What is real, and what can be known of that reality?

knowledge of ______=how we feel about________? That seems too much. But perhaps my translation is wrong.

Felt like emotions? Felt like in perceived? Can I exchange experienced for felt?

This is all brash and I like wild generalities, but I am also not sure in all the spareness what various words mean. Does this mean we are attached emotionally to all thoughts? Or perhaps that is a subset of what you are suggesting?

Well, I am all for adding into explanations emotions and for people to own up to the emotional underpinnings (attachments? in your last quote) of beliefs, even ones that are supposedly all rational and supported by empirical studies.....
but I would have a hard time agreeing to

My addition in bold.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Show an inkblot to ten people, ask them what they see. That is reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If none of them see an inkblot, does that mean there wasn't one ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No it is not.

 

(edited)

I think that's it.

The trick is, there is no other type of reality to be discussed, really.

The second you try to discuss it, you've already made it your reality. Could be though, that your reality has a lot in common with that of others.

 

When you state things, you state how you feel about it... even if you think you're not doing that... no?

Emotion and perception happen simultaneously in the moment. Experienced and felt can be interchanged the way I meant it yeah. One feels experience as it happens.

I mean that emotion in the now puts a signature onto experience of the now which impacts the weight the experience has in altering pre-existing conceptual inter-relationships and the way the experience of the moment is recollected. To recall an analogy from another thread about 'digging a channel', if that makes sense to you... I think emotion is perhaps the engine of the plow doing the digging.

I would agree, and that's a good point. However, I would say that all knowledge is encoded at least partially by emotion. Like I said above about the engine.

Bah. It's probably that examining thought with thought is like trying to determine the position of the electron when you've already measured the spin. No matter how much you happen to see in a moment, the seeing collapses a fundamental aspect of what you're trying to describe.

And I'm spent.

 

Yes, and here's where objective reality comes in.
No offense, but hasn't this been discussed already ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ah, OK. I like that. Though I would add 'to the trained ear and eye'. Another way to say it might be 'when you think something...'. But I like the polemical way you put it also. I think a bucket of water on the sleeping is sometimes best.

Yes, I think all experience is felt. Then, perhaps, we need to deal with the issue of suppression, repression and denial, though perhaps not here. IOW some people seem more likely not to notice.

More important, here, I think is that resting emotional states and anticipatory feelings - and the habits here - radically affect perception.

Learning and not learning. I am with you and agree.

Or how excited the ox is at the very least.

Still with you. Implications?

Well, you could examine thought with feelings, then. (I know, you have been asserting a unity. Nevertheless I think we have different strengths and perspectives if we 'intend' approach thought with emotion rather than with other thought, even if both approaches actually involve both (ends of the spectrum of one 'thing'.)

 

The above would be true if each person would be completely unique, completely idionsyncratic, having nothing in common with other persons.
But as you note later:

For one, we share the same language and some other concepts. And we also seem to live within the same time and space. This says something about commonality.

The question is, how come this commonality exist? What scope does this commonality have? In what ways is one person unique, and in what ways is it the same as other persons?

 

The thing is that the connection between thoughts and emotions is not unique and is not exclusive.

The same person can have the same thought in two different instances and each time the emotions are different.
The same emotion can come up at different thoughts.

If knowledge would truly be encoded emotion, then there would be a unique, exclusive relationship between a thought and an emotion. But everyday experience shows that this is not the case: "I have to do the taxes!" is a thought accompanied by different emotions if, for example, the thought comes up in December, as opposed to March, or if you have nothing to hide from the IRS as opposed to if you do, and so on.
Conversely, the same emotion can come up at different thoughts. So a person will, for example, feel intense fear if witnessing a tornado, or if witnessing a pack of dogs tearing up a calf, or if facing an IRS hearing when they have something to hide; or a great pleasure if eating cheese cake, or if having a nice ride with the bike, or knowing that your brother in law who is a lawyer specializing in taxes will do your taxes.

 

Hmm. I disagree. I think it's true no matter what. That we might not be entirely unique or idiosyncratic or have anything common does not bear on the fact that upon the act of discussing what is shared, it becomes subjective. Tha application of language renders it so, no? I mean, it's processed through a particular mind. A mind is a perspective. Each perspective is indeed unique though perhaps quite similar to others.

We each share our own bastardized version of language and concepts. We seem to live near one another in time and space. It would certainly seem there is similarity I'd agree, but commonality? Depends on how you frame it exactly. If you say "to have a brain" or "to each know the word brain" is 'something in common' then yes. That is context specific though, an assertion of 'macro'. Looking deeper, each brain is unique like the lame example of snowflakes.

Should our approach to epistemology though, include consideration of what we have in common?

I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

I agree, but I don't think that invalidates the thought as I'll attempt to explain below, perhaps reaching a bit to do so.

True, but in recall the emotion from either instance can drag up events from it.

If it were simply encoded emotion, then yes I suppose that would be correct. I think it's more complicated though. I think emotion is encoded with all knowledge gained. Even if knowledge is condensed from multiple experiences, I think the emotion from any of the associated experience can be drug up from any particular bit of knowledge, depending on the context that necessitates the recall of that knowledge.

Which I'd say fits in what I described above. The fear still arises but is quelled by context.

Well, I'm always trying to figure things out by talking about them. In this case, I think that I've probably overgeneralized in trying to find something of value in passing thought that seemed interesting. I do think that all experience is encoded with emotion and that all knowledge comes from experience. As such they seem closely related but probably not enough to call knowledge 'encoded emotion', as it's somewhat misleading. I think that knowledge is proportionally (how much support/defense required relating to the importance of the knowledge to the minds conceptual structure) supported/defended by emotion, naturally - but that can be swayed by the application of will.

I think a lot of other stuff too of course but I've rambled enough for the moment.

 

I'm soaking in it!

That's really why I put things like that, to try avoid the dull stupor. I'm not sure i'd add "to the trained ear and eye" as it seems superfluous, but 'when you think something', yes. It doesn't matter if you notice it though, if that's what's actually happening in systematic type terms eh? I do think it takes some effort to see it for most, but I'm not sure that has any bearing on whether or not that's what's actually happening.

Oh indeed. I think suppression and repression are both denial, and denial facilitates the 'path of least will'.

I think so too. I think of perception as a 'lense on reality' shaped by mind. I think of emotional states as sort of the 'tensile function (pulling, straining, weighting conceptual relationships to prevalence in the lense)' of the lense.

Well, lots probably but it's all so intertwined to me it's difficult to say specifically. I can hypothesize as to where it all fits in to the big picture of mind and knowing, but that's what I've been doing in the thread. No reason to copy and paste it all. Hehe.

Well I think you can try to examin the thoughts of others with whatever, but I was just saying there seems to be a fundamental problem to me with a self modelling a self, as part of self is masked by the attempt. Then again, it was just a comment from the emotional predisposition of "I'm freakin spent here", so probably doesn't count for much.

 

Actually I would say the opposite. That tremendous effort is being exerted to not notice one's reactions to what is going on. I've experienced many times the moment of relaxation - which can often be rather terrifying - when I stopped making the effot to keep my real feelings and reactions out of my consciousness. Sometimes I could tell you the exact muscles that are isometrically held apart from all the more subtle tightnesses that go into maintaining this lack of awareness.

Sure, but we are never starting from a neutral point. We already have models with blind spots. So new models can allow new awareness. I do think the only way to find out what one is really doing mentally is to allow emotions to arise into consciousness rather than cutting them off. If not one may notice that suddenly one's thoughts are sliding in a certain direction but one will not know why. Also things that seem logical or seems like necessary effects, conclusions, correlations may simply seem that way because portions of the self think they 'must not feel' other possibities or 'I won't survive'. My experience is that however 'open' and 'investigative' the conscious mind thinks it is - one of the models with blind spots - if it is not will to really notice emotions and feel them, it will not notice how it is guided away from certain areas.

 

Hmmm. If it's denial it's not conscious right? It may be 'just under the surface' but to call it denial IMO, is to call it 'unconscious"...

IMO, 'will' is a conscious effort... an intentiontial effort of mind.

So you're saying you were making a conscious effort to avoid certain aspects of yourself... or was your mind doing it on 'autopilot' and then when you relaxed the autopilot shut down?

Conscious denial eh? Well such is possible of course. When discussing it, I generally think of it as 'natural denial' so to speak, the unconscious type.... but it's a good point. Perhaps this aspect of denial facilitates the path of least distraction. Interesting.

.

So would you say the mature mind's chief task is 'preserve self-image', as that image (a function really, rather than a static thing) is basically the instanced survival instinct as molded by their physical brain/body and the experience of being them?

Maybe to me self modelling the general case of self and fitting the entirety of that into one's mind seems divergent somehow, like some kind of overload. But yeah you're surely right, avoiding emotions certainly re-directs thought to other areas.

 

Ontology is whatever I say...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

no it isn't.

HA.

 

You can consciously stop doing it.

To be fair I think neither conscious nor unconscious fit denial mechanisms perfectly. At least this is the case with me. There is an area of what I am conscious of that is disturbing. I am to some degree aware of the efforts and that there is more there. I am not aware of the whole thing there.

Depite the category crossing of this phenomenon, I do think it definitely counts as an intentiontal effort of mind.

Further I think it is better to take people as their whole person and not simply the little chauffeur who has been instructed not to look in the backseat and keep his eyes straight ahead. He catches glimpses in the rear view and he damn well knows his boss is in the mob.

Sure.

You can actually see-feel this rather literally if you notice your back WAS tense around ___________(your boss, that hot ________, etc.) You can see that part of you tensed up and tried not to appear tense, interested, scared, weak, incompetent, whatever. You can see in this muscle tension very likely things like self-distrust, guilt and othe forms of a split self)

I think that is a lot of it. But this is because we are really rather traumatized. I think the mind is also seeking improvement, but has a lot of hopelessness about it. It does feel good to let go of all these isometric tensions and self-distrust. But given that this brings us into contact with how we are really reacting to things it is also scary. Given that the mind is imprinted with final notions of reality and that certain problems are a given so it is better never to even notice how we are reacting, the 'self-image' function is aided by a lot of emotional interest in not suffering what seems unnecessarily.

And that first part is a common thought, though often semi-unconscious, that if we actually felt our full range of reactions we would be overloaded. Other common judgments are that we would be evil, at the mercy of others, hated, and so on.

 

I'll begin with a few observations.
1:I am not a pig
2:I am not as intellectual or verbose as some
3

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

oints 1 and 2 will become obvious shortly.

I am not sure I exist. I believe I exist through the inputs I receive through my various sensory functions. That is to say I can manipulate things which exist whether I exist or not. I may not exist, though, if these things are dependant on my own existence. My existence may or may not decide on the existence of everything else, thus everything that does exist may or may not exist. Reality is that which exists in the event of my nonexistence. If I do not exist I have no sensory input to decide if anything exists or not. I cannot measure the accuracy of any of my sensory inputs or motor outputs to guarantee that the inputs exist or that the outputs occur, outside of the motor/sensory information available. If I rely on another observer's sensory input/motor output I must still say that if I do not exist and their existence is dependent on my existence then they do not exist and therefore my sensory inputs, which register their existence, should be questioned.

So, how do we measure that which can only measure? We cannot guarantee that our inputs and outputs are accurate, because we cannot measure our measuring devices without a system of measurement more accurate than our existing measurement devices.

I must choose a point at which to assume something is true to be able to come to the accuracy or inaccuracy of my own inputs and outputs if they do actually exist. I would still have to make further assumptions to come to a conclusion on the existence of anyone or anything else. But, if I make any assumptions, I can never guarantee the accuracy of my conclusion. Yet, if I refuse to make an assumption I can never reach any conclusion.

Therefore:
If I exist then reality(that which exists in the abscence of my existence) may or may not exist.
If I do not exist then I can not make any observation on whether reality exists.
If reality exists I may or may not exist.
If reality does not exist then I may or may not exist.
If my sensory inputs are accurate then reality exists and I exist.
I have no way of guaranteeing my sensory inputs are not inaccurate or being manipulated, therefore I may or may not exist and reality may or may not exist.

And just to reiterate I am defining exist as being measurable in terms of an observation, which is by nature dependent on the observer's existence and the accuracy of the observer's sensory inputs as well as the existence of reality. So perhaps my definition of 'to exist' needs to be redefined, to take away the necessary assumption of an existence to make a measurement.

Remember! Bacon is not kosher!

 

There are things known and things unknown and in between, there are Doors.