Originally posted by Tsakara
The only way we can take in information about the world is through our senses and the neural pathways firing in our brains.
The only way we can take in information is through our physical bodies after which our brains through an intricate neural system interprets the
electrical signals that were sent from the point of physical contact with the external stimulus.
Originally posted by Tsakara
To say we all share one, identical reality is a laughable notion at best. For all we know when someone says something is green, what we think of as
green and what they think of as green are two radically different colors. What they think is green could be what we think of as blue. Both viewpoints
are equally valid. And there is no way to determine who is right and who is wrong, or even if there is a right or wrong.
The notion of categorization of this and that is not necessarily valid but it is quite possibly irrevecobaly true in that green is green and can be
measured by a machine and this communicates that the compositions of the color green occupy a specific portion of the unqualified interpretation of
what we consider the external world, to which we can see contains that which was and can still be measured though not everyone has the same
interpretation of what constitutes a proper measurement of what we want to measure and therefor we can only assume that our perception is where the
flow of information becomes into reality.
Originally posted by Tsakara
So if we all live in our own cocoons of memory, then technically the only things that exist are the things we know to exist already. So nothing exists
in the world, in what we perceive as the world, that we do not already know.
And we touch every aspect of our universe through many fractalized portions of interaction for the simple reason that every vibrates and has its' own
frequency and nothing ever really goes away so we are actually looking at the light that was bounced off an asteroid on its' way to the moon of our
planet before it was bounced away by an errant seagull who had decided that the smell of sea water was not his cup of tea...
Its simple really, our world, and our reality, are the sum of our memories, our thoughts, nothing more. And our thoughts occupy matter, a physical
aspect of this universe that is ever evolving into something else, a different thought, an added upon thought like when you are building something and
have to add a piece of leather so that it isn't a cold and calculated representaion of what you had envisioned.
It is as simple as adding one plus one plus one plus one plus one for a very long time, even the end of time for that is how long the physical world
will continue shaping the evaporations of time and memory.
Originally posted by Tsakara
If we extend this, we could go as far as to say that everything exists only because someone somewhere perceives it, this is taking the tree in the
woods hypothesis one step further.
this isn't taking the analogy any further precisely because their was never tangible analogy only pixalated spaces of a screen that conformed itself
to what you had typed and the location I had chosen to stop the cursor and allow it to remain in front of me and that is why you can say that
perception and existence are completely different. A rock may not need to percieve its' existance and may not give a tootsie roll pop about any
arguement of the space and time it consumes.
Originally posted by Tsakara
Instead of thinking, does the tree falling make a sound. What we should be thinking, is did the live tree ever exist in the first place.
If I thought that should have a jaw dropping philisophical experience than I should perhaps ruminate on what may happen tomorrow and what occurred
today and yesterday and reconcile any patterns that my perception straightens out of the mangled wreck of nonstop information that comes forth. A
tree may not give a shiny hubcap about what my arguement of its' existence and I am sure that I have never had a tree explicitly direct my behaviour
so what I would perhaps be more inclined to ponder may be the reason for my behaviour and what I want it to do. If a tree asks for a hand concerning
complex rhetorical organization then I may proffer help.
Originally posted by Tsakara
Common logic dictates that it did, and it is safe to make that assumption because our world is strung together by a web of similar experiences shared
by everyone across a common line. Out of this sharing, patterns emerge, when we convey the existence of something to another it becomes real to them.
And what is real for you and for me is not necessarily merely contingent upon your communication of such rather the amount of import I have chosen to
allot said communication. The only reason I have even gone this far in mimicry of your style is to illustrate that a seemingly coherent presentation
of abstract concept is...
....quite simple. I am entertained to have walked you such a length for a "Duh" moment.
You see, your entire presentation can be rendered moot in the fact that your theme is that of "no one can know", yet you are presenting yourself to
be the authority who does know. Welcome to your own fallacy!
What point did a previous poster miss? The one that was interlayered within the redundant and repetitive syllogy that you were kind enough to grace
upon us in an inaccessible manner?
Are you here for a discussion.....or for listening to the sound that your fingers make when they touch your keyboard as you type...though I suppose
you could be utilizing a voice into text converter doo hingy.
MY point is this....if you are going to illicit a response from the people on this board, then you may want to consider that your posts could be made
as real as the non-percieved tree that fell in the woods...just by turning off our computers.
And for the record....I think alot of your presentation is promising, though very much incomplete....decent enough ruminations, but concluded without
inclusion of all available factors...
Looking forward to your response....