???????Beatles????????

[Diin Jaffa]

You guys should relax.

Agreed. I can't see what wet-dry and black-white has to do with John, Paul, George and Ringo.

Uhhhhh... what wrong with disscussion and coversation.

I think they could continue that conversation in thread "are Mosespa and Ivan" thread. This thread is about beatles.

[seamusz]

I think they could continue that conversation in thread "are Mosespa and Ivan" thread. This thread is about beatles.

So let me get this strait... YOURE getting on their backs for not staying on topic?!!!!

[Diin Jaffa]

I knoW! I was like.. Me? Forum Police? anyway. lets just agree that they are both equally smart and have huge penises.

Lucyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy in the skyyyyyyyyyyy.

[MikeWaters]

Every one of their songs is pure genius... every single one!

[simpledumbpilot]

I can't see what wet-dry and black-white has to do with John, Paul, George and Ringo.

Well, John was wet (probably from all the baptising), Paul was dry, George was white and in a shock revelation it turns out that Ringo is really black!

[ganaffe]

I think they could continue that conversation in thread "are Mosespa and Ivan" thread. This thread is about beatles.

I'm still in for the "mosespa debating society" thread... but I think that one should be started by mosespa himself since he's the Jedi Master of words...

and ehhhh, Diin Jaffa...

both equally smart and have huge penises.

I think you should stay on topic, we're talking about the beatles here.

btw, how did you know... I can't remember meeting you in any darkroom lately.

[mosespa]

Ganaffe...I'm coming for you tomorrow...don't have time today, sorry.

But I'm coming for you, pal.

[ganaffe]

Ganaffe...I'm coming for you tomorrow...don't have time today, sorry.

Ah, mosespa, I missed you...

But I'm coming for you, pal.

*ganaffe is startled, runs away terrified...



...and hides in a little corner*

[Diin Jaffa]

slashy

[mosespa]

I?m talking about, how you perceive that room in its totality.

Okay...to begin with...YES, it's impossible to perceive this room in it's totality...largely because this room can only be perceived by a human 180 degrees at a time.

That which is in the 180 degrees behind me is out of my range of perception right now...and if I turn around to perceive it, I lose the first 180 degrees.

But they haven't gone anywhere...they are still there. How can this be proven? Turn around...there they are.

How does this prove that they didn't go anywhere?

Well...this is a HUGE assumption to make, but I really think that reality has better things to do than to play "peek-a-boo" with people while their backs are turned.

So...this room cannot be perceived IN TOTALITY...this does not mean that it cannot be perceived AT ALL.

I shall elaborate in a bit.

Yep, it?s physiologically and psychologically impossible to perceive objective reality as it is.

THIS, I agree with.

Objective Reality would be completely devoid of color, which we cannot observe because light colors things. However, Objective Reality would still have the shapes and textures going for it.

So...it's impossible to perceive Objective Reality AS IT IS...but this does not make Objective Reality impossible to perceive.

It's like saying if I paint myself yellow, then I cannot be perceived.

Well...I CAN be perceived. Just not in my "true" form. However, there really wouldn't be much difference if the yellow were stripped away. I just wouldn't be yellow anymore.

Just because something cannot be perceived in total, doesn't mean that it cannot be perceived.

If I stand at the base of a mountain and look directly in front of me, I will not see the entire mountain...but I will still be seeing the mountain...at least, the part of the mountain that I'm looking at.

Nope, we live in a world in which everything can appear different to us than it actually is. But it would be rather stupid if the human species developed a brain which would give us a completely inaccurate image of reality. Would that be the case, we simply wouldn?t be able to survive. That?s why there are a lot of basic perceptions about which we can be relatively sure. Which are things like this:

that wet is NOT dry, black is NOT white, up is NOT down. And it is not our interpretation of these things that we rely upon, it is their objective existence and our perception of that objective existence.

The difference between wet and dry, black and white, up and down are easy to perceive cause they are fundamental to our understanding of reality.

They are also fundamental to the perception of reality. Wet and dry, black and white, up and down are the most basic parts of objective reality, they are things that cannot be disputed...they are what they are completely independent of perceptions or lack thereof.

As is ALL of Objective Reality.

In other words, I talk about perceiving fundamental parts of reality because it is the parts that make up the whole.

And that?s the problem, I think, because all those fundamental parts are reassembled to a complete image before you become conscious of them. This reality as a whole is what you deal with in life. To make this easier you can rationally analyse this whole, but only after you?ve become aware of the whole. Let?s take ?mosespa?s soda can? again:

To this I would say, "Of course it's easier...you are dealing with a fundamental reality that is completely independent of your perceptions...that is to say, objective reality."

Okay, but that?s not the point, the point is: why is the perception of the shape of the can less ambiguous than the perception of color? They are both part of the same objective reality and still the actual shape is easier to detect than the actual color.

The perception of the shape of the can is less ambiguous because it is not dependent upon a variable factor, such as light. The shape of the can is what it is...unlike color, the shape of the can cannot appear to have been altered unless it has actually been altered.

It will always be cylindrical from the side and round from the top or bottom. Nothing will change that without actually changing the shape of the can.

On first glance the color of the soda can, can appear to you different from what it actually is. When you think about it and experiment with different light sources you are able to find out that this is not so much a feature of the can it self, nor of the light that is reflected by it, but an effect which is created by the interaction between the different light sources and the characteristics of the surface of the can. But this is not something you see at first glance. When you have no experience whatsoever with the soda can and the things light can do with the appearance of it, you will think the soda can is red (in the case of a red light source of course). Only after you?ve been rationally experimenting with it you will become aware of that fact that it?s not the can that is red, but the light source.

This is sooo close to how I think that Objective Reality CAN be perceived that you've almost proven me right with this statement alone.

The observation of Objective Reality is NOT passive. When you look at an object, what you are perceiving are the light rays bouncing back off of it into your eyes.

To perceive the object itself (for what it is) is a long process which involves prolonged thought processes.

Using the can as an example. It's a red can as long as there's red paint under white light. But, through the process of removing the red paint, you will discover that the can is actually silver under white light. But you're not going to "just" see that by simply observing the can. You have to analyze the can...put simply, Objective Reality CAN be perceived, but you HAVE to work for it. It ain't just gonna happen.

I?m sorry but this is not a matter of agreement, it is a fact. A soda can, which is say 10cm in height, which stands right before you?re nose, will project an image of say 5mm on the back of your eye. When the can is 5 meters away, it will project an image of say 1mm. That?s a fact, nothing more or less. When you become aware of the soda can, however it will appear to you as the same size, because your mind relates it?s size to everything else that surrounds you. This is just another example of the fact that what you perceive is not reality, only a rough image of it which is interpreted by your mind to make sense of it.

I beg to differ. A soda can which is 10cm in height is going to be 10cm in height no matter HOW far away from your eye it is.

The image of the soda can in your eye is a shadow, NOT an object in reality...and the image of the can in your mind is an abstraction...BY DEFINITION not a part of reality. So, the fact that one of these changes size in relation to distance while the other stays the same is irrelevant.

They have nothing to do with the soda can that is 10cm in height and will be 10cm in height until squashed or stretched by a physical force which is independent of perceptions.

Exactly, it?s a mirror image of reality with no substance of it?s own + there is a whole lot of reality which never reaches this mirror image. And that is just the first filtering process. So what you perceive as reality is not reality it?s an interpretation of it? that?s precisely my point.

MOSESPA'S CHICKEN:

I am a huge fan of fried chicken...I consider it one of the greatest foods ever.

I love to eat chicken. In fact, I often can eat a whole chicken all by myself.

According to you, though, I DON'T eat chicken...since I do not eat the beak or the feathers or the feet or the internal organs. I don't eat the chicken IN TOTAL, so therefore, I do not eat chicken at all.

Again that?s exactly my point. The can itself will not decrease in size when you shove the soda can away from you, but the mirror image in the back of your eye will decrease. And still, in your mind the soda can will appear as the same size. This is not a discussion of shadows, it?s proof of the fact that reality enters the body in a faulty way, and is afterwards reinterpreted by the mind to make sense of it.

Again: We are not dealing with the image of the can on the back of the eye or with the image of the can in the mind. We are dealing with THE CAN...the can which is 10cm in height no matter how far away from you it is.

What the eyeball sends to the brain is not a projection of what might be, but what the brain does with the information it receives from the eyeball is. It anticipates on what is most likely to happen. And this anticipation is inaccurate too, so there?s still a big change you will miss the ball, especially when you are inexperienced with hitting balls. When you practice a lot you?re mind will improve it?s capability to anticipate on where the ball might go in reading the movements of the pitcher before he actually throws.

Sure...and practice at perceiving Objective Reality will make it easier to do.

With all due respect, all you are saying in the above sentence is an overcomplicated variation on "Practice makes perfect."

Maybe the words ?mechanical device? are a bad choice. I guess what I mean to say is this: time only exists when people handle a rational regularity to measure it. You can do this with a mechanical device, but also with candles. I believe it was some Roman emperor who used candles of exactly the same size to have an indication of time. When a candle was finished he knew how far the day was gone by and how many candles he still had to go for that day. The same goes for our system of time division on the basis of the rotation of our planet. And for the results of that rotation: the counting of seasons. That?s also a rational notion of regularity on which you can base a time system.
But without such a rational notion of regularity there?s only change/development. So, yes, time is an illusion, in the sense that it?s a human invention. But it?s a very useful one, for doing research on human perception of reality, for instance

To quote Steve Winwood (although I'm sure he wasn't the first to say it): Time is a river.

In spite of what I've already said about time, I see it as an actual force of nature (for lack of a better phrase.) Sure, we use our clocks to moniter it's passage, but time seems to be a bit like gravity. Whether you're aware of it or not, it's there.

A bit like Objective Reality.

___________________________________________

"The whole may be greater than the sum of it's parts, but the whole is NOTHING without the parts of it's sum."
--Mosespa's first law ( )

"Time is simply man's way of letting him know how much closer to the end of his projected life span he is."
--Mosespa's Second Law. ( )

I think you should collect these and someday publish them as the "TAO of Mosespa"

LOL...but who would buy it?

[MikeWaters]

No matter what any of us say...the Beatles are the most influncial and popular group the world has ever known.... end of story.

[mosespa]

Well said.

[ganaffe]

It?s funny that in our last posts we both claim that each others examples are proof of our own statements. Maybe we are, as you said earlier, in agreement without knowing it? anyhow, this thread is more fun than my thesis, so let?s carry on.

YES, it's impossible to perceive this room in it's totality...largely because this room can only be perceived by a human 180 degrees at a time.
That which is in the 180 degrees behind me is out of my range of perception right now...and if I turn around to perceive it, I lose the first 180 degrees.
But they haven't gone anywhere...they are still there. How can this be proven? Turn around...there they are.
How does this prove that they didn't go anywhere?
Well...this is a HUGE assumption to make, but I really think that reality has better things to do than to play "peek-a-boo" with people while their backs are turned.
So...this room cannot be perceived IN TOTALITY...this does not mean that it cannot be perceived AT ALL.
I shall elaborate in a bit.

You don?t have to elaborate, cause I agree. My point is just a different one. What I have been saying from the beginning is not that reality exists by grant of perception. I?m saying that your awareness of reality is not reality itself but a crude image of it. It?s (scientific) arrogance to claim that you know the truth about reality since it?s physiologically and psychologically impossible to perceive objective reality as it is (no offence intended, I think you?ll know what I mean).

I am a huge fan of fried chicken...I consider it one of the greatest foods ever.
I love to eat chicken. In fact, I often can eat a whole chicken all by myself.
According to you, though, I DON'T eat chicken...since I do not eat the beak or the feathers or the feet or the internal organs. I don't eat the chicken IN TOTAL, so therefore, I do not eat chicken at all.

This is a different matter, and it?s not what I?m saying. I agree you eat chicken, even if you don?t eat the beak or the feathers. If you want a technical answer: no you?re not eating the chicken IN TOTAL, you just eat the tasty PARTS. But that?s different from saying you don?t eat chicken at all. This is really just a matter of human convention: saying "eating chicken" linguistically refers to eating chicken whether it?s with or without the beak and feathers. Saying "eating the chicken IN TOTAL" would indeed be not correct, since you?re not eating the chicken in total. But as I said, that?s a matter of human convention, not a matter of how you perceive reality. Which is what we are talking about here.... I think

Just because something cannot be perceived in total, doesn't mean that it cannot be perceived.

Wet and dry, black and white, up and down are the most basic parts of objective reality, they are things that cannot be disputed...they are what they are completely independent of perceptions or lack thereof.

As is ALL of Objective Reality.

Agreed, it?s just that you cannot be sure that the objective reality you perceive (whether in part or in totality) is the same as you are aware of it, that?s why I discriminate the awareness of reality from reality itself and call it "subjective reality".

Of course it's easier...you are dealing with a fundamental reality that is completely independent of your perceptions...that is to say, objective reality.

The perception of the shape of the can is less ambiguous because it is not dependent upon a variable factor, such as light. The shape of the can is what it is...unlike color, the shape of the can cannot appear to have been altered unless it has actually been altered.

Exactly, some things are harder to perceive as the actually are than others. Then, how can you know that what you THINK is true, IS in fact true. This is easier with the perception of shape than with the perception of color, and it?s a whole lot easier with the perception of separate characteristics, than with the perception of reality in total. But in the end there is no way you can be sure, whether you?re talking about the perception of parts or the perception of the total picture. You can only make your stab at the truth more plausible by analysing it.

To perceive the object itself (for what it is) is a long process which involves prolonged thought processes.

Using the can as an example. It's a red can as long as there's red paint under white light. But, through the process of removing the red paint, you will discover that the can is actually silver under white light. But you're not going to "just" see that by simply observing the can. You have to analyze the can...put simply, Objective Reality CAN be perceived, but you HAVE to work for it. It ain't just gonna happen.

Nope, it ain?t just gonna happen, analysing things can help a lot. But you can analyse it to death and still there is no way you can be sure that the object is in fact the same as how you perceive it. You can only make it more plausible by gathering information that you think is factual evidence. But that is nothing but proving likelihood, not proving truth.

I beg to differ. A soda can which is 10cm in height is going to be 10cm in height no matter HOW far away from your eye it is.
The image of the soda can in your eye is a shadow, NOT an object in reality...and the image of the can in your mind is an abstraction...BY DEFINITION not a part of reality. So, the fact that one of these changes size in relation to distance while the other stays the same is irrelevant.

They have nothing to do with the soda can that is 10cm in height and will be 10cm in height until squashed or stretched by a physical force which is independent of perceptions.

I could repeat this over and over again: I am not saying the can itself changes. It is the image of it that changes. The physiological build of your body alters it?s image, and psychological processes alter this image again. Thus, your awareness of the can is altered. This awareness is something you have to live with, and there is no way to be completely sure that this awareness is a correct representation of reality. Your view on reality can be likely, can be made plausible by gathering evidence. But you can never be sure about the correctness of this evidence.

Again: We are not dealing with the image of the can on the back of the eye or with the image of the can in the mind.

Yes we are dealing with that, at least I am ( ), from the beginning of this conversation. I?m dealing with the question: in how far can we perceive and be aware of objective reality as it is?
This is one of the several examples I gave during this conversation to point out that you cannot be sure this perception and this awareness is a correct representation of reality. Saying that it is irrelevant is denying my whole line of reason. With the same ease you can say all my examples are irrelevant since they are, in their core, all the same: they all support the same statement I made in the beginning: it is not possible to perceive objective reality as it is. You?re awareness of reality is a crude image of it, and indeed I am saying:

practice at perceiving Objective Reality will make it easier to do.

But I am not saying ?practice makes perfect?. Probably my sentence was to ?overcomplicated? to make my point , but what I said was: practice makes better, not perfect. Saying practices makes perfect, would imply that it is after all possible to know reality as it is, which is not.
___________________________________________

I see it as an actual force of nature (for lack of a better phrase.) Sure, we use our clocks to moniter it's passage, but time seems to be a bit like gravity. Whether you're aware of it or not, it's there.

I think this is just a matter of definition. But what you refer to as ?an actual force of nature? is the potential for irregular change or development, to me. Time is not such a force, it?s more a human convention to make it sense of this irregularity.
___________________________________________

I think you should collect these and someday publish them as the "TAO of Mosespa"

LOL...but who would buy it?

When it comes with a bunch of piping hot, fried parts of ?mosespas chicken?, I would.

EDIT: made some grammatical edits, besides that I saw I somewhere stated that MOSESPA'S CHICKEN wrote something. I intended to change that, but since I think it's rather funny I will leave it as it is.

[Powderfinger]

it's impossible to perceive this room in it's totality...largely because this room can only be perceived by a human 180 degrees at a time.

What if it is a round room

[mosespa]

Before I begin my continuation of this particular debate, I wish to state that I think you (Ganaffe) and I (mosespa) are reaching that point in any debate where it becomes clear that no definitive answer is going to be forthcoming.

My readings and learnings have taught me that there are, indeed, three sides to every story. Side A (which can be called "yours,") Side B (which can be called "mine,") and the truth; which usually lies somewhere in between.

I'll elaborate using a bastardization of Perisg's Quality:

What we call "reality" could be considered the "unified everything," if that makes sense...Side C.

Persig points out (and I will probably screw this up) that Quality is split into two parts: Static Quality and Dynamic Quality (which we'll remove from their Persig context and call Sides A and B, arbitrarily.)

From this, I'll propose that neither Side A NOR Side B is entirely correct. Each side can be argued down to a certain point, but once that certain point is reached, things become harder and harder to determine about the issue at hand. It then becomes apparent that both sides are correct (to a degree) and both sides are incorrect simultaneously.

This is where one gets into the whole "Unity VS Duality" notion that would be a whole other thread entirely.

Joseph Cambell once said (though I'm sure he's not the first, what follows is something of a Buddhist tenet,) "the greatest things cannot be talked about because they transcend human language."

These things can be thought, understood, perhaps even perceived (depending upon how one defines that word) but these things cannot be put into human language without diminishing their impact.

And now...to diminish further:

It?s funny that in our last posts we both claim that each others examples are proof of our own statements. Maybe we are, as you said earlier, in agreement without knowing it? anyhow, this thread is more fun than my thesis, so let?s carry on.

I do believe that to a certain extent you and I ARE saying the same things. However, it's like looking at a coin from only one side. When we start discussing the coin, I'm talking about the picture of the national leader on the "heads" side, and you are talking about the "whatever may be" picture on the "tails" side.

We are talking about the same coin, mind you, but (in the case of the American Quarter Dollar) I am describing George Washington's head as the image on the quarter, and you are discussing the eagle as the image on the quarter.

We are both right...and we are both wrong, simultaneously.

You don?t have to elaborate, cause I agree. My point is just a different one. What I have been saying from the beginning is not that reality exists by grant of perception. I?m saying that your awareness of reality is not reality itself but a crude image of it. It?s (scientific) arrogance to claim that you know the truth about reality since it?s physiologically and psychologically impossible to perceive objective reality as it is (no offence intended, I think you?ll know what I mean).

I understand what you are saying.

Science, however, has been showed to be flawed from time to time.

It is equally arrogant, in my opinion, to place all of one's stock in science. Yes, science is allegedly objective and it has supposedly proven that what you are seeing with your eyes are things as they were a microsecond ago. (Physiology is also a science, so it's included in the previous statement.)

However, science once also proved that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

Science is only good in it's day. Typically within 50-100 years, whatever scientific notions prevailed in the day are proven false and everyone has to get used to new data and the implications of this new data.

I once (and only once, unfortunately) saw a program that contended that if a beam of light travels through a particle cooled to within a tenth (I think) of a degree of absolute zero, it slows down. Therefore, the speed of light is no longer a constant and a good deal of physics has to be tossed out the window and rewritten.

Science, to me, is much like perception. It's a good guide to follow in order to function, but it's not absolute...it is subject to change as new information is discovered.

It is flawed...imperfect...and also simply a covering over a much larger truth that is not subject to change. If any of that makes sense.

This is a different matter, and it?s not what I?m saying. I agree you eat chicken, even if you don?t eat the beak or the feathers. If you want a technical answer: no you?re not eating the chicken IN TOTAL, you just eat the tasty PARTS. But that?s different from saying you don?t eat chicken at all. This is really just a matter of human convention: saying "eating chicken" linguistically refers to eating chicken whether it?s with or without the beak and feathers. Saying "eating the chicken IN TOTAL" would indeed be not correct, since you?re not eating the chicken in total. But as I said, that?s a matter of human convention, not a matter of how you perceive reality. Which is what we are talking about here.... I think

Ah...but wouldn't it also be true to say that I only eat the parts which are USEFUL to me? Just as the mind only selects the parts of reality which are USEFUL to survival and day to day life.

Let's get conceptual for a minute.

The chicken represents reality...eating represents perception.

With me so far?

Before the chicken (reality) can be eaten (percepted) the outer covering of feathers (i.e., the effects of light which produces color) must be removed.

The other parts of the chicken; the beak, feet, the internal organs, etc. etc. would then represent the parts of reality that our senses don't use: Infrared light, for example...ultraviolet light...subsonic sound. Things that our senses cannot process, so our mind deems this things unnecessary to our perception of reality.

In other words, the things that are stripped away from the whole due to inability to process. This must be done, otherwise the effects to the human could be pretty dire. In both cases, this is true.

...it?s just that you cannot be sure that the objective reality you perceive (whether in part or in totality) is the same as you are aware of it, that?s why I discriminate the awareness of reality from reality itself and call it "subjective reality".

Okay...now we're getting somewhere, I feel.

What I derive from the above statement is an inherent mistrust of one's own abilities.

To misquote Ayn Rand; "'One can never be certain,' they say and insists that this be considered a certainty."

Coming back a bit in the circle, if one's perception of reality is what determines one's individual reality, then one CAN be sure of anything one likes...since nothing can be certain, anything can be certain that you wish to be.

Rubbish, isn't it?

Exactly, some things are harder to perceive as the actually are than others. Then, how can you know that what you THINK is true, IS in fact true. This is easier with the perception of shape than with the perception of color, and it?s a whole lot easier with the perception of separate characteristics, than with the perception of reality in total. But in the end there is no way you can be sure, whether you?re talking about the perception of parts or the perception of the total picture. You can only make your stab at the truth more plausible by analysing it.

You can know if what you THINK is true IS, in fact, true by using variations on the scientific method...perform experiments, in other words.

Want to know if that rock really exists? Drop it on your foot.

Want to know if that wall is really there? Try walking through it.

Want to know if there is life after death? Die. (Unfortunately, this is a pretty radical experiment and there is NO way as of yet to share the accumulated data with others.)

There are ways to determine the validity of an idea.

Nope, it ain?t just gonna happen, analysing things can help a lot. But you can analyse it to death and still there is no way you can be sure that the object is in fact the same as how you perceive it. You can only make it more plausible by gathering information that you think is factual evidence. But that is nothing but proving likelihood, not proving truth.

And this is just further indication of a belief in the impotence of man...the uselessness of everything.

It's a pretty cynical view, if you ask me, to think that NOTHING can be proven or be certain.

It indicates a lack of belief in staticism. It suggests that everything is constantly in motion and in a state of flux (which on the atomic and subatomic level may be true, but SOMETHING makes things appear static.)

This suggestion indicates then that my car might suddenly become a very large banana, or that the tree outside the window might suddenly become a stone.

Again...the insistence that nothing can be certain when presented as a certainty is ridiculous. (No offense intended.)

If nothing can be certain, then it can't be certain that nothing can be certain. Ergo, something can be certain...and the whole statement crumbles to dust.

And if you are certain that nothing can be certain, then you are already negating the concept of uncertainty by being certain of it.

I could repeat this over and over again: I am not saying the can itself changes. It is the image of it that changes.

And I could repeat over and over again that we are not dealing with IMAGES, we are attempting to deal with CONCRETES. We are not dealing with abstract reproductions on the back of one's eyeball, we are dealing with the object itself which casts the image on the back of one's eyeball.

The physiological build of your body alters it?s image, and psychological processes alter this image again. Thus, your awareness of the can is altered. This awareness is something you have to live with, and there is no way to be completely sure that this awareness is a correct representation of reality. Your view on reality can be likely, can be made plausible by gathering evidence. But you can never be sure about the correctness of this evidence.

Are you sure of this?

Yes we are dealing with that, at least I am ( ), from the beginning of this conversation. I?m dealing with the question: in how far can we perceive and be aware of objective reality as it is?

That, my friend, depends entirely upon how much effort you are willing to put into the attempt.

With Objective Reality, you only get out of it what you put into it. It's completely reciprocal. If you don't put in very much effort, you are not going to be aware of much objective reality.

If you think about it, in a very real sense, what we are discussing is the search for truth (as Objective Reality would be a physical, material manifestation of the concept of "truth.")

Some say it cannot be known...and insist that this is knowledge that is true.

Others say it can be known, but the information cannot be communicated as it transcends human language.

Hey...I'll take knowing it but not being able to explain it...at least then I will know.

But that's just me.

In both cases, one thing is most definitely certain ( )...it's not easy. It takes a great deal of effort. Some people devote their entire lives to the search for truth.

This is one of the several examples I gave during this conversation to point out that you cannot be sure this perception and this awareness is a correct representation of reality. Saying that it is irrelevant is denying my whole line of reason.

With all due respect, being certain that nothing can be certain is not using reason. In fact, I would consider it quite the opposite of reason.

With the same ease you can say all my examples are irrelevant since they are, in their core, all the same: they all support the same statement I made in the beginning: it is not possible to perceive objective reality as it is. You?re awareness of reality is a crude image of it, and indeed I am saying:

practice at perceiving Objective Reality will make it easier to do.

But I am not saying ?practice makes perfect?. Probably my sentence was to ?overcomplicated? to make my point , but what I said was: practice makes better, not perfect. Saying practices makes perfect, would imply that it is after all possible to know reality as it is, which is not.

So...are you saying that objective reality CANNOT be perceived, or that it CAN be perceived with practice?

You seem to be saying both things in the above statement. But that could be a failure to comprehend on my part.
___________________________________________

I think this is just a matter of definition. But what you refer to as ?an actual force of nature? is the potential for irregular change or development, to me. Time is not such a force, it?s more a human convention to make it sense of this irregularity.

I disagree. Our planet was rotating around the sun long before we evolved. Thus, time was passing before we were around to define it.

___________________________________________

I think you should collect these and someday publish them as the "TAO of Mosespa"

LOL...but who would buy it?

Before I begin my continuation of this particular debate, I wish to state that I think you (Ganaffe) and I (mosespa) are reaching that point in any debate where it becomes clear that no definitive answer is going to be forthcoming.

My readings and learnings have taught me that there are, indeed, three sides to every story. Side A (which can be called "yours,") Side B (which can be called "mine,") and the truth; which usually lies somewhere in between.

I'll elaborate using a bastardization of Perisg's Quality:

What we call "reality" could be considered the "unified everything," if that makes sense...Side C.

Persig points out (and I will probably screw this up) that Quality is split into two parts: Static Quality and Dynamic Quality (which we'll remove from their Persig context and call Sides A and B, arbitrarily.)

From this, I'll propose that neither Side A NOR Side B is entirely correct. Each side can be argued down to a certain point, but once that certain point is reached, things become harder and harder to determine about the issue at hand. It then becomes apparent that both sides are correct (to a degree) and both sides are incorrect simultaneously.

This is where one gets into the whole "Unity VS Duality" notion that would be a whole other thread entirely.

Joseph Cambell once said (though I'm sure he's not the first, what follows is something of a Buddhist tenet,) "the greatest things cannot be talked about because they transcend human language."

These things can be thought, understood, perhaps even perceived (depending upon how one defines that word) but these things cannot be put into human language without diminishing their impact.

And now...to diminish further:

It?s funny that in our last posts we both claim that each others examples are proof of our own statements. Maybe we are, as you said earlier, in agreement without knowing it? anyhow, this thread is more fun than my thesis, so let?s carry on.

I do believe that to a certain extent you and I ARE saying the same things. However, it's like looking at a coin from only one side. When we start discussing the coin, I'm talking about the picture of the national leader on the "heads" side, and you are talking about the "whatever may be" picture on the "tails" side.

We are talking about the same coin, mind you, but (in the case of the American Quarter Dollar) I am describing George Washington's head as the image on the quarter, and you are discussing the eagle as the image on the quarter.

We are both right...and we are both wrong, simultaneously.

You don?t have to elaborate, cause I agree. My point is just a different one. What I have been saying from the beginning is not that reality exists by grant of perception. I?m saying that your awareness of reality is not reality itself but a crude image of it. It?s (scientific) arrogance to claim that you know the truth about reality since it?s physiologically and psychologically impossible to perceive objective reality as it is (no offence intended, I think you?ll know what I mean).

I understand what you are saying.

Science, however, has been showed to be flawed from time to time.

It is equally arrogant, in my opinion, to place all of one's stock in science. Yes, science is allegedly objective and it has supposedly proven that what you are seeing with your eyes are things as they were a microsecond ago. (Physiology is also a science, so it's included in the previous statement.)

However, science once also proved that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

Science is only good in it's day. Typically within 50-100 years, whatever scientific notions prevailed in the day are proven false and everyone has to get used to new data and the implications of this new data.

I once (and only once, unfortunately) saw a program that contended that if a beam of light travels through a particle cooled to within a tenth (I think) of a degree of absolute zero, it slows down. Therefore, the speed of light is no longer a constant and a good deal of physics has to be tossed out the window and rewritten.

Science, to me, is much like perception. It's a good guide to follow in order to function, but it's not absolute...it is subject to change as new information is discovered.

It is flawed...imperfect...and also simply a covering over a much larger truth that is not subject to change. If any of that makes sense.

This is a different matter, and it?s not what I?m saying. I agree you eat chicken, even if you don?t eat the beak or the feathers. If you want a technical answer: no you?re not eating the chicken IN TOTAL, you just eat the tasty PARTS. But that?s different from saying you don?t eat chicken at all. This is really just a matter of human convention: saying "eating chicken" linguistically refers to eating chicken whether it?s with or without the beak and feathers. Saying "eating the chicken IN TOTAL" would indeed be not correct, since you?re not eating the chicken in total. But as I said, that?s a matter of human convention, not a matter of how you perceive reality. Which is what we are talking about here.... I think

Ah...but wouldn't it also be true to say that I only eat the parts which are USEFUL to me? Just as the mind only selects the parts of reality which are USEFUL to survival and day to day life.

Let's get conceptual for a minute.

The chicken represents reality...eating represents perception.

With me so far?

Before the chicken (reality) can be eaten (percepted) the outer covering of feathers (i.e., the effects of light which produces color) must be removed.

The other parts of the chicken; the beak, feet, the internal organs, etc. etc. would then represent the parts of reality that our senses don't use: Infrared light, for example...ultraviolet light...subsonic sound. Things that our senses cannot process, so our mind deems this things unnecessary to our perception of reality.

In other words, the things that are stripped away from the whole due to inability to process. This must be done, otherwise the effects to the human could be pretty dire. In both cases, this is true.

...it?s just that you cannot be sure that the objective reality you perceive (whether in part or in totality) is the same as you are aware of it, that?s why I discriminate the awareness of reality from reality itself and call it "subjective reality".

Okay...now we're getting somewhere, I feel.

What I derive from the above statement is an inherent mistrust of one's own abilities.

To misquote Ayn Rand; "'One can never be certain,' they say and insists that this be considered a certainty."

Coming back a bit in the circle, if one's perception of reality is what determines one's individual reality, then one CAN be sure of anything one likes...since nothing can be certain, anything can be certain that you wish to be.

Rubbish, isn't it?

Exactly, some things are harder to perceive as the actually are than others. Then, how can you know that what you THINK is true, IS in fact true. This is easier with the perception of shape than with the perception of color, and it?s a whole lot easier with the perception of separate characteristics, than with the perception of reality in total. But in the end there is no way you can be sure, whether you?re talking about the perception of parts or the perception of the total picture. You can only make your stab at the truth more plausible by analysing it.

You can know if what you THINK is true IS, in fact, true by using variations on the scientific method...perform experiments, in other words.

Want to know if that rock really exists? Drop it on your foot.

Want to know if that wall is really there? Try walking through it.

Want to know if there is life after death? Die. (Unfortunately, this is a pretty radical experiment and there is NO way as of yet to share the accumulated data with others.)

There are ways to determine the validity of an idea.

Nope, it ain?t just gonna happen, analysing things can help a lot. But you can analyse it to death and still there is no way you can be sure that the object is in fact the same as how you perceive it. You can only make it more plausible by gathering information that you think is factual evidence. But that is nothing but proving likelihood, not proving truth.

And this is just further indication of a belief in the impotence of man...the uselessness of everything.

It's a pretty cynical view, if you ask me, to think that NOTHING can be proven or be certain.

It indicates a lack of belief in staticism. It suggests that everything is constantly in motion and in a state of flux (which on the atomic and subatomic level may be true, but SOMETHING makes things appear static.)

This suggestion indicates then that my might suddenly become a very large banana, or that the tree outside the window might suddenly become a stone.

Again...the insistence that nothing can be certain when presented as a certainty is ridiculous. (No offense intended.)

If nothing can be certain, then it can't be certain that nothing can be certain. Ergo, something can be certain...and the whole statement crumbles to dust.

And if you are certain that nothing can be certain, then you are already negating the concept of uncertainty by being certain of it.

I could repeat this over and over again: I am not saying the can itself changes. It is the image of it that changes.

And I could repeat over and over again that we are not dealing with IMAGES, we are attempting to deal with CONCRETES. We are not dealing with abstract reproductions on the back of one's eyeball, we are dealing with the object itself which casts the image on the back of one's eyeball.

The physiological build of your body alters it?s image, and psychological processes alter this image again. Thus, your awareness of the can is altered. This awareness is something you have to live with, and there is no way to be completely sure that this awareness is a correct representation of reality. Your view on reality can be likely, can be made plausible by gathering evidence. But you can never be sure about the correctness of this evidence.

Are you sure of this?

Yes we are dealing with that, at least I am ( ), from the beginning of this conversation. I?m dealing with the question: in how far can we perceive and be aware of objective reality as it is?

That, my friend, depends entirely upon how much effort you are willing to put into the attempt.

With Objective Reality, you only get out of it what you put into it. It's completely reciprocal. If you don't put in very much effort, you are not going to be aware of much objective reality.

If you think about it, in a very real sense, what we are discussing is the search for truth (as Objective Reality would be a physical, material manifestation of the concept of "truth.")

Some say it cannot be known...and insist that this is knowledge that is true.

Others say it can be known, but the information cannot be communicated as it transcends human language.

Hey...I'll take knowing it but not being able to explain it...at least then I will know.

But that's just me.

In both cases, one thing is most definitely certain ( )...it's not easy. It takes a great deal of effort. Some people devote their entire lives to the search for truth.

This is one of the several examples I gave during this conversation to point out that you cannot be sure this perception and this awareness is a correct representation of reality. Saying that it is irrelevant is denying my whole line of reason.

With all due respect, being certain that nothing can be certain is not using reason. In fact, I would consider it quite the opposite of reason.

With the same ease you can say all my examples are irrelevant since they are, in their core, all the same: they all support the same statement I made in the beginning: it is not possible to perceive objective reality as it is. You?re awareness of reality is a crude image of it, and indeed I am saying:

practice at perceiving Objective Reality will make it easier to do.

But I am not saying ?practice makes perfect?. Probably my sentence was to ?overcomplicated? to make my point , but what I said was: practice makes better, not perfect. Saying practices makes perfect, would imply that it is after all possible to know reality as it is, which is not.

So...are you saying that objective reality CANNOT be perceived, or that it CAN be perceived with practice?

You seem to be saying both things in the above statement. But that could be a failure to comprehend on my part.
___________________________________________

I think this is just a matter of definition. But what you refer to as ?an actual force of nature? is the potential for irregular change or development, to me. Time is not such a force, it?s more a human convention to make it sense of this irregularity.

I disagree. Our planet was rotating around the sun long before we evolved. Thus, time was passing before we were around to define it.

___________________________________________

I think you should collect these and someday publish them as the "TAO of Mosespa"

LOL...but who would buy it?

When it comes with a bunch of piping hot, fried parts of ?mosespas chicken?, I would.

EDIT: made some grammatical edits, besides that I saw I somewhere stated that MOSESPA'S CHICKEN wrote something. I intended to change that, but since I think it's rather funny I will leave it as it is.

Then consider this post the "three piece and a biscuit with mashed potatoes on the side" combo meal

Unfortuately, it's not the sixteen piece bucket...but maybe someday before they're all deleted, I'll collect these posts and make them available to anyone who's bored enough (or curious enough) to read them.

In the meantime, I am beginning work on some literary projects that will attempt to outline some of my thinkings in the context of fictional characters interacting with each other.

I just have to find some kind of plot to make it all interesting.