Originally posted by cuchullainuk777
No matter how,and what way you bend,shape,formulate it the 'objective' it has no reality independant of our 'subjective' perception of 'IT'.And that a load of bollox you say about comprehending the objective,subjectivley think about it i hammer my thumb you can know of my pain but do you know my pain up close and personal?whats it like to be a bat?There is no cognition of any reality that exists independently of cognition.

That first sentence, your saying that reality does not exist unless we are here to perceive it? if you were not here the universe would not exist?

or your saying it has no specific meaning, or existence, unless we are in our perception to place a meaning or existence on it?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by cuchullainuk777
No matter how,and what way you bend,shape,formulate it the 'objective' it has no reality independant of our 'subjective' perception of 'IT'.And that a load of bollox you say about comprehending the objective,subjectivley think about it i hammer my thumb you can know of my pain but do you know my pain up close and personal?whats it like to be a bat?There is no cognition of any reality that exists independently of cognition.

That first sentence, your saying that reality does not exist unless we are here to perceive it? if you were not here the universe would not exist?

or your saying it has no specific meaning, or existence, unless we are in our perception to place a meaning or existence on it?

edit on 3-2-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I dont know what reality exists outside of my perception of reality,so my reality is my perception of it.i fire it back at you,is it possible to 'know' in the epistemological sense anything without first perceiving it?i wanted to elucidate this point more by making an analogous link to the unreality of time in order to press home in a more emphatic way what i mean.its late and im shattered ill get back to you on this one

Originally posted by cuchullainuk777
I dont know what reality exists outside of my perception of reality,so my reality is my perception of it.i fire it back at you,is it possible to 'know' in the epistemological sense anything without first perceiving it?i wanted to elucidate this point more by making an analogous link to the unreality of time in order to press home in a more emphatic way what i mean.its late and im shattered ill get back to you on this one

you dont know what reality exists outside of your perception of reality, so your reality is your perception of it...

id say thats true... im tired as well and not sure what were even arguing... what you described is the subjectivity of being human,, is what were speaking of relate to platos allegory of the cave

you do understand and assume that reality beyond your perception exists? such as the microscopic world, atoms,, and the cosmos we cannot directly perceive but now have ways of viewing... so this has to do with what you the perceiver also makes of your perceptions, what you believe them to represent.. and as you grow, it could be every day that your reality changes.... it come be within seconds... if we are facing each other and i see a bald eagle behind you about to attack, you have no way of perceiving it, it is not apart of your reality,.... also you would take perceiving to include all of our senses, and scientific apparatus.... is this an argument of awareness... does our society have a grander perception, more accurate perception of reality then humans did 3000 years ago? if i cant prove something exists in reality with my perception, or prove to your perception ( pics or it didn't happen) then that something i wish to prove does not exist.... what if 2000 years ago someone said in the future there will be cars.... what if someone tried convincing people the earth was round, and in reality he was correct, but the people of the time could not perceive his more accurate claims of reality..... is it cheating for me to assume that everything that i dont know exists, exists somewhere, some how, some when.

is it possible to know anything without first perceiving it.... I think you got me,, in the sense i immediately realize, our knowledge... what we know is a product of all of our senses, or perceptions,, that the only way we know anything is our senses to perceive,.. but at the same time,,. once we achieve a certain level of base input,.,. we can create original ideas that have no grounding in perceptual reality? the definition of knowing is tough because what we think we "know" changes, i know you gave the definition of know.... but if you tell me all about a circle, and i can imagine it, would you telling me about it be my perception, or you dont think i could truly know a circle without perceiving.... a blind man can draw a circle with his finger in the sand to know a circle....... this reminds me of AI,, how can a computer truly know the significance and scope of the human data it is inputted with, if it can never perceive this earthly reality.... in a way we are artificial intelligence which has senses, we determine our own input to a degree, and how we like to compute, what to memorize, etc...

i might have missed a lot of ideas i could have embellished or traversed but yea, if you can weed out any coherence and reply back, that would be cool.

Originally posted by Ralphy
Do people deny being subjective in life to try to assert that their ego is in full control of their life? These seem like the people that think everything can be controlled and predicted. It sure makes the ego look good to say that it is not subjected to anything other than itself which doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not trying to make this a god issue but we are still subject to reality whether you want to call it god or something else.

Ralphy....I have a MASSIVE EGO. I need it. I am not petty and I never treat people as if I am above them but I have certain functions to perform and this Big Ego is a necessity.

There is a difference between have a False Ego and having a Massive EGO for a purpose. The person with a false ego is usually someone of very little capability other than to be able to exert control over a small group of others that a just a small step down in knowledge than this other person or perhaps they are even smarter but lack the ability to exert their knowledge or wisdom or have leadership ability.

I am a leader in multiple aspects of things...Companies, Entertainment....and a third job that I do time to time which is dangerous. In all three of these things...people are counting on me to know what to do...they expect me to...and this is my job...to lead them and solve problems and I have been doing this for over 25 years in one and longer in the others.

My point is...without my ability to call upon my EGO...I could not do my jobs. People sometimes confuse EGO with arrogance...that is true if a person of strong ego will not take advice or think they have done and seen it all or the one thing my Parents and a Professor taught me....there is ALWAYS something new to learn every day and never dismiss an idea before hearing it out just because you have made the mistake of prejudging the sourse of the information.

I am a World Class Musician who still tours although not as much because I am older. But to get up on stage infront of 100,000 people at an outdoor gig....takes a set. and EGO at that exact point is everything.
Split Infinity