing my point. If two people disagree on a issue, how do you know for certain that you are the one with a better grasp on the concept? Others may join the argument but again, their opinion is based on their ability to grasp the concept. You could end up in an argument where nobody but you grasps a concept and everyone else is mistaken. They on the other hand would see you as the fool. So how do we know if we are the genius or the fool?

Are you basically asking how to know if you are right about something?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:18:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
colour itself is a perception. Nobody knows if my brain interprets blue the way yours does. There are people who see sound. that's illogical yet true. And....I've lost my train of thought lol. Will continue...

At 5/12/2015 8:56:49 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/12/2015 7:27:38 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
logic is based on perception. As we all know, perceptions are flawed. So how does one decide if logic itself is in question? If I percieve something differently from someone else my logic will be different from their logic. How can I tell if my perception is correct or theirs is? Majority rule? Fools outweight intelligent people by at least 10 to 1.


At 5/12/2015 7:10:12 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.

The Socratic Method can help.

What about a focal point? For example, say I climb a tree and look down at a house. The lines that make up the edges of the house will all fall towards a certain focal point. If you're at the bottom of the tree and look at the same house, your focal point will be different. But if you were to stand where I'm standing, it would be the same. Doesn't that show some sort of truth to perception? However, you could never stand exactly where I stand and your eye sight might be different than mine, so you will never perceive exactly as I perceive, but you can still know that what you're looking at is true. The colors and other details may "appear" different, but when we walk to the house and go inside, we agree that house is physically there.

That is how I feel about logic. Though the details of how we reach our conclusions may be different, if we take away all contradictions and keep our mind set on the focal point, we can all reach the same conclusion. However, men love contradictions and base their entire philosophy and theology on such things. That is why we must pay very close attention when we are learning a new concept. One word or one comma (any minor detail) can change our entire perception, but as long as our focal point is True, we will see these minor details for what they are and know that the logical conclusion still remains. Does that make any sense?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:23:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 9:11:28 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
lol yes.

Whatever you point to, say, X, which is your ground of objective knowledge - giving you "authority" - it would always be possible for me to ask, "What is your justification for X?"

Of course, you can ignore my question, or respond with something like, "It's self-evident", which is no answer at all but rather just another form of ignoring it. However, you could have done those things without needing a ground in the first place.

Clearly the other way, of actually providing more justification, leads to an endless chain of justifications.

Thus, I can't see how anything outside of faith could offer an infallible ground for knowledge. If you want to convince someone else, you'll need recourse to something they already agree with. I mean, that's what a premise is in a logical argument.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:34:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 7:27:38 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
logic is based on perception.
How so? It seems as if logic is the tool we use to go from premises to conclusions, so how is this subjective? I will concede that it is time relative (many concepts were only utilized after Principia Mathematica was published), but this makes it no different from any other study.
As we all know, perceptions are flawed. So how does one decide if logic itself is in question?
We can tell through a system by which we can consistently revise statements, like a peer review system.
If I percieve something differently from someone else my logic will be different from their logic. How can I tell if my perception is correct or theirs is? Majority rule? Fools outweight intelligent people by at least 10 to 1.


A few points:

1. How do you define logic? You seem to use the truth value of the premises in your formulation, which I disagree with.

2. The Socratic method actually ensures that you and your opponent agree or, at least, that you understand where you and your opponent differ.

At 5/12/2015 7:10:12 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.

The Socratic Method can help.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:43:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
lets try an example.

Think of an idea. It now exists, but only in your head. It occupies no physical space so its not real. Even if you think of a unicorn, the subject unicorn may not exist but the idea does exist. Now what about an optical illusion? Say a reflection. The phenominon which allows you to see your reflection is called reflection. Ie the light is reflected but as our mind believes light travels in a straight line we see ourselves standing in front of us. That reflection of ourselves only exists in our mind. Anyone viewing the reflection from a different angle views their own version of the phenominon. That reflection exists only in their head. The phenominon is real. The light waves are real. But they do not come from a real object. What we see is a illusion. Not real. There is no you standing in front of you and if you close your eyes the reflection ceases to exist. Do you agree?

At 5/12/2015 9:23:44 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 5/12/2015 9:11:28 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
lol yes.

Whatever you point to, say, X, which is your ground of objective knowledge - giving you "authority" - it would always be possible for me to ask, "What is your justification for X?"

Of course, you can ignore my question, or respond with something like, "It's self-evident", which is no answer at all but rather just another form of ignoring it. However, you could have done those things without needing a ground in the first place.

Clearly the other way, of actually providing more justification, leads to an endless chain of justifications.

Thus, I can't see how anything outside of faith could offer an infallible ground for knowledge. If you want to convince someone else, you'll need recourse to something they already agree with. I mean, that's what a premise is in a logical argument.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:57:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.

I might say that no one grasps a concept but rather that we're just pattering around with words that we repeat, a la Chinese room thought experiment. Perhaps it's simply the case that we never really understand anything, and it's just another way of saying that we can put sounds together that make other people feel similarly to when they did when you used different sounds.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:59:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 9:18:45 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
colour itself is a perception. Nobody knows if my brain interprets blue the way yours does. There are people who see sound. that's illogical yet true. And....I've lost my train of thought lol. Will continue...


I've heard of people seeing sound, but sound travels by waves, so although I don't see it as "illogical", I do wonder how such a thing is accomplished. This is not just limited to sound however. I can look at chocolate and "taste" it. Beethoven was deaf, but he could still "feel" the music,aand the man was a genius. Our senses are able to do much more than we ascribe them to.

Yes, the color is perception, but the object in question is the same (true). Let's say I pick up a red cube and show it to you. I see it from one angle, and you see it from another. I ask you what color the cube is, and you say "red". However, my red might look like what I would percieve as blue to you, and vice versa. Then again, color sets off certain emotions in us, such as red being a "warm" color that makes us happy, and blue being a "cool" color that makes us calm, so I can't actually say that our colors are too far off either.

I smell it and say that it smells like plastic. I had just smoked a cigarette and ask you to smell it. To you it smells like plastic and cigarettes, which gives you a different attitude towards the cube, but we still agree that it smells like plastic. I hand the cube to you and you feel it. Perhaps your calluses are rougher than mine or you grip it firmer than I do, but you still feel the angles, weight, and texture of the cube.

At the end of this experience we can both shake hands and agree that we held a cube.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 10:10:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What I'm questioning is, is a sound what we percieve in our mind or is a sound the sound waves that are travelling through the air? If you say the latter then how do I hear my teeth grinding?
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 10:18:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 10:10:29 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
What I'm questioning is, is a sound what we percieve in our mind or is a sound the sound waves that are travelling through the air? If you say the latter then how do I hear my teeth grinding?

When you grind your teeth, sound waves must be produced because I could likewise hear you grinding your teeth. Or if I chew gum with my mouth closed, you could still hear it (trust me, my wife complains about this often). What I'm wondering is, how do we "hear" our thoughts? And why is it no matter how loud I yell in my thoughts, no one else hears them? But I'm getting off subject, sorry.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 10:30:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
we hear our thoughts the same way we picture ideas. We imagine them. Now people thing imagine means imagining someting that doesn't exist. Life pink, flying elephants. But we can also imagine stuff that exist like ideas and optical illusions. They are not real as they only exist in our head, but they are real.

At 5/12/2015 10:18:26 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/12/2015 10:10:29 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
What I'm questioning is, is a sound what we percieve in our mind or is a sound the sound waves that are travelling through the air? If you say the latter then how do I hear my teeth grinding?

When you grind your teeth, sound waves must be produced because I could likewise hear you grinding your teeth. Or if I chew gum with my mouth closed, you could still hear it (trust me, my wife complains about this often). What I'm wondering is, how do we "hear" our thoughts? And why is it no matter how loud I yell in my thoughts, no one else hears them? But I'm getting off subject, sorry.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 10:39:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Lol this just hit me. You are reading this text. As you read each word you actually hear it in your mind. You are seeing a sound. that's just freaky. You can actually hear yourself thinking. You think to yourself"Is this guys nuts?" but obviously you don't type it. Did you imagine it? Well I hope so. If someone else is putting ideas in my head i'd be pretty freaked out.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 10:45:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 10:30:53 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
we hear our thoughts the same way we picture ideas. We imagine them. Now people thing imagine means imagining someting that doesn't exist. Life pink, flying elephants. But we can also imagine stuff that exist like ideas and optical illusions. They are not real as they only exist in our head, but they are real.


At 5/12/2015 10:18:26 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/12/2015 10:10:29 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
What I'm questioning is, is a sound what we percieve in our mind or is a sound the sound waves that are travelling through the air? If you say the latter then how do I hear my teeth grinding?

When you grind your teeth, sound waves must be produced because I could likewise hear you grinding your teeth. Or if I chew gum with my mouth closed, you could still hear it (trust me, my wife complains about this often). What I'm wondering is, how do we "hear" our thoughts? And why is it no matter how loud I yell in my thoughts, no one else hears them? But I'm getting off subject, sorry.

Have you ever tried to imagine something that doesn't physically exist? I don't mean like pink elephants, because pink elephants consist of pink and elephants. I mean something that uses nothing you've ever experienced before. Shape, color, and texture are all things that physically exists, so none of those things can apply. However, Love exists, but it's invisible. None of our senses can percieve it, but we still "feel" it.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 11:00:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just gave you an example. An idea.
A idea has no colour or shape. Although the idea can take shape in your mind figuratively.
Today I imagined a timestream. Its a completely new idea to me. I was picturing a train travelling at a set speed on a track. If we slow down it would appear to us that things on another track are speeding up. When in fact they could actually be slowing down as well.

At 5/12/2015 10:45:13 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/12/2015 10:30:53 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
we hear our thoughts the same way we picture ideas. We imagine them. Now people thing imagine means imagining someting that doesn't exist. Life pink, flying elephants. But we can also imagine stuff that exist like ideas and optical illusions. They are not real as they only exist in our head, but they are real.


At 5/12/2015 10:18:26 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/12/2015 10:10:29 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
What I'm questioning is, is a sound what we percieve in our mind or is a sound the sound waves that are travelling through the air? If you say the latter then how do I hear my teeth grinding?

When you grind your teeth, sound waves must be produced because I could likewise hear you grinding your teeth. Or if I chew gum with my mouth closed, you could still hear it (trust me, my wife complains about this often). What I'm wondering is, how do we "hear" our thoughts? And why is it no matter how loud I yell in my thoughts, no one else hears them? But I'm getting off subject, sorry.

Have you ever tried to imagine something that doesn't physically exist? I don't mean like pink elephants, because pink elephants consist of pink and elephants. I mean something that uses nothing you've ever experienced before. Shape, color, and texture are all things that physically exists, so none of those things can apply. However, Love exists, but it's invisible. None of our senses can percieve it, but we still "feel" it.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 11:03:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 9:43:17 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
lets try an example.

Think of an idea. It now exists, but only in your head. It occupies no physical space so its not real. Even if you think of a unicorn, the subject unicorn may not exist but the idea does exist. Now what about an optical illusion? Say a reflection. The phenominon which allows you to see your reflection is called reflection. Ie the light is reflected but as our mind believes light travels in a straight line we see ourselves standing in front of us. That reflection of ourselves only exists in our mind. Anyone viewing the reflection from a different angle views their own version of the phenominon. That reflection exists only in their head. The phenominon is real. The light waves are real. But they do not come from a real object. What we see is a illusion. Not real. There is no you standing in front of you and if you close your eyes the reflection ceases to exist. Do you agree?

Ah, it seems like in your use of words like 'real' you're talking about a kind of absolutely impersonal perspective. If we understand 'real' and 'exist' to mean what is totally independent of ourselves, then of course it cannot be, since as soon as we posit something, a relationship to ourselves is implied. 'Existence' and 'reality' are, when taken in that strong objective sense, I would agree illusory.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 11:10:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 10:10:29 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
What I'm questioning is, is a sound what we percieve in our mind or is a sound the sound waves that are travelling through the air? If you say the latter then how do I hear my teeth grinding?

That's a pointless question. There's not some preexisting category of things called "sounds" which we've only to find a way to define. If you know what the events are--that event X promulgates a wave, and that the characteristics of the wave determine how, upon hitting the ear drum, the auditory and cerebral cortices will process the information therein contained into a "heard experience", asking which event is "really" sound doesn't actually add any information. You could call the wave mechanics "sernd" and the cognitive mechanics "sornd", and, knowing what you're each referring to, use them consistently, then avoid having to argue over which "side" gets exclusive appropriation rights over the word "sound".
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 11:23:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 10:09:21 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
You believe all people able to grasp all concepts if the concept is explained properly?
If your idea (in your mind) says that blue is red or pink is colorless. Then I can imagine or grasp your concept through how you've defined your idea. That's it. I'd get/grasp exactly what you'd tell, it depends how easily you convey.


At 5/6/2015 9:44:10 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/6/2015 12:51:06 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you have an idea that involves a new concept it is all but impossible to discuss with someone who can't grasp the concept. Generally i discuss it with other people and see the responses. The questions they ask show you whether they grasp the concept or not. But the people who explain the flaws in your idea with things that don't make any sense to you are usually right. The problem here is that you are not grasping their concept and perhaps you need to think about it a bit longer.

Concept being a result of a thought process, is expressed through "term/s" . Choose essential (necessary & sufficient) words to define that concept-terminology. Provide genus & diferencia of your concept, necessary to grasp it.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 12:04:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 11:00:42 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
I just gave you an example. An idea.
A idea has no colour or shape. Although the idea can take shape in your mind figuratively.
Today I imagined a timestream. Its a completely new idea to me. I was picturing a train travelling at a set speed on a track. If we slow down it would appear to us that things on another track are speeding up. When in fact they could actually be slowing down as well.


At 5/12/2015 10:45:13 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/12/2015 10:30:53 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
we hear our thoughts the same way we picture ideas. We imagine them. Now people thing imagine means imagining someting that doesn't exist. Life pink, flying elephants. But we can also imagine stuff that exist like ideas and optical illusions. They are not real as they only exist in our head, but they are real.


At 5/12/2015 10:18:26 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/12/2015 10:10:29 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
What I'm questioning is, is a sound what we percieve in our mind or is a sound the sound waves that are travelling through the air? If you say the latter then how do I hear my teeth grinding?

When you grind your teeth, sound waves must be produced because I could likewise hear you grinding your teeth. Or if I chew gum with my mouth closed, you could still hear it (trust me, my wife complains about this often). What I'm wondering is, how do we "hear" our thoughts? And why is it no matter how loud I yell in my thoughts, no one else hears them? But I'm getting off subject, sorry.

Have you ever tried to imagine something that doesn't physically exist? I don't mean like pink elephants, because pink elephants consist of pink and elephants. I mean something that uses nothing you've ever experienced before. Shape, color, and texture are all things that physically exists, so none of those things can apply. However, Love exists, but it's invisible. None of our senses can percieve it, but we still "feel" it.

I understand what you're saying about an idea. It has no shape or form, but the "concept" exists. But the only way to imagine it is to use something figurative. Why can't we imagine what is beyond what we percieve, if what we percieve is not real? Love is real, and I know this to be true as I've felt it and many others have confirmed it's existence. I might imagine a couple holding hands with a heart above their head, but I can't imagine Love for what it is because it's invisible. How do we imagine what is invisible? Like if I was to imagine the wind blowing, I may imagine swoosh lines going through the air, or trees moving in a field. But I can't imagine the wind because it has no shape or form. However, I can feel it when I imagine it. I think what you're asking is, How do we know our "interpretation" of something is true? We all live in the same physical universe, but how we interpret the information given to us is different. Thus every human is Unique. Isn't it amazing how Cause and Effect has determined every person who has ever lived to be completely Unique from another?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 1:18:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
love is a chemical reaction. Dopomine is released into the bloodstream creating a sense of uphoria. I assume anger, fear and sorrow are the result of similar chemical reactions. As chemical reactions go though i'd say love is the most powerful motivator.

At 5/12/2015 12:04:02 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/12/2015 11:00:42 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
I just gave you an example. An idea.
A idea has no colour or shape. Although the idea can take shape in your mind figuratively.
Today I imagined a timestream. Its a completely new idea to me. I was picturing a train travelling at a set speed on a track. If we slow down it would appear to us that things on another track are speeding up. When in fact they could actually be slowing down as well.


At 5/12/2015 10:45:13 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/12/2015 10:30:53 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
we hear our thoughts the same way we picture ideas. We imagine them. Now people thing imagine means imagining someting that doesn't exist. Life pink, flying elephants. But we can also imagine stuff that exist like ideas and optical illusions. They are not real as they only exist in our head, but they are real.


At 5/12/2015 10:18:26 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/12/2015 10:10:29 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
What I'm questioning is, is a sound what we percieve in our mind or is a sound the sound waves that are travelling through the air? If you say the latter then how do I hear my teeth grinding?

When you grind your teeth, sound waves must be produced because I could likewise hear you grinding your teeth. Or if I chew gum with my mouth closed, you could still hear it (trust me, my wife complains about this often). What I'm wondering is, how do we "hear" our thoughts? And why is it no matter how loud I yell in my thoughts, no one else hears them? But I'm getting off subject, sorry.

Have you ever tried to imagine something that doesn't physically exist? I don't mean like pink elephants, because pink elephants consist of pink and elephants. I mean something that uses nothing you've ever experienced before. Shape, color, and texture are all things that physically exists, so none of those things can apply. However, Love exists, but it's invisible. None of our senses can percieve it, but we still "feel" it.

I understand what you're saying about an idea. It has no shape or form, but the "concept" exists. But the only way to imagine it is to use something figurative. Why can't we imagine what is beyond what we percieve, if what we percieve is not real? Love is real, and I know this to be true as I've felt it and many others have confirmed it's existence. I might imagine a couple holding hands with a heart above their head, but I can't imagine Love for what it is because it's invisible. How do we imagine what is invisible? Like if I was to imagine the wind blowing, I may imagine swoosh lines going through the air, or trees moving in a field. But I can't imagine the wind because it has no shape or form. However, I can feel it when I imagine it. I think what you're asking is, How do we know our "interpretation" of something is true? We all live in the same physical universe, but how we interpret the information given to us is different. Thus every human is Unique. Isn't it amazing how Cause and Effect has determined every person who has ever lived to be completely Unique from another?
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 5:05:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
For me, it doesn't really matter if my senses are subjective and differ from person to person. As long as two people can observe the same subject and reach the same conclusion (e.g. Two people looking at a banana and saying that it is yellow), it has no effect on my life. It is an interesting thought experiment, akin to stating that the world began yesterday and all memories you have were created at that time. It is what is known as an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which is interesting to mull over in your head.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 5:26:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
exactly my point. We don't know if its real or imaginary. How do we know if we are right or wrong?

At 5/13/2015 5:05:48 AM, Nac wrote:
For me, it doesn't really matter if my senses are subjective and differ from person to person. As long as two people can observe the same subject and reach the same conclusion (e.g. Two people looking at a banana and saying that it is yellow), it has no effect on my life. It is an interesting thought experiment, akin to stating that the world began yesterday and all memories you have were created at that time. It is what is known as an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which is interesting to mull over in your head.