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

The Doors?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

of Perception.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, that's more on topic, but oddly I am disappointed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so is perception the beginning assumption? or is perception a definite reality?

 

Which came first, in a given instance, the perception or the assumption?

 

I guess that the assumption of existence would have to be first, else perception is invalid, because without existing we cannot accept sensory input/perceive. I don't know whether the existence of self or the existence of reality would need to be that first assumption, though. Existence of self does not preclude inaccurate perception, and existence of reality(that which exists without being perceived) does not guarantee existence of self for the same reason.

 

which is the part where it is realized that perception is an assumption?

 

that seems extreme. how would it know what it, this assumption, is referring to, without some experience to use as examples?

 

Hence descartes had it wrong.

It's not:

"I think therefore I am"

Because that masquerades as some form of conclusion from evidence that relies on the conclusion for validity.

In fact it's just an assumption:

"I am"

 

So what we 'can know' is inherently and completely steeped in what we assume.

From the porkster's post before last, logic or reason is indeed dependent upon assumptions to be of any use whatsoever. IMO, this renders logic itself into a 'transform'. You plug in assumptions and assuming you do it right, conclusions steeped wholly in the inputs come out.

So what can be known in general is 'outputs of transformed assumptions'.

The Ham got it right though I think, in that there is a problem with reality in that you cannot escape it to see objectively that you've got all your assumptions right. Observational distance is the problem at hand. You cannot be the thing to know it. IMO, it's the opportunity cost of being a perspective. To exist, you can't be what you aren't.

As such, what can be assumed is based on experience.

So what can be known is a procession and examination of a subjective experience, and reality cannot be known - only modeled in knowing as just stated.

 

tao

 

I think this is too mental - ie. word-bound and rational. I would say that we can intuit certain things, but cannot prove them in the great wanker (oops, sorry) philosopher treatise kind of way.

It is also completely dependent on non-rational processes to bring it in contact with reality in any way. In fact even the 'sense that the last few steps in my analysis cohered' is non-rational. (You might want to hop over to my threads with Glaucon
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83678
and (plus Orleander)
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83865

How come some people are better at knowing 'other things'?

Haven't you used a model with separation, distance, locality, no effects at a distance and then used
this model to 'prove' a limitation?

 

If that was in the imperative, don't presume.

If that was in the interrogative

'tao'

If it was an assertion, you've muddied up what was already just fine.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Here's the way I think about it. Let's say I need to measure an object as accurately as possible. This object is known as an american standard ruler. All available rulers measure in inches and centimeters. The fact that ruler(a) is 12 inches long must be assumed correct to measure ruler(b). If all rulers are modeled off of one beginning ruler they will all measure similarly, but not necessarily accurately, in the chance that the first ruler was meant to be the standard rule or was meant to be used in a temporary fashion. Perhaps all points on the ruler are equidistant with each other, but in a thousand years will someone be able to take this ruler and reconstruct an object based on this system? It only takes one misrule throughout time to potentially throw off the entire system, meaning a 2000 square foot house now may cover 8 football fields because of a mismeasurement or mistranslation.

So, if I receive sensory inputs and you receive sensory inputs our sensory inputs may be ultimately different. I see the sky as a color I have been taught is blue, but that does not mean that the color I see is the same as the color you see, we merely have a similar reference. The sky is blue is a beginning, taught, assumption. I'm sure we have ways of measuring blue, but even these are based on the first assumption: The sky is blue.

If we could ask another being from outside our frame of reference to describe the color refracted by our atmosphere, (despite the potential language barrier) would it come to the conclusion that the sky is blue?

It has been postulated that we live in a multidimensional universe, but for simplicity's sake(and my own ignorance) I'll suggest we need to ask a true 4-dimensional being if we exist, because we can measure(or see completely) 3 of these, and just experience the fourth bit by bit. A fourth dimensional being, however, would look at us like we look at a drawn picture. It has a concept of our existence, but we have no way of knowing of its existence, even its interaction will be difficult for us to conceive.

So I guess I'm trying to say we need a 4-d ruler by which to measure ourselves to verify our actual existence, short of that, I propose that my existence and reality is whatever I choose for it to be, so long as my sensor inputs and motor outputs match whatever I decide.

 

Actually, translation as I saw it.

is = tao

 

It's not the words, but their meaning that's important. Honestly I'm just happy to be poking around in the darkness that words like this attempt to shed light upon. I feel extremely honored in a weird way that I have the luxury of being able to think such things. It is a deliberate but perhaps vain attempt to maintain rationality in describing my own thoughts on the nature of knowing.

I'm trying to use to words that bound rational ideas, and you say I've done so too much! Success! Lol.

No need to do so really. As I see it the wordy thing I said above isn't contradicted by this, but your point does add a wholly pertinent dimension ot the discussion that I'll try to get in on in your threads.

Sure I'll check those threads. I agree though, thinking you're right is certainly non-rational in the strict sense. I think it's a matter of faith and feeling more than anything else. "things that make sense" are based on confidence, which is at best an educated guess. I think logic is rational, but choosing to apply it isn't necessarily.

"other things"? Other than what? One knows what one knows... no? You 'are what you know' to a large extent, idnit? People are a 'knowing function' from a certain perspective. They experience things, abstract them and integrate them into conceptual relationships in the manner than their mind in particular performs its function.

Maybe, I can't tell for sure. Sort of definately, but I'd call it 'pointing out a ramification of an agreeable model'. I don't think the limitations you point out necessarily apply in a broad sense either.

If we discuss something, do we not discuss an abstract model of it?

 

Oh, I was just blurring my western impressions of a Zen monk response to another westerner's use of a Taoist 'term'. Do not confuse such a post with a something meaningful, except perhaps about me.

 

I seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

I bit slow on the uptake, pardon. Well done!

I'm still working on a more substanative response to your other post... will post in a bit.

 

X can be either true or false.
X cannot be true or false at the same time.
X cannot be neither true or false at the same time.
Humans perception does not decide whether X is true or false.
Human perception can only be either correct or incorrect regarding X being true or false.
A belief is 100% certainty about X in human perception.
Belief that X is true = 100% certainty X is true.
A belief can either be correct or incorrect.
If a human is currently 100% certain X is true, the human can either continue to believe X is true or change to believe X is false.
Regardless of what the human is currently 100% certain of, the human is either correct or incorrect.