Theories of Time

[4321lynx]

Agree with that (my emphasis). It is absolutely accurate within DBT's "narrow band". But it ignores, as do we all in everyday life, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and various not so dark radiations that exist and can be accurately measured. Some of these eg radioactive substances, if in sufficient concentration in your dog's body or his vicinity, may show up on the photo, whereas you remain otherwise quite ignorant of them. And the photo ignores your dog's fleas, of which you may soon be acutely objectively/subjectively conscious.

Not being able to see the fleas in the photo is a limitation of resolution. It's possible to capture an image of a dog on which fleas can be distinguished (or, in the fantasy world of crime TV, by enhancing the hell out of a low-res image. ). Or of occlusion/angle/position; e.g., I can't see or capture an image of the "dark side" of the Moon from my yard. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a captured image of my dog or of the Moon is inaccurate; it means the image is incomplete. What the image shows may be quite accurate, and of course may even show more detail than can be seen with the naked eye given the right camera/lens/settings.

And if a sensor/instrument can be made that can capture representations of e.g. dark matter that are substantially accurate, then I can view those representations and form an image of dark matter in my mind that is substantially accurate, as it would conform to the captured representations. E.g., we have cameras/sensors that can capture EM radiation outside the (human) visible bandwidth, and we can view those images to form an accurate image of the world as seen in e.g. IR or UV.

We're not limited to our raw senses when constructing a mental image or model of reality. Well, other than that we must rely on those senses when viewing what our instruments have captured.

Yes. In these ways that you mention, and others, we widen DBT's "narrow band". In the future we may widen it more and that may confirm, or change, our theories slightly or even completely.

 

[4321lynx]

I just noticed that in an above post I stated "My objection was to your comment that what our mind forms as a representation of reality bears "little resemblance" to reality ("what's really out there")" in response to Juma's post, when that comment was seynori's and not Juma's. Apologies.

How about hallucinations? How much resemblance do they bear to reality ("what is really out there")?

Hallucinations and delusions are malfunctions of the central nervous system, or of parts of it. The CNS, like any other organ of the body is subject to abnormalities, malfunctions and diseases. It, and especially the regions of the "higher functions" of it, is/are so complicated that we are far from understanding fully how it functions normally, never mind trying to understand why and how it malfunctions. However, progress is slowly, and sometimes rapidly, being made.
But more discussion of this aspect of reality probably deserves another thread or threads.

 

[fromderinside]

So how does a camera know to capture that "convenient abstraction" that my mind constructs from my dog in a photograph?

It doesnt. It just creates a entity that provides the same light structure.

Yet, attach that entity with specific code and an output can be generated that is the same as the one a human makes. You aren't saying code is an illusion are you?

 

[ontological_realist]

How about hallucinations? How much resemblance do they bear to reality ("what is really out there")?

What about hallucinations? They're called "hallucinations" for a reason. The fact that our minds can hallucinate does not indicate that our minds can't otherwise or normally form an accurate representation of reality.

How have you come to know that your mind can form an accurate representation of reality?

 

[ontological_realist]

How about hallucinations? How much resemblance do they bear to reality ("what is really out there")?

Hallucinations and delusions are malfunctions of the central nervous system, or of parts of it. The CNS, like any other organ of the body is subject to abnormalities, malfunctions and diseases. It, and especially the regions of the "higher functions" of it, is/are so complicated that we are far from understanding fully how it functions normally, never mind trying to understand why and how it malfunctions. However, progress is slowly, and sometimes rapidly, being made.
But more discussion of this aspect of reality probably deserves another thread or threads.

Calling hallucinations malfunction does not prove or disprove anything.

I know very little about how to operate internet. I do not know how to transfer these posts to a new thread.

 

[Mageth]

What about hallucinations? They're called "hallucinations" for a reason. The fact that our minds can hallucinate does not indicate that our minds can't otherwise or normally form an accurate representation of reality.

How have you come to know that your mind can form an accurate representation of reality?

Read this thread.

 

[ontological_realist]

That is no answer.

 

[Mageth]

That is no answer.

An answer is in the thread, if you read it.

 

[ontological_realist]

For the sake of common courtesy, can you at least write the posts no. which you think answers the question?

 

[Mageth]

For the sake of common courtesy, can you at least write the posts no. which you think answers the question?

What good would it do for me to write a post no. for you if your mind can't form an accurate representation of reality? How would you find the post???

There, a hint for you.

 

[Mageth]

Here's another hint:



What is that? I'd say it's a dog. More accurately, a photograph of a dog. Even more accurately, a digital photo of a yellow labrador retriever.

Do you agree?

 

[DBT]

Perception is not abstract. Mental representation is based on actual information that is gathered by the senses: wavelength, pressure waves, airborne molecules, etc. Information that's neither abstract or arbitrary. Which makes the brains mental represention, if proven reliable, a valid perspective of the external World, albeit limited to a narrow band.

Then how do you see Hallucinations?

Hallucinations are mental representations that are not based on sensory input, but are formed by a brain under some form of structural or chemical stress, using memory content to form an generate imagery that is not related to sensory input or the external world. Dreams, daydreams and imaginary constructs are in that category (memory based mental constructs), but as normal function. Consolidation, problem solving and so on.

 

[ontological_realist]

Reply to post no. 50:-

This attitude is rude and uncivilized, I do not care to reply to such posts. So, this conversation is finished.

 

[ontological_realist]

Then how do you see Hallucinations?

Hallucinations are mental representations that are not based on sensory input, but are formed by a brain under some form of structural or chemical stress, using memory content to form an generate imagery that is not related to sensory input or the external world. Dreams, daydreams and imaginary constructs are in that category (memory based mental constructs), but as normal function. Consolidation, problem solving and so on.

Yes, what you say here is right. I have no disagreement with this.

Perhaps the difficulty is that you are talking about collective subjective human reality in which observer plays an essential part and I am trying to point to the objective reality. In other words you are talking about the world as cognized by humans and I am referring to the world as it is in itself. In Kantian terminology, you are talking about the phenomenal world and I am referring to the noumenal reality.

I will continue this later on perhaps in another thread as this conversation does not belong in this thread.

 

[DBT]

Hallucinations are mental representations that are not based on sensory input, but are formed by a brain under some form of structural or chemical stress, using memory content to form an generate imagery that is not related to sensory input or the external world. Dreams, daydreams and imaginary constructs are in that category (memory based mental constructs), but as normal function. Consolidation, problem solving and so on.

Yes, what you say here is right. I have no disagreement with this.

Perhaps the difficulty is that you are talking about collective subjective human reality in which observer plays an essential part and I am trying to point to the objective reality. In other words you are talking about the world as cognized by humans and I am referring to the world as it is in itself. In Kantian terminology, you are talking about the phenomenal world and I am referring to the noumenal reality.

I will continue this later on perhaps in another thread as this conversation does not belong in this thread.

How the world is 'cognized' is an aspect of objective reality. Cognition is a physical activity of physical neural architecture, therefore in no way separate from the physical world. Cognition is an aspect of the world of particle position, Hadrons, leptons, etc, and, macro scale structures and their relationships: electromagnetic radiation stimulating highly evolved nerve cells in specific ways which convert the information into nerve impulses, this being physical information which is correlated and processed by neural networks and represented in mental form (mind).

 

[Juma]

Here's another hint:

View attachment 1271

What is that? I'd say it's a dog. More accurately, a photograph of a dog. Even more accurately, a digital photo of a yellow labrador retriever.

Do you agree?

So fucking what? Photographs was invented, created, for exactly that purpose: to make us recreate the impression of what was photographed.

Now that doesnt happen by itself. There is a lot of requirement of how to take that image so we really recognize the dog.

Thus that photograph is a complex man made symbol to represent a dog.

And dont forget that a photograph doesnt represent anything for a bind person. (If he hasnt been toold what it is suppose to show)

 

[lpetrich]

The question of the reliability of perception leads us to solipsism, the notion that everything outside of one's consciousness is pure hallucination. But even short of that, what info do we get from our senses.

First, we have more than the traditional five senses ( Sense), with estimates like 15 to 20 senses. Here is a list:

• Mechanical
  • Hearing
  • Touch / Pressure
  • Itch
  • Acceleration / Gravity
  • Rotation
  • Proprioception -- joint orientation
• Temperature
  • Heat
  • Cold
• Pain
• Chemical
  • Smell
  • Taste
  • Internal states, giving feelings of hunger, thirst, asphyxiation, ...
• Vision
• Time -- more detail in  Time perception

Some organisms have additional senses, like these electromagnetic ones (quasi-static, macroscopic):

• Electric fields
• Magnetic fields

Let's see what spatial info that we get.

• Skin senses: 2D surface
• Vision: 2D directions
• Proprioception: angle values
• Acceleration: position change
• Rotation: orientation change

So we don't get full 3D-spatial information directly.

Some people have argued that time is not real because we supposedly do not perceive it directly -- we directly perceive motion or change or whatever. But the same can be said of 3-space. We do not get 3-space info directly. So by that argument, neither time nor space exist.

 

[4321lynx]

Ipertich said

So we don't get full 3D-spatial information directly.

Some people have argued that time is not real because we supposedly do not perceive it directly -- we directly perceive motion or change or whatever. But the same can be said of 3-space. We do not get 3-space info directly. So by that argument, neither time nor space exist.

I think he's wrong. With binocular vision you get the info directly. It may not be quite like Disney World, but just try to play tennis, baseball, or even golf with one eye bandaged blind.

 

[Juma]

Ipertich said

So we don't get full 3D-spatial information directly.

Some people have argued that time is not real because we supposedly do not perceive it directly -- we directly perceive motion or change or whatever. But the same can be said of 3-space. We do not get 3-space info directly. So by that argument, neither time nor space exist.

I think he's wrong. With binocular vision you get the info directly. It may not be quite like Disney World, but just try to play tennis, baseball, or even golf with one eye bandaged blind.

"Get the info directly"????

Do you know how much effort people have put into trying to ectraxt 3D info from images? Its a lot of processing going on before any 3d models are created... And two images is not as much help for 3d vision as is the info of how the object moves when you move.

And finally: you experience a representation of the object. Clear as hell that the representation is not the real stuff. That would be as saying that a pie chart is the data it represents...

And i would say that that is a good example: how real our experience may seem it is nothing but a symbol of is really going on out there.

 

[Mageth]

Ipertich said



I think he's wrong. With binocular vision you get the info directly. It may not be quite like Disney World, but just try to play tennis, baseball, or even golf with one eye bandaged blind.

"Get the info directly"????

Do you know how much effort people have put into trying to ectraxt 3D info from images? Its a lot of processing going on before any 3d models are created... And two images is not as much help for 3d vision as is the info of how the object moves when you move.

And finally: you experience a representation of the object. Clear as hell that the representation is not the real stuff. That would be as saying that a pie chart is the data it represents...

And i would say that that is a good example: how real our experience may seem it is nothing but a symbol of is really going on out there.

And yet I manage to walk out of my house, get in my car, and drive to work most days without bumping into anything.