On the interpretation of our reality

Enmos said:
Don't you rather mean consciousness ?

perception is by definition, what we have in an ability of understanding qualia, whilst consciousness is a product, or rather, a by-product of the qualia interpreted by the electrical signals inside the brain. There is about $$10^6$$ particles in the human brain, if interests you.

I don't know what this means..

Mindlike, being that the world we see is truely a ''reconstruction'' of the externakl world. Thus the world we observe, is by definition, mindlike


Where ? At the same location as it is now.. :confused:

No. If you took away all consciousness in the world, then who is there to say there is a world at all?
Click to expand...



Do you understand what i mean?
 
gluon said:
Do you understand what i mean?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand what you mean, but I think you're wrong.

gluon said:
perception is by definition, what we have in an ability of understanding qualia, whilst consciousness is a product, or rather, a by-product of the qualia interpreted by the electrical signals inside the brain. There is about particles in the human brain, if interests you.
Click to expand...
Perception is not an illusion.
I define perception as follows: The total of stimuli the brains receives, via the senses, from the outside world.

gluon said:
Mindlike, being that the world we see is truely a ''reconstruction'' of the externakl world. Thus the world we observe, is by definition, mindlike
Click to expand...
This seems self-contradictory.
You say there is an external world and that the brain reconstructs this external world for us by using incomplete data. If you meant that, I agree.

gluon said:
No. If you took away all consciousness in the world, then who is there to say there is a world at all?
Click to expand...
No one. But that doesn't mean that the world would be gone, there just wouldn't be anyone to notice it.
 
This is always a bit confusing to understand, but the fundamentals of physics talk about an observer, and a object, and as far as I know, the observer doesn't have to be present for the object to exist.

Originally Posted by gluon
No. If you took away all consciousness in the world, then who is there to say there is a world at all?
Click to expand...

If you have 2 people in a room with a table, and you take away one mind, the other still sees it, the same way other beings out there would see it. A mind isn't required for something else to exist.
 
Naturelles said:
Originally Posted by gluon
If you took away all consciousness in the world, then who is there to say there is a world at all?
Click to expand...


If you have 2 people in a room with a table, and you take away one mind, the other still sees it, the same way other beings out there would see it. A mind isn't required for something else to exist.
Click to expand...

Duh! I believe gluon said 'all' consciousness.

Anyway I think I know what you're saying..... The world would exist even if no one was there to observe it. No?
 
Enmos said:
Do you think Brent is trying to rely on others to provide meaning for his scribblings ? ;)
Click to expand...

It isn't a negative thing at all, attempting to rely upon another soul to at least guide one's thoughts in a positive direction, and hopefully resolve such a deep set of questions concerning their existence, but somewhere along the line the rationality falls far short of continuing the never-ending dialogue. It leads to only more confusion and speculation. But I do understand why a person searches so intensely for these types of answers. I personally have resolved these questions in my life, and can rest in them.
 
Exeter said:
It isn't a negative thing at all, attempting to rely upon another soul to at least guide one's thoughts in a positive direction, and hopefully resolve such a deep set of questions concerning their existence, but somewhere along the line the rationality falls far short of continuing the never-ending dialogue. It leads to only more confusion and speculation. But I do understand why a person searches so intensely for these types of answers. I personally have resolved these questions in my life, and can rest in them.
Click to expand...

nice.
 
tnerb said:
That our reality has an aspect about it that is real that we do not know about nor are aware of.

What do you think.
Click to expand...

Being real is an important aspect of reality:shrug:

There is nothing hidden or secretive but there are things we don't know of. We are not born omniscient.

No matter where you came from or where you end up, it is reality for you. You cannot enter another realm, dimension, universe, world, etc., and claim it is some other reality.
 
Enmos said:
Do you think Brent is trying to rely on others to provide meaning for his scribblings ? ;)
Click to expand...

Actually I was providing an example specifically in an eariler post to this thread anyway, about the core issue presented in this thread....
 
Exeter said:
It isn't a negative thing at all, attempting to rely upon another soul to at least guide one's thoughts in a positive direction, and hopefully resolve such a deep set of questions concerning their existence, but somewhere along the line the rationality falls far short of continuing the never-ending dialogue. It leads to only more confusion and speculation. But I do understand why a person searches so intensely for these types of answers. I personally have resolved these questions in my life, and can rest in them.
Click to expand...

I agree. But it has become a pattern with Brent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top