Existance
Since we've got such a collection of intellectuals and generally people who are interested in improving their cognitive function I thought it would be interesting to talk about something abstract for once.
How do you perceive reality, and do you at all trouble yourself with such questions ?
Do you think of yourself as having a special perception of reality that you consider others not to have ? Do you hold any theological conceptions of reality or do you submerge yourself in the material aspect of it ?
Just anything that comes to mind on that topic would be nice to hear, im not after any scientific discussions, just something personal and random within the topic. :)
How do you perceive reality, and do you at all trouble yourself with such questions ?
Do you think of yourself as having a special perception of reality that you consider others not to have ? Do you hold any theological conceptions of reality or do you submerge yourself in the material aspect of it ?
Just anything that comes to mind on that topic would be nice to hear, im not after any scientific discussions, just something personal and random within the topic. :)
scoobyman | 4 years ago
Reply
brain evolved to survive and have sex
defense mechanisms for death are plenty; find one that works for you
defense mechanisms for death are plenty; find one that works for you
? | 4 years ago
Reply
"Do you think of yourself as having a special perception of reality that you consider others not to have ?"
Over the years, we have been progressively cornering the boundaries previously claimed by the mysterious idea of "subjective experience."
For example, for visual perception, first you deconstruct the eye, its cells, and discover that they react universally the same way to the same stimuli (wavelength and intensity). Previous research was able to capture images directly from the retina. More recently, Miyawaki et al. reconstructed images directly from the visual cortex.
So not far from now, we'd be able to say, with pretty good confidence, what arrives in your consciousness is the same as that of someone else. Beyond that though, I think, will forever remain gray area. The numbers will probably say yes (at least, when you remove emotions and past experiences), but you can never be sure.
But -- that's why it's fun!
For example, for visual perception, first you deconstruct the eye, its cells, and discover that they react universally the same way to the same stimuli (wavelength and intensity). Previous research was able to capture images directly from the retina. More recently, Miyawaki et al. reconstructed images directly from the visual cortex.
So not far from now, we'd be able to say, with pretty good confidence, what arrives in your consciousness is the same as that of someone else. Beyond that though, I think, will forever remain gray area. The numbers will probably say yes (at least, when you remove emotions and past experiences), but you can never be sure.
But -- that's why it's fun!
cognitivefun | 4 years ago
Reply
"ot far from now, we'd be able to say, with pretty good confidence, what arrives in your consciousness is the same as that of someone else. Be"
Maybe true! But the point I wish to make here is that consciousness is not a singular entity that is the same for everybody. Our consciousness arises, participates and interprets that which enters into it within the context of particular culture. In other words we experience reality through a 'cultural lens' together with, of course, our stage of cognitive development: ref Piaget et al e.g. pre-operational to formal operation..... None of us may share exactly the same reality, but there will be, usually, an overlap of common experience and interpretation referred to as the 'intersubjective space' which allows meaningful communication to take place and culture to be formed and developed.
Our consciousness and cognition develops as we journey from child to adult so that we are able to take multiple perspectives on 'reality'. A simple example might be as a young pupil interpreting text literallly wheras as an adult you you may interpret the same text metaphorically and symbollicaly in addition to the literal interpretation. Thus allowing you to meaningfully communicate with both the pupil and other adults. Of course not everyone moves through these stage and nor can take multiple perspectives as we see with religious and scientific fundamentalists!
Of interest is the parallel between the movement towards increasing complexity of our own consciousness and cognition and the unfolding of increasing complexity in the material universe. Maybe in the 'Beginning' it wasn't from 'Nothing' to the 'BigBang' but from 'Simplicity' to the unfolding of increasing 'complexity'. from the formless to form; from the ONE to the Many; from energy to particles to atoms to molecules to galaxies to solar systems to living organisms and consciousness.... The point I'm making here is that there appears to be a creative impulse at work which unfolds increasing complexity. This is of course not a new idea: Teilhard de Chardin.
I have the CMTU paper and will study it over the next year or so. Chris Langan, the author of CTMU was profiled sympathetically in 'Outliers', Malcolm Gladwells new book. He's been working on this theory for over 20 years - way before he became an IQ-celeb and is well aware that high IQ does not equal genius but the development of new ideas, theories of understanding the cosmos ...may do.
Finally, it's easy to dismiss things that we dont't understand. such as the CTMU, as nonsense, but even if it doesn't appear to fully hold up there is likey to be some partial truths waiting to be found and further developed.
Our consciousness and cognition develops as we journey from child to adult so that we are able to take multiple perspectives on 'reality'. A simple example might be as a young pupil interpreting text literallly wheras as an adult you you may interpret the same text metaphorically and symbollicaly in addition to the literal interpretation. Thus allowing you to meaningfully communicate with both the pupil and other adults. Of course not everyone moves through these stage and nor can take multiple perspectives as we see with religious and scientific fundamentalists!
Of interest is the parallel between the movement towards increasing complexity of our own consciousness and cognition and the unfolding of increasing complexity in the material universe. Maybe in the 'Beginning' it wasn't from 'Nothing' to the 'BigBang' but from 'Simplicity' to the unfolding of increasing 'complexity'. from the formless to form; from the ONE to the Many; from energy to particles to atoms to molecules to galaxies to solar systems to living organisms and consciousness.... The point I'm making here is that there appears to be a creative impulse at work which unfolds increasing complexity. This is of course not a new idea: Teilhard de Chardin.
I have the CMTU paper and will study it over the next year or so. Chris Langan, the author of CTMU was profiled sympathetically in 'Outliers', Malcolm Gladwells new book. He's been working on this theory for over 20 years - way before he became an IQ-celeb and is well aware that high IQ does not equal genius but the development of new ideas, theories of understanding the cosmos ...may do.
Finally, it's easy to dismiss things that we dont't understand. such as the CTMU, as nonsense, but even if it doesn't appear to fully hold up there is likey to be some partial truths waiting to be found and further developed.
onetaste | 4 years ago
Reply
Understanding of perception is an immensely complex subject. We can draw a conclusion that other "sane" people observe reality in the same way as everyone else as we all share the same perception apparatus. But when you are under the influence of a drug your perceptions are quite different, did the structure of your retina change ? Brain can alter what you perceive, isnt it so. And what about mental patients - do they not share the same apparatus? Then how come they
Also what about the conclusions that one draws from what he observes. Can you say that you perceive reality in the same way that Einstein perceived it ? Or if you were in 1600's and an apple fell on your head, would you come to the same conclusion as Isaac Newton ? Again, the brain is a wonderful machine and makes certain people different from one another even if they share the same "hardware" so to speak.
Also what about the conclusions that one draws from what he observes. Can you say that you perceive reality in the same way that Einstein perceived it ? Or if you were in 1600's and an apple fell on your head, would you come to the same conclusion as Isaac Newton ? Again, the brain is a wonderful machine and makes certain people different from one another even if they share the same "hardware" so to speak.
scoobyman | 4 years ago
Reply
I mostly agree with you.
I was writing about at what point would one be able to claim that experience truly diverges. Obviously, there won't be a clear-cut answer once the signal triggers the cascade of neural signals within the body, but up to a certain point, it would be possible to track the "transformation of information," so to speak, with a good degree of confidence.
Then you have a gray area, then a world that I believe will never be explained by equations and experiments. In relation to your initial question, that is to say, everyone has a "special" perception, but the exciting part is that we are also finding out when and where the specialness begins.
I was writing about at what point would one be able to claim that experience truly diverges. Obviously, there won't be a clear-cut answer once the signal triggers the cascade of neural signals within the body, but up to a certain point, it would be possible to track the "transformation of information," so to speak, with a good degree of confidence.
Then you have a gray area, then a world that I believe will never be explained by equations and experiments. In relation to your initial question, that is to say, everyone has a "special" perception, but the exciting part is that we are also finding out when and where the specialness begins.
cognitivefun | 4 years ago
Reply
So what I was trying to say is that some of us do have very intriguing and different views of reality than others and I have come to learn this over the years. So I think its unfair to think that everyone is the same because we share the same physiology.
That's why if you think something up which seems quite unique, don't just dismiss it and think that everyone else already thought of that because they are exactly the same. And that's why I wanted to hear your personal view's on your existance and reality around you.
That's why if you think something up which seems quite unique, don't just dismiss it and think that everyone else already thought of that because they are exactly the same. And that's why I wanted to hear your personal view's on your existance and reality around you.
scoobyman | 4 years ago
Reply
In a certain sense, we do not "share the same physiology". As a good nostrum has it, each human being completes the chain of humanity -- we are our own -- and nature itself only produces individuals, not species. Following this, I'm led to the notion that differences are real and not inconsequential -- they are formative and profound in every way imaginable. We each have our own apparatus (brain) and that brain follows its own particularities, from experience, ecological considerations, and predispositions. It is foolish, however, to claim that one's perception of reality may be considered superior on the basis of a correct estimate of the factors and conditions (such as a A+ on an exam or test), that would merely underscore the higher adaptability of that individual to the needs and the situations that surround it.
? | 4 years ago
Reply
"It is foolish, however, to claim that one's perception of reality may be considered superior on the basis of a correct estimate of the factors and conditions (such as a A+ on an exam or test), that would merely underscore the higher adaptability of that individual to the needs and the situations that surround it."
excellent point.
medicalstudent | 4 years ago
Reply
For example, I personally have always tried to get my head around the fact that it is possible for me to even exist at that point - how many random factors had to come together to create me and what would be if it didnt and is it at all possible that I couldnt exist or is my existance inevitable. What is I and how did I come to be, let alone the purpose of my creation. Are we all the same since we are all created from the same matter within a system? Do we share something more common than social integration, do we share something with every organic form on the planet. Am I just a machine whose sole purpose is perception as Lagan points out in his CMTU, but perceive why and for what reason.
How can you have a big bang in nothing, for when something happens you need something to be the catalyst and "nothing" means that there is nothing to be the catalyst for that reaction and that there would be no systemic requirement for that reaction to happen. Is nothingness even an option in our existance ?
I have recently started to ponder the point of organic life within an organic life. Like a cell within our body, so are we cells or molecules within an organic form that carries out its existance. As do cells in our body need certain elements to function properly and in turn help create and maintain a system within a system, so are we also a part of a bigger creation ?
How can you have a big bang in nothing, for when something happens you need something to be the catalyst and "nothing" means that there is nothing to be the catalyst for that reaction and that there would be no systemic requirement for that reaction to happen. Is nothingness even an option in our existance ?
I have recently started to ponder the point of organic life within an organic life. Like a cell within our body, so are we cells or molecules within an organic form that carries out its existance. As do cells in our body need certain elements to function properly and in turn help create and maintain a system within a system, so are we also a part of a bigger creation ?
scoobyman | 4 years ago
Reply
There's still contention surrounding the viability of the Big Boom theory (it has really scant evidence), but if one is to hold theological creeds, I suppose it would seem positively beyond denial. Take a splash with E. Lerner and Sir Hoyle for a change.
So simple... beginnings and ends. Such things as eternity, non-beginning, loops, and so on are counter-intuitive.
In addition, you haven't even approached the issue that there is no widely accepted notion of life. Scientists think they have come close with protein generation, but even that is rather unsatisfactory.
So simple... beginnings and ends. Such things as eternity, non-beginning, loops, and so on are counter-intuitive.
In addition, you haven't even approached the issue that there is no widely accepted notion of life. Scientists think they have come close with protein generation, but even that is rather unsatisfactory.
? | 4 years ago
Reply
"How can you have a big bang in nothing, for when something happens you need something to be the catalyst and "nothing" means that there is nothing to be the catalyst for that reaction and that there would be no systemic requirement for that reaction to happen. Is nothingness even an option in our existance ?"
Personally, I don't think this question is within the realm of human intelligence. But I still hold some romanticism about it.
Meanwhile, you have a quantum physicist philosophy of "shut up and calculate!" Mr. Feynman never seemed to care. But he was plenty distracted by his own questions :)
Meanwhile, you have a quantum physicist philosophy of "shut up and calculate!" Mr. Feynman never seemed to care. But he was plenty distracted by his own questions :)
cognitivefun | 4 years ago
Reply
"Lagan points out in his CMTU"
You're the first person I've come across who references Lagan. I don't know anything about CMTU... how do you like it?
cognitivefun | 4 years ago
Reply
You can read the full article here : http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
I'm not a physicist so found it to be pretty hard reading, i also got a feeling that he was trying to show himself as smart as possible and sacrificed simplicity for farce - using fancy words and over-complicating sentences where no such complication was required.
As far as his theory goes - i picked out a few things, but how can any of it be put into practice or better yet, tried and be proven - i fail to see. As for example the proof or disproof to big bang theory can be the existance or non-existance of Higgs Boson the proof to his theory of everything is non-existant as its only a descriptive model and to be fair i think you dont need an IQ of 200 to write something like that and anyone with any IQ at all can come up with their own.
But if someone comes up with a theory of everything, you gotta read it, dont you.
I'm not a physicist so found it to be pretty hard reading, i also got a feeling that he was trying to show himself as smart as possible and sacrificed simplicity for farce - using fancy words and over-complicating sentences where no such complication was required.
As far as his theory goes - i picked out a few things, but how can any of it be put into practice or better yet, tried and be proven - i fail to see. As for example the proof or disproof to big bang theory can be the existance or non-existance of Higgs Boson the proof to his theory of everything is non-existant as its only a descriptive model and to be fair i think you dont need an IQ of 200 to write something like that and anyone with any IQ at all can come up with their own.
But if someone comes up with a theory of everything, you gotta read it, dont you.
scoobyman | 4 years ago
Reply
Langan's paper is not physics.
You can find a fun debate online... see "User:Asmodeus", who I would presume is Lagan himself but have only circumstantial evidence.
My humble opinion is that it is complete nonsense, that CTMU.
You can find a fun debate online... see "User:Asmodeus", who I would presume is Lagan himself but have only circumstantial evidence.
My humble opinion is that it is complete nonsense, that CTMU.
? | 4 years ago
Reply
xxxx://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asmodeus
(Replace x's with appropriate http.)
Scroll to the bottom of the page for the link to the debate.
(Replace x's with appropriate http.)
Scroll to the bottom of the page for the link to the debate.
? | 4 years ago
Reply
I find loop quantum cosmology (LQC) very interesting
"Instead of a universe that emerged from a point of infinite density, we will have one that recycles, possibly through an eternal series of expansions and contractions, with no beginning and no end."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026861.500-did-our-cosmos-exist-before-the-big-bang.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg20026861.500
"Instead of a universe that emerged from a point of infinite density, we will have one that recycles, possibly through an eternal series of expansions and contractions, with no beginning and no end."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026861.500-did-our-cosmos-exist-before-the-big-bang.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg20026861.500
? | 4 years ago
Reply
There's still room to contradict the asserted existence of the (non-observational, non-empirical, purely mathematical) existence of the Big Bang.
? | 4 years ago
Reply
Well the only alternative that I've come across is the static universe hypothesis, which was discredited long ago because its predictions about the composition/distribution of matter turned out to be off. The Big Bang theory on the other hand makes predictions that are consistent with observation. I don't see how you could call this theory non-empirical. I mean, the methodologies adopted by cosmologists in judging the Big Band Theory are as empirical as is possible, considering the temporal remoteness of the events in question. Cosmologists make predictions about the current state of the universe based on their hypotheses about its beginning. This kind of process is far from unusual in science. Scientists create hypothetical constructs--entities that haven't yet been seen directly and which may not even be reducible to ordinary physical objects, but which are still taken to be "real" in some sense--all the time. This was the status of the atom until early in the 20th century. So even if we can't see the Big Bang happening (and in this it would be no worse off than any other theory about the early universe) we can still consider it to have happened. Really this rests on basic philosphy of science alone. No, actually, it rests on common sense. And plus, I just remembered, we can observe the early universe directly (sort of) despite its temporal remoteness. This is beacuse of the fact that the speed of light is finite. We can thus see into the past by looking into the distance.
LaGrange123 | 4 years ago
Reply
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Some food for contemplation. Non-standard cosmologies have been poo-pooed for too long as it is, really.
Some food for contemplation. Non-standard cosmologies have been poo-pooed for too long as it is, really.
? | 4 years ago
Reply
It's quite unfortunate that funding for basic science is also heavily swayed by bias and fashion, much like popular media. It's great to see support for research into alternative hypotheses.
cognitivefun | 4 years ago
Reply
Right, all that blessed fine-tuning of the theory. I'm not going to jump into long-winded argumentation, but I will recommend that you read the non-hagiographic literature.
By the way, if there is a beginning, why then have we seen no evidence for it? (Follow the logic.) Deduction can be invalidated by empirical observation.
By the way, if there is a beginning, why then have we seen no evidence for it? (Follow the logic.) Deduction can be invalidated by empirical observation.
? | 4 years ago
Reply
