Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ierrellus · 05-03-2002, 08:17 AM

Jim:

Come back. Arguments do not invalidate your personal perspectives.

snatchbalance:

There are other methods of communication than sound--body language, scents, etc.

All:

Are we so mentally crowded that expediency becomes
our view of reality?

Ierrellus

snatchbalance · 05-03-2002, 08:45 AM

Ierrellus,

Quote:

My question is to what extent memory or personality impose on anyone's answers to these questions. Are there other possible questions regarding the perceived nature of this design?

Maybe I'm missing the point.

In the case of a series of dashes and spaces, without supporting context, the potential interpretaions are limited. If one is free to supply whatever context, the number of possible intrepretations becomes very large. If the context is supplied, the possible interpretations are limited by that context.

Can there be any type of communication without someone, or something, providing a setting? I don't think so.

Ants have provided a trail of chemicals for other ants to follow,i.e., ants provide a symbol that other ants "understand". But, it seems that they can only react in one prescibed way when encountering this symbol. Interpretation, agreement or disagreement, are out of the question.

SB

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

snatchbalance · 05-03-2002, 09:03 AM

Ierrellus,

Quote:

When I gave the birds their distress signal, with no cat around, they reacted. They don't understand philosophy. None of them have even read Gadamer.

Yes, I have a friend who can imitate the mating call of a female turkey, a male turkey will walk right up to him under the right circumstances. He(the male turkey) simply responds to the proper stimlus. For him, there are no other possible interpretations; at least none that I can think of.

SB

snatchbalance · 05-03-2002, 09:22 AM

Ierrellus,

Quote:

snatchbalance:

There are other methods of communication than sound--body language, scents, etc.

All:

Are we so mentally crowded that expediency becomes
our view of reality?

1. Of course there are all kinds of symbols. Do you have something else in mind?

Symbols, to be meaningful forms of communication, must exist within some framework.

2. If one would like to convey the idea of sensuality, within a piece of art for example; "Something" within the piece must convey that abstraction to the intented audience; or, the piece has "failed". Of course, some of the audience may "get it". They will have interpreted the piece in accordance with the artist's intention. They will have communicated.

Obviously we can communcate through the arts. it is not always expidient, but it is possible.

Back to pixels set up as dashes and spaces on a screen; if you want convey somthing, I need more to go on.

SB

Ierrellus · 05-03-2002, 10:30 AM

snatchbalance:

I admire your friend who can "talk" turkey. When I lived in the South I could exchange sounds with Whippoorwills: but they would stay where they were and would simply respond as long as I made their sound. When I moved to the North and made the sound of a Quail, it would come closer to me until it discovered I was not a Quail. Is there no sense of communication there?

As for the dashes and spaces, you must admit that you perceived them in two different ways. First, your neurons interpreted the design as bars on a white background. Second, your mental equipment evaluated the meaning of the design. The first perception had context. The second claimed it did not. Here is the discrepancy that needs addressing.

Ierrellus

Ierrellus · 05-04-2002, 11:03 AM

If Aristotle had waited for agreement on perceptions of objects, he would have written nothing!

Ierrellus

phaedrus · 05-05-2002, 08:42 PM

Ire

Care to address the specific questions in the old post?

Personal perspective can never be totally extracted from one's view of objects. Consensus of perceptions is possible only if there exists some correlation among diverse perceptional abilities. Pragmatic consensus of perceptions implies that this is the best we can do until something better comes along. Weak interpretations of reality, then, are substantiated by our survival fears.

Err...you are stating that all our knowledge till date has been a result of our substantiation of our weak interpretations coz we are faced with some sort of a threat to our survival on this planet?

John Lilly's tank experience proves only that with sensory deprivation, the human mind goes into its surreal dream act. That finding substantiates the fact that the reality of objectivity relies on the activity of a few neurotransmitters.

How is this connected to our discussion here?

Back to my communication with ants. I imposed my will upon the ants by sending a chemical message wich they understood. I still think this is communication without agreement.

Did you know before hand that you are sending a chemical message? Did you want the ants to change their path?

Did the ants recieve your message that you wanted them to change their path and did they understand it? Or is it that they merely seeking the shortest path around the lost trail of pheromone so they can get on with their life?

JP

snatchbalance · 05-07-2002, 10:39 AM

Irrellus,

Quote:

As for the dashes and spaces, you must admit that you perceived them in two different ways. First, your neurons interpreted the design as bars on a white background. Second, your mental equipment evaluated the meaning of the design. The first perception had context. The second claimed it did not. Here is the discrepancy that needs addressing.

Right, all I'm saying is that if I'm not given a context, I need to make one of my own; or, I'm left with nothing.

SB

Ierrellus · 05-08-2002, 06:17 AM

phaedrus:

Sorry about delay in responding. Regarding my personal view on hermeneutics, I merely suspected that Heidegger, in search of ontological reality, would necessarily have run into the problem of explaining epistemology in pragmatic or mystic terms. For me either interpretation appears limited.

The immanent catastrophy for most people is not that some meteor might plunge the planet into an ice age, but that each of us must personally face his/her own death. In ancient times fear of not surviving probably helped our ancestors create protective gods who could be cajoled into keeping crops growing. Along with the fear of not surviving, the fear of uncertainty doubtlessly contributed to legends of afterlifes, hence the mystical agreements on reality.

I simply wanted to find if there is a third view of reality and what it would entail. The Lilly tank experiment was inserted to show that our views of reality may be neuronal and that our sense of agreement may be innate, as Chomsky suggests our reference for semantics may be. That we have innate reference to external objects suggests a correlation between "this" and "that".
I hardly blieve we could manipulate matter without a fairly accurate personal interpretation of matter.

Ierrellus

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus · 05-08-2002, 09:33 AM

snatchbalance:

I was just reading something that might interest you. Vervet monkies have a different alarm sound for each of their three basic predators--tiger, eagle, snake. Why wouldn't a single distress signal be sufficient to communicate alarm?

Back to lines and spaces. Your immediate perception of the design had a context of neuronal qualifications. This does not imply
determinism of what you saw; but it does indicate the logical frame of reference that allowed you to perceive the object in the first place. Your immediate comprehension of what was there corresponds with that of anyone whose brain has not been damaged.

Ierrellus

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-03-2002, 08:17 AM	#41
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	Jim: Come back. Arguments do not invalidate your personal perspectives. snatchbalance: There are other methods of communication than sound--body language, scents, etc. All: Are we so mentally crowded that expediency becomes our view of reality? Ierrellus

05-03-2002, 10:30 AM	#45
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	snatchbalance: I admire your friend who can "talk" turkey. When I lived in the South I could exchange sounds with Whippoorwills: but they would stay where they were and would simply respond as long as I made their sound. When I moved to the North and made the sound of a Quail, it would come closer to me until it discovered I was not a Quail. Is there no sense of communication there? As for the dashes and spaces, you must admit that you perceived them in two different ways. First, your neurons interpreted the design as bars on a white background. Second, your mental equipment evaluated the meaning of the design. The first perception had context. The second claimed it did not. Here is the discrepancy that needs addressing. Ierrellus

05-04-2002, 11:03 AM	#46
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	If Aristotle had waited for agreement on perceptions of objects, he would have written nothing! Ierrellus

05-05-2002, 08:42 PM	#47
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	Ire Care to address the specific questions in the old post? Personal perspective can never be totally extracted from one's view of objects. Consensus of perceptions is possible only if there exists some correlation among diverse perceptional abilities. Pragmatic consensus of perceptions implies that this is the best we can do until something better comes along. Weak interpretations of reality, then, are substantiated by our survival fears. Err...you are stating that all our knowledge till date has been a result of our substantiation of our weak interpretations coz we are faced with some sort of a threat to our survival on this planet? John Lilly's tank experience proves only that with sensory deprivation, the human mind goes into its surreal dream act. That finding substantiates the fact that the reality of objectivity relies on the activity of a few neurotransmitters. How is this connected to our discussion here? Back to my communication with ants. I imposed my will upon the ants by sending a chemical message wich they understood. I still think this is communication without agreement. Did you know before hand that you are sending a chemical message? Did you want the ants to change their path? Did the ants recieve your message that you wanted them to change their path and did they understand it? Or is it that they merely seeking the shortest path around the lost trail of pheromone so they can get on with their life? JP

05-08-2002, 06:17 AM	#49
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	phaedrus: Sorry about delay in responding. Regarding my personal view on hermeneutics, I merely suspected that Heidegger, in search of ontological reality, would necessarily have run into the problem of explaining epistemology in pragmatic or mystic terms. For me either interpretation appears limited. The immanent catastrophy for most people is not that some meteor might plunge the planet into an ice age, but that each of us must personally face his/her own death. In ancient times fear of not surviving probably helped our ancestors create protective gods who could be cajoled into keeping crops growing. Along with the fear of not surviving, the fear of uncertainty doubtlessly contributed to legends of afterlifes, hence the mystical agreements on reality. I simply wanted to find if there is a third view of reality and what it would entail. The Lilly tank experiment was inserted to show that our views of reality may be neuronal and that our sense of agreement may be innate, as Chomsky suggests our reference for semantics may be. That we have innate reference to external objects suggests a correlation between "this" and "that". I hardly blieve we could manipulate matter without a fairly accurate personal interpretation of matter. Ierrellus [ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

05-08-2002, 09:33 AM	#50
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	snatchbalance: I was just reading something that might interest you. Vervet monkies have a different alarm sound for each of their three basic predators--tiger, eagle, snake. Why wouldn't a single distress signal be sufficient to communicate alarm? Back to lines and spaces. Your immediate perception of the design had a context of neuronal qualifications. This does not imply determinism of what you saw; but it does indicate the logical frame of reference that allowed you to perceive the object in the first place. Your immediate comprehension of what was there corresponds with that of anyone whose brain has not been damaged. Ierrellus

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.