I think you mean....

Post #56,428 by tseliot 10/12/02 10:18:02 PM Reply	I think you mean.... The perception of the universe is an artifact of our mode of perception. Heh. Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #56,434 by Andrew Grygus 10/12/02 11:42:01 PM Reply	What I mean is . . Our universe, as we experience it, see it, feel it, smell it, is a conceit of our mode of perception. Other forms of consciousness may perceive it entirely differently, in ways we are unequipped to imagine. For instance, our perception passes through our universe sequentially by what we call time. This does not validate time as other than our way of ordering our universe. We arrange it spacially. That doesn't mean it actually has size, that's just how we view it so we can understand it within our limitations. Yeah, it looks pretty solid, but the reality of that solidity is questionable. Dream worlds can seem pretty solid too sometimes, until you wake up. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #56,456 by Ashton 10/13/02 7:41:30 AM Reply	Nice one And in accord with a number of summaries which have been chewed on over millennia - only yours is among the most concise! (Unfortunately, I'm not credentialed to issue Brevity Awards on this Scale of expression ;-) Or I would. Ashton Yeah IF ONLY homo-sap generally - would get around to practising the mantra (at least one day every week) ~ Most everything 'I Know' is false there might be some small hope of ending the regularly scheduled religiosity Warz - all of which are fought over formatory BS like 'My Personal God wants you to ___ and ____ Or Else.' Spirituality VS Corporate BS du jour {Sheesh} Over and over and
Post #57,535 by tseliot 10/18/02 12:01:09 PM Reply	What I was getting at... Nice summary. But when you turn that summary into the aphorism "the universe IS our perception" you imply there is no universe outside our perception. Not you personally; that's the indefinite "you". :) Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #57,588 by Ashton 10/18/02 3:31:45 PM Reply	I believe this conundrum is of the class, There are no undetected errors.. :-\ufffd
Post #57,733 by Andrew Grygus 10/18/02 10:20:13 PM Reply	But that is not how I stated it "Our universe, as we experience it . . . is a conceit of our mode of perception". I leave it quite open that there may be a lot to it we can't see at all with our mode of perception. You could place youself as the center of, and sole motivator of, the universe - that it's all your own perception and there's nothing outside of your perception, but this seems not to work well. If that were so, people would probably not be harassing you so much, would they? It appears what we have is a consensus perception with a great many different and different kinds of entities contributing to its construction and maintenance. Different types of entities may perceive the same universe quite differently, but those of near types seem to have a similar perception. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #65,178 by Arkadiy 11/26/02 2:17:37 PM Reply	Can you define "reality", then? If it "looks" solid, acts solid and so on, I have to conclude it is solid. At least for this particular set of circumstances... By "is" I mean "it will _behave_ as 'solid' until circumstances change". What else can we ask for? -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #65,209 by Andrew Grygus 11/26/02 4:17:23 PM Reply	Defining reality as we perceive it . . . . . is the job of Science. Since we appear to have a sort of consensus reality, consistency should be pretty good, as has been established by scientific experiment. Though two people may have somewhat different perceptions of the color yellow, they can generally agree without too much arguement that it is the color yellow. Other critters may or may not have an equivalent of yellow, Our perception may differ from scientific "fact", and that may be our fault, or the fault of science. For instance, you can light a room with a bright neon bulb. Neon has a very sharp orange emission line, but is just about always contaminated with some Argon, which provides a violet line. With these two lines, most people can see pretty much full color, even though "science" would expect not. The problem here is that scientific instruments aren't perceiving color by the same method as humans do. That a human can extrapolate all the colors from two lines indicates there's a lot of room for differing interpretation from critter to critter. That science can reasonably define the reality we perceive does not in any way preclude there being stuff outside of or incompatible with our mode of perception. Science, being entirely perceptual, would have a real hard time detecting that, or proving or disproving its existance. Since ours is apparently a consensus reality, you likely check your reality against the consensus pretty continuously, and it should match pretty well. If it doesn't, that's reason for concern. Your perception may not be wrong, but you'd better check it out pretty carefully. Unfortunately, most who "go off the deep end" do not have the presence of mind to do this checking, and just presume everyone else is denying obvious reality for some obtuse purpose. This does not apply to political consensus, where the consensus perception is almost always completely wrong. The mistake you can easily make, though, is in thinking that since they are wrong, you are right. You can be equally, or even more wrong, just wrong in a different way. Some Vietnam protestors later realized this, to some distress. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #65,222 by Arkadiy 11/26/02 4:57:04 PM Reply	Not quite sure how to answer this one We may be in the state of (somewhat) violent agreement. My point was, we can only say that something "is" to the extent that it, or its logically unavoidable consequences can be percieved. The "logically unavoidable" is the tricky part. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #65,235 by Ashton 11/26/02 7:00:16 PM Reply	Color perception [link\|http://allsands.com/History/Objects/polaroidcamera_rye_gn.htm\| Edwin Land], developer of Polaroid\ufffd had some observations about that. I recall eons ago a discussion of one of his points (and demo!) whereby some gray-scale images could be processed by the homo-sap eye to - reveal color! I believe this was before Land got anywhere near a producible color Polaroid-process device. 'Twas a physics BS session and I think.. we tried out the phenom (??) Your comments on the Ne A spectral lines + our color sense - are right in line with my vague recollections. (My 'yellow' may seem a Lot like yours - never can I Know for Certain yada) As to the larger scale incisiveness.. kudos again. You have a rare capacity to omit the popular loaded concept-words which usually spark endless digression. My long standing suspicion has been that, were we instructing children along Confucius's lines -- re the critical nature of Language remaining correct! -- the species might even have avoided the ongoing religiosity warz: which are {solidly based} upon the evanescent and the inaccessible individual chemistry; then bellicosely phrased so as to guarantee the repeated acting-out of, Mine's Bigger You HEATHEN Anyway - I always appreciate any new concise description of the Problem of human ego and it's willingness to kill for possession of the illusion of My Certainty\ufffd. A %@#& buncha scaredy-cats all.. (Pity you can't be on the nuclear-armed [so they have to listen] Int'l Language Rescue Board.* Ashton
Post #65,447 by mhuber 11/27/02 11:38:51 AM Reply	That's describing, not defining Science describes a large set of observations. Whether that set of observations is or reveals reality or not is a question for philosophy, not science. Most philosophers got bored with this particular question a few decades ago. It is generaly considered not answerable. It doesn't matter anyway. Whether kicking a rock makes your foot hurt or God's dream of you kicking His dream of a rock makes Him dream that your foot hurts, it is advisible to avoid it. The reason that it makes a difference in The Matrix is that there are ways to exploit incompleteness in the illusion. In a perfect Matrix, neither pill works. ---- Whatever
Post #65,481 by Ashton 11/27/02 2:34:32 PM Reply	Hah.. the ontological proof of .. a guaranteed Uncertainty. :-\ufffd Siva opens eyes: a Universe appears. Closes eyes: a Universe disappears. [link\|http://www.recmusic.org/lieder/b/blake/tyger.html\| Tiger!] Tiger! burning bright In the forests of the night: What immortal hand or eye Could frame thy fearful symmetry? In what distant deeps or skies Burnt the fire of thine eyes? On what wings dare he aspire? What the hand dare seize the fire? And what shoulder, & what art, Could twist the sinews of thy heart? And when thy heart began to beat, What dread hand? & what dread feet? What the hammer? what the chain? In what furnace was thy brain? What the anvil? what dread grasp Dare its deadly terrors clasp? When the stars threw down their spears, And water'd heaven with their tears, Did he smile his work to see? Did he who made the Lamb make thee? Tiger! Tiger! burning bright In the forests of the night: What immortal hand or eye Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
Post #65,237 by boxley 11/26/02 7:13:02 PM Reply	"reality" bites will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] GRAYBOAR-Strangleur Extraodinaire "Have Thumbs Will Travel" Customised Asphyxiations No Gullet Too Big, No Weasand Too small My Motto Satisfaction Garoteed, or the Chokes on Me! Eric Flint
Post #65,312 by orion 11/26/02 11:53:30 PM Reply	There is no reality it is all a dream in God's head. No solid matter, God only dreams that it is solid so we perceive it as being so. Nothing here is real, I know this to be a fact. Because I know this, many people are picking on me because I am close to the truth. The closer I get to the truth the more people pick on me and are mean to me to try and get me away from the truth. Because finding out the truth may wake up God and end the whole Universe! *[link\|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg\|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]*
Post #65,332 by bepatient 11/27/02 12:42:05 AM Reply	Oh dear...here come the Vogons. And the mice are gonna be pissed. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #65,374 by Andrew Grygus 11/27/02 5:59:44 AM Reply	Well, God shouldn't have . . . . . eaten all that Mexican food just before bedtime. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #65,393 by folkert 11/27/02 8:36:02 AM Reply	Well, put that way... I believe it was actually Good Strong German SauerKraut-N-Sausage. With Plenty of Hot Sauce. Oh and a steady supply of a good Stout. When he wakes up it'll be a CRAPPER! `[link\|mailto:curley95@attbi.com\|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!] Your friendly Geheimes Staatspolizei reminds: Continue to look at your monitor and continue typing, we'll just sample your DNA and scan your eyes.`
Post #65,483 by Ashton 11/27/02 2:42:33 PM Reply	Prolly it's just that ..sometimes She's A Bitch (because we Insist on that kinda masochistic BS. She gives us what We Want\ufffd) This just in (NPR): Seems it's becoming ~~normal~~ average for 20-somethings to suffer from anxiety, depression yada yada. No wonder drug usage is Up. What is it about this rich, sated culture which prompts so many to want to take leave of it, one way or another? [never mind: essay question]
Post #65,490 by admin 11/27/02 3:11:09 PM Reply	She Who Must Be Obeyed? grin I'm reading Hubbard's 'She' right now, so ignore me. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #65,494 by Ashton 11/27/02 3:29:30 PM Reply	Hubbard? Umm "Rumpole of the Bailey" John Mortimer.. so maybe he lifted that from Hubbard - it's the theme-quote re Rumpole's wife, delivered in a whisper.. [PBS from UK, natch] Alas a bright star has gone out - 'Rumpole' [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2146615.stm\| Leo McKern] has died at 82. He was also magnificent as a Number 2 in The Prisoner and several other class acts. I will miss his wonderful pomposity-deflating presence.. indefinitely. Ashton
Post #65,495 by admin 11/27/02 3:40:41 PM Reply	Haggard, sorry, and yes he did lift it: [link\|http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~schott/rumpole/references/she.html\|http://www.csee.umbc...ferences/she.html] Rumpole covertly refers to his wife, Hilda, as "She Who Must Be Obeyed," "She," or "S.W.M.B.O." The phrase is from H. Rider Haggard's adventure novel, "She". The title character, Ayesha, Queen of Kor, is known to her subjects as SWMBO. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #65,572 by static 11/27/02 9:57:33 PM Reply	And he played a wonderfully fallen character in "Ladyhawke". Basically an exiled priest by the name of Imperius. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #65,588 by Silverlock 11/28/02 12:35:56 AM Reply	One of my all time favorite fantasy films. Even with Rutger hamming it up, it was still a good story. I thouhgt M. Brodericks portayel of "Mouse" was inspired. All the asides to God, All the promises weaseled out of.. Great movie. Best scene- The high-stepping horse in the cathedral. Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107\|Molly Ivins]
Post #65,659 by static 11/28/02 8:29:53 PM Reply	Rutger Haeur was upstaged. He played a not very complex character. Imperius, Mouse even the Bishop of Aquila* were more complex than he. Broderick was indeed inspired casting. Michele Pfeiffer did well, too - she knew her character was limited and stayed within it. I have the novel somewhere. IIRC, the movie is quite faithful to it. Wade. * I think that's right. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #65,675 by Ashton 11/29/02 4:04:48 AM Reply	Pregnanat Molly Ivins sig there.. For those who relish irony, there's a comical extent to which liberals are the new conservatives, exactly where the old principled Republicans used to be -- reluctant to get involved in foreign wars, suspicious of foreign entanglements, harping on fiscal responsibility and worried about constitutional freedoms. I keep askin them self-labelled 'Conservatives' WTF it IS they want to conserve (and think they are!) via the wackos they seem drawn to.. (Most just seem to grimace a bit, order another gun (and a beefier iron gate + floodlights) and count the C-notes in the wallet, while walkin away) Jes love Molly's drawl.. and "Working Assets" is a nice idea too; dunno how effective it is overall - but 'investing' in Companies which appear not to be grabbin a big-bite outta that 8.2 B$ new Star Warz pork barrel, set up for Rumsfeld's Apocalypse Riders \ufffd -- can't be all bad. I'll bet that body-bag futures are way up, though (?) Hope the Real Patriots kicked in a few extra $$ this year to the ACLU fund drive - we'll be needing them as if our very lives depended on it.. Ashton PS - she didn't much like Sinclair Lewis's opus - see her point but, after all - he wrote that one in 1935! Imagine what he coulda done with TODAY's 'news' of War for Peace!!
Post #56,607 by static 10/14/02 7:34:34 AM Reply	There was a Dilbert (!) cartoon about that. Yes, you read that right. The Trash Man had a theory about expectation and perception of the universe. I'd quote it properly if I could find it :-/ but I do remember Ratbert had his usual trouble understanding it. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #56,611 by static 10/14/02 8:36:02 AM Reply	Found it. Ratbert starts with "So, I'm thinking what if every proton is just a densely packed universe, and to them, our universe looks like a photon". The rest of that strip has an inimpressed Dilbert, but Ratbert continues in the next strip by talking to the Garbage man: Ratbert: "So... each photon is a universe... then mass is just a probability clister?" Garbageman: "That's how I see it." Ratbert: "Wow! I think my tiny skull is so full it's going to explode" Then there's a gag with Dogbert asking "Have you been talking to our garbage man again?"... But in a third strip: Garbage,an: "... as your conciousness passes through each universe, you tend to follow a line of probability. And since it's more probably that matter is near other matter, you have the illusion of gravity as your conciousness moves towards the norm." I know it's meant to be far-fetched, but it sounds plausible and I like it for the easy way Scott Adams described it. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #65,598 by Ashton 11/28/02 3:08:33 AM Reply	Think it beats several examples of fuzzier logic - extant.

Welcome to IWETHEY!