Spirituality in Atheism
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Sam,
What is the difference between sensation and perception?
I thought they were different words for the same thing?
Is there a distinction where "sensation" applies to the actual nerve endings that generate some signal, while "perception" is what your brain makes of that signal?
What is the difference between sensation and perception?
I thought they were different words for the same thing?
Is there a distinction where "sensation" applies to the actual nerve endings that generate some signal, while "perception" is what your brain makes of that signal?
thats it
sensations are derived from the sense organs
in order to experience the sensation we have to perceive it
yup
sounds about right
there is an overlap and redundancy to some degree
i guess the context is important
introspection into one's consciousness is an epistemological and semantical nightmare. a heightened sense of linguistic discipline has to be maintained or one would suffer the ignominy of devolving into meaningless rhetoric that is usually mistaken for some profound truth
sensations are derived from the sense organs
in order to experience the sensation we have to perceive it
yup
sounds about right
there is an overlap and redundancy to some degree
i guess the context is important
introspection into one's consciousness is an epistemological and semantical nightmare. a heightened sense of linguistic discipline has to be maintained or one would suffer the ignominy of devolving into meaningless rhetoric that is usually mistaken for some profound truth
Not necessarily. I can tell you've never been touched by liquid nitrogen
You'd not perceive it as icy believe me. You'd perceive it as a a hot poker, especially if you weren't looking and I told you it was.
So although the sensation was really really icy cold, the perception would be one of extreme heat and the experience would be that of a burn (you'd get a burn, btw). There is some argument that heat and cold receptors lie in the same neurons hence the difficulty in separating the two sensations at extremes.
Similarly, when you eat meat, although the sensation is of the individual taste components, the perception is that you are eating "meat" and if it is something like turkey bacon, the experience is that you are missing something or that its a great alternative to pig bacon, depending on your outlook (the experience of a perceived sensation is subjective and modified by knowledge and prior experiences and of course, bias).
Another example of sensation vs perception is the phantom limb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecture1.shtml
Last edited:
nice
the body defective
you indicate instances of faulty sensors
Will we ever be able to see colours we have never have seen? When I tell other people about my wonder to have different perceptions they think it is bogus. Will genetics and medicine make it possible in the future? When? link
I am a massage therapist. After a massage a customer said that when I had massaged her on a certain part of her body she could see a certain color, for ex. red, & at another spot she saw the color blue. Is there a reason to this? link
physiological norms, aberrations and abnormalities
there really is no larger point to all this other than we do not blindly trust our perceptions. our sapience allows for a comparative analysis of all sensory inputs before any strict hypotheses are formulated
the body defective
you indicate instances of faulty sensors
Will we ever be able to see colours we have never have seen? When I tell other people about my wonder to have different perceptions they think it is bogus. Will genetics and medicine make it possible in the future? When? link
I am a massage therapist. After a massage a customer said that when I had massaged her on a certain part of her body she could see a certain color, for ex. red, & at another spot she saw the color blue. Is there a reason to this? link
physiological norms, aberrations and abnormalities
there really is no larger point to all this other than we do not blindly trust our perceptions. our sapience allows for a comparative analysis of all sensory inputs before any strict hypotheses are formulated
sam
But as in the case of Michelson and Morley’s ether tests, more important than all Penfield’s findings was a momentous absence: Nowhere in the brain did he discover any evidence of mind—the consciously deciding, willing, imagining, and creative force in human thought. Penfield summed up his conclusion: The electrode can present to the patient various crude sensations. It can cause him to turn head and eyes, or to move the limbs, or to vocalize and swallow. It may recall vivid re-experience of the past, or present to him an illusion that present experience is familiar, or that the things he sees are growing large and coming near. But he remains aloof. He passes judgment on it all. He says, "things are growing larger," but he does not move for fear of being run over. If the electrode moves his right hand, he does not say, "I wanted to move it." He may, however, reach over with the left hand and oppose his action.
Penfield found that the content of consciousness could be selectively altered by outside manipulation. But however much he probed, he could not enter consciousness itself. He could not find the mind or invade its autonomy. Penfield concludes, "The patient’s mind, which is considering the situation in such an aloof and critical manner, can only be something quite apart from neuronal reflex action.… Although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, aware-ness itself does not." (gilder)
The Role of the Temporal Cortex in Certain Psychical Phenomena
are you familiar with penfield's epilepsy research? comment?
But as in the case of Michelson and Morley’s ether tests, more important than all Penfield’s findings was a momentous absence: Nowhere in the brain did he discover any evidence of mind—the consciously deciding, willing, imagining, and creative force in human thought. Penfield summed up his conclusion: The electrode can present to the patient various crude sensations. It can cause him to turn head and eyes, or to move the limbs, or to vocalize and swallow. It may recall vivid re-experience of the past, or present to him an illusion that present experience is familiar, or that the things he sees are growing large and coming near. But he remains aloof. He passes judgment on it all. He says, "things are growing larger," but he does not move for fear of being run over. If the electrode moves his right hand, he does not say, "I wanted to move it." He may, however, reach over with the left hand and oppose his action.
Penfield found that the content of consciousness could be selectively altered by outside manipulation. But however much he probed, he could not enter consciousness itself. He could not find the mind or invade its autonomy. Penfield concludes, "The patient’s mind, which is considering the situation in such an aloof and critical manner, can only be something quite apart from neuronal reflex action.… Although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, aware-ness itself does not." (gilder)
The Role of the Temporal Cortex in Certain Psychical Phenomena
are you familiar with penfield's epilepsy research? comment?
if you read the penfield excerpt, how would you imagine the test subject/patient's response to the question posed above by you?
cmon pete
cut to the chase, will ya
has the cited experiments been refuted or reinterpretated in a meaningful manner?
link?
if not, what about my question? is it relevant?
The question of whether cognitive, mind-based concepts will eventually become redundant (under a reductionist account) or coexist with neural-based accounts (e.g. as in dual-aspect theory) is for the future to decide. But for now, cognitive, mind-based concepts have an essential role to play in cognitive neuroscience. (Dr Jamie Ward 2006 - publications)
cut to the chase, will ya
has the cited experiments been refuted or reinterpretated in a meaningful manner?
link?
if not, what about my question? is it relevant?
The question of whether cognitive, mind-based concepts will eventually become redundant (under a reductionist account) or coexist with neural-based accounts (e.g. as in dual-aspect theory) is for the future to decide. But for now, cognitive, mind-based concepts have an essential role to play in cognitive neuroscience. (Dr Jamie Ward 2006 - publications)
Last edited:
I don't know, I thought you might. But it's 50 year old research, so it would be surprising if there wasn't something more up do date, either refuting or confirming.
I don't think it's relevant. Penfield's response would be relevant, but the test subjects are just randoms.
That's not surprising. Mind-based models will always have a role in neuroscience.
Models work on different levels, different levels are useful in different contexts.
Einstein's model of gravity is a lower-level model than Newton's model of gravity, but you still use Newton's laws when you're launching satellites.
Newton's model is a lower level than our everyday intuitive understanding , but you don't need Newton's laws to catch a ball.
it just feels interesting to touch a tree, and to know that you and them are made of the same thing, and that forces intrisic to the little bits of you an them are what's keeping your hand from sinking into them, that kind of stuff
lI wouldn't call it spirituality though
lI wouldn't call it spirituality though