It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Astyanax
...the underlying reality remains the same. The differences are in the sensory and cognitive apparatus, not in what is presented to it.
Why bother to reply at all, then?
I have no difficulties with understanding your words. What I don't understand why you're being so confrontational.
FRom my point of view that sounds like repeating exactly what I tried to say. The wide variety of different experiences that exist in human perception as whole indicates the possibility that this objective reality might be bigger and more complex than any individual, or any group of individuals, can ascertain.
If you understand my words, then why ask me to make them more comprehensible and less numerous?
originally posted by: Astyanax
No, that is completely wrong. It has nothing to do with the theory or the topic under discussion. This, I'm afraid, has been your mistake from the beginning.
Adaptive function, not veridical perception, is what is important.
FRom my point of view that sounds like repeating exactly what I tried to say.
The wide variety of different experiences that exist in human perception as whole indicates the possibility that this objective reality might be bigger and more complex than any individual, or any group of individuals, can ascertain.
I do not claim to understand what this objective reality consists of (like I said, I've always pretty much assumed we cannot see it completely as it is, we are trapped within subjectivity), ultimately, (as I said in my first post) how we can then make any claims upon the perception of others with confidence?
But "are they percieving objective reality as it is?", is a very subtly different question in wording,
but vastly different in meaning , then "Do they percieve the same forms of reality as the majority around them?”
originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
All of our experiences are limited by our ability to describe them to each other. No matter how well we do explain - with words, science, math, art, music, interpretive dance or finger puppets - we are still trying to explain a personal experience that can’t be experienced by the other person
originally posted by: Astyanax
If you understand my words, then why ask me to make them more comprehensible and less numerous?
Must you ask? I would rather not give you further occasion to be offended.
Two people observe two horses. One says, these are both yellow horses. They are the same in coloring.
The other slaps their head and declares Oh my god, are you kidding? One is a dun, the other is a buckskin!
It's obvious, what are you- stupid?
That person could, in fact, choose to be amicable and kindly explain the difference and point out the details which distinguish the two. These details may suddenly come into focus for the other, and they would gain two new concepts or images in mind to file under the previous thought catagory of "yellow horses".
originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Funny - you just described how this conversation is not going to go
But you still haven't explained reality
You are like a dog with a bone when you have an idea
A glass of wine in front of a blazing fire would be more conducive, I think. (and more fun!)
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Bluesma
Look: this is from your first post.
You misunderstood right from the outset. This is not a subjective vs. objective story. It's not 'different people see the same thing different ways.' It's about how everybody (except for Aunty Acid) sees the same thing the same way, but what they're seeing isn't actually the Ding an sich, the thing in itself; just a model of it.
Your entire participation in the thread seems (correct me if I am wrong) to have been based on this technical error. It is what I have been seeking to correct. Develop your own ideas based on the theory by all means, but get the theory right first, no?
I don't even remember the first time I was introduced to the theory that humans may not be capable of percieving the world in a truly objective way - there is always a subjective twist, no matter how subtle.
Whether what humans percieve (as a whole, or individually) is objective reality as it truly is(ding an sich) is EXACTLY what I started off from, what I started with (as made obvious in the quote of mine you included) and what I continued with.
a percept that ALL humans share is therefore, a subjective percept!
I guess my mistake in my way of writing was using the term "objective reality" in the place of using "ding an sich". I thought that would be more widely understood, as not all are familiar with Kant. I wondered why some keep repeating back to me exactly what I asserted over and over!
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Bluesma
This could have been such an interesting thread. It's a topic that opens up a whole Pandora's chest of strange and wonderful implications. You have ruined it with your insistence on dragging it back to the mundane, tedious Philosophy 101 question of subjective vs. objective perception.
you are genuinely incapable of understanding the difference people have been patiently trying to explain to you.
What the OP is saying is that a reality exists - but we can't ever really know that reality. We can only know our relationship to it.
The interface malefunction is maybe in reality a "reading-comprehension-skill" problem. When someone confuses the symbol with the meaning, or used an exterior key to interpret instead of the own set of experiences and intuition.
There are of course some commonly shared facts. Like 4=4...
But for ghosts, aliens etc. it looks a lot like the subconscience is messing with the experiencer. Which doesn't mean it isn't very real for that person, but maybe a symbol for feeling hopeless, or sthg?
Your objectively perfect impression of a pigeon playing chess has pretty much closed the thread down.
This I shall not forget.
REALITY
⬇️
GUI
⬇️
OBSERVERS (A, B... Z)
I did read it. I also went further and read his paper. I doubt you went any further than what was placed in front of you. No, too much work.
I did read it. I also went further and read his paper.
Space, time, position and momentum are among the properties and categories of the interface of H. sapiens that, in all likelihood, resemble nothing in the objective world.
We can only see the world through our posteriors.
Real progress in understanding the relation between perception and the world requires careful theory building. The conventional theory that perception approximates the world is hopelessly simplistic. Once we reject this facile theory, once we recognize that our perceptions are to the world as a user interface is to a computer, we can begin serious work. We must postulate, and then try to justify and confirm, possible structures for the world and possible mappings between world and interface. Clinging to approximate isomorphisms is a natural, but thus far fruitless, response to this daunting task. It’s now time to develop more plausible theories.
*
I doubt you went any further than what was placed in front of you. No, too much work.