I see your point. “Zero access” is not a well-chosen phrase. At least not without additional disclaimers or elaborations.
No issue with your points about science and the rest of our ability to function, etc; I’m certainly not trying to assert otherwise.
But what if you believe that you have zero access to reality?
Fair enough but have you read his PP?
I disagree. There is an immediate experience that precedes even perception. I believe it is what Edmund Husserl was trying to describe with his epoche method. (Sorry, too early to figure out how to get a ^ over the last e.)
IANAPhilosopher or an academic. My only way of explaining what seems contradictory (how can our experience precede our perception?) is by using a sort of philosophical calculus.
Using the difference quotient involves using an equation repeatedly to find the point where it breaks down. Conveniently, it breaks down right at the point one was looking for all along.
At some point, in trying to describe reality, we get to a point where we can no longer sufficiently describe our perception without distorting the image by being too far removed from it. This is the point where the tool (the equation) breaks down.
In other words, we have memories and perceptions of our experience, but they are not one in the same. Memories and perception are not identical to experience.
But concluding that there is a reality has no impact on reality itself.
I disagree. In fact, it is our experience that informs us when our constructed reality – the reality we build from our drawn conclusions – does not agree with matters-at-hand.
My personal belief is that for every “Ha!” moment, as you describe it, there is a moment when we feel we are completely incapable of understanding even the most basic aspects of the comprehensible universe… the matters-at-hand. I think it is a basic error to assume that because we are confused, so reality must be confused. Again, fluctuations in our experience of reality have no impact on reality.
I was going to fix the title before I moved this thread from IMHO, but who am I to question someone else’s reality? For all I know, in his universe “g” means “h”.
Whatever my personal views of the quality of any poster, we have found that accusations of trolling are actually more disruptive of threads than they are worth, so the policy is that one may accuse another poster of trolling in the BBQ Pitas a general insult, but that actual accusations of trolling, (even in the Pit), should be handled by simply reporting the poster or post to the staff without being posted in an open thread.
[ /Modding ]
Mac: Option i followed by the vowel you wish to wear the hat. ê.
I’m not really a Husserlian. Phenomenologist, whatever. (I believe he was the “back to the things” fellow? Believed we could bracket off our everyday believe-system crap and see things “just as they are”? I’m not way off-channel from that viewpoint but there’s a point of departure. Let’s move on for now…)
That makes sense to me, but I think it’s a matter of degree rather than “some point” prior to which point it was not a problem. I think from the first moment one would eve try to DESCRIBE reality (encode it into any kind of descriptors) there’s going to be a gap between the (experienced) reality and the description thereof. But moving back to where you seem to be going with this, yeah, it gets wider and at “a certain point” (loosely wave-of-the-hand gestured-at rather than a specific point) we can agree that “it breaks down”, go on…
This is either a semantic difference or a very real difference of opinion and we should address this. I would consider the perception to BE the experience, but let’s define or at least describe a term here: by “perception” I refer to sensations and emotions, raw nerve-ending stuff, in the absence of which the human body is incapable of having an experience of a “thing”. I suppose the human mind could experience its own cogitations without reference to any immediate sensory input, but experiencing that blue sky or that tree or Johnson’s rock requires the proverbial 5 senses (and any others that exist but missed the 5-item list — still perceptions). What I’m disincluding is interpretations, evaluations, recognitions. Those come after. If all this reads as true to you, sounds like we’re just using the word “perceptions” differently.
Continuing…
It has no impact on external reality, if we are excising our own (observing, concluding) self from “reality” for the moment. Correct, our conclusions’ impact is on our ongoing construction of our (to borrow from Pirsig) analogue of reality. Our internal model of reality, which is the “reality” that we work with.
Not only do I not disagree with you, that’s the point I was making. Or rather I disagree with you that you disagree with me, you do NOT disagree with me! Our ONGOING experience of reality (which is our experience, actually, of ourselves IN RELATIONSHIP TO it — necessarily so) prompt a constant comparison and revision of our analogue of reality. When the experience does not converge nicely with the expected experience, when things fail to “make sense”, we are prompted to investigate further, curious and disconcerted (the WTF reaction). Were we NOT constantly modifying our analogue of reality, it would be a rather lousy map and our ability to function in the world would be dismal.
Also, we compare notes. Extensively so. In academic, this is given so much emphasis that it quite often washes out the “raw experience” part of the process (in their theories, I mean), that is to say that the entire analogue of reality inside of people’s heads it attributed ENTIRELY to the social process of comparing notes, at which point the only notes to compare are the notes of prior comparisons with other people, so that people are “constructing reality”. This, I think, is Husserl’s ‘everyday conceptions’ crap that he urges us to ‘bracket off’ to get ‘back to the things’ (?)… but I think these academics are wrong, we are back to the proverbial things all the time. But they, too, are only wrong by being so absolute about it. We do indeed rely very extensively on the notes-comparison process. People who build an analogue of reality that does match their experiences but which is contradicted by other people when they go to compare notes are usually very uncomfortable people. And the other people are usually very uncomfortable with them in return.
See above about the ongoing nature of experiencing, interpreting, and revising the analogue of reality.
If your inclination is to nod with most of this but to say “hey right here, got a problem with this part” about this snippet:
… let me know.
Trolling? Of course chowder was insulting SmashTheState, but I don’t recall the specific accusation of trolling ever coming up. The accusation (which, it should go without saying, I am not making right now, just referring to) was that SmashTheState was sincerely too loopy to bother engaging with. Inappropriate for this forum, yes, but an assertion of trolling, no.
You’re right. Smash has been collecting so many observations about his posting style that I confused which poster’s comments I was addressing.
Regardless, derogatory comments about other posters are still more appropriate to the BBQ Pit.
Oh solipsism, how I’ve missed thee.
No, I wouldn’t say it’s lying. It would be a lie to say that such isn’t the case. But it’s not a lie, even of omission, to tell someone something they specifically don’t want to know. I mean, really? What’s the alternative? To rape their minds by thrusting into it unwanted information?
There’s an onus on people to do a little bit in the way of learning things. If they don’t want to learn, you’re not lying to them by leaving them as dumb as you found them.
How can we understand anything without some common frame of reference?
This confuses me. I presume by difference quotient, you mean f = [f(x+h) - f(x)]/h, right? If so, I’m curious why you think it’s necessary to use it repeatedly to find the “point where it breaks down” (whatever that means).
Since this follows from above, I’m stumped. Are you saying that you (please keep me out of your predicate) don’t have the ability to describe what you experience? Being “too far removed” from something doesn’t distort it. Indeed, the distortions that are present are smoothed over by distance. It’s about finding the right perspective, the appropriate scale, to well-define something.
Indeed. Our memories are faulty and rarely, if ever, perfectly render what happened. That all presumes, of course, that we actually perfectly experience reality.
Right, reality exists independent of us. Nothing we choose to call reality, or not call it actually affects it; it does its own thing oftentimes in spite of what we want. (This is where, I gather, prayer comes in).
Because it requires more than one value to have a difference.
That means that when you divide by zero the result is undefined.
Where is your evidence?
Pointillism comes to mind as an apt example.
I’m guessing we need to break down the so-called difference quotient.
[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h.
The “more than one value” comes from the “x+h” bit. No matter what function you start with, you’ll evaluate that function at x plus a little bit more. The little bit more part is arbitrary. You can use whatever you’d like. So, now we have our function, f, evaluated at x plus a little bit from which we then subtract our function, f, evaluated at x. And that, dear readers, is the difference bit of the difference quotient.
Now, to discuss the quotient part of the difference quotient. “h” in this case isn’t relevant because we choose h to determine our accuracy. But it’s completely irrelevant what’s happening at x as we’re interested in what’s happening really, really close to x. We get that arbitrary degree of closeness by choosing a very small value for h.
Of course, you’re correct that we cannot divide by zero, but that’s irrelevant. The difference and quotient parts are different. But let’s assume that we have [f(x)-f(x)]/h. Big deal. We wind up with 0/h, for which the value of h no longer matters. Even if we let h = 0, all we’ve done is come up with an indeterminate form which would just make us evaluate the limit differently (L’Hospital’s Rule). Or are you suggesting that when dealing with the difference part, that somehow determines what we choose for h?
I’m just still confused why you’d have to do this process more than once. Indeed, other than a demonstration to students, I can’t see how it would be useful to use the difference in calculus without just slapping a limit on it. Indeed, the entire system of differential calculus depends on that limit in this definitional equation.
I’m not saying your point isn’t valid; I’m saying that I don’t understand it. So, I guess you’d have to explain it to me.
If you’re going to keep patting me on the back I’m going to have to re-evaluate your claims!
That I don’t understand what it is you think you’re saying cuts against you, not for you.
Reality exists independent of us. All you’ve shown is that whatever it is you think is happening (and we’ll assume it’s true and real) is beyond my ability to perceive it. But, despite my limitations, it will march on unfettered.
Also, you could just explain your point more cogently. Like, you know, the misunderstanding you have of the difference quotient. Or in the alternative, show that what you think is correct, but that I’m simply too limited to get it.
Still missing it. It isn’t to be found here.
Damn. You know how to dash one’s hopes, huh?
“These are not the differences you are looking for.”
Here’s a thought. Any physicist will tell you that the real reality is not what we experience through the sense that are part of that experience. Quantum physics goes further into mystical ideas of infinite simultaneous multiverses and the observer realising the observation from multiple potentials. I find that a bit of a confusion between the known and what may exist independent of knowledge: it certainly implies a metaphysical link-up to imply that once Schrödinger’s Cat is observed to be alive or dead that fixes its state for all observers throughout the universe. Then again, Roger Penrose in The Emperor’s New Mind considers Mind to be just such a quantum phenomenon with non-local implications that give credence to the mystics’ idea that all Minds are instances of One Mind schizophrenically unaware of their unity.
So, what if every observer creates their own universe from quantum probability? Each universe is of course conditioned by continuity with what has gone before and by the experience of others, so differences are infinitesimal: the cosmos of common consent is the sum of probabilities into the most probable.
Now what if minds strong enough are able to impose their less probable reality locally upon others? What if the rules of common consent differ between whole groups of minds? Supposing that if belief in devils and pixies and alien races is sufficiently widespread in a population that devils and pixies and aliens actually are part of their reality? I’m not talking simple belief in the existence of these things, I mean that when nuns of the Middle Ages recorded one of their number with the bad habit of levitating during Mass and flying round the ceiling she actually did because their belief made an improbable universe probable.
Carl Sagan gives this some support in Demon Haunted World (I think: it may be elsewhere). A fake Ouija Board experiment was set up with the ‘spirit’ which would appear given a credible Tudor background. Everything worked as planned but then it went further: the ‘spirit’ started to give extra period information that checked out as correct; it added to its biography as well. It behaved as if belief and intent really had created a Tudor ghost.
Alexandra David-Neel tells of creating a thought-form while in Tibet in the 1930s. Only she could actually see it but her servant (this is the 1930s - of course she had a servant!) could see something, a sort of shimmer like heat haze. All very well, but she could not control it and had the Devil’s own job (some would take that literally!) to get rid of it! It is fully in keeping with Tibetan Buddhist belief, that the observed universe is purely subjective and when we all become Enlightened enough to stop taking it seriously, we shall be free of it.