< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

The Properties of Perception-Dependent Reality

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19541
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
31 December 2012 16:25
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 30 December 2012 10:11 PM

My personal position is that things which exist do so independent of perception (is that the same as saying they “have an objective, external tangibility?”). So I rule out the existence of beauty. I’m pushing on the claim that beauty is “real” even though it depends on perception and has no objective, external tangibility. Is beauty an “is?”

You say you can look at a woman and say she’s beautiful and have some objective object in mind. What does that mean? What objective object do you have in mind? You say the fact that other people might disagree with you doesn’t detract from the fact that you saw something that exists and that you perceived as beautiful. Sure, but if beauty “is,” then wouldn’t it be true that either you or the people who disagree with you must be “objectively” incorrect? Or no? You say she’s beautiful; I say she’s not. Can our mutually exclusive perceptions both be correct if beauty “is?”

I don’t think that differences of opinion about what is beautiful render Beauty non-existent. We all have some concept of beauty, just like we all have some concept of love. A tree “is”, but looking at a tree may cause different reaction in me than in you.  That does not dectract from the “isness” of the tree. Beauty is a conceptualization of an aesthetic reaction to an object. I would extend “existence” to beauty if it relates to an actual object (a woman) but not to a non-object (Santa). But, maybe that’s going too far.  I can be persuaded otherwise.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  5948
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
31 December 2012 17:17
 
Ecurb Noselrub - 31 December 2012 03:25 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 30 December 2012 10:11 PM

My personal position is that things which exist do so independent of perception (is that the same as saying they “have an objective, external tangibility?”). So I rule out the existence of beauty. I’m pushing on the claim that beauty is “real” even though it depends on perception and has no objective, external tangibility. Is beauty an “is?”

You say you can look at a woman and say she’s beautiful and have some objective object in mind. What does that mean? What objective object do you have in mind? You say the fact that other people might disagree with you doesn’t detract from the fact that you saw something that exists and that you perceived as beautiful. Sure, but if beauty “is,” then wouldn’t it be true that either you or the people who disagree with you must be “objectively” incorrect? Or no? You say she’s beautiful; I say she’s not. Can our mutually exclusive perceptions both be correct if beauty “is?”

I don’t think that differences of opinion about what is beautiful render Beauty non-existent. We all have some concept of beauty, just like we all have some concept of love. A tree “is”, but looking at a tree may cause different reaction in me than in you.  That does not dectract from the “isness” of the tree. Beauty is a conceptualization of an aesthetic reaction to an object. I would extend “existence” to beauty if it relates to an actual object (a woman) but not to a non-object (Santa). But, maybe that’s going too far.  I can be persuaded otherwise.

First, I say love, whatever it is, exists in “physical” (perception independent) reality, as the interaction of hormones and neurons or however love is manifest in our meat-computers. So does the perception of beauty. So does the tree in your example. It’s only beauty itself I’m having trouble with.

You claim that beauty depends on opinion and exists. Doesn’t this claim make beauty an example of something which is both real and depends on perception? If that’s the case, then reality—at least some part of it—must depend on perception. So I don’t see how you can avoid the label of Perception Dependent Realist.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5679
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
31 December 2012 17:31
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 December 2012 03:18 PM
jobyrne8989 - 31 December 2012 12:59 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 30 December 2012 11:00 PM

So at least some part of reality is perception dependent. It’s that part of reality—perception dependent reality—that I’m exploring.

That’s an easy one because all shared reality depends on perception. All shared reality also depends upon social interaction. Humans cannot avoid ongoing interaction. Certain aspects of social/shared reality can be illusory or imaginative depending on verification (or lack thereof). Right and wrong make it in because you cannot experiencing meta cognition or certain forms of perception without being confronted with aspects of right and wrong and interest*. Extrapolation on this “seems” systematically natural, even despite the fact that we botch it more often than not. I think the question shouldn’t be whether right and wrong gain admittance to reality, but rather to what extent.

Hope you had a good cmas, ASD. Did you miss me?

* all interest is self-interest.

I had a very nice Xmas, thank you. And while I didn’t miss you personally, I did spend some time thinking about your perception dependent reality.

The question I’m wondering about now is whether angels and beauty exist in social/shared/[insert your favorite label for perception dependent here] reality along with right and wrong. And if not, what property of perception dependent reality distinguishes between right-and-wrong and Angels/beauty?

I see now there’s yet another property of PDR of which I was unaware: the extent to which a thing exists.

The extent to which a mechanism (either of a system, or a system itself) maintains conceptualization and operalization, despite its existence

What do you mean you didn’t miss me personally? That’s messed up, ASD. I thought we were closer.

[ Edited: 31 December 2012 17:36 by Jb8989]
 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19541
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
31 December 2012 18:16
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 December 2012 04:17 PM

First, I say love, whatever it is, exists in “physical” (perception independent) reality, as the interaction of hormones and neurons or however love is manifest in our meat-computers. So does the perception of beauty. So does the tree in your example. It’s only beauty itself I’m having trouble with.

You claim that beauty depends on opinion and exists. Doesn’t this claim make beauty an example of something which is both real and depends on perception? If that’s the case, then reality—at least some part of it—must depend on perception. So I don’t see how you can avoid the label of Perception Dependent Realist.

Well, if you acknowledge love as having a perception independent reality, I don’t see what objection you can have to beauty. “Beauty” and “love” are words that describe a particular physical reality.  We may see two people passionately kissing and say “that is an example of love.”  We may see a sunset and say “that is an example of beauty.”  We have a real concept in mind when we attach those labels to particular physical realities. The fact that someone else may not see love or beauty like we do does not detract from the fact that both words encompass concrete concepts: love = that which demonstrates strong positive feelings toward an object; and beauty = that which is perceived as having strong aesthetic value (definitions may vary).  Love and beauty are similar in this sense, IMO.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  5948
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
31 December 2012 18:50
 
jobyrne8989 - 31 December 2012 04:31 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 December 2012 03:18 PM
jobyrne8989 - 31 December 2012 12:59 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 30 December 2012 11:00 PM

So at least some part of reality is perception dependent. It’s that part of reality—perception dependent reality—that I’m exploring.

That’s an easy one because all shared reality depends on perception. All shared reality also depends upon social interaction. Humans cannot avoid ongoing interaction. Certain aspects of social/shared reality can be illusory or imaginative depending on verification (or lack thereof). Right and wrong make it in because you cannot experiencing meta cognition or certain forms of perception without being confronted with aspects of right and wrong and interest*. Extrapolation on this “seems” systematically natural, even despite the fact that we botch it more often than not. I think the question shouldn’t be whether right and wrong gain admittance to reality, but rather to what extent.

Hope you had a good cmas, ASD. Did you miss me?

* all interest is self-interest.

I had a very nice Xmas, thank you. And while I didn’t miss you personally, I did spend some time thinking about your perception dependent reality.

The question I’m wondering about now is whether angels and beauty exist in social/shared/[insert your favorite label for perception dependent here] reality along with right and wrong. And if not, what property of perception dependent reality distinguishes between right-and-wrong and Angels/beauty?

I see now there’s yet another property of PDR of which I was unaware: the extent to which a thing exists.

The extent to which a mechanism (either of a system, or a system itself) maintains conceptualization and operalization, despite its existence

What do you mean you didn’t miss me personally? That’s messed up, ASD. I thought we were closer.

It only seems messed up to you because you perceived we were closer than I did. Does our closeness depend on your perception or mine?

Do angels both exists and, to some extent, maintain their conceptualization and “operalization?” (Did you make that word up?) How about beauty?

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  5948
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
31 December 2012 19:20
 
Ecurb Noselrub - 31 December 2012 05:16 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 December 2012 04:17 PM

First, I say love, whatever it is, exists in “physical” (perception independent) reality, as the interaction of hormones and neurons or however love is manifest in our meat-computers. So does the perception of beauty. So does the tree in your example. It’s only beauty itself I’m having trouble with.

You claim that beauty depends on opinion and exists. Doesn’t this claim make beauty an example of something which is both real and depends on perception? If that’s the case, then reality—at least some part of it—must depend on perception. So I don’t see how you can avoid the label of Perception Dependent Realist.

Well, if you acknowledge love as having a perception independent reality, I don’t see what objection you can have to beauty. “Beauty” and “love” are words that describe a particular physical reality.  We may see two people passionately kissing and say “that is an example of love.”  We may see a sunset and say “that is an example of beauty.”  We have a real concept in mind when we attach those labels to particular physical realities. The fact that someone else may not see love or beauty like we do does not detract from the fact that both words encompass concrete concepts: love = that which demonstrates strong positive feelings toward an object; and beauty = that which is perceived as having strong aesthetic value (definitions may vary).  Love and beauty are similar in this sense, IMO.

“That which demonstrates strong positive feelings toward an object” would appear to describe the person in love, not love itself. Two people passionately kissing are demonstrating strong positive feelings toward each other. Are the two people “love?” Or are the strong positive feelings “love?” Strong positive feelings exist in reality, don’t they? And “Love” is the word we use to describe strong positive feelings. Hate exists in reality, too: it’s a strong negative feeling. So does lust: a strong sexual attraction. Feelings and emotions all exist as combinations of neurons or the presence of certain chemicals in our meat-computers.

“Beauty,” on the other hand, is a property we attach to things we perceive as beautiful. It’s not a combination of neurons firing in our meat-computers. The perception of beauty is one thing; beauty itself is another. So I don’t think love and beauty are similar in the way you’re describing at all. Love and the perception of beauty are similar in that they both exist in perception independent reality, as combinations of neurons firing in our meat-computers. But beauty itself doesn’t exist in perception independent reality.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19541
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
31 December 2012 20:12
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 December 2012 06:20 PM

The perception of beauty is one thing; beauty itself is another. So I don’t think love and beauty are similar in the way you’re describing at all. Love and the perception of beauty are similar in that they both exist in perception independent reality, as combinations of neurons firing in our meat-computers. But beauty itself doesn’t exist in perception independent reality.

OK, I see the distinction you are making. It seems to be a fine one, IMO, but I’ll accept it. But would the perception of love and the perception of beauty be similar?  I see two people kissing and I say “ah, love.”  I see a brilliant sunset and I say “ah, beauty.”

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19541
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
31 December 2012 20:26
 
jdrnd - 30 December 2012 02:28 PM

Despite your claim, as defined by ASD, you are a perception-dependent realist.  The next to last sentence is an example of that. Why would the discovery of God change the status of right and wrong?  What if you disagreed with God about whats right?, would that make you wrong?  What if God was wrong?

Why are people so eager to categorize others?  Makes one’s prejudices easier to tolerate, I suppose.  The existence of a creator God, from whom all the cosmos sprang, would establish an objective basis, grounded in that creator’s nature, whatever it may be, of what is acceptable and not acceptable; i.e., right and wrong. He’s the creator, it’s his creation, it’s his game, so his rules apply. For me this position is inherent in the idea of a creator God, the ground of all being.  I suppose some other type of God could exist, but that’s what I mean by it. 

jdrnd - 30 December 2012 02:28 PM

Just as a reminder, the term “God” refers to an imaginary being.

Just as a reminder, I disagree with you.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5454
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
31 December 2012 21:08
 
Ecurb Noselrub - 31 December 2012 07:26 PM
jdrnd - 30 December 2012 02:28 PM

Just as a reminder, the term “God” refers to an imaginary being.

Just as a reminder, I disagree with you.

Prove it!

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19541
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
31 December 2012 21:15
 
jdrnd - 31 December 2012 08:08 PM
Ecurb Noselrub - 31 December 2012 07:26 PM
jdrnd - 30 December 2012 02:28 PM

Just as a reminder, the term “God” refers to an imaginary being.

Just as a reminder, I disagree with you.

Prove it!

Prove that I disagree with you?  You’ll have to take my word for it. Prove that God is not imaginary?  That’s God’s job, not mine.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5454
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
31 December 2012 22:00
 
Ecurb Noselrub - 31 December 2012 08:15 PM
jdrnd - 31 December 2012 08:08 PM
Ecurb Noselrub - 31 December 2012 07:26 PM
jdrnd - 30 December 2012 02:28 PM

Just as a reminder, the term “God” refers to an imaginary being.

Just as a reminder, I disagree with you.

Prove it!

Prove that I disagree with you?  You’ll have to take my word for it. Prove that God is not imaginary?  That’s God’s job, not mine.

Touche!

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5454
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
31 December 2012 22:10
 
Ecurb Noselrub - 31 December 2012 07:26 PM
jdrnd - 30 December 2012 02:28 PM

Despite your claim, as defined by ASD, you are a perception-dependent realist.  The next to last sentence is an example of that. Why would the discovery of God change the status of right and wrong?  What if you disagreed with God about whats right?, would that make you wrong?  What if God was wrong?

Why are people so eager to categorize others?  Makes one’s prejudices easier to tolerate, I suppose.  The existence of a creator God, from whom all the cosmos sprang, would establish an objective basis, grounded in that creator’s nature, whatever it may be, of what is acceptable and not acceptable; i.e., right and wrong. He’s the creator, it’s his creation, it’s his game, so his rules apply. For me this position is inherent in the idea of a creator God, the ground of all being.  I suppose some other type of God could exist, but that’s what I mean by it. 

jdrnd - 30 December 2012 02:28 PM

Just as a reminder, the term “God” refers to an imaginary being.

Just as a reminder, I disagree with you.

Bruce,

  firstly I have to go across the street to our neighbors to eat chinese food.
secondly, Your the one that didn’t want to be called the perception dependent realist (PDR).
thirdly, and ironically, I don’t quite understand what a PDR is and the more that I read ASD’s definition the more I think that I am in fact a perception dependent realist.

and as for your last post… there is no God so he can’t prove he exists, so if you want me and other people to give deference to an imaginary being you’re going to have give reasons why.

OK, this is my last post of this year.  You have till next year to trash me.


I’ll be back

 

Your respectful antagonist,


Jeff

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
01 January 2013 00:12
 

It’s Gods job to prove that he is not imaginary?

I think that is an admission of Atheism.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19541
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
01 January 2013 00:13
 
jdrnd - 31 December 2012 09:10 PM

and as for your last post… there is no God so he can’t prove he exists, so if you want me and other people to give deference to an imaginary being you’re going to have give reasons why.

I don’t really care if you or anyone else give deference to God or not.  I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. Happy New Year.

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
01 January 2013 00:18
 

Fundamentally-if we cannot observe, either directly or indirectly by measurement and/or experiment, and thus not afford falsifiability….....why SHOULD we think that what we are discussing is real and not imagined?

Because we know, and have known for a very long time now that through consciousness and self consciousness humans have the capability to imagine.
We should have a guideline as to what is real and what is imagined right?

We have those parameters, and they are known as the scientific method.

Evidence equals reality. Non evidence equals imagination.

Seriously, whats the real issue here?

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›