Teach me some philsosophy, please.

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm not a fan.

I think ideas are justified via a subordinate relationship to physical realities not interrelationships between ideas.

You might ask, if all beliefs are justified by other beliefs, then where do the first beliefs come from?

 

[mzungu]

I'm not a fan.

I think ideas are justified via a subordinate relationship to physical realities not interrelationships between ideas.

I beg to differ with you; Ideas can be justified by interrelationships between ideas. It all depends on the ideas that give forth justification to a greater idea. Perhaps an example on why ideas an idea cannot be justified by the interrelationship between ideas is called for?

Philosophy is not bound by the strict rules of empirical science.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You might ask, if all beliefs are justified by other beliefs, then where do the first beliefs come from?

If beliefs were always merely justified by other beliefs, then there would be no contact between belief and reality. I think that beliefs are ultimately rooted in life experience, although certainly there are webs of justifications involving other beliefs.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

To each his own reality!

No, there is only one reality, and that is the one we live in.

For our brains see not, hear not, feel not, but the electrical signals it has LEARNED to interpret in order to make sense of the physical world!

We see, therefore we are blind. We hear, therefore we are deaf.

I largely blame Kant for this nonsense, especially for his idea of things-in-themselves that we can never really know for what they are.

Just because we have a causal means for perceiving the world, that doesn't mean that we don't actually see, hear, or feel what is really there. We might not have instant, effortless, complete knowledge about what we see, hear, or feel, but observation does tell us something about the world, and intepreting this information doesn't mean that we can't be objective.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[mzungu]

No, there is only one reality, and that is the one we live in.



We see, therefore we are blind. We hear, therefore we are deaf.

I largely blame Kant for this nonsense, especially for his idea of things-in-themselves that we can never really know for what they are.

Just because we have a causal means for perceiving the world, that doesn't mean that we don't actually see, hear, or feel what is really there. We might not have instant, effortless, complete knowledge about what we see, hear, or feel, but observation does tell us something about the world, and intepreting this information doesn't mean that we can't be objective.


eudaimonia,

Mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJmP34WRFKU

Don't Believe Your Lying Eyes! (1/2) - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkEcD9AFLRs&feature=watch_response

 

[variant]

I beg to differ with you; Ideas can be justified by interrelationships between ideas. It all depends on the ideas that give forth justification to a greater idea. Perhaps an example on why ideas an idea cannot be justified by the interrelationship between ideas is called for?

Philosophy is not bound by the strict rules of empirical science.

I am not saying you can't justify an idea with an idea, I am saying that the idea you use to justify an idea must be justified with it's relationship to some physical reality (eventually down the line ideas are about physical reality and justified via that).

Otherwise we can just posit absurd yet mutually consistent systems of ideas to justify themselves.

 

[Eudaimonist]

mzungu, I am well aware that our power of vision "massages" visual data. That doesn't mean that what we see is so different from reality that we are incapable of objectivity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[mzungu]

I am not saying you can't justify an idea with an idea, I am saying that the idea you use to justify an idea must be justified with it's relationship to some physical reality (eventually down the line ideas are about physical reality and justified via that).

Otherwise we can just posit absurd yet mutually consistent systems of ideas to justify themselves.

Which is exactly what is happening now. Show me where physical reality enters when discussing this idea: I have this idea that that God is a non existent being that lives in our physical world!

 

[mzungu]

mzungu, I am well aware that our power of vision "massages" visual data. That doesn't mean that what we see is so different from reality that we are incapable of objectivity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Did you watch the videos? PLEASE WATCH IT ALL! (pay attention to the part starting at around 4:46): Is Seeing Believing -Part1-BBC Horizon - YouTube

 

[mzungu]

Here is a very interesting documentary on the illusion of colour. We need to understand how our brains work in order to comprehend better our physical world (which is mostly empty space according to atomic theory):

Do You See What I See? | Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[GrowingSmaller]

mzungu you seem to be arguing that because our visual perceptions are misleading some of the time they are misleading all of the time.

But do you believe in evolution? The argument I am hinting at is that people (and other creatures) have visual systems. Such visual systems have survival value (otherwise they would not have evolved). If they have survival they must convey information to the animal about the external world, and generally lead rather than (or as well as sometimes) mislead. Therefore the conclusion "our visual perceptions are misleading all of the time" is false.

 

[mzungu]

mzungu you seem to be arguing that because our visual perceptions are misleading some of the time they are misleading all of the time.

But do you believe in evolution? The argument I am hinting at is that people (and other creatures) have visual systems. Such visual systems have survival value (otherwise they would not have evolved). If they have survival they must convey information to the animal about the external world, and generally lead rather than (or as well as sometimes) mislead. Therefore the conclusion "our visual perceptions are misleading all of the time" is false.

Actually you are partly right. The brain does not process every thing the eye sends in electrical signals because it would require too much processing power. So the Brain fills in what it thinks should be there. This leads to many changes going unnoticed by the brain.

Yes of course I "ACCEPT" the Theory of Evolution. It is the only Theory that we have that more than adequately explains how life Evolved (not how life began; that belongs to Abiogenesis).

 

[Mling]

mzungu you seem to be arguing that because our visual perceptions are misleading some of the time they are misleading all of the time.

But do you believe in evolution? The argument I am hinting at is that people (and other creatures) have visual systems. Such visual systems have survival value (otherwise they would not have evolved). If they have survival they must convey information to the animal about the external world, and generally lead rather than (or as well as sometimes) mislead. Therefore the conclusion "our visual perceptions are misleading all of the time" is false.

Ever heard of a lie that tells the truth?

Mzungu pointed out that our brain filters out a lot of information, so we technically see (or rather, notice) less than is actually there, but we notice important things more.

Also, our brain enhances the contrast at the edges of shapes. Have you seen the visual trick where there are a lot of black boxes on a white background? You see gray spots where the white lines intersect. That is because, when you look at shapes overlapping each other, you brain makes the edge look more dramatic. The black looks extra black, and the white looks extra white. The result is, in that intersection where there's a substantial patch of white that doesn't directly abut black, that spot looks dull.

There is no grey spot there. The borders aren't really that dramatic. (Consider also that this doesn't just apply to 2-dimensional images. The tree against the hillside doesn't look that dramatic either, and neither does the tiger against the grass.) In the details, this is misleading, but in the broad strokes, the effect is that your brain is screaming at you, "There's something there! Something you should pay attention to!!" This is true.

It is a lie that leads more directly to important, survival-enhancing information than the unfiltered truth would have.

 

[mzungu]

Enjoy:

The Monkey Business Illusion - YouTube

 

[quatona]

mzungu you seem to be arguing that because our visual perceptions are misleading some of the time they are misleading all of the time.

In my opinion it´s enough that perception and interpretation are the LEADING part. I wouldn´t even work with the distinction "correctly leading" vs. "misleading". The whole process is interest-driven (and that´s a good thing).
At the moment I am toying with the idea to replace "right/objective vs. wrong" by "working/useful vs. not working/useless" as the main criteria of epistemology.

 

[quatona]

Enjoy:

Nice one! I´m not sure "illusion" is the correct term here, though.

Here´s one that illustrates nicely how we see what we want to see:

Squares A and B are the exact same shade of grey.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok there are optical illusions I we all know that. But next time you cross a busy road I sincerely recommend you do not say to yourself "that means my visual perceptions are all unreliable". In the evolution of ideas, that ones a dodo.

At the moment I am toying with the idea to replace "right/objective vs. wrong" by "working/useful vs. not working/useless" as the main criteria of epistemology.

As I see it a problem with pargmatism (theories are 'true' if they work, rather than true because they correspond to facts) seems to be that the utility of theories needs explaining. IOW why would germ theory work if it were not true (factual) that there are germs?

 

[quatona]

Ok there are optical illusions I we all know that. But next time you cross a busy road I sincerely recommend you do not say to yourself "that means my visual perceptions are all unreliable". In the evolution of ideas, that ones a dodo.

You don´t get the point, GS. It´s always the same problem: You superimpose your paradigms upon other views. I am not saying "they are unreliable".

As I see it a problem with pargmatism (theories are 'true' if they work, rather than true because they correspond to facts)

Hang on there - "true" is not part of my idea, it is the framework of yours.

seems to be that the utility of theories needs explaining. IOW why would germ theory work if it were not true (factual) that there are germs?

Because it corresponds to our concepts.
The optical phenomenon above needs explaining, too. The explanation lies within our minds, not in the picture.

 

[mzungu]

mzungu you seem to be arguing that because our visual perceptions are misleading some of the time they are misleading all of the time.

But do you believe in evolution? The argument I am hinting at is that people (and other creatures) have visual systems. Such visual systems have survival value (otherwise they would not have evolved). If they have survival they must convey information to the animal about the external world, and generally lead rather than (or as well as sometimes) mislead. Therefore the conclusion "our visual perceptions are misleading all of the time" is false.

You missed my point entirely. I am trying to convey to you that what the brain perceives to be reality is nothing more than an interpretation that allows the brain to interact with its surroundings and stimuli.
The brain constantly makes mistakes but the more experience the brain acquires the better it is able to ignore these mistakes without detrimental consequences. That is why people need training in various fields in order to function properly.

The fact that mistakes are constantly being done by the brain means nothing if they [mistakes] do not hamper the brain . An example being:

If the brain interprets a bystander wearing a red shirt as yellow, plays no role and poses no problems. But at the same time if the brain misinterprets the distance of a vehicle in front then this could have dire consequences. Evolution has given our brain the ability to process information whilst filling in what it thinks should be there unless it needs to concentrate on something important. A good example being:

The brain will concentrate on the colour variations of the grass in the savannah because a lion hiding in the grass is very difficult to see so the brain will not pay attention to cloud formations nor other things in its sight of vision because it needs to concentrate on something that may be life threatening.

Our brain is an energy hog and it does not process every bit of signal it receives because this will eventually cause lag and other problems.

Have you noticed how after a while certain background noises seem to diminish when you are concentrating on something?

This is not a simple subject to discuss in detail especially not in a forum.

 

[variant]

Enjoy:

I wonder why they call it an illusion. It just demonstrates that the person can miss certain things by focusing on others.