User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Perception....

  1. #1
    Senior Member forzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    X/0
    Posts
    547

    Default Perception....

    I've always thought of how we process informations using our five senses. It had occurred to me that if you looked at the pattern from the smallest insect all the way to us that in some form those before us are also limited by their senses. An example would be fish in the ocean which has no way to describe why they are able to move in a three dimensional plane and has no way to describe the medium they reside in (duh, they don't have the capability or the comprehension). But, how do we know we are not restricted by the same concept. We always believe that we are a intelligent specie. Yet, we only have to look at the scaling life form in our planet to grasp that there is a pattern that start with the lowlest life form to us humans that brings a resounding message which sees life form with different perspective and complexity as it climbs the evolutionary ladder. We cannot expect ants to see colors nor texture of their surrounding. Our intelligent is proportional to the senses we have. But, what makes us think that we are the end of this ladder and have been granted a whole Universe for ourselves. How do we not question if our senses really captures the medium we reside in?

    Another thing that came to me is when I read a quote that goes along the line of... "A proof cannot be obtain within the system." This got me thinking (thinking...seriously) of the most obvious system: The human body. More specifically, the white blood cells (red if you don't like white blood cells) which kill invaders from making us sick. The white blood cell destroys invader. However, lets imagined that they are able to ask themselves..."why the hell are we doing this?" An answer would not appear as they would have to zoomed outside the human body to see the system they work for. Their senses are limited to their intended purposes. Yet, we also cannot leave out the possibility that we might be a collective virus threatening the very system we reside in. Damn, wheres my red pill :steam:? Thoughts?
    This post grammatical errors had been intentionally left uncorrected.

  2. #2
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    The Medium is the Message

    Our media extend our senses.

    Television extends our eyes, the telephone extends our ears, the wheel extends the feet, and clothes extend our skin, the electron microscope allows us to see atoms, and the Hubble telescope allows us to see the Universe.

    So homo sapiens are not limited by our senses because we have learnt to extend them from the very smallest quantum atom to the unimaginable vastness of the universe.

    This is beautifully set out in Marshall McLuhan's book, "Understanding Media".

    Marshall McLuhan is called the patron saint of the internet because without him we can't understand what we are doing.

  3. #3
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Make a Distinction

    Quote Originally Posted by forzen View Post
    I've always thought of how we process informations using our five senses.
    We perceive by making distinctions.

    At the literal level of the senses, we don't see, hear or feel anything, we only perceive difference.

    And at the more general level, we perceive by making distinctions, and the more distinctions the more we see.

    This is beautifully set our in a book called, "The Laws of Form", by George Spencer-Brown.

    Yes, according to George all of mathematics is based on one injunction -

    "Make a distinction".

  4. #4
    Senior Member forzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    X/0
    Posts
    547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Our media extend our senses.

    Television extends our eyes, the telephone extends our ears, the electron microscope allows us to see atoms, and the Hubble telescope allows us to see the Universe.

    So homo sapiens are not limited by our senses because we have learnt to extend them from the very smallest quantum atom to the unimaginable vastness of the universe.

    This is beautifully set out in Marshall McLuhan's book, "Understanding Media".

    Marshall McLuhan is called the patron saint of the internet because without him we can't understand what we are doing.
    These extensions are still limited by our senses. In fact these extensions are nothing but prettier versions of what we already have. Our understanding of quantum mechanic is theorical and abstract. Our understanding of general relavity are theorical and abstract. These theories are proven by indirect means. We put so much faith in Mathemathic that one has to only see that a shirt that was meant for adult cannot perfectly fit a child so to speak.

    Math was conceived to describe the laws of our reality through our observations through our senses. Yet, those senses are limited by our five senses. We have this notion that mathematic is an absolute language. Yet how do you have an absolute language that was conceived through the chaos of our reality? Math describes our reality, not the otherway around. Variables are missing because our senses does not naturally see the abstract concept we are trying to describe. But, don't get me wrong...I love math, I'm just questioning the validity it holds under different circumstances.
    This post grammatical errors had been intentionally left uncorrected.

  5. #5
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by forzen View Post
    These extensions are still limited by our senses. In fact these extensions are nothing but prettier versions of what we already have. Our understanding of quantum mechanic is theorical and abstract. Our understanding of general relavity are theorical and abstract. These theories are proven by indirect means. We put so much faith in Mathemathic that one has to only see that a shirt that was meant for adult cannot perfectly fit a child so to speak.

    Math was conceived to describe the laws of our reality through our observations through our senses. Yet, those senses are limited by our five senses. We have this notion that mathematic is an absolute language. Yet how do you have an absolute language that was conceived through the chaos of our reality? Math describes our reality, not the otherway around. Variables are missing because our senses does not naturally see the abstract concept we are trying to describe. But, don't get me wrong...I love math, I'm just questioning the validity it holds under different circumstances.
    It seems to me you want to say we are limited to our senses. But when I show how we have extended our senses exponentially, you seem to appeal to senses that don't exist.

    In other words you seem to want to believe in supernatural senses.

    Naturally you want to see and hear the supernatural so you presume supernatural senses.

    But there is no evidence for the supernatural or supernatural senses.

  6. #6
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by forzen View Post
    These extensions are still limited by our senses. In fact these extensions are nothing but prettier versions of what we already have. Our understanding of quantum mechanic is theorical and abstract. Our understanding of general relavity are theorical and abstract. These theories are proven by indirect means. We put so much faith in Mathemathic that one has to only see that a shirt that was meant for adult cannot perfectly fit a child so to speak.

    Math was conceived to describe the laws of our reality through our observations through our senses. Yet, those senses are limited by our five senses. We have this notion that mathematic is an absolute language. Yet how do you have an absolute language that was conceived through the chaos of our reality? Math describes our reality, not the otherway around. Variables are missing because our senses does not naturally see the abstract concept we are trying to describe. But, don't get me wrong...I love math, I'm just questioning the validity it holds under different circumstances.
    That our senses deceive has been well understood since before the 1st century AD.

    Today, scientists tell us that our most cherished physical laws are written in pencil, subject to change should new data emerge that cannot be assimilated by the current paradigm--but does this cause the scientist to throw up his arms in despair and refuse to write?

    You wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by forzen View Post
    We have this notion that mathematic is an absolute language. Yet how do you have an absolute language that was conceived through the chaos of our reality?
    Is the most basic truth of our reality that it is chaos? Do we have access to knowledge of any absolute truths?

    Is the language of math the most basic language we have to describe the cosmos? Or does math itself presuppose certain truths that can be known apart from knowledge of numbers, or sets?

  7. #7
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    does math itself presuppose certain truths that can be known apart from knowledge of numbers, or sets?
    Yes, all mathematics starts from an injunction.

    And that injunction is -

    "Make a distinction".

  8. #8
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Hmmm...

    "Make a distinction" is an imperative.

    "It is not the case that a thing is both what it is and what it is not in the same respect" is merely descriptive.

    Question:

    Is it easier to know that one ought to make a distinction, or is it easier to know that there are distinctions to be made?

  9. #9
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    Hmmm...

    "Make a distinction" is an imperative.

    "It is not the case that a thing is both what it is and what it is not in the same respect" is merely descriptive.

    Question:

    Is it easier to know that one ought to make a distinction, or is it easier to know that there are distinctions to be made?
    It is an injunction, that is, it is an imperative. It is an order to do something.

    When I started on maths, I realised math did not contain its own basis. And I was surprised and pleased to discover it did have a basis - an injunction.

    Who would have guessed?

  10. #10
    Senior Member forzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    X/0
    Posts
    547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    It seems to me you want to say we are limited to our senses. But when I show how we have extended our senses exponentially, you seem to appeal to senses that don't exist.

    In other words you seem to want to believe in supernatural senses.

    Naturally you want to see and hear the supernatural so you presume supernatural senses.

    But there is no evidence for the supernatural or supernatural senses.
    No not supernatural senses. I'm merely implying an observation that is apparent throughout nature. Every species have unique senses that lets them navigate their environment, yet an ant can never see what an eagle can see, an eagle can never see what we can see...etc. A predisposed effect of evolution.

    Like I said, those extensions are merely magnifying what we already have. And I understand that looking for senses that doesn't exist is futile. We can only imagine what we are missing, but even our imagination is limited to what we know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    That our senses deceive has been well understood since before the 1st century AD.

    Today, scientists tell us that our most cherished physical laws are written in pencil, subject to change should new data emerge that cannot be assimilated by the current paradigm--but does this cause the scientist to throw up his arms in despair and refuse to write?

    You wrote:

    Is the most basic truth of our reality that it is chaos? Do we have access to knowledge of any absolute truths?

    Is the language of math the most basic language we have to describe the cosmos? Or does math itself presuppose certain truths that can be known apart from knowledge of numbers, or sets?
    Not deceived, but limited as I've described above.

    Science is awesome because of the nature of its virtue. It doesn't pretend that it's the absolute truth and are subject to changes as new finding occurs. We probably know unconciously that we can never gain the knowledge or insight of absolute truth, but it doesn't stop us from trying. Yet, it would be comforting to at least have a vague sense that what were doing will get us closer to what were seeking. But, how do we do this when we can't even claim with absolute certainty that we exist.

    This goes back to my OP that the proof of absolute truth cannot be obtain from within our system. We are doom never to know our purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    Is it easier to know that one ought to make a distinction, or is it easier to know that there are distinctions to be made?
    It is easier to know that there are distinctions to be made. This implies that an individual has been exposed to a new experience or fact which would then be subjected to said individual's prior experiences and then differentiant according to his or her principles/values/know facts. More importantly, said individual already know he or she needs to make a distinctions.

    To know that one ought to make a distinction means that an individual has already judge and evaluated the concept. Therefore, it takes effort to know one ought to make a distinction if he or she hasn't done it already.
    This post grammatical errors had been intentionally left uncorrected.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFP] ENFPs and perception of "well-likedness"
    By autumn in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 10-16-2008, 08:45 PM
  2. Perception of death if we were "medically immortal"
    By Martoon in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-02-2008, 07:39 PM
  3. Perceiving Dichotomy and Perception Disorders
    By MerkW in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-06-2008, 06:38 PM
  4. ADD/ADHD= extraverted perception
    By Gabe in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-07-2007, 06:18 AM
  5. Perception of two groups
    By Athenian200 in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-17-2007, 11:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO