Niave Realism

by frankiespeakin 23 Replies latest jw friends

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    The above article also says that this is a philosophy of mind, so take it as that. A philosophy. I find philosophy tiresome, but I know a lot of people really like it.

    Philosophy of mind

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search A phrenologicalmapping [1] of the brain. Phrenology was among the first attempts to correlate mental functions with specific parts of the brain.

    Philosophy of mind is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness and their relationship to the physical body, particularly the brain. The mind-body problem, i.e. the relationship of the mind to the body, is commonly seen as one key issue in philosophy of mind, although there are other issues concerning the nature of the mind that do not involve its relation to the physical body such as how consciousness is possible. [2]

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Satanus said:

    Water, when we jump into it, is a fairly direct experience. But, even then, is that enough to really understand water?

    That's a perfect example of how our perceptions are so influenced by our biological roots, that most people don't even give it a second thought; we're so blinded to thinking of any other way of relating to the stimulus.

    We don't relate to water in the same way that a dolphin does: what is our 'atmosphere' is their hostile, unsustainable environment. They have an interaction with their surroundings where us swimming in SCUBA gear is only a poor simulation, just not the same. So who's perception of water, who's direct experience is "reality"? Ours? Theirs?

    And to complicate matters, an insect's perception of water is completely different than both: for one thing, they can walk on it (using surface tension); that's something we can only imagine (uh, Jesus excepted). See, you didn't think I was going to get back to the religion thing, did ya? HA!

    Point being, you'd THINK humans would have the insight to intuitively understand that "naive realism" (nice name, BTW... cue roll eyes) is fact, being that reality is completely dependent upon one's perceptive skills based on the hardware you have (vs that of animals), but that just doesn't 'click' in some people who never stop to consider their own frame of reference is limited and subjective.

    BTW, that's not a picture of an insect, but a "robostrider".

    http://whyfiles.org/coolimages/index.html%3Fid=1096298725.html

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Robostrider! Me like.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    "robostrider"

    Looks fun. Can i get one for my tub?

    Yah. We actually live at the bottom of a huge 'ocean' of air. Few of us give it a second thought.

    S

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter
  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    And the next question: is an experiential perception required in order to make use of some phenomena? Nope. Humans invented sonar before we even knew bats or marine mammals used it, so there's an example of not being inspired by nature's use, but developing it independently.

    So while we can never know the "true" reality of anything, that doesn't mean that we cannot use OUR limited perception (i.e. our internal brain model of reality) in order to improve the quality of life and extend our perceptive skills beyond what nature provides.

    The issue of arguing the nature of reality is an interesting philosophical question to ponder, but most scientists don't get side-tracked on it, expecting to find an absolute "truth" or waiting to find that truth before proceeding with their work; they just do what they want to accomplish, and let the airchair-philosophers quibble.

  • finally awake
    finally awake

    the thing that always occurred to me is that if a person could understand everything about any one thing, even just a single atom - then that person would be able to understand everything about everything

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    I detect the echoes of cognitive dissonence from somewhere.

    S

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    FA SAID:

    the thing that always occurred to me is that if a person could understand everything about any one thing, even just a single atom - then that person would be able to understand everything about everything

    The fly in the ointment is, how would you know when you finally have attained "everything there is to know" about even one thing?

    It's not like there's a magical master encyclopedia somewhere that contains everything there is to know... That strikes me as pointless unattainable goal, "chasing rainbows and unicorns" stuff.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit