The delusional top ten

[Az]

Duh, Proteus!

But the fact that we haven't percieved the reality correctly, doesn't mean that there is no reality.

There is no objective state of affairs independent to human perception so a "steady state reality" is non-existent. As such, all we are left with is truth as you put it, which defines our reality.

Again, except just saying that to yourself, any proof? The fact that reality can be multifaceted on the quantum level, doesn't mean that in everyday life there is no reality. Is it a table or a pile of organic molecules? The question is irrelevant! It's both! But does that somehow imply that there is no one single reality? bull.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
i always wondered about this but is it possible that i see the leaves on the tree (which i call green) as the colour that you call purple? while the colour of leaves you see as the colour that i call black? or is there an objective colour system?

Well, since we're all more-or-less able to agree when two colours look nice together, I would think so. I mean, if the colours were randomly put together there ought to be some people who thought it looked nice with, say, brown shoes to blue trousers.

[Whaleboy]

Azazel: If you are in concurrence with those with whom you are in dicussion, then yes, for all intents and purposes it is a table. In the context of that conversation, the shared assumption is one of "table". In that sense, one persons reality is being transmitted and agreed by another person, so its nothing more than a shared egocentrism.

There is that room for disagreement, whether or not it is being used is largely irrelevant to the "fact" that it is still an illusion. As such, there is no "correct" way to perceive your environment.

The only realities are situational/contextual, or better described as phenomenological.

The reality to which you refer is based on a shared assumption, like "tree" or "table". Objectively, it, like all "realities" does not exist.

The only proof beyond philosophical conjecture and logical discourse is in astrophysics. Thus far, the only constants in the universe have been shown to be a misnomer in certain cases, for example, the speed of light in a vacuum is determined by the permittivity and permeability of space-time, for which there are theories that this is in fact variable. It goes very far to solve the horizon problem, for example, to say that the speed of light was far greater in the history of the universe.

Evidence hinting at extra dimensions (black holes and tachyons) is a further indication that conditions in physics have much room for change.

Nonetheless, this idealism is cognetive, so requiring no "proof" beyond that given.

does that somehow imply that there is no one single reality? bull.

Unless you believe in god, or some other uber-universal power, then one must conclude that there is no single reality.

[Whaleboy]

i always wondered about this but is it possible that i see the leaves on the tree (which i call green) as the colour that you call purple? while the colour of leaves you see as the colour that i call black? or is there an objective colour system?

It is possible to see them differently (I see them as yellowish because I'm partially colour blind), but as most people don't, it becomes a phenomenological reality.

if the colours were randomly put together there ought to be some people who thought it looked nice with, say, brown shoes to blue trousers

Well, what colours concur with each other is as much a case of personal preference as it is a mathematical system. Not unlike music in fact. However, even mathematics and logic are still interpretations in the mind.. indeed more obviously than most. I may say something is more logical than something else, but that relies on the assumption of logic, and my argument relies on the assumption that logic is good, which I can argue back and back and back, and I will find no unassailable truth which can justify one position over the other once and for all.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
its ridiculous how far liberals will go to vilify people with such unfounded adjectives

It's amazing you don't see the irony in your own words. Considering that conservative talk radio and the like have made it a daily habit of villifying liberals, I'd have to say the pot is calling the kettle black here.

[Whaleboy]

Boris:

At least my trolls are based on logic!

And yes, that is an illusion! Still, some illusions are better than others in certain contexts.

[Elok]

Originally posted by skywalker
The delusion that this thread will NOT descend into a flamewar, despite all of your requests that it not

Looking at the thread, yes, you win a cookie, which will be awarded to you as soon as my cookie supply reaches a stable and reliable level, and if you believe that we have another entry for my list...

[st_swithin]

Equilibrium is a FARCE. It's like any other threshold value: it's relative to the two extremes which describe it.

"Stable state" is a state which has remained essentially unchanged for some significant period of time, but which is extremely sensitive to the outlier.

The Outlier is that which greatly affects the mean of any statistical sample.

[Whaleboy]

st_swithin: (Nice and enigmatic there )

[Lorizael]

Elijah: It seems you're making the common mistake of thinking that perception of the environment is based purely on sight. We "know" there's a table there because we can see it.

However, we can't see subatomic particles, but we still "know" that they're there. With that knowledge in hand, we can perceive the table as being made up of subatomic particles, even if we can't see that.

And, actually, you cannot continue indefinitely with a line of observations. Most physcists think that the vibrations on space-time that create particles are as small as the universe gets. I don't know the specifics of why they think this, but they do.

Now, I cannot perceive everything. Because of this limitation, I am forced to, logically, not make assumptions about that which I do not know. I cannot even assume that what I do not know exists.

Therefore my reality must be confined to what I can perceive.

This is my reality. It is not the reality of the entire universe - because I am not omniscient - but it is the best reality that I can find.

The problem comes when people attempt to, without a logical basis, create a reality from that which they do not know. This is a delusion. Claiming to know the objective reality of the universe, without the omnipotent powers of a supernatual entity of some sort, is fallacious.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by elijah


It is possible to see them differently (I see them as yellowish because I'm partially colour blind), but as most people don't, it becomes a phenomenological reality.



Well, what colours concur with each other is as much a case of personal preference as it is a mathematical system. Not unlike music in fact. However, even mathematics and logic are still interpretations in the mind.. indeed more obviously than most. I may say something is more logical than something else, but that relies on the assumption of logic, and my argument relies on the assumption that logic is good, which I can argue back and back and back, and I will find no unassailable truth which can justify one position over the other once and for all.

We can't really examine this issue. That's the problem with questions concerning pure subjective experience. Hell, it's even possible that each day you wake up all the colors are switched around but you wouldn't notice because it would alter your perceptions of your memories as well. Whatever you experience is what you are experiencing and there is no way to communicate that experience directly or save it for posterity. Kind of depressing really.

Oh I'd better add something on topic.

How about that wide held belief that thousands of jews in nyc stayed home from work on 9/11/01 to avoid the israeli orchastrated terrorist attacks?

[Elok]

Actually, maybe you *should* stay off-topic. People seem to have a harder time flaming each other when they don't understand what anybody, including themselves, is talking about. And it seems to be generating better responses too. If we try to split this off into a separate discussion it'll get two responses then get buried, because the whole OT seems to think there's a voodoo curse on anyone who uses a thread to discuss its actual topic.

[Whaleboy]

Elijah: It seems you're making the common mistake of thinking that perception of the environment is based purely on sight. We "know" there's a table there because we can see it.

Oh of course one can have a priori knowledge, but that doesn't really affect what I'm saying - such a knowledge is still an interpreted phenomenon both by its nature, and the nature of its spawning.

And, actually, you cannot continue indefinitely with a line of observations. Most physcists think that the vibrations on space-time that create particles are as small as the universe gets. I don't know the specifics of why they think this, but they do.

The Planck length. The problem is that this is merely a four dimensional theory, which is insufficient. Getting beyond that notion, by definition one can continue indefinetely as there is no logical barrier to a number of dimensions. Pretty far out cosmological theory but it seems to make more sense than most.

Your notion of a limited subjective reality is precisely my point, one can only go so far while being geocentric. Within the notion of illusion/dillusion, I agree that claiming to know an objective reality while subjective (ignoring the fact that sometimes we have the capacity to emulate objectivity) gives a dillusion, it is no less real to that person. Within that persons own mind/reality, it is he who has the greatest validity in judging over it, so in that sense, perhaps the entire notion of dillusions is flawed, because it implies an illusion that is objectively better than another. While that may be true for a given context, that belies the fact that it is not objective, but then, I default back to one of my favourite terms, pseudo-objective.

[Whaleboy]

Kind of depressing really.

Nah, I take comfort in uncertainty, my own limitations (in whatever guise that takes, be that philosophical, cognetive, physical etc), and my mortality and non-permanance. Its not like I have a choice .

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Elok
Actually, maybe you *should* stay off-topic. People seem to have a harder time flaming each other when they don't understand what anybody, including themselves, is talking about. And it seems to be generating better responses too. If we try to split this off into a separate discussion it'll get two responses then get buried, because the whole OT seems to think there's a voodoo curse on anyone who uses a thread to discuss its actual topic.

Well in that case I want to add a few more comments about perception of color. We all have learned about the three primary colors and also about how only three color elements are required to produce all the various colors that we percieve, however have you ever stopped to realize that this isn't some sort of law of physics but rather a direct consequence to the fact that our eyes have three types of photoreceptors for detecting light in just three wavelengths? The degree of detection and detection overlap when some or all or none of these three kinds of detectors are triggered determines precisely what colors we are seeing. This means that there could have been any number of 'primary colors' and we got three just because that is what our particular biology gives us. In fact if we could be missing one of these receptors we'd have a world with only 2 primary colors which would be every bit as vibrant as the one with three (albeit a lot less diverse). Of course trying to imagine any situation with more than 3 primary colors only gives us headaches but there's nothing to prevent such a situation given enough receptor types in the eye of the beholder.