How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Perceptive Reality   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Perceptive Reality

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


0 posted 03-08-2000 04:06 AM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

It has long been my contention, (to the great ire of a close friend,) that our "reality" is defined by our perception.


By that, I mean that what we percieve as our individual reality, (I also maintain that reality is possesive,) in fact becomes our reality. If I honestly believe that there is a red spot on the white wall next to me, then I maintain that said red spot is "real" to me.


Does a tree that falls in the woods with no one around make a sound?


Does a tree that falls in the woods, with only I around, make a sound, or is it just my peception that it does? If I percieve it to be such, does it not then follow that it is real to me? And if it is real to me, then can I not call it reality?


Go ahead, tear me up. I can handle it!  
Skyfyre
Senior Member
since 08-15-99
Posts 1966
Sitting in Michael's Lap


1 posted 03-08-2000 10:24 AM       View Profile for Skyfyre   Email Skyfyre   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Skyfyre

ARRRRRRRRGHHHHH!

No matter how deluded you may be with your red spot on the wall, my dear unstable friend, you cannot suspend the laws of physics -- the darn tree fell, and it DID make a sound -- the air moved, the wave traveled, oblivious to whether or not your ears were there to receive said disturbance!!

I do agree that reality on an individual level is measured in perception, but my contention is that there is a physical reality which cannot be altered by perception, at least not by any means that has been proven scientifically.  As I said, the tree fell -- whether or not you saw it do a jig and fly away into the lavender sky, it will still trip you when you try to walk where you say it isn't laying.  And when it does, I will be there laughing!  hehehe

--Me  



 Full fathom five thy father lies,
Of his bones are coral made,
Those are pearls that were his eyes;
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange...


--William Shakespeare, from The Tempest

Ryan
Member
since 06-10-99
Posts 318
Kansas


2 posted 03-08-2000 10:45 AM       View Profile for Ryan   Email Ryan   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ryan

Of course, then again, you all could just be in my mind.  I perceive you, therefore, you exist.  If I don't perceive something, it doesn't exist.  Only I'm real, because I am me.  I can't know that anything else is real because I am not anything else.

Yeah, yeah, it is a very self-centered philosophy, but it's fun to argue.

Ryan


 I like too many things and get all confused and hung-up running from one falling star to another till i drop. This is the night, what it does to you. I had nothing to offer anybody except my own confusion.
óJack Kerouac

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


3 posted 03-08-2000 11:39 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

And I perceive Ryan perceiving everyone else except for Trevor who perceives me, God and Catherine Zeta Jones and a wookie-suit clad Ogre (like he NEEDS a wookie-suit).  

Seriously, I think the only way we can gather information about the world around is is by perception (see, touch, taste, smell and hear) and that it is true that we interpret reality based on how we perceive it, but the notion that reality is as subjective as our perceptions just doesn't fly with me.  Our perception of reality, or, rather, our interpretation of that perception, is subjective but I am inclined to believe that reality (including laws of Physics, Kess) is objective.  

"Does a tree that falls in the woods with no one around make a sound?"

If by "sound" you mean "does it create a sensation of hearing" when nobody is around, the answer is no.  But if you mean "does it create a potential for the sensation of hearing" the answer is yes.  And if you mean "does it disturb air" then the answer is yes.  If you test your hypothesis (trees make a sound when the fall) by being present for the felling of 1000 trees then go shopping ten miles away when the 1001st tree is cut down, then return to the site, I think it is reasonable to assert that HAD you been there, you would have experienced a sensation of hearing resulting from the tree's falling.  You asked for it, Chris!  

"Does a tree that falls in the woods, with only I around, make a sound, or is it just my perception that it does? If I percieve it to be such, does it not then follow that it is real to me? And if it is real to me, then can I not call it reality?"

Again, perception is an interpretation of reality (the world around us).  The tree falling is just as real to everyone else as it is to you (even if everyone else never learns of it falling).  Your perception of the sound of the tree falling is unique to you.  The atom existed before we perceived it.  X-rays, infrared, ultraviolet, and gamma radiation existed when all we could perceive/measure was visible light.  The tree falling is real. The sensation of sound you experience resulting from the tree really falling is real not because you make it real but because you were present to interpret the potential for sensation in the disturbed air. Do you understand what I'm saying here?

Jim

StarrGazer
Senior Member
since 03-05-2000
Posts 696
Texas


4 posted 03-08-2000 01:30 PM       View Profile for StarrGazer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for StarrGazer

oh my ! My favorite subject to aggravate all of my friends and family with lol I feel that every thing we  do everything we say is a perception of our own minds no one can feel the exact same way or see the same things we see as we do at the same level etc.  in order for that to be possible one must live my life exactly precisely as I have done with this being impossible, I'm sure peoples perceptions would and do vary greatly.  Ask any one what happiness is ...love? it is so often classified as a undefinable emotions ... now ask those same people what MAKES them happy you'll get a variety of different responses and none of them are wrong!!! After all we cannot tell a person what to feel we can just accept their perception of the subject is different than ours.  lmao what a good topic !!! ...

*~*
Skyfyre ... how can you be sure the tree was standing to begin with ? Maybe that too was a perception ? lol
*~*
Look forward to reading more on this subject as I've said its a favorite of mine  


 ~*Love begins with a smile, grows with a kiss, and ends with a tear*~
HM3
Member
since 07-15-99
Posts 130
TX


5 posted 03-08-2000 07:19 PM       View Profile for HM3   Email HM3   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for HM3

My thoughts are that perception is the awareness but, perspective is what forms the reality of "it". People generally have similar experiences but can often react quite differently when sharing the same thing at the same time depending on their perspective.  Even in the animal world this happens. The best explanation is :
"Things that upset a terrier may pass virtually unnoticed by a Great Dane."


†Work like money doesn't matter, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching...




[This message has been edited by HM3 (edited 03-08-2000).]
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


6 posted 03-08-2000 10:08 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

What insight is gained by arguing things are because I say (or perceive) they are? What insight is gained by arguing things are because they are?

More later,
Brad
StarrGazer
Senior Member
since 03-05-2000
Posts 696
Texas


7 posted 03-09-2000 01:02 AM       View Profile for StarrGazer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for StarrGazer

hmmmmm maybe just insight into other peoples perceptions perhaps?
Tony Di Bart
Member
since 01-26-2000
Posts 163
Toronto, Canada


8 posted 03-12-2000 05:22 PM       View Profile for Tony Di Bart   Email Tony Di Bart   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tony Di Bart

Hello

I am a product of my enviroment
My enviroment is a product of my interpretaion
Therefore, I am a product of my own interpretion.
I am what i preceive.

  
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


9 posted 03-12-2000 05:53 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Tony,
Hope you don't think I'm picking on you, just seems we got here at roughly the same time.  I'll leave the formal logical problems of your statement to someone else. Still, your conclusion misses the point of what it is that is doing the perceiving? In order to perceive something, you have to be outside it. This becomes a rather important dilemma when one actually tries to pin down themselves. In order to see any statement about yourself, you actually have to be another 'you'. Okay, I admit this may be a little tricky to get but think about this:

If you can see yourself, who is doing the seeing? If you can see yourself seeing yourself, who is doing that seeing? Yeah, it just keeps going and going and going (kind of like that pink little rabbit).  

Brad
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


10 posted 03-12-2000 10:46 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Tony, the formal logic of your argument goes something like this:

I am a product of my enviroment -> My enviroment is a product of my interpretation -> Therefore, I am a product of my own interpretation (I am what i perceive). [A -> B -> C].

There are a few problems with this argument.  I can accept that "A" is arguably a true enough statement.  I think "B", on the other hand, is at best a slippery slope and at worst begging the question.

By a "slippery slope" I mean that your conclusion ("C") rests on the questionable truthfulness of "B".  If "B" is false then "C" is false. "My enviroment is a product of my interpretation" ... how do you know this to be true?  Can you demonstrate this to be the case?  I think the big problem word is "product" and the notion that your environment is a "product" of your "interpretation".

Sorry, don't have more time now.

Jim

Tony Di Bart
Member
since 01-26-2000
Posts 163
Toronto, Canada


11 posted 03-12-2000 11:27 PM       View Profile for Tony Di Bart   Email Tony Di Bart   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tony Di Bart

Hello

I'm starting to like this.  

Brad

First, I do not feel that you are picking on me but thanks for the concern.  As far as answering your questions and Jim I'll try and do this all in one go.  First, if I prove B then my statment stands.  Is that correct?  I am proceeding on this premise.

How do I know that my enviorment is infact a product of my interpretion?  Well. first and foremost I would like to state that in no way am I denying the existence of the physical, what ever that is.  If I ask you what a camera is you have an idea about what a camera is, a mental image if you like.  THis iamge has been formed by all the cameras you have seen.  However, if I ask soemone who has never seen a camera what a camera is then they would not know what it is Therfore your interpretion is diffrent and a product of your enviorment.

Let's takes this from the physical to the cerebral.  The life experience that you have and anoter has is diffrent.  This diffrence leads us to deal with the same situation diffrently. For example soemone who was made to feel stupid as a child-as an adult will react diffrently to someone calling them ignorant as oppposed to someone who was made to feel intelligent.  They are exposed to the same stimulus and react diffrently.  If we take it to the next step.  Some people see adversity as a challenge to overcome, some see-it as oh no not again and do nothing.  Again same stimulus diffrent reaction.  Therfore, how they react to something is entirly dependent on how they see the situation, regardless of the situation.

Also, Brad to get back to your question about
who is seeing, and if I know I am seeing who is seeing etc.  

YOu cannot remove the observer from the enviorment. You are always a part of the enviorment.  However, you can interpret the enviorment diffrently from me.    Therfore, your enviorment is diffrent from mine and therefore, your interpretaion is diffrent and if you are a product of your enviorment then
you are also a product of your interpretion.

Circular. i know.

Thanks

i do not  know if make any sense or not but thanks for the stimulation

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


12 posted 03-13-2000 02:05 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Tony,
Well, not exactly.  Let's take a look at you first statement again:

I am a product of my environment

--Well, okay. But you seem to be arguing is that everything you see and don't see, perceive and don't perceive is the environment. You could go so far as to include DNA (thereby circumventing the Nature/nurture debate) and, if you wanted to,  even spirituality (the soul). If this is the case, then I have no problems with this statement. However, it also doesn't say anything. If a statement explains everything, it explains nothing. Try it sometime and you'll realize what I mean. Or, I don't know, maybe you do already.  

My environmment is a product of my interpretation

--If my above definition for 'environment' is correct, then this, by definition, is a false statement. Your environment has to be things that you cannot interpret, cannot perceive. You cannot look behind you and forward at the same time. Well, I can't anyway. There are unseen factors working in your environment that makes you what you are (a dynamic individual -- self-aware -- you partially perceive yourself as separate from the environment around you). You said that no person can get outside their environment. I agree (see above definition) but that was exactly my point. You cannot see, interpret, or perceive everything.  You are bound my limited perception unless you are God.  

Therefore, I am a product of my own interpretion.

Well, I've already pointed out the flaw but I wonder if you're not essentializing 'I' here.  'I' is not always, cannot be, only your conscious thoughts for those conscious thoughts are dependent on something else.  You would say they are dependent on the environment, I guess, and therein lies the problem here. Even if conceivably you could know all possible factors in your environment, you still could not know how you know that.  This is called various things but  this idea of everything, this sense of immediacy would dissolve your ability to differentiate the very 'I' your talking about.  

I am what i perceive.

But how do you perceive this? You can believe this, I guess, but it rests on the same shaky ground as objectivity does.  Why do you want to limit yourself anyway?

Brad
Tony Di Bart
Member
since 01-26-2000
Posts 163
Toronto, Canada


13 posted 03-13-2000 08:05 PM       View Profile for Tony Di Bart   Email Tony Di Bart   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tony Di Bart

Hey Brad

Thanks for your reply.  Agian I have no time but I will return to further answer your questions.  as far as the last statment you make about limiting myself.  I think the oposite is true. If I realize that I and I alone am responsible for the self defeating bable then I cease to say the world effects me and I am such.  I am waht I chose and therfore can change my own perception and thus who and what I am, perceptually and otherwise.  This is the basis of all transformational thinking and movements.  In fact I would say that it is necessary.  

See ya
Mellon Collie
Junior Member
since 03-25-2000
Posts 49
united states of america


14 posted 03-26-2000 04:40 PM       View Profile for Mellon Collie   Email Mellon Collie   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mellon Collie's Home Page   View IP for Mellon Collie

dear christopher,

     being a former nihlist and therefore very familiar with the writings of nietzsche and other anti-realist philosophers, i often find myself pondering and posing this exact same question.  the one i use most often is "how can you be sure that what you percieve as 'green' is the same color shade as what i percieve as 'green?'  For all we know, you could be seeing the color i call 'blue' and i could be seeing what is actually orange, and both of us would be calling it green."  i nearly gave the entire senior class brain tumors over this one.  anyway, i've finally conluded that this is a question without answer. i have adopted the idea now that all things are based upon some measure of faith.  i have faith that when a tree falls, the sound i hear is from the air waves moving from the tree's movement, etc. etc.  science and all of nature is seen through the eyes of faith, whether we like to admit it or not.  can we actually PROVE that anything makes sound?  not absolutely, but we can certainly prove it to ourselves, and once we have done that we can prove it to others.  once everyone accepts something, it becomes "true" in our eyes -- indisputable and solid, while in truth nothing is.  everything is a matter of faith.  as for your question concerning individual realities, this is another question impossible to answer.  it really is a nihlistic concept: we cannot know anything for certain (what is blue?), and if we could know then we could not tell anyone (language is ineffecient to portray truth) and finally, even if we could tell them they could not understand (how do we know they are seeing the same blue we are?).  just a few of my thoughts.

sincerely,
the beautiful freak
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


15 posted 03-27-2000 03:30 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Trees falling is not the question. The question is,

   If a man speaks in the woods and his wife is not there to hear him, is he still wrong?


Pete
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


16 posted 03-28-2000 01:23 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Pete,
Of course!  
Brad
warmhrt
Senior Member
since 12-18-1999
Posts 1566


17 posted 03-28-2000 01:28 AM       View Profile for warmhrt   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for warmhrt

Christopher, I totally agree with you (but I hate that tree question).

Every person on earth has a brain that is uniquely their own...meaning different from everyone elses'. Each person has a different amount of developed nerve pathways and chemicals in their brains to enable message transmission. So, it would follow that each person, who would also have unique sensory organs, would take in information about our environment via those organs a bit differently from another. The next step is to process the sensory information in our unique brains. The product of the processing is our perceptions, which, in turn, determines our reality. Thus, each person has his/her own reality.

That doesn't mean we won't see things close to the same as another...we will, but there will also be differences.

The tree question answers itself...it tells us a tree has fallen, so, a tree has fallen...whether anyone hears it or not.

JMHO
Kris

[This message has been edited by warmhrt (edited 03-28-2000).]
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


18 posted 08-26-2000 08:20 AM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

Bumping in light of the recent "Reality" post by Lady Lost.
Trevor
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


19 posted 08-26-2000 12:05 PM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

There is reality,
there is perceptions of reality
and then there is the reality of one's perceptions.

Thinking or knowing does not change reality, reality is the ultimate trueism and can not be argued, only one's perception of such can be argued. What is real is real whether or not we can gauge it accurately. If you imagine pink elephants dancing the Irish jig over the moon then the reality is most likely that you have some major mellon problems and not that cosmonautical elephants can dance   Now you may act accordingly to what you think you see and it may affect you as if it were real but the truth is that what you are percieving to be true-is false, the reality is that you are wrong in thinking that you are right.

Kris:

"The product of the processing is our perceptions, which, in turn, determines our reality. Thus, each person has his/her own reality."

We can not have different realities only different perceptions of realities though these may govern our lives as if they are actually real when in fact the only "realness" they have is that we think them the truth. The reality of a lie is that it can seem as real as the truth and govern our actions as if it was the truth. Our different perceptions of reality does not equate to a different reality only to different responses and thoughts. The reality of differences lies not in a different reality only in different perceptions of reality. Reality is that which is real, scrutinized by perception does not change that, only our thoughts on reality change, though reality may be capable of change. In my opinion people often confuse opinions with truths and it seems like this is the case in this thread, perceptions are opinions and reality is the truth. Just because a judge declares a man guilty does not actually mean the man is guilty. Whether I am right or wrong about this subject does not change the truth of the matter and the reality of what I am saying is that I may only be thinking I am right when in fact I may be wrong. Something which is real can not be unreal at the same time, if this is true, then there is only one reality.

Well that's my little blurb on the shamdamnthingymabobber. Sorry if its all over the place type of banter. Thanks,

Trevor
Moon Dust
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 06-11-99
Posts 2250
Skelmersdale, UK


20 posted 08-26-2000 07:54 PM       View Profile for Moon Dust   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Moon Dust

If a tree falls and no-one is around to see it what colour is it?

Answer: no colour

We are there to see our own Reality.

"Those who will not learn to use this instrument well cannot be saved by an expanded alphabet; they will only afflict us with expanded gibberish"
~
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


21 posted 08-26-2000 09:47 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I really don't have an opinion.  Just wanted to look at Christopher's pic again....
JP
Senior Member
since 05-25-99
Posts 1391
Loomis, CA


22 posted 08-28-2000 03:01 PM       View Profile for JP   Email JP   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit JP's Home Page   View IP for JP

Laws of physics?  A ridiculous notion.  physical laws only exist if we are there to obsever them in action.

If a tree falls in the forest.....  That is assuming that there is a tree in the forest if no one is there, or if there even is a forest.... forget about if it makes a sound or not.

physical laws are only valid once they prove themselves, we can believe the sun will rise every morning because of what we believe we know about the universe and its movements, but until that sun rises in the morning we cannot be sure it will.  We infer the knowledge of these physical laws through our past experience, "the sun has risen everyday since one can remember, so we can infer that it will rise again tomorrow..."

Bertrand Russell would ask if that red spot on the wall which appears to you is the same spot on the wall that appears to me, and is it the same spot which you see standing up and well as sitting down?  Or from different locations in the room?  The only thing that we can be relatively sure of is that there is matter, what shape it takes is completely dependent upon our individual reality.



Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn.
JP

"Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway
JnR4eva
Member
since 08-07-2000
Posts 380
Bronx, NY


23 posted 08-28-2000 07:13 PM       View Profile for JnR4eva   Email JnR4eva   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JnR4eva

Hey there...I dared not looked at the other replies simply b/c there are too many  
and what I will say has most likely already been said 20 different times over but hey, I still wish to add my two cents.....

OK i think it basically stems from which point of view one is coming from...you can believe in realism or idealism..or another branch which I shall not get into for I do not too much about it but its called (generative realism) which is really a combo of both..which is what I believe in.

ok if there is a red spot, is that red spot in fact a red spot?

everyone will perceive it differently therefore how can any one claim that this spot is really a red spot?...a color blind person will claim its green, a madman will possibly claim its a black square...as an idealist u will argue how do we know that such a red spot is in fact red for in it is only the sensory stimulation which is relaying the message to the brain...so for instance if i perceive a red spot...but my sensory organs are telling my brain, green square..then i am forced to know a green square b/c i didn't know that it was a red spot from the beginning!!!  but the prob. with this is that an idealist will denounce the valid world b/c they can never be sure from WHAT they are receiving these sensations from!! i could have perceived a red spot from viewing a whale swimming 30 fathoms under the sea!!!

Yet the prob. with that is despite that we don't know that the red spot is a red spot...there is something out there for us to make us perceive that! so in a nutshell independent from anybody's perception, it further strengthens the case that a real and valid world does exist.  And that's where idealist get stuck.

then you get into realism which states that yes there is a REAL  and valid world from which our sensory organs perceives.  and this makes sense but the prob. with the realist is that he/she can not explain the connectives dealt with seeing a world and then PERCEIVING IT....for instance when we view an elephant, our minds do not 'explode' from the picture that we have of the elephant b/c its sooo big..our brains have coded it somehow someway to make it smaller, yet they don't know how ... and we must keep in mind that we do not see 'codes' when we see the elephant..we see the real thing...so how does the brain take that information from the elephant and code it?  how do we experience that elephant?  from neurological stimulation? yet how can that be if we sense the elephant and NOT stimulation's taking place in the brain?...so this is how the realist has gotten into trouble b/c they can't explain where or how the sensations from viewing to perceiving take place.

with my understanding been said i will say that yes... a red spot does exist for i have perceived this..and this has become MY reality independent from what the REAL world has displayed to me, and independent of how others may see this 'spot'...yet I cannot know for sure that it is a red spot unless I am assuming I'm a sane man (which I am), that there is no deceiving demon or god tricking me (which I doubt), that my sensory organs are working 100% (which I hope), that I am not dreaming( which is probably not the case)  

Yet how can I be sure of these philosophical criteria?...well I can't!!!! I just have to hope so.

the issue of the tree ... well being that i believe in the valid real world...YES the tree does exist and if it will fall, but if NOBODY is there to hear the tree fall, then by our definition of sound and hearing this tree will not make a squeak since nobody is there to pick up the sound waves which come off that tree as it falls...however if there are birds in the area...then yes..it has made a sound   for they will be the recipients of the waves
so yes it will be real to me if i were there when it fell, can i call it my reality? YES..can I call it the REAL reality that exist independent of our perceptions?..well assuming that u can be sure of those philosophical criteria mentions before..then yes you can..but if not, then sorry, you've only got a portion of this puzzle correct.  

Hope this made sense  


"my love is my motivation
my love is my inspiration
perception of this poem
is your interpretation"
-- rlt


JnR4eva
Member
since 08-07-2000
Posts 380
Bronx, NY


24 posted 08-29-2000 01:02 AM       View Profile for JnR4eva   Email JnR4eva   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JnR4eva

Hi again, I actually did get around to reading every single reply....man there is some good, and silly stuff in here...I wanted to comment on JP's comment a little for something wasn't right as I was reading...

"Laws of physics?  A ridiculous notion.  Physical laws only exist if we are there to observer them in action.(JP)"

Really? Do they?  then how can we account for the dinosaurs that existed here in this earth?...are we rejecting their existence?  That there once was a warm sun to provide them with warmth?  That there was once water that aided in their survival?  

We were never there during this time period to 'witness' their existence and the world around them but we surely do hold that they did exist for evidence is excavated from the earth virtually everyday.  Plus scientific breakthroughs have lead scientist to very good deductive reasoning for their existence...then how so are the laws of physics a ridiculous notion if they have been taking their course before we even existed?

"physical laws are only valid once they prove themselves, we can believe the sun will rise every morning because of what we believe we know about the universe and its movements, but until that sun rises in the morning we cannot be sure it will.  We infer the knowledge of these physical laws through our past experience, "the sun has risen everyday since one can remember, so we can infer that it will rise again tomorrow..."(JP)

i was reading this and i was saying to myself (and i claim that  maybe its JUST me lol)  but this doesn't seem as a physical question..it seems to be more a philosophical question which might perhaps borrow from physical thinking.  it isn't a PROVEN fact that the sun will shine (or rather that the world will continue to rotate, and the planets will continue to rotate)
we know HOW AND WHY (to some extent) the sun will most likely shine everyday but it just isn't proven physically that the sun WILL rise everday!!!...that is more philosophical..don't u think?  to me e=mc^2 is a physical law....or that the integral of acceleration is its velocity, or that the double integral is its distance...those are physical laws...for they are proven through scientific techniques...but not that question u have asked...to ME it seems more philosophical than a physical proven law. (i mean scientist do believe that sun will explode one day...so I guess that would further prove why it will not shine every day lol)..i don't know maybe it's me....
Hope this made sense   .


"my love is my motivation
my love is my inspiration
perception of this poem
is your interpretation"
-- rlt




[This message has been edited by JnR4eva (edited 08-29-2000).]
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Perceptive Reality   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors