Perception....

[forzen]

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?

 

[Mole]

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.

 

[Mole]

Make a Distinction

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".

 

[forzen]

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.

 

[Mole]

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.

 

[Owl]

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:

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?

 

[Mole]

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".

 

[Owl]

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?

 

[Mole]

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?

 

[forzen]

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.

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.

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.

 

[LeafAndSky]

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?

[...]

Thoughts?

"What makes us think that we are at the end of this ladder and have been granted a whole Universe for ourselves?"

Maybe those thoughts are indirectly survival-related? If an animal doesn't consider its own self and its kin/species to be of supreme importance, it won't effectively and wholeheartedly do the things needed to find food and escape predators and raise young (or the modern human versions). So in the face of all evidence to the contrary, we humans think we're hot stuff.

Regarding not being able to analyze a system from within a system, yes, I've wondered the same things as you about what our brains can and cannot process, no matter what tools we create to extend our senses. The 'universal' applicability of math does, it seems to me, come into question here. As does our use of language, which, when you look into that issue, can really make your head spin.

Head spinning, though, can be a good thing. The line of thinking you're exploring in this thread has actually contributed to my life happiness, and it continues to be of practical use. I'm interested to see where it takes you.

 

[forzen]

"What makes us think that we are at the end of this ladder and have been granted a whole Universe for ourselves?"

Maybe those thoughts are indirectly survival-related? If an animal doesn't consider its own self and its kin/species to be of supreme importance, it won't effectively and wholeheartedly do the things needed to find food and escape predators and raise young (or the modern human versions). So in the face of all evidence to the contrary, we humans think we're hot stuff.

Regarding not being able to analyze a system from within a system, yes, I've wondered the same things as you about what our brains can and cannot process, no matter what tools we create to extend our senses. The 'universal' applicability of math does, it seems to me, come into question here. As does our use of language, which, when you look into that issue, can really make your head spin.

Head spinning, though, can be a good thing. The line of thinking you're exploring in this thread has actually contributed to my life happiness, and it continues to be of practical use. I'm interested to see where it takes you.

Yes, survival instinct does give us the drive to look out for number one. There are exceptions as with everything.

As far as not being able to prove within the system. It's speculation, but we only have to look at nature. We can find out the purposes of cells in our body, find out the purposes of bacteria, find out the purposes of virus...etc. But, as we zoom out the purposes of each individual specie becomes blurry. Ants, birds, and mammals all co-exist here in earth. However, we don't know what purposes they serve other than existing...like US!!!

We say that our concious give us freedom of choice. But, lets go back to the human body and examine the purpose of red blood cells. RBC carries oxygen throughout our body to keep us alive. However, if we put ourselves in their spot (imagine lol ), we wouldn't know the wiser that we are swimming in plasma and have no freedom. RBC has no way to understand their situation...they don't even have concious. They're slave to the system that they nourish.

So why would I use RBCs to illustrate my point? Simply put, the escalating complexity of an organism is simply made up of simpler organism/matters. Our understanding of space is still not enough. Many variables are still missing and unaccounted for. Our eyes is mathemathic and I've explain that it's not perfect since it was derived from our limited senses. So instead of looking out, maybe we can find a clue if theres a pattern emerging in neck of our wood.

Of course these are all just speculations using my so called logic.

 

[LeafAndSky]

As far as not being able to prove within the system. It's speculation, but we only have to look at nature. We can find out the purposes of cells in our body, find out the purposes of bacteria, find out the purposes of virus...etc. But, as we zoom out the purposes of each individual specie becomes blurry. Ants, birds, and mammals all co-exist here in earth. However, we don't know what purposes they serve other than existing...like US!!!

We say that our concious give us freedom of choice. But, lets go back to the human body and examine the purpose of red blood cells. RBC carries oxygen throughout our body to keep us alive. However, if we put ourselves in their spot (imagine lol ), we wouldn't know the wiser that we are swimming in plasma and have no freedom. RBC has no way to understand their situation...they don't even have concious. They're slave to the system that they nourish.

So why would I use RBCs to illustrate my point? Simply put, the escalating complexity of an organism is simply made up of simpler organism/matters. Our understanding of space is still not enough. Many variables are still missing and unaccounted for.

Maybe we can even change that to "Most variables are still missing and unaccounted for."

Our eyes is mathemathic and I've explain that it's not perfect since it was derived from our limited senses. So instead of looking out, maybe we can find a clue if theres a pattern emerging in neck of our wood.

Of course these are all just speculations using my so called logic.

"So instead of looking out, maybe we can find a clue if theres a pattern emerging in neck of our wood." <----I don't understand what you mean by that sentence. Can you restate it or elaborate?

"Of course these are all just speculations using my so called logic." <----That's another very interesting aspect or example of your subject. Does logic have any actual or universal applicability aside from what's going on inside our brains? (What if we can't know the answer to that, from inside the brain? Or what if we think that we know the answer but can't [logically!] prove it, which may amount to the same thing?)

Likewise, does language have any actual or universal applicability aside from what's going on inside our brains? All that labeling, all that information exchange, yet what we see and what we express with those puffs of air through throats or pixelly smoke smoke signals is what matters to us ('us' meaning this species, or even this thing 'Life'), not necessarily any kind of accurate picture of any whole or even part of the whole, just what matters to us.

 

[Owl]

Not deceived, but limited as I've described above.

I jumped there.

If our senses are limited, are we then obliged to suspend judgment about the true nature of the stuff they perceive? Our eyes and hands would tell us that things like tables aren't composed mostly of empty space, but when we look at them under electron microscopes we discover that they are mostly empty space. Our eyes and hands would tell us that the space not occupied by things like tables is empty space, but a few simple experiments will show that there is something there--mainly gas.

How do we know that our most advanced instruments aren't just as limited when it comes to their ability to detect that actual natures of things?

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.

Seems you've managed to dig yourself into some deep skepticism.

Why should we seek anything?

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.

The bolded sentence above is confusing me. If the individual already knows he needs to make distinctions, then is his knowledge of his need to make distinctions prior to his knowledge that there are distinctions to make?

 

[Mole]

Most variables are still missing and unaccounted for.

We know most of the constants but what we don't know is what unites them, or whether they are arbitrary or necessary.

Einstein sought to unite the constants but failed.

And today we are trying to unite the constants with ideas like String Theory, but so far we have no empirical evidence. But the Hadron Collider in Cern, Switzerland may provide the evidence we need.

 

[LeafAndSky]

We know most of the constants

? It seems to me that we can in this case actually admit we don't know all that much. For example:

"Thus, there are 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants. More constants will presumably be needed to describe the properties of dark matter. If the description of dark energy requires more than the cosmological constant, yet more constants will be needed." wikipedia

and

How_constant_are_the_physical_constants.

But anyway,

forzen had written: "Our understanding of space is still not enough. Many variables are still missing and unaccounted for." And then I had written: "Maybe we can even change that to 'Most variables are still missing and unaccounted for.'"

So I'm not sure what point you're making in regard to that dialog by specifying 'constants' and elaborating on that, although I agree that string theory and the Large Hadron Collider are interesting subjects. The issue in this thread, though, is the limitations of perception. I don't understand your point in relation to the limitations of perception, so please clarify if you wish to discuss, thanks.

but what we don't know is what unites them, or whether they are arbitrary or necessary.

]Einstein sought to unite the constants but failed.

And today we are trying to unite the constants with ideas like String Theory, but so far we have no empirical evidence. But the Hadron Collider in Cern, Switzerland may provide the evidence we need.

 

[Mole]

The issue in this thread, though, is the limitations of perception. I don't understand your point in relation to the limitations of perception, so please clarify if you wish to discuss, thanks.

Over the last 450 years our perceptions have remarkably increased. In particular we have moved from blind faith to the Enlightenment and evidence and reason.

The whole of the modern world is based on the Enlightenment and given us everything from modern medicine to understanding our place in the Universe.

We also understand perception itself as we perceive by making distinctions. And indeed all of mathematics is based on this perception.

It seems to me that belabouring the point that our perceptions are limited is to sneak blind faith in by the back door.

 

[LeafAndSky]

Over the last 450 years our perceptions have remarkably increased. In particular we have moved from blind faith to the Enlightenment and evidence and reason.

The whole of the modern world is based on the Enlightenment and given us everything from modern medicine to understanding our place in the Universe.

We also understand perception itself as we perceive by making distinctions. And indeed all of mathematics is based on this perception.

It seems to me that belabouring the point that our perceptions are limited is to sneak blind faith in by the back door.

Okay, now I see the point you were making in your previous post, the point I couldn't catch: the perceptions of humanity are remarkable. By extension this might mean that humanity is remarkable, and you yourself are remarkable.

"belabor"
"sneak"
"blind"

Thank you, at least, for the "It seems to me".

The limitations of perceptions, the limitations of evaluations obtained through closed systems . . . this can be a personally threatening topic to consider. It's a topic that forzen finds interesting enough to start a thread about and to continue discussing, and it's a topic that I've found usefully startling.

It seems to me that placing one's species, and oneself, on a different spot on the humility-hubris continuum, as forzen and I have been doing, isn't a matter of regression. The facts of the accomplishments of humanity remain what they are. It's our view of them, of their relative importance, and our own self-importance, that changes. (Change your view and change your life: that's what I meant by useful.)

 

[forzen]

"So instead of looking out, maybe we can find a clue if theres a pattern emerging in neck of our wood." <----I don't understand what you mean by that sentence. Can you restate it or elaborate?

Haha, I meant that as a metaphor to look inside our system to perhaps find a pattern. But, it's a stretch until we can travel freely in the universe. We are after all stuck in this planet. The funny thing is people are convinced everything is made out of atoms in the universe, but are hesitant to believe there are other lifeforms.

Likewise, does language have any actual or universal applicability aside from what's going on inside our brains? All that labeling, all that information exchange, yet what we see and what we express with those puffs of air through throats or pixelly smoke smoke signals is what matters to us ('us' meaning this species, or even this thing 'Life'), not necessarily any kind of accurate picture of any whole or even part of the whole, just what matters to us.

In the end language is just that, a form of communication we use to interpret our idea to others. So, it will only mean anything in a Universal scale if humanity eventually spread out throughout the Universe. Of course, knowing our arrogance, we probably would make other species learn our language instead of having a mutual agreement. Hopefully, when that time comes they pick English, I'd hate to learn another language to talk to aliens if I was still alive.

I jumped there.

If our senses are limited, are we then obliged to suspend judgment about the true nature of the stuff they perceive? Our eyes and hands would tell us that things like tables aren't composed mostly of empty space, but when we look at them under electron microscopes we discover that they are mostly empty space. Our eyes and hands would tell us that the space not occupied by things like tables is empty space, but a few simple experiments will show that there is something there--mainly gas.

How do we know that our most advanced instruments aren't just as limited when it comes to their ability to detect that actual natures of things?



Seems you've managed to dig yourself into some deep skepticism.

Why should we seek anything?



The bolded sentence above is confusing me. If the individual already knows he needs to make distinctions, then is his knowledge of his need to make distinctions prior to his knowledge that there are distinctions to make?

I never said we should hold judgement. I'm merely saying that if a smart person knows that his or her senses are limited, that smart fellow might be able to figure out another way of looking at the problem through unconventional means that change how we view our reality. Of course, if that fellow was that smart, he probably would have figured that out himself.

I guess it would help if you knew where I'm coming from...what I meant by "know if a person needs to make a distinction" is that that I was under the assumption that the idea or object that person is trying to distinct is a new stimuli. Therefore, he needs to look into his or her past to find similarities or make an assumption about that idea or object. So in retrospect, that person knows he or she has to evaluate that idea or object and distinct it from his or her previous knowledges.

I'm not here to say to not use science or try to explain how some phenomena occurs because of our limited senses. However, we should have an open mind about believing something so completely that we disregard any skeptism about that idea because we believe it to be the truth. Constant are only constants because we observe it is.

 

[Mole]

...not necessarily any kind of accurate picture of any whole or even part of the whole, just what matters to us.

What matter to us are things about our own size and speed. So the things that matter to us are called intuitive.

Things that are too big for us to see directly like the universe, or too small for us to see directly like the atom, don't matter to us and are called counter-intuitive.

For instance we know that intuitively the sun goes round the earth, but we know counter-intuitively that the earth goes round the sun.

But what is interesting is that spoken societies are intuitive, while literate societies are counter-intuitive. That is because to speak is intuitive, while learning to read and write is counter-intuitive.

But almost all of us are compelled to go to school by law. So literacy is onerous. It takes twenty years of study to master. And it is too much for many so they revert to the spoken culture of astrology and MBTI.

So astrology and MBTI are a failure to learn to think counter-intuitively.

Fortunately with the advent of the telephone, the television and the internet we are entering the intuitive global village. And astrology and MBTI are both intuitive and so are popular.

But both astrology and MBTI are simply illiterate.