But if Bruno is saying that we only have third-person analysis and can't
really account for the first-person perspective or origination or
history/destiny.... that makes sense.

I believe a lot of people make the error in thinking that science
understands how perception works, how vision and hearing work works... what
the senses are.

neither science nor philosophy truly knows what the senses are... because
that is where physical science meets cognitive science and we are utterly
perplexed... I don't buy our reductionist and metaphorical descriptions one
bit.....

the senses, perception, vision/sight, hearing/sound, mind.... all these and
there interrelationships are mysteries.

we can't account for how (or if) the "first-person" derives from
third-person descriptions/operations... creating a second that comes to know
the first as such, as its basis.

we wish we knew that.
welcome to the desert of supreme ignorance.

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:28 AM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> anyways... I'm reconciled with you guys.... I'll try not to play nicer yet
> remain a critic.
>
> p.s. I'm no mathematician, computer scientist, or physicist.... I was
> schooled in the humanities and avoided mathematics like the plague....... so
> I will need to ask you guys in the future to translate things into simple
> English.
>
> I hope this is not necessarily like Plato's academy: "Let no one ignorant
> of mathematics enter here"
>
> surely there must be a way to express your ideas in plain English.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:25 AM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Russell: "Yet the
>>
>> reality we perceive is very definitely a construction of our minds "
>>
>> Why do you say such things? How can you know that?
>>
>> IF this is true, then how did you get into the position to know this? How
>> did you derive a true metanarrative from a "confabulation".
>>
>> IF all that we know and perceive is false, how do we assume that idea is
>> then uniquely and exclusively true?
>>
>> I have heard that theory that the brain constructs our perception of
>> reality, but I don't buy it... because I would ask.... how could we know
>> that, it is contradictory.... they derive such a notion from a study of the
>> reality (the brain etc.) that they say the "brain" "constructs".... they are
>> just speculating from what seemingly makes sense to them....
>>
>> "not one scrap of evidence that
>> that reality exists independently of our minds."
>>
>> people die, all the time... they get burried and life on earth
>> continues... the pyramids stay up... species propagate.... babies are
>> born.... mozart is still played... and people still cognize these thoughts.
>>
>>
>> I don't think the choice is between a belief in some socalled physical
>> reductionism or some noetic reductionism....
>>
>> nor between an objectively existing reality or a hallucination or
>> construction of reality via the brain (which itself is a hallucination or
>> construction, no?) this makes no sense.
>>
>> I think we simply don't know. agnosticism is best.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Russell Standish 
>> <li...@hpcoders.com.au>wrote:
>>
>>> Constantine, this is a rather trollish comment coming from an ignorant
>>> position.
>>>
>>> Let me put the following gedanken experiment - consider the
>>> possibility that T. Rex might be either green or blue creatures, and
>>> that either possibility is physically consistent with everything we
>>> know about them. In a Multiverse (such as we consider here), we are in
>>> a superposition of histories, which include both green and blue
>>> T. Rexes.
>>>
>>> Then one day, someone discovers an exquisitely fossilised T. Rex
>>> feather, from which it is possible to determine the T. Rex's colour by
>>> means of photonics. Let us say, that the colour was determined to be
>>> green to everybody's satisfaction. But there is an alternate universe,
>>> where the colour was determined to be blue. This universe has now
>>> differentiated from our own, on the single fact of T. Rex colour.
>>>
>>> The question is, when was the colour of the dinosaur established as a
>>> fact? Many of us many worlders would argue it wasn't established
>>> until the photonics measurement was made - there was no 'matter of
>>> fact' about the dinosaur colour prior to that.
>>>
>>> Generalising from this, it is quite plausible that suns and stars did
>>> not exist prior to there being minds to perceive them. It is somewhat
>>> disorienting to realise this possibility, ingrained as we are from
>>> birth to believing in a directly perecived external reality. Yet the
>>> reality we perceive is very definitely a construction of our minds - a
>>> confabulation as it were, and there is not one scrap of evidence that
>>> that reality exists independently of our minds.
>>>
>>> BTW Bruno is not assuming that consciousnes preceded matter, he is
>>> instead assuming that consciousness is the result of the running of
>>> some computer program, as I'm sure he would tell you. The consequence
>>> of that latter assumption is that perceived reality is just that - a
>>> perception.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:14:23PM -0700, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
>>> > Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter....
>>> >
>>> > then why do we only find consciousness as a terrestrial phenomena
>>> > (suns and stars aren't conscious).. and as a later stage terrestrial
>>> > phenomena for that matter.... i.e. water, plants, minerals etc. are
>>> > not conscious..... and intellect and understanding in any real sense
>>> > are found in even later stage terrestrial forms, and we have physical
>>> > explanations for this.......
>>> >
>>> > Bruno sins against naturalism and all that we know and intuit.
>>> >
>>> > He will do anything to resurrect from the dead some rudimentary and
>>> > vague Mysticism.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> > For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>>> Principal, High Performance Coders
>>> Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>>> University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to