Reality vs Perception

I don’t really give a damn whether you “follow or not” … I simply scatter seeds … the germination of such seeds is beyond my purview. :slight_smile:

Seems the difference between me and many of the frequent posters in this forum is that I have no substantial investment in my opinions. :slight_smile:

I’m content to float on the surface of the ocean as the tide ebbs and flows … crashing on the shores of human consciousness. :slight_smile:

OK

Meno_

I found your post very stimulating and it brought a number of thoughts into my mind. Hopefully my reflection provides some value in return.

By setting the stage for our reality at such an early age it makes sense that our impressions would lead us astray fairly quickly. As you say “perception of reality at this stage is identical with reality, and perception is not thought as being part of it” and this makes me think that because reality is not letting us down for enough time to form a trust or belief in reality that we begin to take it for granted and further presume that reality is never going to let us down. The first time something unexpected happens we begin to have our reality corrupted because we can no longer believe reality entirely so we use our own faculties to form a newer version of reality.

Furthermore since truth can regularly be unforgiving, and, as individuals, we normally incline toward not so much torment but rather more joy, we essentially don’t care for our little self-deceptive universes to be resentful about such an inconsequential issue as truth. We don’t stress over the outcomes we may need to manage tomorrow; we simply need to feel great today. In any case, we just prevail with regards to deceiving ourselves when we participate in such shallow considering. Actually one must will to encounter the inconvenience regularly connected with truth if his goal is to accomplish positive, long haul outcomes.

I really like your usage of the idea that the brain is a filtering system - Another significant deterrent to a precise impression of the truth is the thing that I get a kick out of the chance to allude to as pattern confinement. In a sense the brains ability to filter is restricted to learnt patterns.

We are altogether restricted not exclusively to the planet on which we live, at the same time, allegorically, we dwell inside our own particular mental universes. It is hard to fathom thoughts and conditions we are not familiar with hearing and seeing inside the imperceptible parameters that encompass our lives. Along these lines, one of the reasons for our varying impression of truth is that we as a whole begin from our own arrangement of suspicions. This is absolutely the motivation behind why the genuine searcher of truth must figure out how to address everything and surrender appreciated thoughts, regardless of whether it implies enduring distress.

To become ones own liberator from pattern confinement requires a receptive outlook. This requires dismissal of custom and convention as a premise of certainty, and, in its place, acknowledgment of rationale and reason. To get destined for success in life requires that you figure out how to accurately see reality and have the strength to acknowledge it.

Interestingly this reminds me of a construct that I have in AI called an inceptron. An inceptron takes with it an impression of said reality, relying on no proof and afterwards the resultant is questioned as knowns(another construct) are built - being equal in theory to the assumption you mention. Just a side note.

I could not have said it better myself Meno_

You have made an interesting topic even more interesting, thank you for that.

Encode,

Can an extension be made from the previous , which affirms the idea of some basis for both: Eddingon’ s and Einstein’s ideal construction for the reality of a Central Intelligence, the contemporainity of which attests to the very brief timescale of limited perception of, individual reality?

In other words, the doorways through both: the beginning and end appear to pose as those identical/logical formal arrangements, through which, the incessant proclivity of repeated near identical-but-more similar repetitions process?

Again in other words, the identifiers or signals betwixt reality and perception, form paradigms of reference, perhaps ultimately to serve as some kind of guarantee for the imminent
Progression to repeated transcendence?

I am not taking this opportunity to derail this forum, only to seek possible logical underpinnings which may buttress the above Men’s possible basis for furthering their ideas.

If You may see no merit in this extension may not mean Your dissent, only a quiet restraint for so bold an assertion.

When I first entered ILP, I came in a naive realist. Assuming I will be given hearing on my claim that I had a dream of Polanyi, and that hearing was responded to critically.and unfavorably.
However, his ‘Tacit Knowledge’ gives confirmation, rather
then disqualification to this underlying sense of subconscious manifestation of primordial artifacts of reality.

Lastly, here, my thinking serves only to perpetuate underlying rationale to hold initial experiences of -’ Reality’-at bay.

Finally, Your name ‘decode’ may assuage me to hope for a proper dress down or decoding, without prejudice.

Meno_

I may well be not on the same wavelength with this line of thought but I am certain I present an interesting journey in my answer so let us proceed. Please correct me where I am wrong and inquire to what may not make sense. I like to attempt an answer to most things so here goes.

I would have to examine Eddington’s and Einstein’s construction to give a definitive answer but from the brief account of what I have read I would have to say that it is a possibility. I assume your are talking about creation by an intelligent being and I am led to believe that Einstein’s intelligent being theory is a little different to what Eddington thought in that Eddington believes the material of the universe is intelligence or “mind stuff” and both Eddington and Einstein converge at the point of the inter-connectivity of everything in the universe as an invisible field that holds all of reality together.

I am guessing we are talking about a universal intelligence. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming that I am somewhat close to the mark then I have to ask whether we are talking about perception transcending reality or reality transcending perception. I can see how perception transcends reality but to transcend perception we then need to make connection with the repetitive universe. Perception transcends reality in that it can jump connective points and connect two distant percepts whereas reality has to be connected to what is in between the two distant points of reference(analogous to the percepts) or so it would seem - I would suggest that our perceptive reality is consciously broken but subconsciously connected.

I can even see a connection to the flawed reasoning of the quantum physicists believe it or not with the pairing of particles >> a communication of sorts.

I will leave this response here for now to get your feedback, just in case my course needs to be corrected.

The idea of universal intelligence hinges on apparently on what such intelligence may comprise of. Einstein waited until Eddington ‘proved’ his general theory of relativity. I am going this route to show with extremely bold brushstrokes how the sub conscious states interact with those becoming conscious.

If, theory-Einstein-, can be made analogous to the proof-Eddington, then in a sense, primarily it is based on the covered part of a continuum of intelligent activity , wether it be continuous or fragmented; vis. between ’ Reality based, repetitive process instentiating a codified reflective memory, or merely perceptive connections of newly formed -what Russell names 'sense-data. If the continuum predicates then it appears the- what You term -sub conscious- then this is posited as ‘IT’ were some kind of bank of information, from which arises the hypothetical , which has existed all along as some kind of central depository , guaranteed by repetition and varience.

But is such a guarantee of a fact or a model , which is necessary to uphold some kind of assurance of a primordial universal intelligence? Or is it merely an attempt to reduce, rather than infer a discomfort and even fear over the instability of an indeterminate world?

Can molecular intelligence be inferred from the way photons behave in a two slit experiment?

On closer thought, in answer to Russel’s paradoxical non resolved quarry of non-sense data, Wittgenstein answered correctly, that its a non-puzzle because the analogy between sense and data is not based on a primary, necessary logic, its an extrapolation of forming identity from similitude.

This works for me on the level of demoting the fear of the popularized version of the implications of quantum effects.

I think repetition can be inferred by another pair of early explorers - Boltzmann and Maxwell, - who based early studies on patterns of distribution. Things are acting and reacting because of basic probable distribution patterns, which are given. That ‘givenness’ can serve as a constant and predictable way, in which repetitions of those patterns are/become part of the active reactive process between them.

This is the phase, if it can be called that, where analogy breaks down to mirror, or reflect the constant recurrence of similar states , infinitely setting the perceptive, transcendency into an imminence of a hidden ‘reality’ as identifiably unique, in the sense of breaking IT(reality) up into sub types.types and paradigms.

What is of the essence here. literally, is that indeterminacy creates its own structural transcendence in the production of hierarchies of analogy, the genesis of which can be traced back to the ancient representation of innumerable turtles lying on other turtles’ backs, or the reflective effect of ever diminishing mirrors reflecting a non existent depth. I think Narcissus began to realize the ‘actuality of his depth’ when he began to see himself reflected in the mirror, rather seeing the other.

That this transcendence is one based on the fear that maybe sense-data may really be a construct of convenience to sustain the idea of monadology, or universal expectation for a causal explanation , as Descartes , and others tried, ; turns out ironically to be an unnecessary project

Hundreds of years of construction of this lead to deconstruction, on basis of Wittgenstein’s brilliant shot from the idea of appearance of similitude, or resemblance as the fulcrum around which derivation and identification built insecurity and fear;, where if, such were to be understood in relation to , for example effects of warping space time-as Eddington did to Einstein’s hypothesis implies, -then, imminence as an ultimate state could be understood.

That state, is the ether into which we,the tiny bubble, is temporarily injected, and made to develop the multiple realities
by transcending the per ceivi ing.

Reality becomes the necessary illusion by which various forms of existence become intelligible and this illusion is the highest form of being.

In this sense, we can’t ever sense the data whereby our coming to be and ceasing to be would not turn on this necessary part of understanding.

No. Young’s Double-Slit Experiment is no longer a mystery for some of us.

Thanks for that, but further the point of re-defining intelligence in terms of affectance, not limited to basic organic material still has relevance in progress and planned studies in cybernetics ? The implantation of intelligence microchips is in the works, where the aim not only restri ts the development of higher artificial intelligence, but a fusing with existing human intelligence, as well.

Do You see some kind of effort to bridge the gap between them?

reality encompasses existence; existence encompasses reality

Where does that leave perception?

In the driver’s seat. :evilfun:

No Drinking while driving! Perception must be sober. Real perception can be quite sobering.
Stay alert at all times.

Hmmm . . . yes it could be said that perception is in the drivers seat. The drivers seat is in reality however and exists.

Reality vs Perception

:laughing:

Perhaps some senseless babbling on my part but I still think worthy of slight consideration. Trying to edge toward a truth.

Try not to blink, as something might be missed :laughing:

I have been giving this Einstein/Eddington thing some thought. Eddington suggests that mathematics(language of the universe) was not there until we put it there which is to say that despite the compatibility of mathematics to the universe, the universe obviously displays itself differently to the symbols that we use to express reality.

Differently but compatible . . .

The thing that I have left out is that we are referring to the great architect of the universe being a mathematician. It has been suggested a few times in the media that mathematics is a universal language but this is a misinterpretation of what a language actually is, which is that which is composed of symbols/tokens.

< << <<< >>> >> >

I too am sure that the universe has memory - leading to a universal intelligence - this however I believe is highly mathematical in that flow is involved so that the memory is based on a dynamic of flow which means that the memories are stored in a unique way that we are not accustomed to. When 1 + 1 becomes 2 the 1’s are still remembered if that makes sense. This requires some intuition too for that matter.

Exactly, what it may comprise of and I think it is safe to say that we are not talking about neurons in the way that we are accustomed to id est the neurons of the human brain. Gravity and the other forces then become the medium for communication from my current view and energy and matter become the medium of stored memories, and I would think that because I am not taking into consideration what I am not aware of.

I am not aware of whether the human brain is actually the center of human intelligence but I am aware that it is able to store memories and memories are important to intelligence. Without memories there can not be an intelligence but there is still a flow within our consciousness, an invisible flow, a temporal flow, not so much like a river flows but a flow none the less showing that time is fluid when it comes to the mind. Hint: perhaps even the universe can experience déjà vu.

Back to the language thing - the thing to be aware of >> is that one must read between the lines so to speak >> when trying to interpret even that which I have written here >> to get any sense of what I am saying. I think too that we must read between the mathematical lines >> to make any sense of a universal language.

In the end intelligence can be represented with language and it need not be mathematical language - it need be interpretation.

Interpretation can be a hidden language and it is a hidden thing that I am trying to point to - I have much more to say in another post.

I do believe that at some point Eddington was onto this hidden thing that I am referring to and he calls it convergence. When convergence takes place it is hidden away from perception for a time - I am speaking of convergence as coming together from different directions so as to eventually meet.

Conceptual directions . . .

Eddington said, unity and consistency are ideals to be reached by convergence and he regarded seeking(in religion and philosophy) as more important than finding. I would have to agree since there is more to be learnt along the way than what is to be learnt at the end - the end is only useful for reflection where a few missed concepts might be caught - I am not trying to exclude deep analytical thinking however, rather I am highlighting the importance of seeking.

Eddington also says something similar to: the truth shines ahead as a beacon showing us the path.

Despite some of Eddington’s, what seems to be, confused thinking, it is safe to say that by presenting his ideas in a more clear format would permit us to filter out the more ambiguous thoughts he himself presented. I should start with his table-top paradox in that the everyday table-top is different to the scientific one, id est, the everyday table-top is seemingly solid and impenetrable and the scientific one is mostly composed of figuratively speaking, empty space - suggesting that there are two table-tops in this conceptual situation - components of two distinct worlds - neither world(or description) being the ultimate reality.

Eddington views reality as ultimately spiritual and inscrutable.

I will say for now that what reality and subconsciousness have in common is continuity . . .
. . . whereas perception and consciousness appear not to be unbroken . . .

:-k

Conversely, I believe reality can be interpreted.

Hello there,

What I was saying is that it IS our very own individual perception which builds our reality ~ a reality which may or may not be built on what is “real” and “true”.
That is why perception is in the driver’s seat.

Yes, perception exists but insofar as reality existing by way of one’s individual perception, that would depend on whether or not one is seeing things as they actually are.

Arcturus Descending

Interesting, I was not initially sure of how to answer you but I present a kind of answer for you here.

Hmm, do you deny that at least some of actual reality makes it through and what we come to perceive is partially based on reality?

I am saying that actual reality helps to build our individual reality . . .

I would have to say that we are seeing at the very least partial representations of reality if not the whole of reality.

I hope you see some logic here . . .

In so much that a view of reality is not really what we refer to as reality. Reality is what is viewed, what we interpret it as is perception. All the percepts of reality are in reality, of course. Where else could they be?

If a percept is an object of perception then reality could be said to be in perception by way of interpretation but I am with you on this especially if reality is perceived falsely. Also percepts being the consequence of perception and perception being a near consequence of reality says that percepts are a near consequence of reality.