Cogito Ergo Sum.

[DarkSun]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Our senses do not need to represent reality for us to use them to navigate reality.

Prove it.

[K.Venugopal]

What our mind interprets is the reality for our mind. But our mind alters as it awakens to greater consciousness and reality too changes for us. They say beyond a certain stage, we can see it all as an illusion and reality would be on a different plane for us.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by DarkSun

Prove it.

Are you familiar with the psychology of the senses? If not, simply refer yourself to any good psychology text on the subject. You will almost immediately see the senses do not represent reality, Dark Sun. At best, they symbolize it -- much as a map symbolizes a terrain, or an instrument reduces some reality to a simple quantity.

[DarkSun]

Originally Posted by K.Venugopal

What our mind interprets is the reality for our mind. But our mind alters as it awakens to greater consciousness and reality too changes for us. They say beyond a certain stage, we can see it all as an illusion and reality would be on a different plane for us.

This is really interesting. What stage would that be?

And, if reality is the illusion, then what is real?

[DarkSun]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Are you familiar with the psychology of the senses? If not, simply refer yourself to any good psychology text on the subject. You will almost immediately see the senses do not represent reality, Dark Sun. At best, they symbolize it -- much as a map symbolizes a terrain, or an instrument reduces some reality to a simple quantity.

How do you know that reality is not defined by our senses?

I'm affraid that I'd rather not go near a psychology text. I won't indulge. Long story short, would you be able to ellaborate a bit for me?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by DarkSun

How do you know that reality is not defined by our senses?

If it were, you'd be unable to distinguish anything in the constant stream of light, sound waves and smells your sense organs are ceaselessly encountering. Raw sensations have to be given significance (i.e. be noticed) and given relationship and meaning (i.e. interpreted) in order for the raw feel to become part of perceived reality. Reality is a transaction between sensory data and memory.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by DarkSun

I'm affraid that I'd rather not go near a psychology text. I won't indulge. Long story short, would you be able to ellaborate a bit for me?

I'm looking at a green chair. My eyes and other senses tell me the chair is solid. Physics tells me the chair is mostly empty space. Hence, my eyes and other senses are not displaying or representing the chair to me but are doing something much more akin to symbolizing it -- in much the same sense that a dot on a map might symbolize the presence of a house. The dot doesn't display or represent the house ("represent" is here used in the quaint sense of "re-presenting"). Rather, the dot merely symbolizes the house.

Despite the fact the dot merely symbolizes the house, rather than represents or displays it, I can use the map to navigate my way to the house. Despite that my eyes and other senses tell me the chair is solid, rather than mostly empty space, I can use that information to interact with the chair in the thousand ways a person might interact with a chair.

In other words, my senses do not need to represent reality for them to allow me to navigate reality.

I would suggest, though, that you overcome your reluctance to go near psychology texts and read up on the psychology of the senses.

[DarkSun]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

If it were, you'd be unable to distinguish anything in the constant stream of light, sound waves and smells your sense organs are ceaselessly encountering. Raw sensations have to be given significance (i.e. be noticed) and given relationship and meaning (i.e. interpreted) in order for the raw feel to become part of perceived reality. Reality is a transaction between sensory data and memory.

The only reason we can't pick up on every frequency a photon might be at, is because our senses never evolved to interpret them. Likewise, we can't feel our organs, because we don't need to. How does that invalidate the concept that our senses, those which we do have, might be at fault, and that reality may be an illusion?

[DarkSun]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I'm looking at a green chair. My eyes and other senses tell me the chair is solid. Physics tells me the chair is mostly empty space. Hence, my eyes and other senses are not displaying or representing the chair to me but are doing something much more akin to symbolizing it -- in much the same sense that a dot on a map might symbolize the presence of a house. The dot doesn't display or represent the house ("represent" is here used in the quaint sense of "re-presenting"). Rather, the dot merely symbolizes the house.

Despite the fact the dot merely symbolizes the house, rather than represents or displays it, I can use the map to navigate my way to the house. Despite that my eyes and other senses tell me the chair is solid, rather than mostly empty space, I can use that information to interact with the chair in the thousand ways a person might interact with a chair.

In other words, my senses do not need to represent reality for them to allow me to navigate reality.

I would suggest, though, that you overcome your reluctance to go near psychology texts and read up on the psychology of the senses.

I'm currently grasping at about three or four rebuttles, but I'm uncertain as to whether I quite undertstand the analogy. I'll think about it and get back to you.

As for the psychology book... Maybe. ^_^'