Do we share the same 'ability' to experience reality?

[spuriousmonkey]

There was a reason I mentioned chimps. Many have been taught sign language and can talk with humans. I'm surprised you don't know that.

I am aware of that fact. And after a search on pubmed and ISI web of knowledge I have not been able to find a paper stating that sign taught chimps have a conceptional understanding of science, the word science, or even have a symbol for science.

I suspect your response was merely an attempt at a serious reply since it was without referenced sources.

I do suggest as a general literature some articles or books by behaviouralist Frans de waal. Chimps do have politics, morals, culture, and technology.

reference:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/32/11137

I do hope that in the future this subforum will be more serious.

And I think this entry concludes this tangent from the real thread topic. Please, let us return to the real topic of discussion and leave casual remarks on an unrelated topic for freethoughts or the cesspool.

 

[Avatar]

I am aware of that fact. And after a search on pubmed and ISI web of knowledge I have not been able to find a paper stating that sign taught chimps have a conceptional understanding of science, the word science, or even have a symbol for science.

TOR said that this thread is science, if all members in it said "yes" to her question.
Any way, I'll let you discuss this scientific death animal encounter thread in peace and without my company.
Have a fine time with TOR.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Science is indeed defined by the majority.

Hence science changed all the time. It's not really a secret. This led for instance to the disciplines history of science and philosophy of science. Needless to say if science remains the same there is no need to describe the essence of science in the past.

Unless you believe in the schoolbook notion of science that science is a progressive acculumation of knowledge.

Thank you for going.

 

[Creative Fossil]

This thread is NOT to talk about the example I gave re animal encounters, but to go deeper in our differring ability to experience reality and WHAT this might mean.

 

[Oli]

I myself know a few extraordinary people who have an experience of reality that is not shared with others. It is consistant enough not to be delussion etc.

But IS it consistent enough? Humans tend to ignore the occasions when their
"premonitions" don't pan out and just take note of the ones that do. (Watch any tape of a Doris Stokes gig, for instance).

So I was wondering if this experience they have is simply a case of they have an ability that is not widely shared. I accept this. But I wonder why when you ACCEPT we do have a varying range of abilities that science people find such difficulty accepting a range of ability when it comes to 'experience of reality'.

Because science rests on repeatability, testability and verification. None of the supposed "special abilities" have demonstrated any of those.

Ask yourself how easy is it for someone to demonstrate how they experience reality when it is part of their make-up. I can NOT demonstrate how I see colour. If I saw it differently to you, how would I demonstrate this?

By showing a consistency in what you do see under lab conditions as opposed to "the mood isn't right" or "sceptics give off bad vibes that destroy my ability".

Example: I know someone who has unusual encounters with animals before news of a death. He cannot explain how/why this happens and can certainly not demonstrate it in advance of nature taking it's course. It just happens with enough regularity to be a 'norm' in his life and significant.

Or he just doesn't remember the encounters that occur when there is no death involved.

Not all are fantasy.

All of the claimed ones have so far been shown to be.

 

[Creative Fossil]

Oli,

In the world of Ophthalmics it is known that there is a relationship between pc use and deteriorating eyesight BUT it cannot be proven. It cannot be proven as even if you contained someone in a clear plastic box with nothing but a pc to look at you could still not prove the pc was responsible for the deteriorating eyesight. But that does not relegate the possible connection to psuedoscience it just makes it one of many things that are known to those in the biz but can't be proven.

Talking of optics

A weird thing I noticed that could have easily been demonstrated

We'd get trends of certain types of requests and prescriptions that we'd not see for months on end all appear within same week.

Once we had a batch of detached retinas.Only happened once in 5yrs. About 4 cases in one week. It happened the same week the hospital dept was on strike too. So they weren't getting seen and having their sight saved. TRUE story. Only time we ever had detached retinas.

No explanation for this...none whatsoever, but the clinical records with the dates could demonstrate it occurs.

There is just some stuff that relates to reality that we cannot explain. I wish we could.

Meanwhile, forgetting that example I gave.

Think about what it means to experience reality differently in terms of GREAT variation such as the Mozarts of the world.

 

[Oli]

Hi ToR (sorry but I still think of as ToR, that little slip of a girl from all that time ago )

In the world of Ophthalmics it is known that there is a relationship between pc use and deteriorating eyesight BUT it cannot be proven. It cannot be proven as even if you contained someone in a clear plastic box with nothing but a pc to look at you could still not prove the pc was responsible for the deteriorating eyesight. But that does not relegate the possible connection to psuedoscience it just makes it one of many things that are known to those in the biz but can't be proven.

If you could isolate all other factors you might be able to prove it...

We'd get trends of certain types of requests and prescriptions that we'd not see for months on end all appear within same week.

Synchronicity, is, I believe, the term for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Once we had a batch of detached retinas.Only happened once in 5yrs. About 4 cases in one week. It happened the same week the hospital dept was on strike too. So they weren't getting seen and having their sight saved. TRUE story. Only time we ever had detached retinas.
No explanation for this...none whatsoever, but the clinical records with the dates could demonstrate it occurs.

Weird shit happens, but does it actually hold any significance?

There is just some stuff that relates to reality that we cannot explain. I wish we could.

One problem is that the woowoos come screaming out of the woodwork, claiming it MUST be real, and fog the issue.

Think about what it means to experience reality differently in terms of GREAT variation such as the Mozarts of the world.

No, think how lonely it is to experience the world like that and not be able to express it adequately to everyone.

 

[Creative Fossil]

It is lonely Oli

 

[Oli]

Tell me about it.

 

[Creative Fossil]

Meanwhile, the significance is simply that the world is considerably different in it's fabric to that which we imagine it is, based on the majorities ability to perceive it.

There is a minority getting a different worlds view which is contrary to what we think we know. Do we ignore it, or do we try harder to understand it.

Brain scans may show something different - larger this, smaller that etc.

 

[Oli]

Meanwhile, the significance is simply that the world is considerably different in it's fabric to that which we imagine it is, based on the majorities ability to perceive it.

Belief makes reality? Greg Bear (among others) did a novel on that, and I had more than half my philosophy class convinced it was a fact . But it's not a sustainable proposition.

There is a minority getting a different worlds view which is contrary to what we think we know. Do we ignore it, or do we try harder to understand it.

Depends on how different it is. Some people will believe anything, some will not change their minds regardless of the facts, some won't/ don't care either way and a minority will go where the evidence leads.

Brain scans may show something different - larger this, smaller that etc.

Yeah, but with the scarcity of scanners and the cost of doing it you'd have to half-prove the concept before you got funding and MRI time.

 

[Creative Fossil]

Belief makes reality? Greg Bear (among others) did a novel on that, and I had more than half my philosophy class convinced it was a fact . But it's not a sustainable proposition.


Depends on how different it is. Some people will believe anything, some will not change their minds regardless of the facts, some won't/ don't care either way and a minority will go where the evidence leads.


Yeah, but with the scarcity of scanners and the cost of doing it you'd have to half-prove the concept before you got funding and MRI time.

High levels of paranoia must show up in the brain a particular way. It would be interesting to see if those with these 'abilities' had enhanced paranoia levels (and brain to match) perhaps due to seeing greater risks than are obvious to the majority. Paranoia in the animal world is a survival neccessity, though high levels of paranoia in humans is associated with mental illness (and rightly so in many cases).

 

[Oli]

High levels of paranoia must show up in the brain a particular way.

Wiki (not always reliable, but a good start point)

The most recent scientific research suggests that parasites, in particular toxoplasma, which forms cysts in the brain, an area of the brain called the amygdala, a region linked to fear and anxiety in rats, may provide us with clues as to how specific parasites manipulate behavior and may cause mental disease, including signs of paranoia

Brain parasites? No wonder they're paranoid... eeew.

Schizophrenia:

Now University of Florida researchers have found that subtle differences in 10 brain structures can provide a strong indicator of whether someone has the disorder.

from:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/09/990909102216.htm

It would be interesting to see if those with these 'abilities' had enhanced paranoia levels (and brain to match) perhaps due to seeing greater risks than are obvious to the majority.

Greater threats? Such as?

Paranoia in the animal world is a survival necessity, though high levels of paranoia in humans is associated with mental illness (and rightly so in many cases).

Animals are paranoid? It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you... I didn't know that animals were necessarily paranoid, just assumed there were more threats to survival. Paranoia is an unnecessary/unfounded fear, surely?

 

[Creative Fossil]

Animals are paranoid? It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you... I didn't know that animals were necessarily paranoid, just assumed there were more threats to survival. Paranoia is an unnecessary/unfounded fear, surely?

Survival instinct Oli

If the deer did not go on 'alert' when it heard that twig snap, it may be eaten by a lion. The most paranoid deer will be more likely to survive that 'casual' ones.

This basic reaction is 'paranoia' in action. The word paranoia has a connotation associated with it that takes us away from what it essentially is which is feeling a threat is present and reacting BEFORE the threat presents itself (if at all).

In the human zoo we have few predator threats so the instinct to 'react' takes on forms which are perhaps seen as abnormal reactions. BUT to be paranoid in itself is still normal (within reason). To go to 'alert' mode before the threat presents itself is a survival trigger.

 

[Oli]

I thought paranoia as defined was a fear with no rational or realistic grounds. Animals aren't paranoid in that the threats are real.

 

[Creative Fossil]

Note: For me I can easily see how paranoia can help with survival, as myself when I have been 'paranoid' seemingly irrationally, the unseen threat which I took early evasive action to avoid DID present itself. I survived due to the evasive action.

I suppose the difference here is my choice of paranoia over intuition. I had an intuition of danger. The biological effects though are the same. A sense of foreboding that results in evasive action. If no threat presented = paranoia. Threat presents = bloody genius.

But that is not fair is it, the fact is the biological response is the same. The subsequent outside appearance of the threat should not be the deciding factor re labelling our internal state and diagnosing our mental fitness. As it is 'luck' what appears.

If a bunny appears we are mad, if a lion appears we are sensible. No one knows what will appear so why is a reaction which takes only one form defined by those unpredictable circumstances?

 

[Creative Fossil]

I thought paranoia as defined was a fear with no rational or realistic grounds. Animals aren't paranoid in that the threats are real.

Not always Oli, sometimes a twig snapping may be a fluffy bunny.

If we reacted hysterically to a fluffy bunny we'd be called 'paranoid'. If we reacted to a lion we'd be called sensible. BUT the onset of our behaviour was neither the appearance of the bunny or the lion BUT the sound of a twig snapping.

In our human zoo, we possess the same twig snap reaction BUT the threat nolonger exists in the same form. We have redefined what is a threat.

 

[Oli]

Not always Oli, sometimes a twig snapping may be a fluffy bunny.

Yes, there's term for that, false negative. But false negatives are a survival feature that are rather better than false positives. (e.g. twig snapping is assumed to be a rabbit all the time). (Or have I got them the wrong way round, whatever, you get the concept).
The fact remains that (for animals at least) it most certainly could be a lion on the way, hence it's not paranoia, because the threat is real.
For humans (especially paranoid) the threats are not only not real but demonstrably so.

In our human zoo, we possess the same twig snap reaction BUT the threat nolonger exists in the same form. We have redefined what is a threat.

Exactly, but some people invent their own "twigs" and "lions" which are (so far) not provably real and demonstrably unreal. That is where they slide over into paranoia.
Unless you mean the human race has a new threat altogether, as opposed to virtually none?

 

[Creative Fossil]

Sorry, I added this edit:

"The fact is the biological response is the same. The subsequent outside appearance of the threat should not be the deciding factor re labelling our internal state and diagnosing our mental fitness. As it is 'luck' what appears.

If a bunny appears we are mad, if a lion appears we are sensible. No one knows what will appear so why is a reaction which takes only one form defined by those unpredictable circumstances?"

For example, my paranoia was advantageous as the threat was real, but had it not presented then my behaviour would have been ODD indeed.

I would say my paranoia is within 'useful' boundaries and I'd rather have it than NOT. That is a fact.

I think lack of paranoia does result in people placing themselves at risk. A deer would not walk into a lions den but a human may watch a riot when really they should distance themselves from it.

I would distance myself, other 'paranoids' might too.

It is about perceiving a threat and taking avoidance action.

I am disputing the use of the word paranoid solely for the purpose of a false positive. I use that word regardless of what appears after the evasive action has been taken. For me 'paranoid' is the trigger that results in taking evasive action. Actual threat/no threat irrelevant.

 

[Oli]

"The fact is the biological response is the same. The subsequent outside appearance of the threat should not be the deciding factor re labelling our internal state and diagnosing our mental fitness. As it is 'luck' what appears.

If a bunny appears we are mad, if a lion appears we are sensible. No one knows what will appear so why is a reaction which takes only one form defined by those unpredictable circumstances?"

Because it was a survival trait when there were predators around. React to the twig snapping and you have a head start over your companions who wait to see what it is. Those that wait leave it too long and die out.

For example, my paranoia was advantageous as the threat was real, but had it not presented then my behaviour would have been ODD indeed.

Depends what the threat was, these days there are few genuine threats to humans (other than other humans). I think Larry Niven described a sense of humour as an "interrupted defence mechanism".

I would say my paranoia is within 'useful' boundaries and I'd rather have it than NOT. That is a fact.

Exactly, if it's useful and protects from real threats then it's not paranoia.

I think lack of paranoia does result in people placing themselves at risk. A deer would not walk into a lions den but a human may watch a riot when really they should distance themselves from it.

But that's not a lack of paranoia, since a riot is the lion in full view, it's a lack of common sense.

I would distance myself, other 'paranoids' might too.

As would anyone with sense.

It is about perceiving a threat and taking avoidance action.

No, paranoia is about perceiving threats that aren't real.

I am disputing the use of the word paranoid solely for the purpose of a false positive. I use that word regardless of what appears after the evasive action has been taken. For me 'paranoid' is the trigger that results in taking evasive action. Actual threat/no threat irrelevant.

Again I'd have to disagree. There's a practical, useful survival mechanism and there's paranoia.