[fwojciec]

What I'm saying is just common sense: what is consciously perceived is just a tip of the iceberg... You don't perceive the hormonal regulation inside your own body, for example, it is nevertheless very real.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I'm saying is just common sense: what is consciously perceived is just a tip of the iceberg... You don't perceive the hormonal regulation inside your own body, for example, it is nevertheless very real.

Of course you perceive it. What'd you think? It's not there for nothing....

 

[fwojciec]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course you perceive it. What'd you think? It's not there for nothing....

LOL. I was just trying to perceive it now, I made a real effort, but I couldn't... Is there something wrong with me?

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL. I was just trying to perceive it now, I made a real effort, but I couldn't... Is there something wrong with me?

You brought the subject up, so the notion must have been in your head, right?
You must have had some idea of what it is, right?
You just tried to "perceive" it a moment ago. Now what was it you were trying to perceive it with? I suggest you could try to use the effects it has on your bodý's well being to perceive it's existence. Some medical research could tell you what effects to look for. It is only because it's workings were perceived that someone looked for it, found something, described it and used that model for medical purposes. With the sole intention of the effects being perceived by actual people. Otherwise it wouild have been quite useless, right?
Perception is not the signals that our senses feed the brain, but what our brains make of them and all other consequenses they have on our body and visa versa.

 

[Kees]

I can just picture you with your face all read and wrinkles in your forehead, perceiving yourself into a fit.

 

[dvessel]

Hrm, I'm feeling a bit stupid from my previous comment. I was being siily.

I think I know what your getting at Kees. It's not easy to digest. So are you saying that ultimately, reality doesn't matter unless something is there to interact with it? Without one, you can't have the other in a sense.

I may be way off but I'm not sure I agree. Reality by definition is the state of something as they actually exist outside of any of our notions. A tree falls in a forest with nothing around.. Does it make a sound? I think not but it's still happening and the energy it produces is the same.

::wonders if this meta talk will lead to anything..::

 

[fwojciec]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can just picture you with your face all read and wrinkles in your forehead, perceiving yourself into a fit.

Like I said -- a real effort

Anyways, I gotta run: have fun reducing the real to the perceived!

Oh, and if these sorts of questions are interesting to you my recommendation would be to pick up something by Henri Bergson (like Matter and Memory) or if you prefer to look at it from the perspective of neuroscience Antonio Damasio or Jean Pierre Changeux (his model of selective stabilization of synapses) are pretty good.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvessel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hrm, I'm feeling a bit stupid from my previous comment. I was being siily. I think I know what your getting at Kees. It's not easy to digest. So are you saying that ultimately, reality doesn't matter unless something is there to interact with it? Without one, you can't have the other in a sense. I may be way off but I'm not sure I agree. Reality by definition is the state of something as they actually exist outside of any of our notions. A tree falls in a forest with nothing around.. Does it make a sound? I think not but it's still happening and the energy it produces is the same. ::wonders if this meta talk will lead to anything..::

It is very difficult stuff.
And you're getting pretty close to understanding what I mean.
Thanks for trying.
You need to be able to let go of the notion (of the necessity of) of absolute facts to be able to understand quantum mechanics and related theory's.

About the tree:
As long as nothing was perceived the answer to that question is inconsequential. The answer can become meaningful only if something about that sound (direct or indirect) was perceived (had any effect on anybody).

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif Like I said -- a real effort Anyways, I gotta run: have fun reducing the real to the perceived! Oh, and if these sorts of questions are interesting to you my recommendation would be to pick up something by Henri Bergson (like Matter and Memory) or if you prefer to look at it from the perspective of neuroscience Antonio Damasio or Jean Pierre Changeux (his model of selective stabilization of synapses) are pretty good.

Thanks for the recommendations.
I studied math and philosophy and just finished my study on the Dutch Academy for Psycho Therapy. I have read a lot I can tell you (Damasio I am familiar with), but not yet everything....
As far as I'm concerned it never ends.

 

[jonathanjong]

I didn't say it was "unrealistic", I said it was an "anti-realist" view. Surely some one with a philosophy background knows what "anti-realism", in contradistinction to "realism."

Also, I don't think you have to espouse the kind of epistemological anti-realism (or the scientific instrumentalism implied). You could go for a critical realist (cf. Popper, Musgrave) view, which is realist but fallibilist. That is, you can maintain that there is a world "out there", states of affairs that are the case even if unknown or unknowable, propositions that are true or false regardless of our beliefs regarding said propositions while also maintaining that we can never have absolutely certain knowledge.

To be honest, I think this is your view at times. You say "Just that they cannot be known." And the "they", I assume, are the states or affairs or propositions to which I referred.

All this is not to say that anti-realism or instrumentalism or idealism is not a live option. Some philosophers of science and epistemologists do espouse such views. But the opposite is also true: Many philosophers or science and epistemologists fight on the side of critical realism, against more post-modern, relativist tendencies.

As it happens, by the way, we have similar backgrounds. My PhD. is in cognitive psychology and philosophy (specializing in epistemology).

 

[dvessel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is very difficult stuff. And you're getting pretty close to understanding what I mean. Thanks for trying. You need to be able to let go of the notion (of the necessity of) of absolute facts to be able to understand quantum mechanics and related theory's. About the tree: As long as nothing was perceived the answer to that question is inconsequential. The answer can become meaningful only if something about that sound (direct or indirect) was perceived (had any effect on anybody).

Okay kees, glad I'm not completely full of crap. Always found the subject fascinating but I'm barely skin deep on the subject. Some Allan Watts back in the day, PBS specials and a handful of books that went over my head is all I know.

Some of it is sooo counter intuitive to the point of absurdity.

About being inconsequential:

How about translating or going back to headphones and it's affect.

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, and if these sorts of questions are interesting to you my recommendation would be to pick up something by Henri Bergson (like Matter and Memory)

x2

Or, more accessible to English speakers but along the same lines, William James' Principles of Psychology. Consciousness of the world is a "saddle back" -- think of a passage between two mountains -- where the immediately perceived is behind you but growing more distant/undefined/unclear (as you look to the mountain behind you) and the immediate future also lays before you. Great imagery (to which I can do no justice by summarizing).

But I don't see how James/Bergson, even if we agree with their mode of thinking about consciousness, get us away from or towards understanding placebo.

--Chris

 

[fwojciec]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif x2 Or, more accessible to English speakers but along the same lines, William James' Principles of Psychology. Consciousness of the world is a "saddle back" -- think of a passage between two mountains -- where the immediately perceived is behind you but growing more distant/undefined/unclear (as you look to the mountain behind you) and the immediate future also lays before you. Great imagery (to which I can do no justice by summarizing). But I don't see how James/Bergson, even if we agree with their mode of thinking about consciousness, get us away from or towards understanding placebo. --Chris

Yeah, James is awesome as well. Now, as far as the relevance of this is concerned... If we define placebo as the effect of expectation on perception then something like Bergson's concept of duration, and his philosophy of time more generally, is, at the very least, one possible way to think about it. I'm not going to insist on it, though

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidbasement /img/forum/go_quote.gif Link to the Masters & Clark study: http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf Thanks Nick - that's a good read.

Did everyone read this study......

Is it possible that the $219.95 Pioneer SX1500 45wpc amp sounded the same as the two 12K Futterman 80wpc mono blocks?

USG

 

[upstateguy]

Now read this: Richard Clark says over a couple thousand people have taken the test, and nobody has passed.

USG