On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;137828 wrote:

...your halloween costume says everything about you...why should it not ?

I know you mean that jokingly but I take the opportunity beneficially anyway.

Although we can change our costumes and pretend to be whatever we choose, the real you and me is still really just covered over with superficial ideas. Or do you really think you are a Pirate of the Carribean or Luke Sywalker?

@Pathfinder,

Whatever you do, or choose, you do it because you are you and not someone else...the costume, whatever you pick, does n' t hide you... by the contrary, it reveals you quite well.
Dynamic, momentum, or simply the path, are in the eye of the storm on this concern... Smile

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 07:32 AM ----------

(I'm replying from a PDA...)

@Pathfinder,

simplify, simplify, simplify

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;137833 wrote:

Whatever you do, or choose, you do it because you are you and not someone else...the costume, whatever you pick, does n' t hide you... by the contrary, it reveals you quite well.
Dynamic, momentum, or simply the path, are in the eye of the storm on this concern...

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 07:32 AM ----------

(I'm replying from a PDA...)

I disagree , the choices you make may reveal things about yourself but when you are in disguise your choices do hide you from others who cannot discern who you are while in disguise.

The point is that only you can know yourself, what others know is their perception of you, and that may or mat not be accurate, depending on how well they know you.

Many child molesters appear to others to be friendly, child loving people, and that is how people see them, and that is how these predators manage their prey. Just because people see them as friendly certainly does not reveal their true character/ selves.

Self is an imagination of the brain trying to perceive its environment, just like those people trying to perceive the molester. Both are mistaken in their discernment of what they are trying to perceive. The molester is not a friend to reality and the neither is the brain. The brain causes us to perceive in the physical and only by what it is physically able to comprehend. Anything that is beyond the reach of the brain's ability to comprehend is diluted into whatever it can manage to suggest.

A diluted reality is not reality.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;137851 wrote:

I disagree , the choices you make may reveal things about yourself but when you are in disguise your choices do hide you from others who cannot discern who you are while in disguise.

The point is that only you can know yourself, what others know is their perception of you, and that may or mat not be accurate, depending on how well they know you.

Many child molesters appear to others to be friendly, child loving people, and that is how people see them, and that is how these predators manage their prey. Just because people see them as friendly certainly does not reveal their true character/ selves.

Self is an imagination of the brain trying to perceive its environment, just like those people trying to perceive the molester. Both are mistaken in their discernment of what they are trying to perceive. The molester is not a friend to reality and the neither is the brain. The brain causes us to perceive in the physical and only by what it is physically able to comprehend. Anything that is beyond the reach of the brain's ability to comprehend is diluted into whatever it can manage to suggest.

A diluted reality is not reality.

I?m not defending that Self is not a construction of the brain, I know better than that, but instead I?m just going for something deeper...Construction or not, self or anything else, something who perceives even if indirectly, has to reflect Reality?s process of becoming, specifically in that given Space\Time vector, which is what you call "you", "I" or "It"...to my view the Necessity of such, and such being, exactly as it is, implies Truth through perspective...
(...of course there may be many perspectives but none of them has to be wrong as they all end up giving away the Thing which "Is"...well, that?s exactly why they are called perspectives is n?t it ?...)

The point being that disguises are n?t perfect, and clues are always there to be seen if one pays enough attention...

...plus, don?t forget, one thing is to intuitively experience Reality as a Whole, through a Dialectical process, and quite another, to bring up a discursive Theory on it...indeed discourse will never end... if not with the end of time and History, but nevertheless, Transcendental is not Transcendence...

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 01:19 PM ----------

The danger of this situation is that I put myself in nobody?s land regarding this issue, getting heat from both sides as expected...still I must insist that neither do I think that naive Realism or even Empiricism attains the answer to the problem, always disregarding (more or less) language, symbols, and representations immanent nature, as a true obstacle who poses serious difficulties on factual knowledge of Reality, but also nor do I believe in a Solipsist Idealistic and ultimately Anthropological approach who denies any form of contact with the world around us and strives in terms like personnel freedom and creativity, whatever that means, simultaneously falling for an idiotic attempt of universal communication on the issue at heart...a pure loss of time almost appealing to transcendent projection and infinity...I definitely find it to self convenient for my taste, if you get my meaning...

Concluding my awkward perspective is rationalist at core, and walks towards a dialectical and Holistic possibility of knowing, but such, as an Individual, thus always regarding perspective and subject stand points as fundamental referents on the relation, and also not forgetting the symbolic and linguistic contingent difficulties, as a limit...a limit, not to knowledge itself, which can intuitively be inferred from the omni presence of first and final conditions, but from the implausible possibility of a final discursive Theory, on it...

Knowledge is in fact a personnel experience... Smile

nevertheless, it perfectly mirrors Reality?s essence !

@Zetherin,

There are no accidents, only a matter of how conscious we are of particular things at particular times, and keeping in mind we are not omniscient.

@Sean OConnor,

Sean O'Connor;137987 wrote:

There are no accidents, only a matter of how conscious we are of particular things at particular times, and keeping in mind we are not omniscient.

So if someone steps on my toe, and then says, "excuse me, it was an accident", I should not believe him?

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;137825 wrote:

It appears to me as I gaze into the mirror that I am the most handsome man on the face of the earth. Of course the reality you see when you look at me may have a different conclusion. And also, I, or what I really am, has nothing to do with the facade I see in the mirror. When I put a mask on my face and look in the mirror am I not the same person? How is that possible when I am looking at a different face? Obviously the appearance you see has nothing to do with the reality of who you are. And yet we all recognize each other mainly by our faces. There are other characteristics which those who are familiar with us can recognize like dress, stride, and physical structure for instance, but the details of the face make it easier to eliminate similarities with other people.

And yet, even when disguised somehow, our friends may not recognize us, but we are still who we are, whether they know us or not. Reality is not a matter of appearance. Reality does not take form based upon appearances or perceptions. In my halloween costume the reality is I am still me, no matter how you would perceive it.

Let's assume that you are in a haloween costume such that I cannot recognize you. What "appears" to me is a "visual phenomenon" of what I recognize as a person wearing clothes that seem unusual. If I know that it's around halloween I might speculate that the person is wearing a halloween costume, and look at their face :detective: to see if I recognize it as being that of someone I know. If your face is also disguised, I might try to guess who the person is who is in disguise, or I might just pass you by. The "visual phenomenon" of a person in unusual clothes is what I experience, is reality to me. The rest is speculation, although it also is reality to me. It is real speculation.

I seem to have to go through this analysis of what happens in visual perception from time to time in this Forum, so here goes again. According to physical and biological theory, light from the sun or from a luminescent device travels through the air and is absorbed by atoms on the surface of a physical object. Some of the energy from the light is reradiated by the atoms on the surface as energy, usually of different frequencies than that of the light impinging upon it. This energy again travels through the air to the eyeball of a person who may be "looking at the object." The energy rays are inverted by the prism of the lens of the eyeball such that they are projected upside down onto the retina of the eyeball. The nerve cells in the retina are differentiated to selectively absorb certain frequencies of this this energy and generate electrical impulses along the axons of the nerve cells. These electrical impulses are then converted into chemical transmitters at the dendrites within the brain and these chemicals in turn stimualte some other cells in the so-called "visual cortex" of the brain. Then, through a process that science has yet to explain, the activity of the visual cortex of the brain results in the person doing the "looking" to experience a "visual phenomenon" that correponds in some fashion to what they have learned from previous experience indicates that they are "looking at an object."

Now the "appearance" of the "object" can differ greatly depending upon the intensity and range of frequencies of the light that is impinging on the object, the shadows caused by irregularities on the surface of the object, the conditions of the air through which the reradiated energy travels (a smoke filled room, for instance), the health of the eyeball (the person may have cataracts or glaucoma), the health of the nerve cells in transmitting the impulses to the brain or of the brain cells in the region of the brain where visual reception takes place, or the mental condition of the person (they may be on drugs or delusional). All of these factors can affect the real "visual phenomenon" or "appearance" of the "object" to the "subject" or person who is experiencing them and as far as the person is concerned the "appearance" is what is "real" to them.

Now on the basis of the real "visual phenomenon" or "appearance" they are experiencing, they may speculate as to what is causing the "visual phenomenon" or "appearance" that they are "in reality" experiencing, and this would experience "real thoughts" about it. They might even have a "real memory" of having experienced a similar "visual phenomenon" in the past and of having learned that the "visual phenomenon" was caused by a certain type of "object." But this memory would be just as much a "real phenomenon" to them as that of the "visual phenomenon."

Unfortunately, science has brainwashed us into thinking that the so-called "physical objects" that they postulate as the causes of the "visual phenomena" we experience are more "real" than the "visual phenomena" and the thoughts and memories we may have about them.

:flowers:

@longknowledge,

There is a large white screen in the back of the room. A projector is casting an image of a man standing there from an old movie that is playing.

What we are looking at is the visual image of an old man.

But in reality it is a large white screen regardless of what your brain is telling you is there, or the function of your visual cortex.

Speculations about what might be reality are NOT reality.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;138221 wrote:

There is a large white screen in the back of the room. A projector is casting an image of a man standing there from an old movie that is playing.

What we are looking at is the visual image of an old man.

But in reality it is a large white screen regardless of what your brain is telling you is there, or the function of your visual cortex.

Speculations about what might be reality are NOT reality.

I still don?t get to what you?r aiming at...
Who said that Reality and perception are the same thing ???
knowledge is not about being but about representing something !
I?m having the impression that you are not following the Thread from the beginning...or that you simply are not paying attention...
Two or three dismissive sentences won?t get you anywhere...

...in a recycling process the discourse and the representation are obviously never finished, thus, the becoming of knowing itself is always being transformed...do if this becoming is a Necessary one whatever it represents it?s not flawed...aldo I seriously doubt that you have clearly understood what I?ve just said I said anyway...perspective is about this !!!...if I look to an object from several different points in Space I will have several different perspectives on it (hypothetically millions of possibilities)...none is false and all of them refer to the same thing...I am the reference to Knowing ! (and no one can know exactly as I do !) Should n?t this be simple ?

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 09:44 AM ----------

...as for the film, don?t forget that in order to project something in a screen before that you certainly need to observe something through a camera...so more or less indirect the process of observing always refers to the same reality...the materials in which this knowing is imprinted are of no major relevance, let it be the film the screen or the brain...

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 09:52 AM ----------

...the problem lays in the agreement of what this knowing refers to given that no one shares exactly the same perspective as no one stands exactly in the same place of observation...context is the key word here !

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 10:00 AM ----------

Knowing does n?t refer to the object alone, but to the object that is for me...(damn I?m I good !!! :bigsmile: )

Thus, the object itself is referent and refers to all perspectives in all reality...it relates to everything, its a Meta-Object !

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

longknowledge
Unfortunately, science has brainwashed us into thinking that the so-called "physical objects" that they postulate as the causes of the "visual phenomena" we experience are more "real" than the "visual phenomena" and the thoughts and memories we may have about them.

yes fair comment. BUT are they also saying that visual phenomena are real? Are they saying that visual phenomena are real but different to objects?

I can never understand from what you have written re ortega, as to whether he disputes the reality of objects and spacetime as revealed by science, or not. I know he states the reality of the belief of those scientifically postulated phenomena, but he seems to dodge whether they are as real as experiences. Everything being an experience gives two possibilities (within the experience of simple logic) that a football is an experience in and of itself in a spacetime in and of itself, and/or a football is an experience for a seperate mind. Both, either, neither?

If ortega rejects objectivity, then your arguement re the reality of an appearance compared to the reality of an object that causes it, is not true to the ortega scheme is it?

@pagan,

pagan;138278 wrote:

yes fair comment. BUT are they also saying that visual phenomena are real? Are they saying that visual phenomena are real but different to objects?

I can never understand from what you have written re ortega, as to whether he disputes the reality of objects and spacetime as revealed by science, or not. I know he states the reality of the belief of those scientifically postulated phenomena, but he seems to dodge whether they are as real as experiences. Everything being an experience gives two possibilities (within the experience of simple logic) that a football is an experience in and of itself in a spacetime in and of itself, and/or a football is an experience for a seperate mind. Both, either, neither?

If ortega rejects objectivity, then your arguement re the reality of an appearance compared to the reality of an object that causes it, is not true to the ortega scheme is it?

All phenomena's are equally Real...the question stands to contextualize in which order and to what referent they are...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Fil. Albuquerque
All phenomena's are equally Real

is that necessarily true? Are you stating a personal belief?

If there is a context for 'real' as a quality, then could there not be a context where one phenomena is less real than another?

eg if realness is experience, then objectivity attempts to undermine the realness of experience, even though it can be concieved of as an experience. Is this not precisely what longknowledge is saying? ie objectivity as an experience, is an attempt at an inauthentic experience.

@pagan,

pagan;138311 wrote:

is that necessarily true? Are you stating a personal belief?

If there is a context for 'real' as a quality, then could there not be a context where one phenomena is less real than another?

eg if realness is experience, then objectivity attempts to undermine the realness of experience, even though it can be concieved of as an experience. Is this not precisely what longknowledge is saying? ie objectivity as an experience, is an attempt at an inauthentic experience.

...If someone likes chocolate and you don?t is the liking chocolate perspective less real than yours ??? Is the object who provide you with a contextualized experience less existent ? Is your perception not real ?

...In what sense is Inauthentic experience ??? Is n?t the object a genuine part of the meta-Object ? Even if the object infers a relation with the observer why should it not be authentic ?

What the hack is authenticity about ???

When I look into a room from a certain perspective would that imply falsity in my observation ?

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 05:12 PM ----------

Lets not fault the facts...perspective obeys laws and its not an arbitrary occurrence.
...We all are objects of subjects and subjects of objects...objects themselves have particular relations with other objects...Gravitation in relations is the core concept to attain.

@kennethamy,

they weren't looking

@Fil Albuquerque,

i wasn't trying to get you to agree. i wasn't saying that philosophical schemes that say everything is equally real are false. I was exploring possibilities, particularily with regard to ortega, and objectivity generally.

With regard to authenticity, reality and experience. One person perceives george bush junior as a part of a secret government and feels the hate and fear of him. Another feels he is a man trying to do his best for the country and is grateful. If the two people believed in Ortega's philosophical scheme, (that may or may not be against objectivity), then each might say that authenticity of experience is everything here. (Including the rejection of believing in the objective truth of george bush?)

@pagan,

pagan;138400 wrote:

i wasn't trying to get you to agree. i wasn't saying that philosophical schemes that say everything is equally real are false. I was exploring possibilities, particularily with regard to ortega, and objectivity generally.

With regard to authenticity, reality and experience. One person perceives george bush junior as a part of a secret government and feels the hate and fear of him. Another feels he is a man trying to do his best for the country and is grateful. If the two people believed in Ortega's philosophical scheme, (that may or may not be against objectivity), then each might say that authenticity of experience is everything here. (Including the rejection of believing in the objective truth of george bush?)

...Objects are about partial yet genuine knowledge...meta-Objects are about not needing to know...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Fil. Albuquerque
...Objects are about partial yet genuine knowledge...meta-Objects are about not needing to know...

....... was i asking impertinently about a meta object?!

@pagan,

pagan;138406 wrote:

....... was i asking impertinently about a meta object?!

Are n?t we all ? Smile

@Fil Albuquerque,

i must admit i get that feeling with regard to ortega Smile

Philosophy Forum

On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

Quick Links

My Account

able2know