Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Perceiving an Inaccurate Reality

Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 12:06:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
An argument against the inaccurate perception of reality occurred to me.

You know, that argument that posits that given we are limited to our inevitably imperfect senses, our perception of reality is likewise limited, resulting in a reality that could potentially be false or hallucinatory?

Well, the argument that occurred to me is "everything just got real."

See, you can present that theory and believe it as long as life remains predictable. But the moment someone is mauled, raped, or killed, reality suddenly sets in and it becomes painfully obvious that whatever he or she is experiencing is very, very real.

The fact is that we developed the senses that we possess in order to survive, just like every other animal. Indeed, although we can in some way understand the humans around us, animals are largely inscrutable, and accordingly, could not be a product of our collective misconception of matter around us. But, the fact is that very real things, like bodily harm, death, and lasting repercussions for a mistake or malfeasance can occur as a result of our interaction with the world around us.

Thus, our interpretation of reality must be real and accurate, at least, for the energies that act upon us, so that we can effectively maneuver them.

This argument thus effectively disproves solipsism, relativism, and all of those other mellifluously cavalier perspectives about the gorgeous, real existence that frames our absurd social systems.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 12:27:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
That doesn't disprove solipsism or relativism, that just shows that we should believe in realism, not that realism is true. Kind of like Pascals Wager. "I don't know if it's true, but you should believe."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 12:34:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 12:27:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
That doesn't disprove solipsism or relativism, that just shows that we should believe in realism, not that realism is true. Kind of like Pascals Wager. "I don't know if it's true, but you should believe."

What?

How do you figure?

It says nothing of "should." It literally presents a rational argument that concludes that our senses are accurate because we have them for the purpose of surviving and we could not survive if we could not accurately maneuver the energies around us.

Pretty plain and not conjectural.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 2:43:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You know, that argument that posits that given we are limited to our inevitably imperfect senses, our perception of reality is likewise limited, resulting in a reality that could potentially be false or hallucinatory?

Well, I think that statement is a fact. Quantum physics tells us that all kinds of things go on around us that we never sense. Subatomic particles are appearing and being annihilated around us constantly, yet we never sense it. The individual photons of the light we see is doing all sorts of crazy things, yet we never sense it because most of the photons act in a certain matter and that is what we see.

So to say that we have limited, imperfect senses and therefore can not accurately perceive reality is a statement supported by fact and not a philosophical hypothesis.

See, you can present that theory and believe it as long as life remains predictable. But the moment someone is mauled, raped, or killed, reality suddenly sets in and it becomes painfully obvious that whatever he or she is experiencing is very, very real.

Well, the most philosophical level of the argument you are trying to counter would say that rape, mauling, etc could also just be a figment of ones imagination. It seems real, just like everything else, but that is because your perceptions aren't accurate.

The fact is that we developed the senses that we possess in order to survive, just like every other animal.

Again, on the most philosophical level this is a mute point, what we perceive as survival is just imagined also. On a more pragmatic level, our senses need not be perfect for us to survive, just adequate. Our perceptions of anything not critical to our survival can be completely distorted and that not effect our survival rate, so this argument doesn't really answer the point you are trying to address.

Indeed, although we can in some way understand the humans around us, animals are largely inscrutable, and accordingly, could not be a product of our collective misconception of matter around us.

Who says there is a collective to begin with? That could be part of the misconception also.

Thus, our interpretation of reality must be real and accurate, at least, for the energies that act upon us, so that we can effectively maneuver them.

This argument thus effectively disproves solipsism, relativism, and all of those other mellifluously cavalier perspectives about the gorgeous, real existence that frames our absurd social systems.

No it doesn't. If you take the pure philosophical level of the argument then your argument itself can be based on distorted senses and therefore it is at best part of the problem. If you take a more pragmatic approach, then it is obvious that we can't accurately perceive reality. Our senses might be good enough that we realize it is harmful to stick our hands in fire, but we really can't perceive the true nature of what is happening in the fire.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 11:06:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 2:43:03 PM, Floid wrote:
You know, that argument that posits that given we are limited to our inevitably imperfect senses, our perception of reality is likewise limited, resulting in a reality that could potentially be false or hallucinatory?

Well, I think that statement is a fact. Quantum physics tells us that all kinds of things go on around us that we never sense. Subatomic particles are appearing and being annihilated around us constantly, yet we never sense it. The individual photons of the light we see is doing all sorts of crazy things, yet we never sense it because most of the photons act in a certain matter and that is what we see.

So to say that we have limited, imperfect senses and therefore can not accurately perceive reality is a statement supported by fact and not a philosophical hypothesis.

I doubt it's intentional but that misses the actual argument being made. Whether or not perception is valid is unrelated to how much we can actually perceive. The standard of omnipresence/omniscience is a false one within epistemology. Perception of the the atomic structure of the rock is not needed to have an accurate perception of the rock itself. They are simply different examples of what *could* be perceived given a perceptual system - which is unrelated as to whether that perceptual system is accurate.

See, you can present that theory and believe it as long as life remains predictable. But the moment someone is mauled, raped, or killed, reality suddenly sets in and it becomes painfully obvious that whatever he or she is experiencing is very, very real.

Well, the most philosophical level of the argument you are trying to counter would say that rape, mauling, etc could also just be a figment of ones imagination.

Not really. It's a clumsy counter at best. Most attacks on perception come at the process of perception itself - that it either creates at some level as default process or that sensations are invalid datum through the mechanical means of receiving.

The fact is that we developed the senses that we possess in order to survive, just like every other animal.

Again, on the most philosophical level this is a mute point, what we perceive as survival is just imagined also.

Ipse dixit isn't a counter argument either. Simply possessing or espousing a counter statement is insufficient. Not really caring if this is your position or not, but the mere statement of a conclusion is not an argument. The burden is on both sides to establish the validity of the argument itself.

On a more pragmatic level, our senses need not be perfect for us to survive, just adequate. Our perceptions of anything not critical to our survival can be completely distorted and that not effect our survival rate, so this argument doesn't really answer the point you are trying to address.


Indeed, although we can in some way understand the humans around us, animals are largely inscrutable, and accordingly, could not be a product of our collective misconception of matter around us.

Who says there is a collective to begin with? That could be part of the misconception also.


Thus, our interpretation of reality must be real and accurate, at least, for the energies that act upon us, so that we can effectively maneuver them.

This argument thus effectively disproves solipsism, relativism, and all of those other mellifluously cavalier perspectives about the gorgeous, real existence that frames our absurd social systems.

No it doesn't. If you take the pure philosophical level of the argument then your argument itself can be based on distorted senses and therefore it is at best part of the problem.

At least here you are right. The same error is performed - swapping an "if" for a "is" in the argument doesn't establish validity. To make a valid epistemological argument regarding perception requires a lot more than just saying "it's accurate, so it's accurate" - though the implications listed are more on track - they also can't be used in place of the argument itself. Overall it just makes the whole exchange messy.

If you take a more pragmatic approach, then it is obvious that we can't accurately perceive reality.

Back again - "obvious" denotes a specific fallacy in this case, be careful. ;)

Our senses might be good enough that we realize it is harmful to stick our hands in fire

Your senses 'tell' you nothing. That is the job of perception and a reasoning mind. You need to be careful about mixing terms, especially since it's the basis of the argument that's occurring. Senses in epistemology is separate from perception. There are separate arguments that involve both, separate formulations needed for both to arrive at any coherent epistemological position.

I don't want to turn this into 'my argument', so don't treat it as such, just inserting my $0.02. :)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 12:57:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 2:43:03 PM, Floid wrote:
Well, I think that statement is a fact. Quantum physics tells us that all kinds of things go on around us that we never sense.

This is your first mistake. You're presuming that we are able to arrive to a scientific conclusion independent of our senses. Our entire understanding of both physics and quantum physics are 100% contingent on our senses, given they are empirical conclusions derived from physical observations. Therefore, for your statement to have any meaning whatsoever, it requires that we both acknowledge that our senses are capable of determining truths about reality.

Therefore, there are only two conclusions that one can pragmatically and rationally derive from this single statement. Either a.) you do not understand science in general or b.) you're playing Devil's Advocate.

Subatomic particles are appearing and being annihilated around us constantly, yet we never sense it.

Nah. You're literally presenting an argument that assumes that there is no such thing as any knowledge except perfect knowledge. That, of course, is preposterous.

The individual photons of the light we see is doing all sorts of crazy things, yet we never sense it because most of the photons act in a certain matter and that is what we see.

I'm not following. We don't actually see the subatomic particles themselves, but we do see the larger objects they comprise, and thus, those larger objects must be hallucinatory?

So to say that we have limited, imperfect senses and therefore can not accurately perceive reality is a statement supported by fact and not a philosophical hypothesis.

Not to the extent that you're presenting it. Indeed, we do not all have perfect ocular sensory organs and thus, do not all see the same luster and modulation in color resulting from the various intensities of reflected light. But, we can see light and the objects it acts upon, and those things are real.

This isn't to say that reality is limited to what we can sense. But, it is to say that what we do sense is real.

Well, the most philosophical level of the argument you are trying to counter would say that rape, mauling, etc could also just be a figment of ones imagination. It seems real, just like everything else, but that is because your perceptions aren't accurate.

What difference does "the most philosophical level of the argument" make? According to that perspective, reality is outright false, which means so are our brains, and our neurological networks, and our hypothalamus's, and our medulla oblongatas, and the various hormones that course our bodies, all of which contribute to our sensory perception as well as abstract thought. Thus, according to that perspective, there's no such thing as our imaginations, either.

Again, on the most philosophical level this is a mute point, what we perceive as survival is just imagined also. On a more pragmatic level, our senses need not be perfect for us to survive, just adequate. Our perceptions of anything not critical to our survival can be completely distorted and that not effect our survival rate, so this argument doesn't really answer the point you are trying to address.

You sincerely believe what we do perceive of reality thoroughly distorts it and yet, that does not affect our ability to survive? What kind of conjectural nonsense is that?

Who says there is a collective to begin with? That could be part of the misconception also.

Okay, so, in who's imagination is this conversation happening? Because, I can guarantee to you beyond the shadow of a doubt that you cannot imagine me, bro.

Thus, our interpretation of reality must be real and accurate, at least, for the energies that act upon us, so that we can effectively maneuver them.

This argument thus effectively disproves solipsism, relativism, and all of those other mellifluously cavalier perspectives about the gorgeous, real existence that frames our absurd social systems.

No it doesn't. If you take the pure philosophical level of the argument then your argument itself can be based on distorted senses and therefore it is at best part of the problem.

I don't understand why you think some over-generalized, loosely interpreted conception of a rather broad sect of philosophy mixed in with some empirical science and fantastical claims somehow presents a more compelling point than, "we need to accurately perceive reality to successfully maneuver reality to survive."

If you take a more pragmatic approach, then it is obvious that we can't accurately perceive reality. Our senses might be good enough that we realize it is harmful to stick our hands in fire, but we really can't perceive the true nature of what is happening in the fire.

Your "approach" is among the least pragmatic that I've encountered among those who even know anything about this.

(And btw, we are certainly perceiving that we are exciting the molecules in our hands, causing them to move about violently and crash into one another, causing cell damage and rapid oxidation. We just happen to perceive it in a way that makes us care.)
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:02:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 12:57:04 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/22/2010 2:43:03 PM, Floid wrote:
Well, I think that statement is a fact. Quantum physics tells us that all kinds of things go on around us that we never sense.

This is your first mistake. You're presuming that we are able to arrive to a scientific conclusion independent of our senses. Our entire understanding of both physics and quantum physics are 100% contingent on our senses, given they are empirical conclusions derived from physical observations. Therefore, for your statement to have any meaning whatsoever, it requires that we both acknowledge that our senses are capable of determining truths about reality.

Well, we have a crossroads. Either our senses are inadequate to perform science and it is just part of the problem as well or science has demonstrated that our limited scale of observation limits us from accurately perceive reality. Either way, it invalidates your argument.

The individual photons of the light we see is doing all sorts of crazy things, yet we never sense it because most of the photons act in a certain matter and that is what we see.

I'm not following. We don't actually see the subatomic particles themselves, but we do see the larger objects they comprise, and thus, those larger objects must be hallucinatory?

No, we see light as a beam, where it appears that it goes from point A to point B in a straight line. In reality, most of the photons go in a fairly straight line, while some of them go off in all sorts of directions and make giant arcs before arriving at our eyes. Our perception is that the light travelled from the light source to our eyes directly, when in reality the light can take any possible path between two points. It might go to New York and back, it might go to LA in back, it might go to the moon and back to traverse from A to B.

So to say that we have limited, imperfect senses and therefore can not accurately perceive reality is a statement supported by fact and not a philosophical hypothesis.

Not to the extent that you're presenting it. Indeed, we do not all have perfect ocular sensory organs and thus, do not all see the same luster and modulation in color resulting from the various intensities of reflected light. But, we can see light and the objects it acts upon, and those things are real.

So you admit that you were at least wrong in your original statement that "our interpretation of reality must be real and accurate". It may be real, but we agree it is not accurate (besides the fact that color blindness demonstrates that our sense of sight is not universally accurate).

Well, the most philosophical level of the argument you are trying to counter would say that rape, mauling, etc could also just be a figment of ones imagination. It seems real, just like everything else, but that is because your perceptions aren't accurate.

What difference does "the most philosophical level of the argument" make? According to that perspective, reality is outright false, which means so are our brains, and our neurological networks, and our hypothalamus's, and our medulla oblongatas, and the various hormones that course our bodies, all of which contribute to our sensory perception as well as abstract thought. Thus, according to that perspective, there's no such thing as our imaginations, either.

Because I find purely philosophical debates boring. Of course according to that perspective reality is outright false. Unfortunately it is a really hard position to argue against. After years of thinking Descartes didn't get much further than "I think therefore I am" without having to make assumptions.

Again, on the most philosophical level this is a mute point, what we perceive as survival is just imagined also. On a more pragmatic level, our senses need not be perfect for us to survive, just adequate. Our perceptions of anything not critical to our survival can be completely distorted and that not effect our survival rate, so this argument doesn't really answer the point you are trying to address.

You sincerely believe what we do perceive of reality thoroughly distorts it and yet, that does not affect our ability to survive? What kind of conjectural nonsense is that?

No, I had a schizophrenic great Aunt who lived into here 60s, so I wouldn't say it is conjectural nonsense. People who don't accurately perceive reality can easily survive as long as those perceptions aren't so distorted as to effect their ability to survive.

But no I don't sincerely believe any of this. You seemed depressed that no one bothered to respond to your argument so I figured I would throw some stuff out there.

Who says there is a collective to begin with? That could be part of the misconception also.

Okay, so, in who's imagination is this conversation happening? Because, I can guarantee to you beyond the shadow of a doubt that you cannot imagine me, bro.

Well then its obviously happening in your imagination.

Thus, our interpretation of reality must be real and accurate, at least, for the energies that act upon us, so that we can effectively maneuver them.

This argument thus effectively disproves solipsism, relativism, and all of those other mellifluously cavalier perspectives about the gorgeous, real existence that frames our absurd social systems.

No it doesn't. If you take the pure philosophical level of the argument then your argument itself can be based on distorted senses and therefore it is at best part of the problem.

I don't understand why you think some over-generalized, loosely interpreted conception of a rather broad sect of philosophy mixed in with some empirical science and fantastical claims

Because your argument fails to both address the pure philosophical argument that has been debated through the ages and the more modern question of how our senses effect empirical observation.

somehow presents a more compelling point than, "we need to accurately perceive reality to successfully maneuver reality to survive."

See the example of my great aunt above. She not only survived but had two children so she contributed to the continuation of the species. An accurate perception of reality is not necessary, only one sufficient for survival.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 8:42:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 5:02:14 AM, Floid wrote:
But no I don't sincerely believe any of this. You seemed depressed that no one bothered to respond to your argument so I figured I would throw some stuff out there.

Quite an offensive cop-out.

I'd say the turn out of this thread wasn't so bad.

I'd also say that you're a rather intellectually dishonest individual.

But, anyway, my deduction:

or, you're just playing Devil's Advocate.

Was clearly correct.

Thanks for the mental jumping jacks, I guess. If my thread dies, I think I'll find another reason to live on, though.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 8:59:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's fine to muse about alternate realities et al, but we're given a hand from a deck of cards that we have to play.

It's funny you bring this up, just this morning i was speaking somewhere and brought up the scene in the miracle worker where Helen Keller "gets it". Prior to this she was limited in her perception of the world, but still it was her world. She lived as a savage prior to that, but at this precise moment her world drastically changed.

What if we are living now in a similar world as Helen was prior to the water scene, but relatively so? The before and the after are still real, but we are different.

I'm probably not adequately addressing your post, but you might get my meaning.
ViatorVerum
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 9:09:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 11:14:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
An appeal to emotion if there ever was one.

Exactly. Just because someone is emotionally inclined to believe in something they perceive as reality doesn't necessarily make it true or false. Certainly emotion doesn't 'count' as a logical argument in itself.

In the same respects as your argument, I could just as easily say that rape is so absolutely horrible that it COULDN'T be real, and that it's simply my imagination.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 9:35:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 8:59:06 AM, innomen wrote:
It's fine to muse about alternate realities et al, but we're given a hand from a deck of cards that we have to play.

It's funny you bring this up, just this morning i was speaking somewhere and brought up the scene in the miracle worker where Helen Keller "gets it". Prior to this she was limited in her perception of the world, but still it was her world. She lived as a savage prior to that, but at this precise moment her world drastically changed.



What if we are living now in a similar world as Helen was prior to the water scene, but relatively so? The before and the after are still real, but we are different.

I'm probably not adequately addressing your post, but you might get my meaning.

I have to say that enlightenment and accurately perceiving the reality around us are two different things.

Actually, I think Helen Keller serves my point rather well.

Consider that before she found a way around the limitations of her senses that most other people do not have, she was unable to interact with it in a way that was conducive to her independent survival.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 9:40:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 9:09:19 AM, ViatorVerum wrote:
At 11/22/2010 11:14:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
An appeal to emotion if there ever was one.

Exactly. Just because someone is emotionally inclined to believe in something they perceive as reality doesn't necessarily make it true or false. Certainly emotion doesn't 'count' as a logical argument in itself.

In the same respects as your argument, I could just as easily say that rape is so absolutely horrible that it COULDN'T be real, and that it's simply my imagination.

Hilarious.

1. This false dichotomy between intellect and physicality is completely unfounded and non sequitur. If you reject reality based on what we perceive by our senses, then there is no such thing as an imagination, because the components that we know to comprise it would not exist.

2. My argument was scientific, not pathological. I'm not saying "what we perceive is real because I think it is." I'm saying that what we perceive is real, because we need it to be in order to survive among the interacting energies (/matter) around us.

3. This is all not to mention the fact that, once again, if that argument were true, then it would require that one of us are imagining this.

There is no way that you can imagine me and there is no way that an such inane perspective would be entertained by figments of my imagination, either. As awesome as this reality is, you people are rather boring as far as hallucinations are concerned, especially considering what the rest of reality has to offer.

It is clear that neither of you have experienced tragedy or done drugs.

Hallucinations are rather distinct. So is trauma.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 9:43:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 9:40:42 AM, Ren wrote:
There is no way that you can imagine me and there is no way that an such inane perspective would be entertained by figments of my imagination, either. As awesome as this reality is, you people are rather boring as far as hallucinations are concerned, especially considering what the rest of reality has to offer.

Geez. :S

Rewrite: and there is no way that such an inane perspective

Also, regarding the Helen Keller thing, "it" was reality.

Yikes.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 9:52:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 9:35:13 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/23/2010 8:59:06 AM, innomen wrote:
It's fine to muse about alternate realities et al, but we're given a hand from a deck of cards that we have to play.

It's funny you bring this up, just this morning i was speaking somewhere and brought up the scene in the miracle worker where Helen Keller "gets it". Prior to this she was limited in her perception of the world, but still it was her world. She lived as a savage prior to that, but at this precise moment her world drastically changed.



What if we are living now in a similar world as Helen was prior to the water scene, but relatively so? The before and the after are still real, but we are different.

I'm probably not adequately addressing your post, but you might get my meaning.

I have to say that enlightenment and accurately perceiving the reality around us are two different things.
Except one is a means to the other, and the quantity/quality of the perception greatly determines the enlightenment that ensues.

Actually, I think Helen Keller serves my point rather well.

Consider that before she found a way around the limitations of her senses that most other people do not have, she was unable to interact with it in a way that was conducive to her independent survival.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 10:01:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 9:52:17 AM, innomen wrote:
Except one is a means to the other, and the quantity/quality of the perception greatly determines the enlightenment that ensues.

This is true. But, this isn't to say that the reality we do perceive is invalidated or hallucinatory. Instead, it is incomplete.

I am in 100% agreement with that.

It's as though we're at a beach looking at the ocean. Most of us believe that it ends at the horizon, while some of us suspect that it may be far more vast, extending beyond anything we could imagine. But, none of us realize just how immense it is; it's nearly immeasurable depth, the incredible creatures it entails, and the other lands to which it reaches.

However! The water we see and the sand we stand upon is still real!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 10:11:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 10:01:41 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/23/2010 9:52:17 AM, innomen wrote:
Except one is a means to the other, and the quantity/quality of the perception greatly determines the enlightenment that ensues.

This is true. But, this isn't to say that the reality we do perceive is invalidated or hallucinatory. Instead, it is incomplete.

I am in 100% agreement with that.

It's as though we're at a beach looking at the ocean. Most of us believe that it ends at the horizon, while some of us suspect that it may be far more vast, extending beyond anything we could imagine. But, none of us realize just how immense it is; it's nearly immeasurable depth, the incredible creatures it entails, and the other lands to which it reaches.

However! The water we see and the sand we stand upon is still real!

The first part of my original post was that we are given a hand from a deck of cards and this is what we have to deal with. Beyond that is fanciful dalliances in my opinion. Perhaps not quite that trivial or frivolous, but what we're given is what we have, and our limitations are just as real as our abilities. I go about my life like everyone else; working within those parameters and doing my best in that. To go beyond what is my reality is borderline fantasy.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 10:32:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 8:42:22 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/23/2010 5:02:14 AM, Floid wrote:
But no I don't sincerely believe any of this. You seemed depressed that no one bothered to respond to your argument so I figured I would throw some stuff out there.

Quite an offensive cop-out.

I'd say the turn out of this thread wasn't so bad.

I'd also say that you're a rather intellectually dishonest individual.

But, anyway, my deduction:

or, you're just playing Devil's Advocate.

Was clearly correct.

Thanks for the mental jumping jacks, I guess. If my thread dies, I think I'll find another reason to live on, though.

Quite the contrary, I really do believe your argument fails in its attempt to refute the idea that our perception of reality might be in error. In fact, I have never seen any argument that convinced that there is no possiblity it is in error. As others have pointed out it is just much more useful to assume that our perception is correct so that we can get on with much more interesting discussions.

But if you think playing the Devil's Advocate is intellectually dishonest you will never be able to properly examine any of your ideas because you will be incapable of testing your own ideas internally.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 10:48:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 10:32:45 AM, Floid wrote:
Quite the contrary, I really do believe your argument fails in its attempt to refute the idea that our perception of reality might be in error. In fact, I have never seen any argument that convinced that there is no possiblity it is in error. As others have pointed out it is just much more useful to assume that our perception is correct so that we can get on with much more interesting discussions.

So, in other words, you have never seen an argument that makes you believe that the physical sciences are valid?

Seriously?

People try too hard to sound smart by being contrary on this site, sometimes. It's just irritating.

You presented no viable argument that disproves the fact that we would not be able to survive if our perceptions are inaccurate.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 12:43:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 10:48:44 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/23/2010 10:32:45 AM, Floid wrote:
Quite the contrary, I really do believe your argument fails in its attempt to refute the idea that our perception of reality might be in error. In fact, I have never seen any argument that convinced that there is no possiblity it is in error. As others have pointed out it is just much more useful to assume that our perception is correct so that we can get on with much more interesting discussions.

So, in other words, you have never seen an argument that makes you believe that the physical sciences are valid?

Seriously?

People try too hard to sound smart by being contrary on this site, sometimes. It's just irritating.

You presented no viable argument that disproves the fact that we would not be able to survive if our perceptions are inaccurate.

I have one!..

God did it: http://plato.stanford.edu...

now, sure.. there's no reason to actually suspect there's such a thing as god.. OR that the picture he paints of the nature of our ideas/perceptions is accurate..

BUT that picture he paints is remotely possible... and so.. in such a scenario we could "survive if our perceptions are innacurate"

another argument would be the "brain in a vat"/matrix thing.. though I like Berkeley's b/c it purposely goes further to show that our perceptions don't even Need to rely at all on that "physical" reality which we conceive of.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 12:55:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 12:06:15 PM, Ren wrote:
An argument against the inaccurate perception of reality occurred to me.

You know, that argument that posits that given we are limited to our inevitably imperfect senses, our perception of reality is likewise limited, resulting in a reality that could potentially be false or hallucinatory?

Well, the argument that occurred to me is "everything just got real."

See, you can present that theory and believe it as long as life remains predictable. But the moment someone is mauled, raped, or killed, reality suddenly sets in and it becomes painfully obvious that whatever he or she is experiencing is very, very real.

The fact is that we developed the senses that we possess in order to survive, just like every other animal. Indeed, although we can in some way understand the humans around us, animals are largely inscrutable, and accordingly, could not be a product of our collective misconception of matter around us. But, the fact is that very real things, like bodily harm, death, and lasting repercussions for a mistake or malfeasance can occur as a result of our interaction with the world around us.

you said b/c of the way the world is... we must have a pretty accurate understanding of it.

circle no?

you said things would die if they don't have an accurate understanding...
WHAT makes you say this?... Your understanding?? oh...

lol
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 1:38:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 12:55:55 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
you said b/c of the way the world is... we must have a pretty accurate understanding of it.

circle no?

you said things would die if they don't have an accurate understanding...
WHAT makes you say this?... Your understanding?? oh...

lol

Heyyy, Matt.

Naw, I say this because if it were all in our heads, we wouldn't have senses because there'd be nothing to sense.

That doesn't have much to do with comprehension.

However, yes, it is a logical deduction.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 1:50:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 12:43:50 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

I have one!..

God did it: http://plato.stanford.edu...

Why would an immaculate being create something that features characteristics that have a misleading purpose? Give us eyes that see nonreality?

Also:

"However, an answer that captures what exactly it is that Berkeley rejects is that material things are mind-independent things or substances. And a mind-independent thing is something whose existence is not dependent on thinking/perceiving things, and thus would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds) existed. Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) — to be is to be perceived (or to perceive)."

How does this accommodate the problem/solution process through which something new is discovered? How about, unprecedented alterations of the physical world?

Anyway, I find Nikolaj Tessla a far more impressive mind than Berkeley and he clearly realized the accuracy of our perception of the material world.

now, sure.. there's no reason to actually suspect there's such a thing as god.. OR that the picture he paints of the nature of our ideas/perceptions is accurate..

BUT that picture he paints is remotely possible... and so.. in such a scenario we could "survive if our perceptions are innacurate"

another argument would be the "brain in a vat"/matrix thing.. though I like Berkeley's b/c it purposely goes further to show that our perceptions don't even Need to rely at all on that "physical" reality which we conceive of.

Granted, but that isn't to say that a lack of a contingency serves any proof that our senses don't sense reality.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 4:35:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So, in other words, you have never seen an argument that makes you believe that the physical sciences are valid?

Seriously?

Yep, seriously. I have never seen an argument that demonstrated with 100% certainty that my perception of reality might not be a dream, hallucination, etc.

You presented no viable argument that disproves the fact that we would not be able to survive if our perceptions are inaccurate.

As I said before and you seem unwilling to answer, maybe no one survived. Maybe what I beleive is the entire population of the Earth is just my imagination running wild. Maybe I am some completely different type of being having a dream or hallucination and all of this is imaginary. There is no way to prove that is not the case, there is just no benefit (and in fact it would be harmful) to believing that. But that doesn't mean that an argument has been presented to prove it isn't the case either.

As I also said before and you have refused to answer, our perceptions need not be accurate to survive. Otherwise, please explain how my schizophrenic great aunt survived. You can spend all day long avoiding and interacting with imaginary threats, beings, things and it doesn't effect your survival as long as you are still capable of finding food, water, and shelter.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 7:20:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 1:38:34 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/23/2010 12:55:55 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
you said b/c of the way the world is... we must have a pretty accurate understanding of it.

circle no?

you said things would die if they don't have an accurate understanding...
WHAT makes you say this?... Your understanding?? oh...

lol

Heyyy, Matt.

Naw, I say this because if it were all in our heads, we wouldn't have senses because there'd be nothing to sense.

That doesn't have much to do with comprehension.

However, yes, it is a logical deduction.

nope. That's not what you said.

what I said you said is what you said.

also... I didn't follow your recent deduction...

and...

wait for it...

..

you're a dummy.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 7:28:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 1:50:31 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/23/2010 12:43:50 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

I have one!..

God did it: http://plato.stanford.edu...

Why would an immaculate being create something that features characteristics that have a misleading purpose? Give us eyes that see nonreality?

Higher Reasons? :/

like to sift good souls from bad?... or perhaps currently Incomprehensible reasons.. He IS god ya'know..

why'd he create "the world" to place people in? it has the same result... why not just put the ideas in the people's heads instead?

Also:

"However, an answer that captures what exactly it is that Berkeley rejects is that material things are mind-independent things or substances. And a mind-independent thing is something whose existence is not dependent on thinking/perceiving things, and thus would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds) existed. Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) — to be is to be perceived (or to perceive)."

he does.

How does this accommodate the problem/solution process through which something new is discovered? How about, unprecedented alterations of the physical world?

The source for our thoughts is god's thoughts...

he implants them in ya.

he can come up with some purdy cool stuff... He IS god ya know.


Anyway, I find Nikolaj Tessla a far more impressive mind than Berkeley and he clearly realized the accuracy of our perception of the material world.

lol you SUCK at arguing stuff... I used berkeley to suggest theres another Possible way things could be.

you basically said it would be impossible to have it any other way... Berkeley's ideas of how things are May be Ridiculously unsupported...

but it's coherent


now, sure.. there's no reason to actually suspect there's such a thing as god.. OR that the picture he paints of the nature of our ideas/perceptions is accurate..

BUT that picture he paints is remotely possible... and so.. in such a scenario we could "survive if our perceptions are innacurate"

another argument would be the "brain in a vat"/matrix thing.. though I like Berkeley's b/c it purposely goes further to show that our perceptions don't even Need to rely at all on that "physical" reality which we conceive of.

Granted, but that isn't to say that a lack of a contingency serves any proof that our senses don't sense reality.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 7:43:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
you said this to floid:
At 11/23/2010 10:48:44 AM, Ren wrote:
You presented no viable argument that disproves the fact that we would not be able to survive if our perceptions are inaccurate.

and I said.
At 11/23/2010 12:43:50 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I have one!..

an argument which refutes your assertion that We would not be able to survive if our perceptions are innacurate.

I explained how your argument relies on ASSUMING the world to prove the world...

and then provided an argument that explains how it could be the case that we could survive if our perceptions were inaccurate.

you failed to make a real argument against this... initially claiming you claimed something else..

and then just continuing with the silliness.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 7:46:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 7:28:45 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
The source for our thoughts is god's thoughts...

he implants them in ya.

provides you access to the relevant ones as ya go...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 5:28:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 7:20:36 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/23/2010 1:38:34 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/23/2010 12:55:55 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
you said b/c of the way the world is... we must have a pretty accurate understanding of it.

circle no?

you said things would die if they don't have an accurate understanding...
WHAT makes you say this?... Your understanding?? oh...

lol

Heyyy, Matt.

Naw, I say this because if it were all in our heads, we wouldn't have senses because there'd be nothing to sense.

That doesn't have much to do with comprehension.

However, yes, it is a logical deduction.

nope. That's not what you said.

what I said you said is what you said.

also... I didn't follow your recent deduction...

and...

wait for it...

..

you're a dummy.

What I said:

The fact is that we developed the senses that we possess in order to survive, just like every other animal.

But, the fact is that very real things, like bodily harm, death, and lasting repercussions for a mistake or malfeasance can occur as a result of our interaction with the world around us.

Thus, our interpretation of reality must be real and accurate, at least, for the energies that act upon us, so that we can effectively maneuver them.

An even more succinct version:

We have our senses for a reason; if they interpreted an inaccurate reality, then they would have no purpose in term of our interactions with everything around us.

...think about it. Those who do not have all of their senses are at a disadvantage compared to those who do. The reason for that is that people who do have all of their sense actually interpret more of what is around them than those who do not. As a result, those who do have all of their senses are able to maneuver and manipulate things around them more effectively.