Duality of Reality

[RoyLennigan]

The world that we perceive is composed of probable events as outlined by our own preconceptions. As an infant, we have no pre-conceived concepts of the world around us. We view it with wide open eyes, taking it as it is with no assumptions. But our human nature (that which has enabled us to survive as a species) forces us to start predicting right off the bat. In a sense, we are nature’s prophets. We constantly use this complex assemblage of neurons to finely calculate as many possible variables that could affect the outcome based off of the limited amount of present data (the now) perceived from the senses. As humans, we are able to allocate more and more neurons to increasing our perception from the senses, as well as increasing the ability to accurately compare that data to stored data, or memories, to achieve a more similar prediction to reality.

But, reality is that which we perceive, right? So it seems circular.

As we grow older, that human nature turns our wide, naïve eyes into squinting, knowing eyes. We attempt to predict the near future more and more because at one point, we found out that planning is very useful later on. But, on the other side of the spectrum, is over-planning just as useless or even harmful as under-planning? The more we try to fit that incoming data to preconceived notions of what will happen, the more we blind ourselves to what might actually be happening. So our mind sees the senses paint a situation and it compares the characteristics of this situation to that of past situations. As a child, there are few comparisons to make (there are not very many memories) and so the child makes less predictions and simply observes, with no more bias than human instinct and sensory limitation, what effects take place (then stores it as a memory). But as you get older, you gain more memories and are able to find more similarities to the present moment for you to use to predict what might happen. But it is all statistics, and statistics don’t work for small scale, nor for every variable. So our prediction lacks many parts of what is really going on. This is what we call the ‘undercurrent’.

In the storage and comparison of memories, emotion takes a large role. In any given experience, the immediate emotional impact on the person affects how the memory is stored and recalled. The emotion at the time will blind the person from some aspects of the experience while magnifying others. It will also be like a ‘key word’ for later comparison; the reason why you think of other times you were sad when you become sad (same with other emotions).

Now, you might be asking, “If reality is made up of our own pre-conceptions, then how is it that we all perceive generally the same reality?” Well, this is for several reasons.
A) Even though we argue a lot, we are all very similar (in relation to everything else in the universe); our minds work on almost the same basis.
B) Our pre-conceptions are probabilities based on what we’ve already experienced. This means that because of A, the probabilities of what will happen are so similar that we can’t detect the differences.
C) Subjective experience. We cannot know exactly how anyone else experiences it, so we are unable to compare except through words, which convey a tiny sliver of what the experience actually is.
D) We don’t experience exactly the same reality. Everyone experiences differences. But it is real to you, but you only. We cannot tap into any kind of absolute reality (so we are unable to know if there even is one) and so our mind is only able to cope with sensory input by predicting how they might relate to each other, as well as how they might relate to memories.

Even though it is our human nature to continue to try to predict more and more accurately, thus blinding ourselves to the actual nature of the events, we are still able to train ourselves not to predict but rather to observe. The greater the ability to observe rather than predict, the more accurate is the perception of reality. It is like how a computer processor works. If more CPU circuits are spent trying to predict, or simulate, a real world scenario, then there are much less circuits available for accurate observation of that scenario. And simulation always takes much more calculating power than observation. This is because simulation calculation requires that the calculator (or mind) render as many variables of the situation in the mind, while simple observation requires no rendering—the data is from the real world instead of recalling memories.

[Jeremyhfht]

The world that we perceive is composed of probable events as outlined by our own preconceptions. As an infant, we have no pre-conceived concepts of the world around us. We view it with wide open eyes, taking it as it is with no assumptions.

I disagree. The assertion that we'd have no assumptions would mean we wouldn't be able to exist.

Even animals, the most primitive of them all, has genetic assumptions. Babies have their own thoughts, though mostly not cognitive. This thoughts are largely genetic and environment based.

Because of this, yes they do have assumptions. Like a baby that touches something hot, since he didn't know it was hot. The baby assumed it wasn't going to be painful.

As we grow older, that human nature turns our wide, naïve eyes into squinting, knowing eyes. We attempt to predict the near future more and more because at one point, we found out that planning is very useful later on.

I disagree again. Most humans do not. There are a great many people that go through life without any wisdom, and I know a great many children that are wiser than all the elderly I've seen.

Few really ever learn to predict the future. In fact I know many people who should be doing so, but fail repeatedly to ever consider it.

As a child, there are few comparisons to make (there are not very many memories) and so the child makes less predictions and simply observes, with no more bias than human instinct and sensory limitation, what effects take place (then stores it as a memory).

I cannot say this is true, both for the above reason, and the fact I was born with a very HIGH long term memory capacity. I've vivid memories while I was an infant.

Children are in no ways unbiased. I can confirm this from personal memory and my above refutation.

Even though it is our human nature to continue to try to predict more and more accurately, thus blinding ourselves to the actual nature of the events, we are still able to train ourselves not to predict but rather to observe.

I can do both. One needs to learn when to observe, and when to predict. This is not something special you have discovered, and your reasoning behind it isn't very...fit into the result.

In fact I can't see how your prior reasonings and points even fit into this. You seem to have the same problem I used to: Fitting too many damn points without a main point.

The greater the ability to observe rather than predict, the more accurate is the perception of reality.

Your assumption relies on a few things.

A) observations aren't biased.

In reality, they are. Just like everything else, observations are subjective to the observer. Even if the majority observes it, does that make it realistic? Or is the majority experiencing a subjective thing?

B) All predictions are based upon memory.

This is not entirely true either. AS they're based upon logic. Although it can be said that logic is based on memory.

It is like how a computer processor works. If more CPU circuits are spent trying to predict, or simulate, a real world scenario, then there are much less circuits available for accurate observation of that scenario.

Jokes on you, I study CPU architecture. The present CPU you are using most likely uses a "prediction unit". It caches prior instructions called based on how often they're called. This helps to speed up things further by giving accurate predictions.

If the prediction is wrong, the cache resets to the next most-used instruction given to the CPU.

And simulation always takes much more calculating power than observation. This is because simulation calculation requires that the calculator (or mind) render as many variables of the situation in the mind, while simple observation requires no rendering—the data is from the real world instead of recalling memories.

Both are influenced by memories and your own evolved body. Thus are subjective.

I'm unsure why you went down this route. You already know of personal subjectivity, yet you consider observations objective? Or realistic?

Your ginormous post has left me a tad confused as to what you were getting at. It also tells me how confusing my past history of ginormous posts must've been...ungh...

[RoyLennigan]

I disagree. The assertion that we'd have no assumptions would mean we wouldn't be able to exist.

Even animals, the most primitive of them all, has genetic assumptions. Babies have their own thoughts, though mostly not cognitive. This thoughts are largely genetic and environment based.

Because of this, yes they do have assumptions. Like a baby that touches something hot, since he didn't know it was hot. The baby assumed it wasn't going to be painful.

I see what you are saying. I was actually thinking this and I forgot about it when I started typing this up. As I clarify later on, "the child makes less predictions and simply observes, with no more bias than human instinct and sensory limitation." I meant that a baby is naive to the complex assumptions that adults make on a normal daily basis. But yes, there are inherent instincts that act as initial assumptions upon which we build the rest of our predictions.

And as for the baby touching something hot. I personally have been there. This is one of a few memories I can recall of childhood. I had gotten a chair over to the stove so that I could touch a hot pan. It turned out to be very painful. But the point is that I recall not making any assumptions except that I was very curious about what went on up there. It is not that a baby makes the assumption that it won't hurt, but rather that the baby makes no assumption regarding the possibility of consequence because it is so caught up in curiosity.

I disagree again. Most humans do not. There are a great many people that go through life without any wisdom, and I know a great many children that are wiser than all the elderly I've seen.

Few really ever learn to predict the future. In fact I know many people who should be doing so, but fail repeatedly to ever consider it.

I think your disagreement is from misunderstanding me. Everyone predicts, that is how you live. You predict that you can move your hand to pick up a glass of water and it won't drop. You predict that once the yellow light has shown, your speed is enough that you will pass through the intersection before it turns red. You predict where to put your feet when you walk. Many more simple predictions like these can be put together to form larger, more vague predictions, such as the election results of next year.

Everyone, and every animal, has to assume in order to take action. Assuming, or taking for granted, is prediction. Most of it has become subconscious (which, I think, is why you disagree with me) because we figured out simple prediction when we were childrend and now we don't have to think to predict. And since we take these predictions for granted, they become our reality and we are blinded to anything we did not predict. Blinded, that is unless that which we did not predict happens to change too many variables that we do predict. But even then we just sit and wonder why it wasn't like we predicted instead of observing why.

I agree with you that I have seen many children who are more wise than the elderly. Children have all their brain cells, the elderly have (through simply living) killed off many. The child's mind is more acute, more aware of what is really going on because the child observes rather than assumes. The child observes because he does not have many memories with which to relate the present to. Also because his brain chemistry forces him to observe instead of assume (observing his parents behavior so that he may copy--its instinct).

I cannot say this is true, both for the above reason, and the fact I was born with a very HIGH long term memory capacity. I've vivid memories while I was an infant.

Children are in no ways unbiased. I can confirm this from personal memory and my above refutation.

Very interesting. I'd like to hear about your childhood memories as it relates to this topic.

Children might not be wholly unbiased (due to instinct and genetic disposition) but I hope you agree that they are leaps and bounds more unbiased than most adults.

I can do both. One needs to learn when to observe, and when to predict. This is not something special you have discovered, and your reasoning behind it isn't very...fit into the result.

In fact I can't see how your prior reasonings and points even fit into this. You seem to have the same problem I used to: Fitting too many damn points without a main point.

Yes, everyone can do both. But to what extent is what matters. The child observes more; the adult assumes more. I don't understand how you don't see where this fits in with the rest of the post. I like to clarify, and if you don't want to follow the lines I'm drawing because of what you assume, then perhaps you should take a closer look by observing.

Your assumption relies on a few things.

A) observations aren't biased.

In reality, they are. Just like everything else, observations are subjective to the observer. Even if the majority observes it, does that make it realistic? Or is the majority experiencing a subjective thing?

I don't see how this contradicts what I am saying. Of course no observation is unbiased. Of course all experience is subjective. This is exactly what I am talking about.

B) All predictions are based upon memory.

This is not entirely true either. AS they're based upon logic. Although it can be said that logic is based on memory.

My assumption does not rely on this, and I do not see where you get this from, but if you could point it out, maybe I can rewrite it to make it more clear. Predictions are a relation between selective memory and the situation at present. Logic is a concept built upon probability and simliarity. One observes the situation while subconsciously comparing it to situations similar to it, and calculating the probable effects based upon that similarity. Look at the logic of a two-lane road. Would we have any concept of this if we did not have the foresight to know that if the cars were going in opposite directions on a road only wide enough for one line would crash? Logic maybe be an inherent set of rules in the universe, but it is a set of rules that we have to learn through experience, like everything else. And experience is stored in memory. The only other thing I could think of to affect this is emotion, which I have touched upon already.

Jokes on you, I study CPU architecture. The present CPU you are using most likely uses a "prediction unit". It caches prior instructions called based on how often they're called. This helps to speed up things further by giving accurate predictions.

If the prediction is wrong, the cache resets to the next most-used instruction given to the CPU.

This is an example of those who assume, rather than predict. You assume to know what I am talking about simply because you can relate to the subject. So you automatically start talking about what you know, rather than try to figure out what exactly I'm describing.

In this instance, you brought the topic to a more technical level, while I was trying to describe the action as a whole.

Why do you think it takes a 3Ghz processor, a video card with 256mb of memory, and 2 gigs of ram to play the latest video games? Because the computer needs all that circuitry to simulate more accurately.

Why do you think the Apollo command module was less powerful than your handheld calculator? Because all the data it used came from real measurements. It was not simulated.

This is all I was saying.

Both are influenced by memories and your own evolved body. Thus are subjective.

Yes, I agree. But this does not mean you have no power over the extent of that influence.

I'm unsure why you went down this route. You already know of personal subjectivity, yet you consider observations objective? Or realistic?

Your ginormous post has left me a tad confused as to what you were getting at. It also tells me how confusing my past history of ginormous posts must've been...ungh...

I went down this route because I know there must be some absolute reality. But I also know that our subjective experience shows that we are each blinded due to our own personal limitations. So I am thinking that we are able adapt our percpetion to achieve greater accuracy, but that we will never achieve absolute truth (absolute reality) because it contradicts being human.

Sorry that my post is so confusing. I believe I do have the problem that I try to put to many points into one topic. But it is only because I am so motivated to get a picture as accurate as the one in my mind.

[Jeremyhfht]

And as for the baby touching something hot. I personally have been there. This is one of a few memories I can recall of childhood.

I never was. My burnings were accidental (hot irons dropped onto my forearm by dripping on the cord. Pain.)

I think your disagreement is from misunderstanding me.

It's difficult to understand when you're not making your point obvious. You write walls of text that say very little. This is the same problem I used to have.

Try and write short, concise, sentences that sum up your main point.

As a side note, it is you who have misunderstood me.
Here is my reply again:

“
As we grow older, that human nature turns our wide, naïve eyes into squinting, knowing eyes. We attempt to predict the near future more and more because at one point, we found out that planning is very useful later on.
”
I disagree again. Most humans do not.

In reference to your point there. I know few humans that ever accurately predict things. Or manage to predict future outcomes of their actions.

I believe, however, you are referring to Basic Predictions. such as "the sun will rise" or "if I drop this, it will fall". So nevermind.

And since we take these predictions for granted, they become our reality and we are blinded to anything we did not predict. Blinded, that is unless that which we did not predict happens to change too many variables that we do predict. But even then we just sit and wonder why it wasn't like we predicted instead of observing why.

This is improper rationality. I know nobody that does this. Everybody predicts by past observations only. Common observations, as well. Unless, as I said above, you are referring to the most basic and subconscious predictions.

I cannot relate here, as I've never personally had that problem. Nor know of anyone that has.

The child's mind is more acute, more aware of what is really going on because the child observes rather than assumes.

They are not _always_ aware. They merely are aware of new stimuli, and once they make a correlation that it's a common event, they can make predictions about it later.

Similar to a CPU. If the prediction is false, then it tries again. This is not blinding yourself to reality, this is simply predicting based on past observations.

The child observes because he does not have many memories with which to relate the present to. Also because his brain chemistry forces him to observe instead of assume (observing his parents behavior so that he may copy--its instinct).

Brain Chemistry has shit all to do with it. A child must observe new events, and if the child does not have much of a logical basis (which few children do), they wont be able to predict it until they see it happen a few times.

Afterwards, they predict it based on these observations. You come across as though you believe it happens some other way.

Children might not be wholly unbiased (due to instinct and genetic disposition) but I hope you agree that they are leaps and bounds more unbiased than most adults.

Biased in WHAT WAY.

Yes, everyone can do both. But to what extent is what matters. The child observes more; the adult assumes more.

I cannot relate. I observe when required, and I make predictions when required. It's largely based on the situation. A child is not unbiased, a child is ignorant.

Ignorance, in itself, is bias.

I like to clarify, and if you don't want to follow the lines I'm drawing because of what you assume, then perhaps you should take a closer look by observing.

Perhaps you should make your points more clear. I did not know you were getting at this until now. Your prior post was riddled with excess words, and horrible formatting. This is to blame for misunderstandings.

I don't see how this contradicts what I am saying. Of course no observation is unbiased. Of course all experience is subjective. This is exactly what I am talking about.

You have misunderstood my reply.

My assumption does not rely on this, and I do not see where you get this from, but if you could point it out, maybe I can rewrite it to make it more clear.

From here:

The greater the ability to observe rather than predict, the more accurate is the perception of reality.

I disagree on the basis that biased observations are just as supposedly unrealistic as biased predictions.

This is an example of those who assume, rather than predict. You assume to know what I am talking about simply because you can relate to the subject. So you automatically start talking about what you know, rather than try to figure out what exactly I'm describing.

Nay, I assumed I knew what I was replying to. You are expressing yourself very poorly. So naturally, this assumptions happen.

If I were to OBSERVE it, I would not have replied. You used terminology that correlated exactly to the present CPU architectures in use. It is your fault for not making it clear.

This in no way proves your point.

In this instance, you brought the topic to a more technical level, while I was trying to describe the action as a whole.

That's because I too was making a point. On a more technical level. It would appear I misunderstood you, however. Or at least so my OBSERVATIONS show.

Why do you think it takes a 3Ghz processor, a video card with 256mb of memory, and 2 gigs of ram to play the latest video games? Because the computer needs all that circuitry to simulate more accurately.

Why do you think the Apollo command module was less powerful than your handheld calculator? Because all the data it used came from real measurements. It was not simulated.

...there is so much wrong with that I don't know where to begin. But lets try "ignoring" my technical expertise in these areas (as well as the fact computers at the time WERE only as powerful as a handheld calculator). I still come out confused as to what the hell you are getting at.

Yes, I agree. But this does not mean you have no power over the extent of that influence.

This assumes you know what absolute reality is. Controlling that influence means nothing without already knowing where that absolute reality is.

I went down this route because I know there must be some absolute reality.

You ASSUME there is. And I believe your entire argument just hit a brick wall.

But I also know that our subjective experience shows that we are each blinded due to our own personal limitations. So I am thinking that we are able adapt our percpetion to achieve greater accuracy, but that we will never achieve absolute truth (absolute reality) because it contradicts being human.

That goal is illogical. It depends on you already knowing where truth lies.

Sorry that my post is so confusing. I believe I do have the problem that I try to put to many points into one topic. But it is only because I am so motivated to get a picture as accurate as the one in my mind.

Quite simple: Learn to make short concise sentences. It takes some work, but that's what I did.

[RoyLennigan]

It's difficult to understand when you're not making your point obvious. You write walls of text that say very little. This is the same problem I used to have.

Try and write short, concise, sentences that sum up your main point.

I guess, since I am not able at the moment to come up with short, concise points, it is because I myself am not exactly sure of the basic implications of what I am talking about, merely that it is what I have experienced. Basically, I don't have a point because I don't have any conscious intentions for what I am talking about.

As a side note, it is you who have misunderstood me.

In reference to your point there. I know few humans that ever accurately predict things. Or manage to predict future outcomes of their actions.

I believe, however, you are referring to Basic Predictions. such as "the sun will rise" or "if I drop this, it will fall". So nevermind.

Yes, for the most part I am talking of basic predictions. But, because more complex predictions are based upon those simpler ones, what I am saying applies to them as well, though with further complexity, obviously.

This is improper rationality. I know nobody that does this. Everybody predicts by past observations only. Common observations, as well. Unless, as I said above, you are referring to the most basic and subconscious predictions.

One who simply observes with little bias has no motivation to act. One who is always motivated to act has much bias and little time for observation. Each person's own reality is composed of a balance between observation and interpretation. Their perceived action is a direct reaction of their interpretation. The percieved action is the prediction of their personal intent. This is what creates the reality they percieve. This is why there can be conflicting viewpoints concerning an action--because one person believes his action caused this, but another believes otherwise. It all depends on the subjective experience each has.

Do you say it is "improper rationality" because you believe what I mean by saying this is as simple as 'if you predict a perfect, happy world then your reality will be a perfect happy world because you will be blind to all that is bad'? If so, then you misunderstand me. It is more complex than that, as I am sure you know. Our simple predictions of everyday events blind us to things that we might observe if our upraising/culture/environment hadn't imprinted values upon us. But this is all a balance between observation and motivation.

I cannot relate here, as I've never personally had that problem. Nor know of anyone that has.

What problem? Are you not aware that everything you percieve is simply the brain's reaction to what changes in the senses. You are not actually seeing reality, you are seeing an effect on your senses--you are essentially cut off from absolute truth and are only able to guess your way through life, using clues gleamed from the only tools you have: your senses and your associative abilities.

Or were you talking of something else?

They are not _always_ aware. They merely are aware of new stimuli, and once they make a correlation that it's a common event, they can make predictions about it later.

Yes, which is why I said there are merely "more aware". Instead of being aware of possible reactions (the predictions we make as adults concerning anything of the future, be it two seconds from now or two years from now), the child (or simply, the naive) is aware of the now, as it is without change. But, in being human, there are certain inherent limitations, or relationships, that force us to start making assumptions and predictions as soon as it has anything to do with us and our wants. Thus, the child learns to predict more and more.

Similar to a CPU. If the prediction is false, then it tries again. This is not blinding yourself to reality, this is simply predicting based on past observations.

Yes, it is not the simple act of trial and error that blinds us to certain aspects of reality. Rather, it is the adherence to tried and true methods that blinds us. In learning something, we tend to take what was learned as absolute and always true. But that isn't necessarily so. Because there are always more variables in operation that we can percieve. So by observing that something specific happened after a certain cause, we assume that they are related, and so we make a mental law, or theory that says this is always so. But this blinds us to other factors that are at work.

Brain Chemistry has shit all to do with it. A child must observe new events, and if the child does not have much of a logical basis (which few children do), they wont be able to predict it until they see it happen a few times.

Heh. I'm sorry you have such an emotional bind with this topic. But brain chemistry has everything to do with it. What do you think logic, reasoning, and observation are dependant upon? For instance, it is proven that a person who is happier is able to observe and learn more efficiently.

Logic comes from a long and large (reasonably) accurate and diverse library of memories of cause and effect situations. It is dependant upon absolute 'rules' of cause and effect, but as humans, we can only see them as probabilities (obvious ones, nonetheless).

Afterwards, they predict it based on these observations. You come across as though you believe it happens some other way.

You forget that most childhood actions are not predictions, though. It may seem like I say that it happens vice versa from what you describe, but its only because children act upon instinct--their main instinct is observation.

Biased in WHAT WAY.

In any way. Adults are biased from culture, from relationships, from class, from any aspect of their environment. People become biased because of any number of minute differences between experience. Bias is simply a combination of exclusive experience and exclusive intent. This has much to do with what I am talking about.

Bias is that which one person observes, but observes either magnified or reduced (or doesn't observe at all) because of his own experience and intent (or the predictions he wants to see).

I cannot relate. I observe when required, and I make predictions when required. It's largely based on the situation. A child is not unbiased, a child is ignorant.

Ignorance, in itself, is bias.

If you say so, but they're all just words anyways. I guess bias is almost synonymous with motivation or intent in this respect. But there is a difference between the bias of an old man and the 'bias' of a newborn. The newborn doesn't know why they are thinking a certain way (they don't even know they are thinking at all).

The old man can recall distinctly why he hates the rain, or why he likes some certain candidate. He hates the rain because his wife died in a carcrash caused by slick roads. He likes the candidate because he served with him in Vietnam. This is being biased.

When the baby sees a butterfly, it isn't associating it to any other butterflies it has seen because it hasn't. It is seeing this butterfly as something wholly new. This is being unbiased. The only way to be unbiased is to make no assumption or conclusion about something.

You don't observe when required; you observe when you feel like it. Just as you don't make predictions when required, just when you feel like it. And predictions are necessary at almost any point of the day, though most people take it for granted (you, not as much as most).

Its as much based on the situation as it is based on you.

Perhaps you should make your points more clear. I did not know you were getting at this until now. Your prior post was riddled with excess words, and horrible formatting. This is to blame for misunderstandings.

I disagree on the basis that biased observations are just as supposedly unrealistic as biased predictions.

The observation can only be biased by predicting it before fully taking it in. Yes, it is impossible to fully take that observation in and keep it, but that does not mean that one can continue to get better at it.

I think we might be getting somewhere.

Perhaps it is that all observation is merely a prediction of how the actual world relates to what our senses are telling us. In essence, what we percieve is merely the prediction our mind subconsciously creates when presented with the data from the senses. Because of unique genetic structure and experiences stored as memories, some of this data from the senses is covered up or magnified to create what we call 'interpretation', or bias.

...there is so much wrong with that I don't know where to begin.

Such as?

But lets try "ignoring" my technical expertise in these areas (as well as the fact computers at the time WERE only as powerful as a handheld calculator). I still come out confused as to what the hell you are getting at.

My point was that we spend so much time and effort trying to predict more and more and farther and farther into the future that we forget our inherent and efficient ability of simply observation. Observing the now is more important than trying to figure out where you will be in 20 years, as well as more practical (because you the probability of figuring out what is happening now is greater than figuring out what is going to happen in 20 years). I'm not trying to get into any kind of computer debate and probably chose the wrong subject for an analogy, figuring the person I'm talking to.

This assumes you know what absolute reality is. Controlling that influence means nothing without already knowing where that absolute reality is.

"But this does not mean you have no power over the extent of that influence." This was in no way an absolute statement. It was simply to say that, despite bias being influenced by memory and physiology, one is still able to be aware of both and act contrary to them (perhaps because of what they have experienced).

You ASSUME there is. And I believe your entire argument just hit a brick wall.

I'm sorry, but we don't seem to share any beliefs.

That goal is illogical. It depends on you already knowing where truth lies.

Why?

Quite simple: Learn to make short concise sentences. It takes some work, but that's what I did.

And yet, even though you did, I still don't understand or agree with you.

[Jeremyhfht]

Roy, I'm going to only reply to some of the content. Preferably the content you HAVEN'T botched by very poor wording. Which is all of it, so I'll have to deal. You'll pardon me if I ignore other ginormous walls of text you produced. As they make even less sense, or are irrelevant.

What problem? Are you not aware that everything you percieve is simply the brain's reaction to what changes in the senses. You are not actually seeing reality, you are seeing an effect on your senses--you are essentially cut off from absolute truth and are only able to guess your way through life, using clues gleamed from the only tools you have: your senses and your associative abilities.

Cute. Once again, this implies the premise of a true reality. You have not proved your premise. Therefore, this is not acceptable logic. It's baseless assertion.

Similarly, that was not what I was saying. Reread what I said in reply to what you said. Unless even you yourself are confused by the mountains of text ye spew.

Yes, it is not the simple act of trial and error that blinds us to certain aspects of reality. Rather, it is the adherence to tried and true methods that blinds us.

most people are willing to think of something else when tried and true methods fail. It does not blind you if they work, merely if they fail and you keep using them for the same situation.

Heh. I'm sorry you have such an emotional bind with this topic.

I'm sorry, did you just Predict based on Past Experience that I was being emotionally outbursting? I'm very calm, and I've no emotions binded with this topic.

The fact you are not applying what you keep saying proves you don't even understand it enough to speak of it. So why, then, did you make this topic prematurely? Ergh!

But brain chemistry has everything to do with it. What do you think logic, reasoning, and observation are dependant upon? For instance, it is proven that a person who is happier is able to observe and learn more efficiently.

Oh really? I utterly and completely disagree with that "tried and true" assumption. I know numerous people who have severe depression, and learn faster then almost anyone. When they are in happier moods, they learn at just about the same rate.

Myself included.

You forget that most childhood actions are not predictions, though. It may seem like I say that it happens vice versa from what you describe, but its only because children act upon instinct--their main instinct is observation.

Quite the contrary: Their main instinct is hands-on education. Their brains are not developed enough to usually recall simple analytical observation (or analyze at all). What happens is, they observe by way of pure ignorance, and some of the most primitive observations. Unless you correlate primitiveness with truth, rephrase your argument.

Everyone observes. An adults ability to abserve is far better then that of an infant. Similarly, predictions do not blind you to reality. A good prediction is based on observation.
Observations which are recalled by memory. The same observations you claim are more in tune with reality. How then, are these predictions out of sync with reality, when they rely on the observations you claim are realistic?

Not only is your argument incoherent, but it ignores a basic correlation that makes it even MORE incoherent. Argh! Stop typing already!

Bias is that which one person observes, but observes either magnified or reduced (or doesn't observe at all) because of his own experience and intent (or the predictions he wants to see).

Children do the exact same thing. Excepting infants. Infants simply feed their minds as much information as possible, so they survive long enough to grow up (evolution in action).

These "observations" are biased in a number of ways, and are hardly in tune with reality (I know children that thought a teddy bear cake was a real bear, and when cut they were left traumatized).

So are you going to tell me that the observation those children made is, in fact, realistic? And that was a live bear they cut up and ate?

The newborn doesn't know why they are thinking a certain way (they don't even know they are thinking at all).

On the contrary, Infants know they are thinking. I was a year or so old, and recall having basic thoughts such as "mother" and such. Most of it was emotion.

All in all, newborns do think certain ways depending on their past experiences. Even hospital ones and such. Humans are biased in the womb even. There is no period where they're even CLOSE to a supposed "true reality".

When the baby sees a butterfly, it isn't associating it to any other butterflies it has seen because it hasn't. It is seeing this butterfly as something wholly new. This is being unbiased. The only way to be unbiased is to make no assumption or conclusion about something.

Again, I must say you are wrong. A baby will see a new object, and associate it with something it's seen or done before. I've seen babies try to EAT butterflies, thinking it food. Or grab them and play with them, thinking it a toy.

Babies are even more biased then adults, since they do not have any thoughts with which to regulate Bias.

You don't observe when required; you observe when you feel like it. Just as you don't make predictions when required, just when you feel like it. And predictions are necessary at almost any point of the day, though most people take it for granted (you, not as much as most).

So I just so happen to "feel like it" every time the situation calls for a conscious observation? Yeah, that makes sense. Like levitating turkey.
A persons responses, when they've their emotions under some control, normally react to what a situation calls for it.

Since my subconscious would automatically regulate minor ones, I'm going to blatantly ignore that aspect of the conversation.

Its as much based on the situation as it is based on you.

Subjectivity. Gotta love it. same thing happens to babies, and in the same manner.

The observation can only be biased by predicting it before fully taking it in. Yes, it is impossible to fully take that observation in and keep it, but that does not mean that one can continue to get better at it.

You've not proven this. You are merely asserting it without physical, logical, or psychological evidence.

Observations are easily biased by simply observing. What you see is RELATIVE to what another might see.

see: Einsteins theory of RELATIVITY.

Observing the now is more important than trying to figure out where you will be in 20 years, as well as more practical (because you the probability of figuring out what is happening now is greater than figuring out what is going to happen in 20 years).

You're basing your argument on improper methods people use to gauge the future. Or so you hint at with this statement.

It's immensely easy to figure out future estimations (for me anyway). The now is immensely simple to watch in comparison, and everyone I know already fits your criteria. So I'm failing to see a point in this.

I'm not trying to get into any kind of computer debate and probably chose the wrong subject for an analogy, figuring the person I'm talking to.

I love analogies. The problem is you suck at them.

"But this does not mean you have no power over the extent of that influence." This was in no way an absolute statement. It was simply to say that, despite bias being influenced by memory and physiology, one is still able to be aware of both and act contrary to them (perhaps because of what they have experienced).

That in itself is both memory and physiology. You lose, trapped in your own paradox.

Why?

In order to correlate that this leads to ultimate truth, you must first know it is ultimate truth. The premise of your argument means that nobody knows ultimate truth since nobody experienced it. At best, the closest reached is children. Which are still far from it.

You're making one gigantic fallacy if you assume you know what truth is, when you yourself have not experienced truth, nor can prove it without making logical fallacies.

And yet, even though you did, I still don't understand or agree with you.

I can, in no way, answer that without deeply insulting you.

[RoyLennigan]

I'm sorry, but your utterly intolerable mood dissuades me from responding. You come across as pedantic and hypocritical. I hope you can someday find some balance. All I can say is, without even trying to understand something, what hope do you have of figuring out its validity? Simply because of the way you say things, I do not care what you think or believe.

I will not debate with someone whose first response to something he doesn't understand is to insult it rather than help clarify it. Why did you respond to this thread? Just to get a rise? To inflate your own ego? Because you really did a horrible job of educating if that is what you were after.

[Jeremyhfht]

And this is where, like everyone else with a false/incomplete/etc idea they want to believe (rather than discuss), you begin to insult me instead of consider my reasoning.

Just like those before you, you discredit your own idea by being unwilling to look at it from logical levels, and understand it to the full extent. If you were this unwilling to hold up to critical responses, why did you make this thread?

All I can say is, without even trying to understand something, what hope do you have of figuring out its validity? Simply because of the way you say things, I do not care what you think or believe.

So you do not care to consider another view? Roy, that's hypocritical. All in one paragraph.

I've made full attempts to understand where you're coming from. My responses were after multiple re-reads, in attempts to understand your garbled text.

You are assuming based on preconceived ideas. This goes against your own purposed philosophy. Practice what you preach. I may be being an asshole here, but I believe it's warranted.

I will not debate with someone whose first response to something he doesn't understand is to insult it rather than help clarify it.

Insult? Where? My above rebuttals consist of logical ones. As well as expressed confusion at some of your paragraphs. You make yourself out to be a hypocrite further, by insulting me with this post.

This is a very illogical course of action. I'm saddened, too, as if you cleaned up your typing a bit you might have made a good point regarding your purposed philosophy. At least try to do this in the future.

Why did you respond to this thread?

I found the idea interesting, and I decided to challenge it. As it did not seem very logical or concise. The following discussion has only proved further that it wasn't, and revealed it's not even a completely thought out idea.

This is a bad way to go about philosophy.

Just to get a rise? To inflate your own ego? Because you really did a horrible job of educating if that is what you were after.

If I were out to inflate my own ego, would I not have worded things so it placed me in an emotionally superior position? I replied with what you obviously expected: Criticism and suggestions.

From this, you either did a horrible job of understanding what I said, or you're not very emotionally mature. If you'll pardon me acting a bit childish in saying so.

Honestly, what are you thinking? You're education should come from what the replies are. It should get you doubting your own idea, then purposing solutions. Not rebuking them as if your incomplete philosophy is fact.
While you're statement that I'm a poor teacher is probably fact, you are a poor student as much as I'm a poor teacher.

[RoyLennigan]

Listen...

The only reason I appear to be unwilling to do what you say is because of the way you say it. Perhaps if you were not so immediately condescending I would take you more seriously. Perhaps if you gave constructive critiscism rather than simply cutting down my words without further thought I would take heed of your ideas.

But right now, you have none of my respect and so I can't take anything you say seriously.

If you want me to rethink my ideas, then I ask you to re-write your orignial responses in such a form that they are mature and without ad hominem attacks.

[Jeremyhfht]

I ensure that my posts are normally without logical fallacy. That includes ad-hominems.

Try and think before you emotionally outburst. As my posts do not contain as many, if any, fallacies as you're suggesting.

They do, on the other hand, contain disagreements. If you are misinterpreting these, try and use your conscious realization of that fact to...not misinterpret it.

I also find it ironic that you are consciously realizing why you think you don't want to listen to me....yet you're not changing it. This appears to be a ploy.

[RoyLennigan]

I also find it ironic that you are consciously realizing why you think you don't want to listen to me....yet you're not changing it. This appears to be a ploy.

Why the fuck do I have any reason to use a ploy like that? I hate when people project their own insecurities on other people they disagree with. I have never been the type of person to consciously deceive. When I made the first post, yes I wasn't sure exactly what I was getting into. But this is philosophy, no one has a real idea of what they are getting into. It was you who brought hostility to the debate. My first responses may not have been quite as coherent as you'd wish, but at least they were open-minded and fair. Yet you came in as if you knew absolute reality, or at least exaxctly what I was talking about. Yet what you said revealed that you knew neither.

I would be alright with just forgetting the last few posts and starting the thread over again.

I figure now that I had several premises hidden within the orignial post and that that might be why you were initially confused. I admit that I did make the thread hastily. But that is no reason to cut someone down with such hostility. Especially in philosophy.

[RoyLennigan]

My main premise was this:
Reality seems to be dual in that it is often described as either an absolute reality that we observe with limitation, or as a reality created by our own minds. I am contending that it is a combination of both.

Quantum theory posits that all particles have a range of probability in which they will act. This range (I believe, but am not sure) can be narrowed down by variables such as spin, the medium containing the particle, charge, as well as many others. Any observable event is determined by the collective range of probabilities of all the particles within it. This is what makes me think that reality is a massive web of these probabilities that each affect each other as they are created.

The reason all of this is important to what I am talking about is because of this: Reality is like a mosaic painting made up of tiny strokes of color that are unseen by the naked eye. As a whole, the painting appears coherent and deterministic. But the closer you look, the more chaotic it gets, becoming just a jumble of random colors. The quantum events are the tiny strokes of color, while the reality that we percieve is the whole picture. But in seeing the whole picture, one misses tiny details. This is what I meant when I meant when I was talking about being blinded to some aspects because of one's focus on others. The more we try to look at the "big picture", the more we blind ourselves to details that still might become important. But the same goes vice versa. Thus it is dualistic.

Because our minds are so complex, I think that our perception and actions are more tied to quantum events than most may think. The many future events that we are able to imagine in our minds are created by the web of associations of stored probabilities. Because comparing memory to the now in order to produce a prediction is simply statistics.

I was also talking about the difference between a newborn and an adult in respect to awareness. I say that the child is more aware of the real now because he does not associate to past experiences. By associating the now to memories, an adult compares two different things by looking at the similarities. The nature of the human mind causes us to subconsciously think that the situations are the same if enough similar circumstances are percieved. Thus, the adult makes assumptions that may or may not be right. It can turn out to be just as harmful as it is useful. The child, on the other hand, has nothing to associate to, and so it is better able to see what is actually happening. But this begins to give way to habit and prediction soon enough. I would say that the consistency of habit and the accuracy of prediction are what constitutes 'intelligence'.

But awareness is a different thing. A person's awareness would depend on the accuracy of predictions that require no action on the part of that person except for observation with limited or no conclusion. Such as first observing birds without thinking of anything. Then predicting an action they might take according to your observations and seeing if that prediction is correct.

I had another premise that humans only percieved reality as a probability of how all the data connects together. In other words, the senses bring individual information to the brain, the brain puts all these pieces together according to its own structure and how all these neccessary organs fit together. It fills in any gaps with its own imaginations. As a child, the gaps have little to fill them (no memories, so instinct and emotion fills it). As one gets older, the gaps are filled with probabilities and desire. Some of the gaps become curiosities and get smaller as we observe more (though never fully filling in). Other gaps get wider with either lack of attention, or attention that is only passive imagination and not prediction/observation. Most scientists will fill their curiosity gaps with objective (for a human) observation. Most theists will fill the same kind of gap with imagination.

Now, (if you don't think its already gotten so) this is where it gets real hazy for me. I tend to think that reality is like a compromise between all particles or all fundamental pieces of energy. It is a compromise of probabilities. Each has its own range of probable action. All these pieces act without really 'knowing' (knowing as in being directly affected by) the others. But at the same time, the range of their probabilities is dependant upon that of others around it. So none of this is absolute, but it all balances out somehow.

Our perception is made up of what reality is probably like, because it is impossible to know what it is actually like at any given moment, just as it is impossible to know the exact location of an electron at any given moment. I don't even really know what I am talking about here, but maybe someone with a very open mind can take it from there.

[RoyLennigan]

You are assuming based on preconceived ideas. This goes against your own purposed philosophy. Practice what you preach. I may be being an asshole here, but I believe it's warranted.

Just to make things a bit more clear I want to say this regarding the statement above. I know what you are talking about and I don't deny it. But my intent was not to 'preach' about how bad it is. My intent was simply to say that it is, without any conclusion on its usefulness or uselessness, good or bad. I am not the kind of person to make distinctions as to whether something is good or bad, but I may come off that way because I am a person who tries to bring to light the effects or causes of certain methods and ideals.

[Jeremyhfht]

bah, fine. I relent. I wont go through the ganglion-cyst hell of retyping everything I've said, though. IF someone else wants to join the debate, now is the time.