Houston Deputy Murdered while pumping gas

[Otsego Mar]

Fine, fine, I'll check it out. Although neither you nor Lord Mar addressed the point I made about the sinking ship. Why not? Or change it to a gun. Even if someone believes/perceives the gun to be unloaded, it can still shoot somebody if it is, in reality, loaded.

The perception that the gun is unloaded does not alter the reality that it is loaded. Perception is not reality, and I'll bet you Swami Buttmuncher doesn't make his argument nearly as directly.

I think the disconnect here is you are assuming that I am trying to argue what actually is, as opposed to what actually isn't. I think we're more talking about the perception of reality on a deeper, metaphysical level and not a "he got shot so obviously he got shot, even though I perceived the gun to be unloaded". You didn't perceive the gun to be unloaded, you made an observational error.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Okay, having now viewed it in its entirety...

First, I stand by my prior conclusion that he's pussy.

Second, his point about language having been invented to enable people to lie was ridiculous. Language is the only thing that enables him to get on stage with that microphone and talk to people. Or to write his books. Which, come to think of it, may actually back his point up....

Third, his magnificent conclusion that "reality does not exist" came out of nowhere, with absolutely no logical foundation at all. He just kind of rambled I to it off the cuff, and the pretentious chuckleheads all laughed in knowing amusement.

But if he's right that reality does not exist. Then he doesn't exist. So why bother to watch a blank video?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I think the disconnect here is you are assuming that I am trying to argue what actually is, as opposed to what actually isn't.

Eh?

You made an unqualified statement that perception is reality. I demonstrated why that is false.

I think we're more talking about the perception of reality on a deeper, metaphysical level and not a "he got shot so obviously he got shot, even though I perceived the gun to be unloaded".

You're going to have to be more direct, and avoid the mumbo jumbo. Because Itruly don't know what that sentence means.

ETA: to clarify, metaphysics involves actual existence. Reality, as it were. Epistemology involves how we come to perceive/understand the reality that exists. So when you talk about the "perception of reality" (which is epistemological) on a "more metaphysical level", it's nonsensical. It's as if you're using the word "metaphysical" as if it meant "really big, high-falutin' ideas", rather than the specific meaning it has in philosophy.

You didn't perceive the gun to be unloaded, you made an observational error.

What is the evidence I made an error?

 

[Otsego Mar]

Okay, having now viewed it in its entirety...

First, I stand by my prior conclusion that he's pussy.

The person in the video is not who you called a pussy....FYI lol.

Second, his point about language having been invented to enable people to lie was ridiculous. Language is the only thing that enables him to get on stage with that microphone and talk to people. Or to write his books. Which, come to think of it, may actually back his point up....

It's an interesting theory (one that isn't his own, as he referenced it from someone else). You can't say that language doesn't provide the opportunity to lie, can you? Do I think it was the reason language was invented? Probably not.

Third, his magnificent conclusion that "reality does not exist" came out of nowhere, with absolutely no logical foundation at all. He just kind of rambled I to it off the cuff, and the pretentious chuckleheads all laughed in knowing amusement.

But if he's right that reality does not exist. Then he doesn't exist. So bothering to watch a blank video?

How can I prove that you exist? No, don't answer that........please lol. We're way off topic here.

 

[gourimoko]

Okay, having now viewed it in its entirety...

First, I stand by my prior conclusion that he's pussy.

...smh...

Third, his magnificent conclusion that "reality does not exist" came out of nowhere,

This is false. As in demonstrably false. Scientifically, there are tremendous amounts of research being done on this. The nature of time is not well understood. It's preposterous to say that this question comes out of nowhere. Reality and perception may not actually exist as we know them. It's ignorant, by definition, to ignore this possibility.

with absolutely no logical foundation at all.

Wrong again.

There is a logical / scientific debate on-going as to whether or not events that seem to take place in series actually do so at all. The notion that reality exists as a linear continuum of events with a constant moving clock was abandoned by most scientists almost 60 years ago.

Reality may actually simply be perception, and perception itself may not actually be an interactive phenomenon. Sam Harris, someone I personally loathe, made his entire career on the basis that self is an illusion of the subconscious mind, and that what we think of as perception and reaction doesn't actually exist.

He just kind of rambled I to it off the cuff, and the pretentious chuckleheads all laughed in knowing amusement.

I didn't watch the video. But reading this conversation, I felt the need to make some clarifications.

There is definitely a logical and scientific foundation to the idea that we do not experience "reality" in the way we might think.

You can shift the word "reality" to mean something else, but as most scientists would argue, reality as generally accepted is not necessarily a description of our existence.

But if he's right that reality does not exist. Then he doesn't exist. So why bother to watch a blank video?

Think about that for a second, then consider a deterministic universe like Einstein described. Then ask yourself why you do anything.

According to some neuroscientists (including Sam Harris), you never had a choice to begin with, in that you are defined by a deterministic set of initial conditions.

When you maximally extend such a graph you find that all events in the universe can be mathematically reduced to a matrix of initial conditions at the point of the Big Bang.

Holographic universes, deterministic multiverses, virtual realities, and simulated universes would mean that reality is not as most people understand it.

For example, no one would say Cloud's life in Final Fantasy VII was real. So, if our reality is similar to his, what make's ours real?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Thenbetter person in the video is not who you called a pussy....FYI lol.

Then they're both pussies.

it's an interesting theory

I'll just say that we don't agree on that either. It's something that a prof would tell his freshmen philosophy students to appear sophisticated

How can I prove that you exist? No, don't answer that........please lol. We're way off topic here.

Actually, my point was that the only way to know that my observation was bad was to measure it against reality....which Swami Buttmuncher says doesn't exist.

Look, it is impossible for us to accurately perceive all of reality. Nobody disputes that. But to leap from there to "reality does not exist" is ridiculous. Even he doesn't actually believe that, and nobody here actually believes it, else we wouldn't go to jobs, eat, or do anything.

Of course, it is entirely possible that he means something different from "reality does not exist", but he chooses to use that phrasing because it sounds so dramatic and witty.

In any case, I think "existence exists" is included in the three classical laws of thought, and if you cannot agree on that, no further logical discussion is.possible.

 

[Otsego Mar]

...smh...



This is false. As in demonstrably false. Scientifically, there are tremendous amounts of research being done on this. The nature of time is not well understood. It's preposterous to say that this question comes out of nowhere. Reality and perception may not actually exist as we know them. It's ignorant, by definition, to ignore this possibility.



Wrong again.

There is a logical / scientific debate on-going as to whether or not events that seem to take place in series actually do so at all. The notion that reality exists as a linear continuum of events with a constant moving clock was abandoned by most scientists almost 60 years ago.

Reality may actually simply be perception, and perception itself may not actually be an interactive phenomenon. Sam Harris, someone I personally loathe, made his entire career on the basis that self is an illusion of the subconscious mind, and that what we think of as perception and reaction doesn't actually exist.



I didn't watch the video. But reading this conversation, I felt the need to make some clarifications.

There is definitely a logical and scientific foundation to the idea that we do not experience "reality" in the way we might think.

You can shift the word "reality" to mean something else, but as most scientists would argue, reality as generally accepted is not necessarily a description of our existence.



Think about that for a second, then consider a deterministic universe like Einstein described. Then ask yourself why you do anything.

According to some neuroscientists (including Sam Harris), you never had a choice to begin with, in that you are defined by a deterministic set of initial conditions.

When you maximally extend such a graph you find that all events in the universe can be mathematically reduced to a matrix of initial conditions at the point of the Big Bang.

Holographic universes, deterministic multiverses, virtual realities, and simulated universes would mean that reality is not as most people understand it.

For example, no one would say Cloud's life in Final Fantasy VII was real. So, if our reality is similar to his, what make's ours real?

I was just thinking about dreams the other day.

I am so sure that what is experienced in the dream world is no different than what we experience in this world. We are just not actively focusing our consciousness in them to the degree we are here.......why, though, I am not certain of.

 

[gourimoko]

Actually, my point was that the only way to know that my observation was bad was to measure it against reality

No...... nonono...

You're measuring your ability to perceive an object; not against "reality." There is no universal measurement of some universal reality. That's the entire point of relativity.

The universe, it's shape and form, the positions of objects within it, is completely relative to the observer.

This is a fundamental principle of physics.

....which Swami Buttmuncher says doesn't exist.

It might not. It might be simply how our consciousness has evolved to cope with the world around us, whatever either of those things are. We really don't know and there are no definite answers to be found here at the moment.

Look, it is impossible for us to accurately perceive all of reality.

If you mean all of the universe then this is wrong.

The holographic principle proves that the entirety of any object that can be reduced in dimension without loss of information can be (and subsequently is) described along the reduced surface of that object.

Stephen Hawking just released a new paper using this principle to discuss information loss within black holes, by stating that the quantum pertubations along the event horizon of a singularity actually contain information that was believed to be trapped inside. This theorem potentially solves the black hole information paradox while also demonstrating that a holographic universe can be perceived by an observer in a complete form.

Nobody disputes that.

This is nonsense.

But to leap from there to "reality does not exist" is ridiculous. Even he doesn't actually believe that, and nobody here actually believes it, else we wouldn't go to jobs, eat, or do anything.

You don't conceptually understand the nature of the question based on the bolded.

Of course, it is entirely possible that he means something different from "reality does not exist", but he chooses to use that phrasing because it sounds so dramatic and witty.

Or because it's a fundamental question of science and philosophy.

This type of disdain for intellectualism and thought is, well, sad.

In any case, I think "existence exists" is included in the three classical laws of thought, and if you cannot agree on that, no further logical discussion is.possible.

You've conflated two concepts here: existence, which is the state of being; and reality, which is a space or form containing all things that exist.

The problem isn't that things may or may not exist; it's that there may be no single continuous space, i.e. reality, around those things connecting them in any way. Thus, existence can be a real phenomena, logically, however reality need not be.

Again, I think you fundamentally do not understand the question at hand and I'd advise you or anyone else to do some research on the topic both philosophically as well as scientifically.

 

[No Regard]

Fine, fine, I'll check it out. Although neither you nor Lord Mar addressed the point I made about the sinking ship. Why not?

Not sure if it's me being the you here?

Or change it to a gun. Even if someone believes/perceives the gun to be unloaded, it can still shoot somebody if it is, in reality, loaded.

The perception that the gun is unloaded does not alter the reality that it is loaded. Perception is not reality, and I'll bet you Swami Buttmuncher doesn't make his argument nearly as directly.

Very good problem. Sorry that I haven't got any good answers to it as of right now, though my first thought was that the brain in the vat scenario might give a reasonable explanation. I will have to think about this one nevertheless

I could try to clarify what I mean though.

I think it was you who mentioned it earlier, @The Human Q-Tip , the irony in that two persons can have access to the exact same factual basis of a given issue, but at the same time take a complete opposite stance of each other.

Where's the truth in a situation like this? Obviously not in the facts, because then they would have to agree, right?

In you being a lawyer, let's take a look into the court room scene of a horrifying murder case, where some poor woman has been slain in cold blood.

There are two opposing sides in court, the accuser and the accused. They have opposing notions about the exact circumstances of the situation of interest, obviously since the alleged murderer, the husband of the murdered woman, claims innocence. Therefore we need a third party, a judge and a jury, the more neutral the better, to listen out both sides and also the witnesses and then use this information to establish a time lime of the happenings. Based on this they will try to make the correct judgement of what really happened that day.

The truth came out. The evidence spoke for itself. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that the husband was in fact guilty. So he's being put to jail, sentenced to life because of the brutality of the murder.

When he was in fact innocent. He was just a poor victim of being at all the wrong places to the wrong times, felled by witnesses who, because of their lacking understanding of the context, didn't really knew the actual meaning of what they saw and heard.

The husband continues to claim his innocence, but as we know:

So, because of the attention the case gets in the media, the husband becomes some kind of a official interest and he is thereby rewarded with his own Wikipedia page. Here his early years are described in a couple of paragraphs, about his problematic child hood, the lack of a father figure, the poor grades and the following drop out, his teenage loneliness and frustration etc etc. There will also be some paragraphs about the happenings that fateful night as concluded by the judiciary, followed by some information about the trial, with an overview of all the evidence pointing in the obvious direction of him being guilty. At last there will be just one single sentence, describing how the man died while still in prison, claiming innocence until he took his last breath of air.

So the man dies and the truth dies with him, as the actual murderer also dies with his secret. All that stands are the conclusions of the legal system and the references to it on Wikipedia; the official epistemological truth according to law and history.

But again, assuming that we don't know about the man's innocence either, what is the truth exactly?

I believe that this stand in connection with the point McKenna's making. He is talking about how epistemological reality is just an illusion, a common confusion about what the world really is. We confuse words with reality and tend to forget that words are only symbols, they are nothing but concepts of reality.

Perhaps a personal anecdote can explain this: I was in the woods once and there I saw a fallen tree. Its trunk was split open by a lightning and inside it crawled all sorts of colourful little insects. Then I saw this tree fungi, clinging itself to the side of the stump. It seemed to me that it was trying to suck out the last drops of life left in the hardwood. I stood there for awhile, watching this symbiosis, when I suddenly got the realisation that I couldn't make the distinction anymore between the tree and all its different parts, the fungi, nor the busy little insects. I couldn't separate them. To me they were all representing the same thing. It was as if I had forgotten the words tree, fungi and insects, which then made them in some way to disappear before my eyes in becoming one and the same.

What is really happening in the discussions on this message boards? What are we exactly doing when we're discussing racism and police violence as in threads like these, or religion as has been discussed in others? Or what about a discussion about TTs actual worth in dollars?

To me, it is all a contention about truth. We have all our different viewpoints, our different perceptions of a given situation, and we are in some way or another, be it civil or not, trying to find out about what the truth really is. We are arguing about the nature of reality.

You can see this happen everywhere around us and that these strifes can be of consequence. Religious conflicts are about whose world view is the right one. Political conflict are about which stances and meanings are correct. Two neighbouring countries, who have been engaged in a decade long, seemingly never-ending war with each other, are having a childish fight about who really started, whose fault the current conflict really is. It also on a micro level: The disagreement between two siblings, which in the long run leads to the whole family to fall apart over the question: What was it dad really did say about the inheritance just before he passed away?

But as you've said yourself: Even though we have access to the exact same factual basis, we can still end up being strong opposers to each other. In the end, life remains a mystery. No one's really got a clue about anything. We can take more or less educated guesses of course, but that's it. There exist no single reality other than what's happening NOW.

 

[No Regard]

The universe, it's shape and form, the positions of objects within it, is completely relative to the observer.

Nail on the head. It's fascinating to think about how unrecognisable the Big Dipper would be from an angle different from the surface of planet earth.

It might not. It might be simply how our consciousness has evolved to cope with the world around us, whatever either of those things are. We really don't know and there are no definite answers to be found here at the moment.

At least not until science begins to look seriously into what the nature of consciousness might be.

The holographic principle proves that the entirety of any object that can be reduced in dimension without loss of information can be (and subsequently is) described along the reduced surface of that object.

Stephen Hawking just released a new paper using this principle to discuss information loss within black holes, by stating that the quantum pertubations along the event horizon of a singularity actually contain information that was believed to be trapped inside. This theorem potentially solves the black hole information paradox while also demonstrating that a holographic universe can be perceived by an observer in a complete form.

Not sure if I understand. Could you please elaborate?

You've conflated two concepts here: existence, which is the state of being; and reality, which is a space or form containing all things that exist.

Again, you hit the nail right on the head.

Great insights!

 

[David.]

lol, why are you guys taking the scenic route on this one?

the recent events in the media happened, fact.

black people and white people clearly see this events differently, at an almost direct correlation compared to race.

is one just fucking stupid or petulant?

or do people have different realities; were born in different cultures, to different people, lived different experiences, that lead us to see what we see?

that reality frames everything we see. its a lense. i didnt make these words up, we all commonly use them. "see the world through a lense". we're 'ready' to see a certain thing or scenario becaue of that reality, and that reality highlights certain aspects of an event and either mutes or provides explanation that favors our reality if we see something that may not be beneficial to our reality.






ive been trying to find this movie for.. forever.. watched it when I was really young. it was philiosophical.. there was some running joke about reality, like wethe discussion were having, and the running joke of 'how do you know youre not a rock trapped in abox' kept coming up. at the end, before creidits role, a caption appears that says so and so realized they were actually a rock, trapped in a box.


anyone know wtf im talking about?

 

[Otsego Mar]

the recent events in the media happened, fact.

is one just fucking stupid or petulant?

I guess if you believe everything the TV tells you and everything you read in a book as fact, these 2 statements would be true.....enough.

 

[DrunkenBuckeye]

You ever listen to Terence Mckenna ...on weed?


He does have some interesting stuff.

 

[Otsego Mar]

You ever listen to Terence Mckenna ...on weed?


He does have some interesting stuff.

Are you kidding? That's a bunch of mumbo jumbo......

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

lol, why are you guys taking the scenic route on this one? the recent events in the media happened, fact. black people and white people clearly see this events differently, at an almost direct correlation compared to race....or do people have different realities; were born in different cultures, to different people, lived different experiences, that lead us to see what we see?

There are actually three distinct concepts in there, and the differences matters more than semantically because it tells us whether or not a problem can be solved, and how to begin trying to solve it.

The first concept is the question of actual reality -- what actually happened. Some philosophers have tried to game that idea with sophomoric exercises like "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" But the more relevant philosophical question is "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, did it still fall?" Is reality independent of our perception, or not?

Did O.J. kill his ex and that dude, or not? People may not agree on whether or not he did, but their subjective belief does not change what really happened. He either did, or he didn't. And presumably, one of the goals in trying to bring people together is to do as much as possible so that our understandings of reality -- what really happened, are consistent. And what really happened in fact cannot be changed.

BTW, I'm leaving out of this all the theoretical physics stuff, Heisenberg, Schreodinger's Cat, and all that stuff because it really has nothing to do with these kind of discussions we have here outside -- of the context of theoretical physics, of course. Philosophers have been discussing this stuff since long before anyone knew what quantum physics or even atoms were, and in a context that doesn't include theoretical physics.

The second concept is how accurately each of us perceive what really happened, as when you have two eyewitnesses who disagree as to whether or not a receiver was in bounds. They may disagree, and it isn't until you go to the video to see the reality (if the angle is good enough), that we know that one eyewitness was right, and one was wrong. But the rightness or wrongness of those perceptions exists regardless of whether or not we can perceive it.

Or even (like what happens here) where a group of people read eyewitness accounts, deciding who to believe, and then reach their own conclusion about what "really" happened. And I think that may be what most people mean when they say "perception is reality", because who each person chooses to believe, and sometimes even what they see with their own eyes can be affected by different experiences. But the key point here is that their subjective perception is not reality, and we shouldn't automatically give equal weight to "each person's reality." OJ either killed them, or he didn't, regardless of our respective beliefs as to what happened.

Obviously, there may be times where there isn't enough information to actually come to an agreed upon understanding of what "really happened". But factual understanding is something we can change, or at least improve upon. That's the logic for body cameras on cops, right? So that we each can see what really happened, and so give us a more accurate view of reality.

The big problem we have now, though, is too many people don't want to believe, and so won't admit to believing, facts that aren't consistent with their pre-conceived worldview. And so people who may have witnessed something that isn't consistent with a preferred narrative may be intimidated into silence, etc.. But that at least tells us what we should start doing -- get all the facts out, whether they are consistent with popular opinion or not. And each of us try to remain open minded until the facts are clear.

The third concept is that we can sometimes disagree on what conclusions should be drawn even when we agree on the underlying facts. So, you could put two groups of people watching Michael Brown coming at that officer (assuming that's what happened), and everyone is in agreement as to what is happening. Yet, we still may disagree on whether or not the officer was justified in shooting the way he did. But that's not a matter of fact or "reality" at all. It's simply an opinion, based in part on morality, as to what should or should not be done in a given factual situation.

I think that's the toughest kind of problem to solve, just like trying to argue whether the death penalty, abortion, or "enhanced interrogation" is ever justified. It's not something susceptible to pure factual, logical argumentation because there are moral judgments at the core of much of it that simply cannot be proven as fact.

Tl;dr

I object to the "perception is reality" cliché because it implies that every perception is equally valid and worthy of respect, and that we each have our own "reality". Perspectives that distort what actually happens/exists are delusions, not "different realities".