IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New 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]
New 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.
New 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
New 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
New 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?


     The Universe is an illusion - (orion) - (35)
         The universe is an artifact of our mode of perception. - (Andrew Grygus) - (29)
             I think you mean.... - (tseliot) - (27)
                 What I mean is . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (23)
                     Nice one - (Ashton)
                     What I was getting at... - (tseliot) - (2)
                         I believe this conundrum is of the class, - (Ashton)
                         But that is not how I stated it - (Andrew Grygus)
                     Can you define "reality", then? - (Arkadiy) - (18)
                         Defining reality as we perceive it . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (4)
                             Not quite sure how to answer this one - (Arkadiy)
                             Color perception - (Ashton)
                             That's describing, not defining - (mhuber) - (1)
                                 Hah.. the ontological proof of - (Ashton)
                         "reality" bites -NT - (boxley)
                         There is no reality - (orion) - (11)
                             Oh dear...here come the Vogons. - (bepatient)
                             Well, God shouldn't have . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (9)
                                 Well, put that way... - (folkert) - (8)
                                     Prolly it's just that - (Ashton) - (7)
                                         She Who Must Be Obeyed? - (admin) - (6)
                                             Hubbard? Umm "Rumpole of the Bailey" - (Ashton) - (5)
                                                 Haggard, sorry, and yes he did lift it: - (admin)
                                                 And he played a wonderfully fallen character in "Ladyhawke". - (static) - (3)
                                                     One of my all time favorite fantasy films. - (Silverlock) - (2)
                                                         Rutger Haeur was upstaged. - (static)
                                                         Pregnanat Molly Ivins sig there.. - (Ashton)
                 There was a Dilbert (!) cartoon about that. - (static) - (2)
                     Found it. - (static) - (1)
                         Think it beats several examples of fuzzier logic - extant. -NT - (Ashton)
             "A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself." - (a6l6e6x)
         Down that road lies madness and despair. - (marlowe) - (2)
             OTOH it can be a perfectly workable intro - (Ashton)
             Unfortunately, that's the fact of the matter - (mhuber)
         Already covered - (Silverlock)
         You all forgot - (orion)

Sittin' on the Group W bench.
77 ms