NationStates Jolt Archive

The only thing we can actually be certain of to perceive to a certain level is our own mind, everything else we perceive goes through the mind so there is no guarantee it exists, effectively the whole model of perception works with nothing in existence but the mind and in naturalscience if something does not need to exist in order for the sum of perception of reality to work the changes are low it would actually exist.

So it would seem the chance is very high that the world nonexistent or at least existing differently than the mind tells us.

So we are left with the mind, what is the mind? Accourding to some and myself a mind is the sum of it's intelligence and it's consciousness, so we are effectively by means of chance left with that the only things that will probably exist are intelligence and consciousness.

Yet I begin to wonder, what is consciousness? What intelligence is is simple, intelligence is the process to predict the path of logic, the understanding of logic. Nothing more nothing less. Yet, what is consciousness? What does consciousness do? Perceive logic where intelligence fails. No one calculates the exact trajectory of a table tennis ball when playing a match yet every experience player immediately knows where the ball will end, can see that the ball is going to go further than the edge of the table when it has not even crossed the net. Knows in which direction his bat must be to countereffect the spin given by his openent.

I think consciousness is intelligence so sophisticated that the speed in which is reasons is effectively blurred, this logic is then in big lines perceived as consciousness.

Just my thoughts.

Cogito ergo sum (René Descartes)

I can only speak Dutch, English, German, l33tsp34k, SDC speak, BrEeZaH speak [Don't shoot.] and zen speak, sorry.

I thought consciousness was basically the perception of the self. What makes us conscious is that we are aware of our own existance and what we are thinking, whereas a computer, for example, isn't.

I think a computer is conscious, I think two transistors are conscious. I think every type of matter that has some form of intelligence in one way or another has consciousness in a very limited form. It's just that humans are so unbelieveable intelligent that our consciousness is noticable.


In my point of view.

I think a computer is conscious, I think two transistors are conscious. I think every type of matter that has some form of intelligence in one way or another has consciousness in a very limited form. It's just that humans are so unbelieveable intelligent that our consciousness is noticable.


In my point of view.


How are they conscious when they were programmed to function?

I think Turing had the best way to test that......

http://www.exitmundi.nl/Dreamsend.htm

The only thing we can actually be certain of to perceive to a certain level is our own mind,
That's funny, because the mind is the only part of the body that is unreal. Bravo, though.

We don't actually perceive the mind, or anything that goes on in it, we conceive it.

everything else we perceive goes through the mind so there is no guarantee it exists,
But to deny that it exists is illogical, my Vulcan friend. If it can be perceived (as opposed to conceived) by the mind, then it must exist. We cannot perceive nothingness.

effectively the whole model of perception works with nothing in existence but the mind
Not so; we cannot perceive nothingness. Just somethingness.

and in naturalscience if something does not need to exist in order for the sum of perception of reality to work the changes are low it would actually exist.

So it would seem the chance is very high that the world nonexistent or at least existing differently than the mind tells us.

So we are left with the mind, what is the mind? Accourding to some and myself a mind is the sum of it's intelligence and it's consciousness, so we are effectively by means of chance left with that the only things that will probably exist are intelligence and consciousness.
What are intelligence and consciousness, though?

Yet I begin to wonder, what is consciousness?
Ah, there we go. :)

What intelligence is is simple, intelligence is the process to predict the path of logic, the understanding of logic. Nothing more nothing less.
That's a ...unique definition.

Yet, what is consciousness? What does consciousness do? Perceive logic where intelligence fails.
So logic exists apart from the mind?

No one calculates the exact trajectory of a table tennis ball when playing a match yet every experience player immediately knows where the ball will end, can see that the ball is going to go further than the edge of the table when it has not even crossed the net. Knows in which direction his bat must be to countereffect the spin given by his openent.

I think consciousness is intelligence so sophisticated that the speed in which is reasons is effectively blurred, this logic is then in big lines perceived as consciousness.

Just my thoughts.
Marvelous thoughts. I don't agree, but it's fascinating to try to work out how you derived these ideas.

Will let you know if I succeed. :D

An objective reality exists simply because of the way logic works. Saying something is "real" or not doesn't really mean anything, what matters is that it really has whatever properties it claims to have. Thus fool's gold is not "real" gold, not because it exists in some imaginary world of perception but because it is not really composed of the element Au. In the same vein we can test objective reality by testing its properties. The world is real because it has real consistent effects on our perceptions, not because of some abstract concept of "reality". By contrast, the concept of individual consciousness is really only a linguistic misunderstanding stemming from the fact that most human languages are centered around an unchanging "I". Descarte's maxim proves much less if written as "Thinking occurs, therefore a being exists". It's just linguisitc trickery, not empirical truth.

Toss it to the flames (Hume)

Oh believe me, you can perceive things that are not there, I'm 'psychologically challenged' I sometimes can swear that my clothers are soaking wet when others touch them and say that they are dry, why would they be right? Just because they are with more?

A human can perceive a lot of things as real which aren't. It made me wonder when I was eleven 'What if nothing's real?' How do you define real? How do you define soaking wet clothes? By perceiving them.

And sorry about my mix up with conceiving and perceiving, English is not my native language, sorry.

Oh believe me, you can perceive things that are not there, I'm 'psychologically challenged' I sometimes can swear that my clothers are soaking wet when others touch them and say that they are dry, why would they be right? Just because they are with more?

A human can perceive a lot of things as real which aren't. It made me wonder when I was eleven 'What if nothing's real?' How do you define real? How do you define soaking wet clothes? By perceiving them.

And sorry about my mix up with conceiving and perceiving, English is not my native language, sorry.

On the other hand if you had wrung out your clothes you would have immediately been able to tell that they were not wet, and that the "wet" sensation must in fact indicate something else. Objective reality does not mean correct perception is easy, merely that it is always possible.

And we all thought that at 11. I got over it and am now in much screwier philosophical disciplines. But that's another story.

So? At the points my clothes are on me and I'm not feeling comfertable I sometimes perceive it as if they are wet, while others don't.

Reality is a very subjective variable.

So? At the points my clothes are on me and I'm not feeling comfertable I sometimes perceive it as if they are wet, while others don't.

Reality is a very subjective variable.

But you don't perceive that they are wet, you perceive that they are uncomfortable. You may also perceive them to be cold and clammy. This doesn't mean you perceive them to be wet, merely that the way they feel shares some of the characterisitics of wetness. Unless they share all of the characteristics, they are not wet, even according to your perception.

The only thing we can actually be certain of to perceive to a certain level is our own mind

How do you know this?

Is not even this statement possibly fallacious?

Do you not "percieve" that perception exists? If perception is flawed, could not your perception of your perception be flawed? Perhaps, in fact, you do not exist at all, not even your mind.

I perceive them as being wet to such an extend that I only found the knowledge two months ago that they are in fact not wet.

It's that real that it overrules the simple thought: 'How can my clothes become suddenly wet?'


Alter the mind, and you alter the reality for that mind. If you alter everyone's mind, you control the collective reality.

How do you know this?

Is not even this statement possibly fallacious?

Do you not "percieve" that perception exists? If perception is flawed, could not your perception of your perception be flawed? Perhaps, in fact, you do not exist at all, not even your mind.

Yes. I had thoughts about that two, and discussions with my teacher about the 'I think, therefore I exist.' Logic, it supposedly says that someone or something must have those thoughts.

But the object that generates the thoughts can be an illusion, the object that per/conceives them can't.

We might very well think another's thoughts come to think of it.

I perceive them as being wet to such an extend that I only found the knowledge two months ago that they are in fact not wet.

It's that real that it overrules the simple thought: 'How can my clothes become suddenly wet?'


Alter the mind, and you alter the reality for that mind. If you alter everyone's mind, you control the collective reality.

But again, ignoring possible information does not change the truth. Just because you don't investigate whether your clothes are wet or something else doesn't mean that in your "subjective reality" the clothes are wet, it just means that you never took the trouble to find out. Ignorance is not knowledge.

Perception is cognition.

Our brains do not so much "create" a reality as specify one. We can only view a very small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Our hearing does not percieve ultra-high or ultra-low frequencies. We can only taste salt, bitter, sour and sweet. Our sense of smell can sense a wide range of smells, but we require relatively high quantites of most odors before we can even detect them.

Many have contended that the "reality" we percieve is an illusion, but how then do we account for a "shared reality?" Mass hysteria???

I prefer the theory which says that there is a "reality" out there, but that we can alter our perceptions of it to a limited degree to make it more acceptable. I also prefer to believe that intelligence consists of the ability to percieve reality "whole" ( or as whole as our senses permit ), to draw conclusions from our perceptions, to categorize, analyze, and to decide how and when to act and what the form of that action should be.

Consiousness arrises out of self-awareness, and the ability to hold in our mind's eye a concept and picture of "self."

Oh believe me, you can perceive things that are not there, I'm 'psychologically challenged' I sometimes can swear that my clothers are soaking wet when others touch them and say that they are dry, why would they be right? Just because they are with more?
I knew a Withmore once. He cut a song on record.

A human can perceive a lot of things as real which aren't. It made me wonder when I was eleven 'What if nothing's real?' How do you define real? How do you define soaking wet clothes? By perceiving them.

And sorry about my mix up with conceiving and perceiving, English is not my native language, sorry.
On behalf of everyone in this thread, I dare say, no worries. *hugs* :)

You have marvelous ideas, and I think they deserve to be explored.

If flawed perception is all you have, then that's all you have and you work with it. It's not like you hear astronomers whining about gravitational lenses throwing off the position of perceived stars. They accept that they are there and adjust as necessary.

Consiousness is a great thing, but that's not all there is. If the only way that one could perceive the world consiously, I would say such a person is pretty much screwed. There was a book I had read a while ago called The User Illusion by Tor Norretranders which went into great deal about defining the parameters of perception and consiousness. Couple of interesting points I can remember from it:

Bandwidth:
Total bandwidth of sensory input (all five senses): 16 million bps
Bandwidth of consiousness: ~ 12 bps

Lag time between an event occurring and consious perception of the event: 500ms

Considering we are not all going through life suffering from lag, I would think that there was much more unconsious activity than consious activity. In light of such parameters, the usefulness of consiousness seems almost negligible.

A human has 12 different senses.

Oh believe me, you can perceive things that are not there, I'm 'psychologically challenged' I sometimes can swear that my clothers are soaking wet when others touch them and say that they are dry, why would they be right?
There's a movie, "A Beautiful Mind," which portrays this problem quite well. If you can find it, watch it.

There's a type of "disorder" called Synesthesia (http://web.mit.edu/synesthesia/www/synesthesia.html) in which people sense things differently than usual: seeing smells, hearing colors, etc. This is also an extreme example of the sort of thing about which you speak. You may have either a mild form of this, or you may simply perceive things a bit differently.

Either way, I don't think it's anything about which you need to be concerned. :)

A human has 12 different senses.
Could you list them for us? I would be interested at least.

Let's see if I payed attention enough at biology.
1. Sight
2. Hearing
3. Taste
4. Smell.
5. Cold
6. Warmth.
7. Pressure.
8. Pain.
9. Touch(This is actually different than pressure)

No can't remember the other, all I know is that there are a lot in your skin.

"There's a type of "disorder" called Synesthesia in which people sense things differently than usual: seeing smells, hearing colors, etc. This is also an extreme example of the sort of thing about which you speak. You may have either a mild form of this, or you may simply perceive things a bit differently."

That's funny, I have synasthesia. I can see sound, touch, temperature, pain. and emotion and I can also taste touch.

There's a movie, "A Beautiful Mind," which portrays this problem quite well. If you can find it, watch it.

There's a type of "disorder" called Synesthesia (http://web.mit.edu/synesthesia/www/synesthesia.html) in which people sense things differently than usual: seeing smells, hearing colors, etc. This is also an extreme example of the sort of thing about which you speak. You may have either a mild form of this, or you may simply perceive things a bit differently.

Either way, I don't think it's anything about which you need to be concerned. :)

I don't think what he has is Synesthesia, as he's not perceiving one sense as another. He's perceiving both as touch, he's just hallucinating about it. Sort of like people who feel like spiders are crawling all over them. Stuff like that.

Edit: Nvm, said he does have it, though that doesn't sound like what caused his wet clothes thing

Let's see if I payed attention enough at biology.
1. Sight
2. Hearing
3. Taste
4. Smell.
5. Cold
6. Warmth.
7. Pressure.
8. Pain.
9. Touch(This is actually different than pressure)

No can't remember the other, all I know is that there are a lot in your skin.

Would one of these be being able to sense changes in barometric pressure through joint pain?

I have to know, could you possibly explain to me what sound looks like, that is veeeeeeeeeery interesting... I only wish I could experience it... you have to tell me what it is like... what does a b-flat look like... what other "mix ups" do you have?

Sorry for being nosy

Oh, you notice the difference between a 10^5 Pa pressured room and a 10 ^ 3 Pa pressured room.

I've read an article which stated there could be 70-ish senses... ill try to find it... it might have been in popular science of something... give me a bit

I have to know, could you possibly explain to me what sound looks like, that is veeeeeeeeeery interesting... I only wish I could experience it... you have to tell me what it is like... what does a b-flat look like... what other "mix ups" do you have?

Sorry for being nosy

Hold on, I'll play a A# on my keyboard

I've played in on all 6 octaves, on the lowest octave it looks like a shiny brown rimpled disc with somewhat more depth in the center, on the highest octave it sounds like smoothened cone with another cone mirrored on it's base in bright yellow, it just morphes to that the highter the note is. at a certain point it's almost a sphere.

But that's with the Piano settings, when I set it on string[Violin] it becomes more blue like and smooth and when I hold the key down the note stretches.

Hold on, I'll play a A# on my keyboard

I've played in on all 6 octaves, on the lowest octave it looks like a shiny brown rimpled disc with somewhat more depth in the center, on the highest octave it sounds like smoothened cone with another cone mirrored on it's base in bright yellow, it just morphes to that the highter the note is. at a certain point it's almost a sphere.

But that's with the Piano settings, when I set it on string[Violin] it becomes more blue like and smooth and when I hold the key down the note stretches.

So where do you see the object? Does it fill your view, or does it somehow occupy the same space, or is it on the keys, or what?

the 12 senses are:


Within- Touch - the internal response to a contact with the outside world

Within- Life - this sense is the internal feeling of well-being, of being alive

Within- Movement - being inwardly aware of the way body parts move in relationship to each other

Within- Balance - this sense orients us to the world with respect to up, down, right, and left

Outside- Smell - the sense that allows one to come in contact with the outside world via odors carried by the air

Outside- Taste - a deeper connection with the outside world in which flavors are directly sampled

Outside- Sight - the sense that takes in the exterior images of the outside world

Outside- Warmth - with this sense we are aware directly of the warmth of another body

Outside- Hearing - this sense can tell us more about the inner structure of an object than sight. When an object resonates, we learn about its deep structure from the sound we hear.

Outside- Speech - the sense of speech or word or tone - which is the hearing that involves meaningful words

Outside- Thought - this refers to the deeper sense of entering the being speaking through their words

Outside- Ego - this is the sense of ego or I which enables us to turn our thinking towards the being of another and to behold their I, their unique individuality directly

http://www.waldorfhomeschoolers.com/12senses.htm

Edit: Nvm, said he does have it, though that doesn't sound like what caused his wet clothes thingDon't think it does either, that's just a funny coincidence, my asperger's is causing the fact that I sometimes perceive my cloths as being wet.

Of course, the senses in your ear which tell you in which direction your head moves. How could I forget them.

So where do you see the object? Does it fill your view, or does it somehow occupy the same space, or is it on the keys, or what?

I just see it on the same place I hear sound. I'm not blinded by it or anything, it's just part of the sound. Just as most people aren't blinded by the sound they hear. It's hard for me to imagine how 'other people' experience sound without the colours in it, I don't see how you can enjoy music without, it's just part of the experience.

Considering we are not all going through life suffering from lag, I would think that there was much more unconsious activity than consious activity. In light of such parameters, the usefulness of consiousness seems almost negligible.
[ knocks PasturePastry out ] **BONK**

There. Now you can exercise all of your senses without the burden of consciousness. :D

I just see it on the same place I hear sound. I'm not blinded by it or anything, it's just part of the sound. Just as most people aren't blinded by the sound they hear. It's hard for me to imagine how 'other people' experience sound without the colours in it, I don't see how you can enjoy music without, it's just part of the experience.

I'm jealous... dirty so'an'so havin all the cool colour sound and such... I want to experience it... do you do the taste colour stuff too, details, I want details!!!

Sweet is brightly coloured in rainbowcolours, bitter is yellowbrown, pepper is black, salt is yellow, sauer is bluegreen.

Pain is black. Warm is red, cold is icyblue, touch is just the colour of the temperature but then squeesed together.

I can taste salt with my hands, but not salt, I just sometimes experience a salt taste in my hands out of no where.

And I can taste my feces with my rectum, and thank God they don't taste how they would when they are in your mouth, they taste sauer.

As for emotions, said is darkblue, happy is yellow, uncomfertable is orange, in love is red. And that are about all the emotions I can recognize from having because I also have asperger's.

I hoped this is of any help. If you want you can send me a stream of a song and I will try to photoshop how a part of that song looks for you.

There isn't a single doubt in my mind that if I could see sounds as well as hear them, I would become a musician.

I can't find that article, but I know it is out there... I used it inone of my projects... What are some of the major sciency magazines... its not inthe archive of popular science

I can't find that article, but I know it is out there... I used it inone of my projects... What are some of the major sciency magazines... its not inthe archive of popular science
Try Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/).

hmm... I might be able to find the article on the weekend when I go home, I should have it laying around somewhere... I'm still jealous... maybe if I try hard enough I canmake myslef have it.... Grrrr, arg, hmmmm, no I don tthink so...

There isn't a single doubt in my mind that if I could see sounds as well as hear them, I would become a musician.

I am a musician, I'm composing and producing experimental symphony at the moment.

Hold on, I'll play a A# on my keyboard

I've played in on all 6 octaves, on the lowest octave it looks like a shiny brown rimpled disc with somewhat more depth in the center, on the highest octave it sounds like smoothened cone with another cone mirrored on it's base in bright yellow, it just morphes to that the highter the note is. at a certain point it's almost a sphere.

But that's with the Piano settings, when I set it on string[Violin] it becomes more blue like and smooth and when I hold the key down the note stretches.
If nothing else, you have a wide range of career opportunities available to you, with a creative skill like that.

I don't plan to make my 'carreer' out of music, people say my symphonies and plays are good enough to go talk to a label but I don't want to. I want to be a physics teacher to children with an autistic disorder.