philechat

Ierrellus:

I also have synaesthesia (I touch and see music...quite literally). But is it a "real" experience that the object (in this case, music) gives us, or is it a hallucination of mine? Is it a purely fictional sensation supplied by imagination, or an interaction of the mind with the "visual nature" of the music?

Also, please give me the title of this Humprey book.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

owleye

philechat....

1. Experience is defined by the interaction of object and mind.

I'd put it this way: Insofar as an object exists and affects us in some way such that our mind presents us with an appearance that we take to be of the object, this appearance represents our experience of it.

2. Imagination is the experience of object(s) that does not require the object(s) to be present at time of experience, i.e. no interaction between object and mind, but an experience conjured up purely in the mind.

I can understand objects appearing to us in inner experience, or in thought, and this might be said to be the product of our imagination. However, this ability we have doesn't preclude an actual object of outer experience being a product of the imagination as well.

3. Most of the time we have the ability to distinguish between experience and imagination, but in some cases (hallucinations, "mystical" experiences) there is a blurring of lines between imagination and experience.

This aspect of imagination (if indeed we should consider it falling into that faculty) is quite different than the use I'd thought of it. Whereas I'd consider imagination responsible for artifacts of various sorts that humans are capable of producing, you have something quite different in mind. Whereas it might be an interesting question of how can we distinguish something naturally created from something artificially created, you've opened up a different aspect of mental representations. Your question appears to be the ancient one of how can we tell we are dreaming. True?

4. Question is "how are we able to distinguish whether an object is actually present or not?" How are we able to know if a given experience is "real" or not?

I think one good way is if the object that is present to us behaves in accordance with the laws of physics it is real. Otherwise it is an illusion.

owleye

Ierrellus

philechat:

You have also experienced synaesthesia? Great! Think how much other folks miss by being totally confined to one sense-one concept. Syn. is not an hallucination. It is a viable experence that surpasses mental rigidity, an asset of imagination.

The Humprey book is A HISTORY OF THE MIND By Nicholas Humprey. N. H. is a friend of the philosopher Daniel Dennett. Google has a number of references for N. H. Sorry, but I don't have any idea how to produce ready links on a 1995 computer!

Ierrellus
PAX

sweep

owleye,

my answer to your question is that a replication of experience that meets all the criteria of our expectations will confirm reality to us. As philechat and ierrellus have pointed out, the imagination is not only confined to the eyes-

if we consider visual hallucinations, you might be interested to know that there are ten times as many visual connections leading from the brain to the eye as there are the other way around. One theory conveys the idea that, when we sleep, information from the visual cortex is relayed to the eyes which goes back to the visual cortex in a loop and is interpreted by the brain as reality. This idea can also be applied in a state of consciousness- a person may only need to pick up a minimal quantity of light from the object, and the brain fills in the rest.

if the same can be said for the nose or the ears, then it is possible abstractions can occur due to an overriding 'imagination' or perhaps it is better to say an overriding quantity of sensory structures

Bear in mind that when your attention slips the imagination does take over, which to me is predominantly visual. now i ask you, why do different people have better or worse 'imaginations'- is this due to perception perhaps, or is this due to the fact that people actually 'think' more.

this means that you or i 'go over' the information in our heads. But how is it possible to select and 'conjure' *ahem* information from the brain. Could this be a variable of consciousness, that i have not given enough attention to? I am not sure, but i would be very interested to hear some views on the matter. The brain is quite a grey area, really, don't you think?

oh, and ierrellus, i read under another thread 'man and machine' or something similar about homology as being 'a wild area of speculation. If you, or ANYONE else could fill me in on that i would be very pleased. thanks.

owleye

sweet as a nut...

Good to hear from you on this topic...

"my answer to your question is that a replication of experience that meets all the criteria of our expectations will confirm reality to us."

Not sure what question I was asking that this represents an answer to it. But it doesn't really matter since I take it you are providing a test that would distinguish reality from hallucin ation (or dream). What bothers me about the above is that it seems rather to depend on something rather subjective, namely that of meeting all the criteria of our expectations. Each of us might have different criteria. In any case, if this is intended to represent an objective set of criteria, perhaps you could give us a hint of the kind of criteria that we expect of real objects.

"As philechat and ierrellus have pointed out, the imagination is not only confined to the eyes-"

I wouldn't pretend to suggest that imagination is limited to the visual.

"if we consider visual hallucinations, you might be interested to know that there are ten times as many visual connections leading from the brain to the eye as there are the other way around."

This is of very little interest to me.

"One theory conveys the idea that, when we sleep, information from the visual cortex is relayed to the eyes which goes back to the visual cortex in a loop and is interpreted by the brain as reality."

Sounds good to me.

"This idea can also be applied in a state of consciousness- a person may only need to pick up a minimal quantity of light from the object, and the brain fills in the rest."

Since the advent of Gestalt psychology this is not particularly controversial. In any case, philosophers have realized that seeing an object involves seeing something as something. Thus, a coil of rope can be seen as a snake. This implies that sight (and hearing and other experiences derivative of the other senses) is a construction of the mind.

owleye

sweep

owleye, thanks for being so frank- i appreciate honesty. It helps me a lot. How do we know whether an object is present or not? - i dare bet all of us expect to break our legs, and feel fear if someone has the power to, and threatens to throw us into an abyss (both shared and real, if observed) Then again, this example only holds true in a controlled set of circumstances.

I think people learn to share expectations to a certain extent, such as the implicit rule 'queue' and 'don't push in'- in england.

Perhaps you don't approve of private events, owleye? Do you think that objectivity can be achieved with regard to uniform reactivity under anything other than a rigorously controlled environment?

I would expect, old oak, the smell of malt, beerbellies with moustaches, foul language, girls in tight dresses, students, lots of smokers, some violent behaviour, some promiscious behaviour, someone throwing up animal fats, brick buildings cold wind warm air, taxi's driven by asian folk- blah de blah, &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; *if* i went out to town on a friday night in England. i wouldn't expect much if i were to go out on a friday night in your environment.

you get the picture, albeit a vicarious mode.

that is subjective criteria. lthough i freeze for a moment and [I]wonder[/I} whether you will remind me you didn't want a subjective course of events. If i am right, i predict you will ignore this statement knowing that it iterates the point that subjective criteria are fulfilled expectation wise if one chooses, or is able to choose.

In many cases, my expectations do not conform, and i am forced to change my imagination. That is if i take risk, and provided my mood remains positive.

Still, i ponder on this question...&gt;&gt;

by what means are we able to access different information? Do we will information, and if so, how?

cheers

[ August 10, 2002: Message edited by: sweet as a nut ]

[ August 10, 2002: Message edited by: sweet as a nut ]</p>

popeontheropes

memory is how . imagined experiences are constructed of past , actual stimulations in accordance with whatever you are trying to imagine.
if you have made love before; it is then very easy to imagine what it is like to make love to someone you have never met but only encountered in passing. where as it would be very dificult for you to imagine what blowing up would feel like due to the fact that you have no clue as to the parameters of such an experience to base the simulation on.
any help ?

owleye

sweet as a nut...

"How do we know whether an object is present or not? - i dare bet all of us expect to break our legs, and feel fear if someone has the power to, and threatens to throw us into an abyss (both shared and real, if observed) Then again, this example only holds true in a controlled set of circumstances."

I'm not following you here. What sort of circumstances do you have in mind that are not controlled?

"I think people learn to share expectations to a certain extent, such as the implicit rule 'queue' and 'don't push in'- in england."

Nor here. When you use the term 'expectation' do you mean the same thing as 'meaning'? Let me explain. When seeing a coiled rope as a snake, is it because a snake is expected from the clues provided, and that I can translate this to mean that the set of clues adds up to what it means to be a snake? (You may if you wish substitute 'existence' for 'meaning', so that the last phrase will read: "what it is to be a snake.")

"I would expect, old oak, the smell of malt, beerbellies with moustaches, foul language, girls in tight dresses, students, lots of smokers, some violent behaviour, some promiscious behaviour, someone throwing up animal fats, brick buildings cold wind warm air, taxi's driven by asian folk- blah de blah, &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; *if* i went out to town on a friday night in England. i wouldn't expect much if i were to go out on a friday night in your environment."

Though this makes a lot of sense, and helps me understand what you mean by 'expectation', it doesn't seem to respond to the question of being able to tell whether something is real or not. Just because you have the expectations you have on a Friday night in your neighborhood doesn't mean that this is what qualifies as reality for you. To qualify, you would actually have to experience a Friday night in your neighborhood. Afterall, your expectations could turn out to be false and you might be in for a big surprise some Friday night. I don't believe we live completely in our conceptual scheme, such that we can't be surprised.

"In many cases, my expectations do not conform, and i am forced to change my imagination. That is if i take risk, and provided my mood remains positive."

I would prefer not using imagination in this context (where I gather you are suggesting that hallucinations and expectations reside), since I think the proper use of imagination requires an intentional determination of its object. Nevertheless, if hallucinations, etc. are allowed to be products of our imagination, it doesn't seem reasonable to say that "I am forced to change my imagination." But perhaps you only mean that my "imagination" (I prefer "conceptual scheme") could be altered (if I am in the "proper mood") if my expectations are not realized.

owleye

sweep

ok, bear in mind my blunt mood and &gt;&gt; lets get started!!

you asked me to hint at an objective set of criteria that we would also expect of real objects. What that means to me is that every person put through the same set of circumstances would have to react the same (In this case the abyss) &gt; everyone would expect to fall and break. How do we know whether it is real or not? we don't know, but we expect and make predictions based on the past. To set up those conditions and put thousands of people through those conditions would confirm the same result *splat, splat, splat*

carruthers: "GOD, plz, no more carnage! It is real, It is real!"

mr eggy: "No, i refuse to believe, more subjects for the abyss, carruthers&gt;&gt; we have yet to disprove reality."

yet situations are never alike so i don't think that an objective set of criteria can be established.

*sigh* yes, i know we don't all live in our conceptual world and i know that i will be surprised, but it doesn't stop 'my mind' from putting forth a predicative sketch. I believe our imagination is important as it can prevent us from possible harm.

well, i don't understand the last paragraph at all, which possibly means (to me at least) that a gulf exists between our imaginations. if i aren't helping you, sorry "never mind"

now, plz, plz, plz go back and have a look at my question- if you have but didn't have an answer then don't bother. if you haven't then plz, plz, plz s'more <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

coming back later to view in a different mood- will see differently

owleye

sweet as a nut...

"How do we know whether it is real or not? we don't know, but we expect and make predictions based on the past."

I find it incredible that we don't know whether or not some object presented to us is real or not. I gather you are a Humean who would reject the notion of objective knowledge, relying instead on a belief that derives from successful prediction. It seems rather a Humean psychological approach to epistemology. Thus the computer in front of me is believed to be real merely on the basis that my mind has become accustomed to how a computer appears to me and how it behaves when I interact with it. I have built up a certain expectation about this computer. I gather that on this basis it is possible that some day I will come to be very surprised to discover it to be an hallucination all along. It also might be the case, though I'm not entirely sure how it fits within a consistent epistempology, that part of me is withholding judgment that it is in fact a real computer. (That is, since I have no objective knowledge that it is a real computer, I would not demand that others share that belief, as I would if I did have such knowledge.)

"*sigh* yes, i know we don't all live in our conceptual world and i know that i will be surprised, but it doesn't stop 'my mind' from putting forth a predicative sketch. I believe our imagination is important as it can prevent us from possible harm."

Again, I don't count this "predictive" quality of our mind as a feature of our imagination -- rather instead I relegate it to the existence of a conceptual framework. (I don't think prediction is quite the right term either. Expectation is a better term for what I believe you have in mind.) None of this is particularly important though. Instead I'd like to focus on your admission that we can be surprised and ask you for an account of it. That is, what allows us to be surprised? If what we observe is what we expect to observe (making what we observe a product of our imagination in your scheme of things), is it because we attribute the same object to two different expectations, temporally spaced, the second of which informs us that the first was mistaken, producing in us a psychological state of surprise? This doesn't seem right, does it? After all, what makes the second expectation better than the first? Why should a state of surprise occur from what is expected to be observed? If, on the other hand, the observation were not what was expected, how is an expectation involved in the observation? If the observation was not what was expected, we could take one of two courses: (1) the observation was an hallucination, or (2) the expectation (theory) was wrong. I think both of these alternatives are possible. If we take the second course it must be that observations tap into something real.

"now, plz, plz, plz go back and have a look at my question- if you have but didn't have an answer then don't bother. if you haven't then plz, plz, plz s'more"

It would help if you repeated the question. I didn't find it in this last post of yours.

owleye