RE: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:10:32 -0700

Colin writes

> Hi Lee, Beat around the 'bush', why don't you!

You're right. I must be more direct. Okay, here it is:
Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers.
Academically, it has become an almost completely worthless
cult. (I am *not* exaggerating one bit.)

> 'Reality', whatever that process is, must be responsible
> for generating our perception of it. In the same way it
> generates all other behaviour in the universe.
> By definition: there is nothing left to claim as a causal precursor.

Completely correct, and well said. I have a hunch that for
the rest of the discussion it would be well to keep in mind
a frog looking at the sky and water. It is a mechanism
designed by natural selection for the purpose of propagating
its genes (just as we are). Its environment makes certain
impressions on its Central Nervous System (just like it does
on ours).

> I qualify this immediately by saying that the perception
> does not have to 'be' relaity. A good illusion representative
> and repeatable enough to serve the perceiver will do.

Hmmmmm. What is "relaity"? I have not encountered the
term. Moreover, I observe that I am making a very
detailed analysis of your long piece. You didn't do
that for my very short one.

> What does this mean? It means that perception is not
> ONE but TWO sources of evidence for creating models
> of the natural world.
>
> ONE
> The 'contents' of perception. This is what we use to
> construct empirical models. We then say that the universe
> behaves 'as if' the models were enacted by the universe,
> even though we are not justified in the claim. Our
> behaviour, in behaving as if this were the case, is
> very useful: it can be extremely predictive.
> Description ensues devoid of explanation.
>
> TWO
> The expression of perception itself, regardless of its
> contents. This is evidence of the workings of the underlying
> nature of the universe. In that model is 'explanation'.

I suppose so. Ultimately, there is a *lot* of evidence from
various sources about how perceivers (us, or the frog) work
and what they believe about their environment and about
themselves.

But this is getting complicated. My point was really very,
very simple. What problem did you have with it? Or did
you disagree?

About the frog: we can see how foolish and how limited its
understanding is. Ours may be as well. So let's keep it as
simple as we can.

Lee
Received on Tue Jul 26 2005 - 04:11:20 PDT