Reality vs Perception

@encode_decode :

CODE RED! Please contact me immediately! We have a problem!

These kinds of posts could be taken more than one way and are not that specific in what they are trying to deliver. I personally get left with the feeling that I am being accused of having no experience at 42 years of age and therefore accused of saying things that are not real. But who exactly is doing the accusing? Somebody with experience of what I am talking about? I fear not. It is not like I am discussing anything necessarily new here - similar topics have been discussed for millennia.

So what is it that pilgrim-seeker_tom was trying to say to me? That all I was doing was “blah … blah … blah”? Fine, I no longer care what he thinks. He does not have to read anything that I have put together. I would suggest that of anybody. We all have the choice whether to read certain material or not.

To put it simply and somewhat figuratively: There is no sense in blaming me for something you would decide to do. I don’t blame others for what I decide on.

The things I post are the things I talk about and some people happen to find them interesting.

Peace

:smiley:

To put it into philosophical jargon, the idea of a sense data(precept) reduces perception and it’s objects ultimately. Infinitely, with the object falling below the threshold of perception.

Objection to Russell’s idea .
How would it coincide with Nietzche’s idea of the nihilized something of the abyss?

Recently approved post.

I will get back to you soon with my interpretation of what you are asking.

For now: I can not be certain that I understand what you mean - that is fine though - I can attempt some interpretation and hope to not fall too far from the mark.

There is meaning coming at me from your post. I have not read Nietzsche.

Thanks for that and I will attempt a general idea of what comes up in connection to that.

Hopefully I am not conflating concepts in a corrupt way. I am still new to this concept of sense data. I am aware of my misuse here.

Just a stray thought: We have failed to take into account the processes that happen below the conscious states - namely those that go on in the brain. Many neural networks are activated in relation to any given sense datum and some do not appear to bring into perception any given thing - we perceive the main event each time but many smaller events have taken place further strengthening future sense datum ready for activation - reminding us of some thing at a time.

I propose more than one sense datum at a time - those that fall into conscious and those which do not. I further propose that there is nothing meaningless going on in the brain - that we are misunderstanding what meaning is and therefore discounting meaning happening that is not perceived.

The brain is its own universe. We are the actor.

My studies show that a thought need not be in the conscious. A thought comes with its own machinery.

I must admit, I am curious as to what brought this question about. The idea and the objection point at something familiar involving entropy.

I don’t think pilgrim seeker was referring to you, but the board in general:

You are the least arrogant and mentally blocked on here, which is why we are friends.

No, he’s saying that any assessment of reality without experience is blah blah meaningless garbage. He’s saying object + subject constitute reality.

“Nothing ever becomes real till experienced – even a proverb is no proverb until your life has illustrated it” - John Keats

Pilgrim seeker is someone whom I’ve disengaged with because I’m not sure how to take him either. It began ok, but then he seemed to snap at me. It could be an innocent artifact of how he talks, which could be why he peppers his posts with emoticons. Idk…

But yeah, there is a lot of arrogance on display here. People just want to be right and aren’t so much concerned with truth. That’s part of the meaning of the Sounds of Silence.

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said “The words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls
And whispered in the sounds of silence”

Truth falls on deaf ears because people have no regard for the bland, but prefer the egoic neon.

Or we could say that Galileo wanted to reveal truth that the church wished to hide for its own perverted reasons, so not to disturb the sound of silence.

Taken from the Genius site genius.com/1938673

If it falls below the threshold of perception, can it be an object? Note that perception doesn’t necessarily necessitate consciousness or awareness of perception.

What can’t be perceived, can’t be real, so it seems consistent.

Good stuff!

What is a brain?

In biology, the unitary approach makes it explicit why no organism can be thought of without an environment. An organism as a skin bag is no functioning system; it may be such only together with the relevant environmental parts. The same applies to neurophysiology or “cognitive” brain research: without the rest of the world the nervous system is not a system at all; neither is the agent of the behavior a part of the body, such as the brain.

researchgate.net/publicatio … Psychology

I really like that. Your above interpretations are very likely more accurate than mine - I do not fully trust my assumptions ever. As for the above interpretations, regarding tom and the like as well as the sense data and Nietzsche I will get back to you on that - I am still reading up on nihilism as it pertains to Nietzsche as well as a little extra. Regarding what I have quoted in this post, well, I never considered the rest of the world.

Thanks. Cya soon.

:smiley:

Lately, after all, I tried to write an answer to a previous comment but found I could not because of the limited three subquotes.

So generally, Sartre is still holding the infinite reduction at bay, through reducing to the point where things makes sense via a bracketing. He is still holding to Descartes’ notion of thinking being (thinking of Being) , rather then the Nothingness of an infinite existentially reduced precept. As it turns out, such would prove contrary phenomenologically and here he could/would say Non cogiti non sum, or where I can not think, I do not exist,

One cannot think in nihilism, the child’s fear of the abyss, the dark is where he can not see himself" and thus know himself as an existent. Here he doesnt exist.

Nihilism is an all consuming idea of a death, which may turn out to be a perceptual illusion.

I agree with the above of the existence of the correlation as consisting of sufficient logical necessity, but at a certain level below the reduction of the phenomenon, it looses its structural basis.

I will try to make this comment more sufficiently substantial, as I review the comments above in which the relevance were confirmed by both of you.

Russell’s precept or sense data held the way Descartes’ and did. Nietzsche showed that prophetically, ironically after the fact.

I have also been thinking about tacit knowledge. I agree with Polanyi that all knowledge is rooted in tacit knowledge. I can make an extension here and say that memories are never stored exactly as the experience that prompts them. No memories are fully codified.

There is also a mathematical principle covering information entropy that tells me that the human brain expresses more entropy when storing and recalling memories.

I have an AI model that is flexible enough to not be overcome by the entropy.

I was going to add something else but it seems to have slipped my mind.

It is paradoxical any way, as is the comments above on Descartes, Nietzsche and Sartre. Ironically its a foreward progressing entropic process.

You are the very embodiment of that principle, I must say.

If it slipped Your mind, recovery may come if You are willing to wait and discern later what it may have been

And lastly encode, what is the general makeup of an AI which can overcome entropy? Would it be reverse engineered somehow to reduce the effects of a modeling?
Of You are able to discuss this in philosophically relevant terms or may lay a foundation for further elaboration. and prove useful, as far as it concerns the eventual relative outcome of this forum’s topic.

Or possibly this a kind of exploratory investigation into the
Specificity of a claim against general propositions? I hope so, and in embodied claims, no specificity is required , at least not in this format.

Much appreciated.

Is not intelligence a reduction of entropy?

There are two ways of looking at that since intelligence is an organization, but expression of information tends towards randomness.

0000000 carries no information and is most ordered.
01010101 or repeat (01) carries more information and is somewhat ordered.
0110100 carries yet more information and is most random (least ordered) of the bunch.

So is intelligence entropic or is it not? I’m confused lol

Nihilism probably means whatever people want it to mean. I haven’t read Nietzsche either, except wikipedia, so I can’t speak for him, but for me it means purposelessness, which is the purpose. Not death and abyss and blackness. Just nonteleological serendipity which is better represented by Wu Wei en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei Mindless and purposeless = fun. Fun is a simple 3-letter word juxtaposed against purpose.

For instance I am not talking about this for any reason, but simply because it’s fun and enjoyable. There is no purpose and that is the purpose. That’s about as nihilistic as one can get, I would think. But to insist upon some blackness or emptiness comes because of some purpose of the one insisting and that’s not nihilism.

There can only be two motivations: Purpose and nonpurpose. Either you have an agenda, a goal, or you’re doing whatever, mindlessly.

So what Nietzsche said is a trivia for those interested in reading what he said. Mark Twain said to be careful of reading health books or one may die of a misprint, so I don’t want to be too wrapped up in other people’s stuff.

Geese flying over a lake do not intend to cast their reflections and the lake has no mind to retain their image. Birds do not sing for the advancement of music. There is no purpose to anything and that is the best purpose to have :wink:

Without elaborating, I would answer, yes. Intelligence is a reduction of entropy.

A perfect example.

I would say that intelligence is somewhat entropic - that intelligence is only a reduction of entropy.

I reserve the right to change my mind, lol.

lol that’s a nice touch :slight_smile:

If gravity is anetropic, AI would be the blackhole of intelligence… an explosion in reverse.

:clap: