The problem is, there *is* no determinable "world as it really is", there are *only* differing perspectives on (a) truth and (b) values. For the record, I most definitely believe in the perspectives of those here -- except for the absoluteness of either, which simply doesn't exist, no matter how powerful the illusion.*
This is precisely why both hardline Zionist rank-and-file believers and Anti-Zionists are intractable, and will only be dragged kicking and screaming into submission, or come under control/imprisonment/death. You simply can't change someone's mind against their own version of "the truth" once that worldview is decades baked in.
---------------------
* Backing me up, I believe:
-- Protagoras (a leading Sophist) - "Of all things the measure is human, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not"
... which might be seen as a mirror image of the later ...
-- Socrates (via Plato) - "I know that I know nothing"
I don't disagree entirely, but one can carry this a little far. For example, with simple software displaying static or moving color or grayscale images, I can demonstrate to you that your visual cortex processes the three basic aspects of a scene, its form, color, and motion as separate synaptic streams each in their own neuronal network. Yet, you perceive them as a whole percept. So your perceptions lie at a far more fundamental level -- even before they are completely tainted by presuppositions -- as in my neighbor who swears even cyclists lolling along at 15 mph are breaking the neighborhood speed limit.
So defining any determinable world as it really is through our senses or instruments that interact with them is hopeless. There is no real way of knowing anything except by agreement of our over-frontally-neuroned contriving cerebro-cortico fancy computers in our heads that create reality. I suppose I should be glad that we all mostly agree on the same creation of reality in Gaza. However, if that thought is somehow less than satisfying, you'll have to forgive me.
Are you saying that questioning perceptions is itself undesireable, because (a) one can show with this example how removed from reality our senses are, yet (b) in practical life, we almost never need to bore that deep? I think it, in fact, demonstrates the opposite.
When intelligent people come to significantly different conclusions about reality, yet are about to come to blows about it -- as seems to happen with distressing regularity today regarding politically-relevant things -- deeper explorations of the sources of those beliefs and values are absolutely necessary. We need to look more carefully at beliefs that come: directly from senses; trust in what others say about their own beliefs (and the whole causal chain of belief transfer); our underlying, long-developed, stored worldviews/schemas; our current thoughts; or anything else that affects our understanding of the world. When one becomes conscious of the dizzying level of reality mediation that goes on, it's not hard to then realize how far removed we actually are, and then how humble we need to be.
"There is no real way of knowing anything except by agreement of our over-frontally-neuroned contriving cerebro-cortico fancy computers in our heads that create reality. "
FIFY: "There is no real way of knowing anything external to our current conscious. Period." (That's what I pointed out Protagoras and Socrates get at.) That's why "know" is a very dangerous word, and IMO should, now, be deprecated in favor of "believe" and other human-centric terms. That is, instead of just chucking the whole project (as you appear to say above) simply because it seems too difficult and/or esoteric.
I'm basically agreeing with you from fundamental principals of neuroscience; if you want to sustain some awful disagreement, be my guest. Just what fraction of humanity do you think ever gets even to the edge, the precipice of questioning the veracity of perception. I'll just say, in my experience, a tiny fraction. When I taught these aspects of even visual perception in a Neuropsych course, the blown-away disturbed looks on the faces of 20- and 21 y-o college Juniors were remarkable. I guess my point is that, in the world we live in, our discussion seems completely beside the point to me.
Oh, I see .
The “humanity” that is powerless to stop the genocide because the actual individuals in power are whores for the Ziopaths.
Why don’t you try looking at the world as it REALLY IS, instead of through your rose-colored glasses?
The problem is, there *is* no determinable "world as it really is", there are *only* differing perspectives on (a) truth and (b) values. For the record, I most definitely believe in the perspectives of those here -- except for the absoluteness of either, which simply doesn't exist, no matter how powerful the illusion.*
This is precisely why both hardline Zionist rank-and-file believers and Anti-Zionists are intractable, and will only be dragged kicking and screaming into submission, or come under control/imprisonment/death. You simply can't change someone's mind against their own version of "the truth" once that worldview is decades baked in.
---------------------
* Backing me up, I believe:
-- Protagoras (a leading Sophist) - "Of all things the measure is human, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not"
... which might be seen as a mirror image of the later ...
-- Socrates (via Plato) - "I know that I know nothing"
I don't disagree entirely, but one can carry this a little far. For example, with simple software displaying static or moving color or grayscale images, I can demonstrate to you that your visual cortex processes the three basic aspects of a scene, its form, color, and motion as separate synaptic streams each in their own neuronal network. Yet, you perceive them as a whole percept. So your perceptions lie at a far more fundamental level -- even before they are completely tainted by presuppositions -- as in my neighbor who swears even cyclists lolling along at 15 mph are breaking the neighborhood speed limit.
So defining any determinable world as it really is through our senses or instruments that interact with them is hopeless. There is no real way of knowing anything except by agreement of our over-frontally-neuroned contriving cerebro-cortico fancy computers in our heads that create reality. I suppose I should be glad that we all mostly agree on the same creation of reality in Gaza. However, if that thought is somehow less than satisfying, you'll have to forgive me.
"one can carry this a little far"
Are you saying that questioning perceptions is itself undesireable, because (a) one can show with this example how removed from reality our senses are, yet (b) in practical life, we almost never need to bore that deep? I think it, in fact, demonstrates the opposite.
When intelligent people come to significantly different conclusions about reality, yet are about to come to blows about it -- as seems to happen with distressing regularity today regarding politically-relevant things -- deeper explorations of the sources of those beliefs and values are absolutely necessary. We need to look more carefully at beliefs that come: directly from senses; trust in what others say about their own beliefs (and the whole causal chain of belief transfer); our underlying, long-developed, stored worldviews/schemas; our current thoughts; or anything else that affects our understanding of the world. When one becomes conscious of the dizzying level of reality mediation that goes on, it's not hard to then realize how far removed we actually are, and then how humble we need to be.
"There is no real way of knowing anything except by agreement of our over-frontally-neuroned contriving cerebro-cortico fancy computers in our heads that create reality. "
FIFY: "There is no real way of knowing anything external to our current conscious. Period." (That's what I pointed out Protagoras and Socrates get at.) That's why "know" is a very dangerous word, and IMO should, now, be deprecated in favor of "believe" and other human-centric terms. That is, instead of just chucking the whole project (as you appear to say above) simply because it seems too difficult and/or esoteric.
I'm basically agreeing with you from fundamental principals of neuroscience; if you want to sustain some awful disagreement, be my guest. Just what fraction of humanity do you think ever gets even to the edge, the precipice of questioning the veracity of perception. I'll just say, in my experience, a tiny fraction. When I taught these aspects of even visual perception in a Neuropsych course, the blown-away disturbed looks on the faces of 20- and 21 y-o college Juniors were remarkable. I guess my point is that, in the world we live in, our discussion seems completely beside the point to me.