mercedo's Journal: Our Perception Determines How Reality Is

More on perception/ reality.

You see our perception is so limited that we cannot see things as they are. See if we only see light as it is, we only see it as light that gives off white-yellowish colour with some heat. Only through prism, we see basic 7 colours derived from it, then we know light consist of 7 colours. When we perceive light as it is, we only realise one reality, which is light has white-yellowish colour and some heat. Then when we perceive 7 colours through prism, we know 7 different realities. Thus perception comes prior to reality. Unless we can perceive 7 different colours, it would be hard for us to notice existing 7 different realities. As long as we have no guarantee what we perceive is the same as what reality is, our perception comes always prior to reality. Usually the wider our perception is, the more our scope of realities is spreading.

You might like this post :o)

[Morosoph]

"Occam's Razor applies [slashdot.org]". In case you're wondering, it's a piss-take of those who argue inanely in favour of "Intelligent Design"; it's a follow up to LPetrazickis's JE [slashdot.org].

I just thought that I'd direct readers to my journal post "Reality is Singular [slashdot.org]", lest they miss the real issue :o)

Re:You might like this post :o)

[mercedo]

Strangely I was thinking about the similar thing as you wrote in your another insightful comment. We have convictions. In order to prove our conviction, we are poised to apply various theorems. But it's not wrong, any theorem exists for us to convince what we believe, any theorem not being used to prove for our convictions, they all are useless. Since there are no objective truth on our state of mind, only consistency according to my standard matters. I believe you have different opinions.

"no objective truth on our state of mind"

[Morosoph]

And there you have it.

When we use the word "reality", we're talking about different things.

I'm not talking about our state of knowledge or belief.

Re:"no objective truth on our state of mind"

[mercedo]

Yes. We are talking about the same thing in the term 'reality'. I'm saying since our perception is different, we tend to believe the reality we are in is different. See how different your thought and his idea -intelligent falling, faller, first of all what do these mean? But we cannot blame for someone who hold completely different view from ours, because our perception is so different, we tend to see underlying reality behind phenomenon through our perception. If they think so, let them believe whatever. I

Re:"no objective truth on our state of mind"

[Morosoph]

Yes. We are talking about the same thing in the term 'reality'. I'm saying since our perception is different, we tend to believe the reality we are in is different. See how different your thought and his idea -intelligent falling, faller, first of all what do these mean?

My "Intelligent Falling [slashdot.org]" post is a joke, a parody. I talk of the manifold nature of truth, so that supporting teaching is needed outside science, so that we do not decide what is true or false in a moral void. This appears reasonable