‘seeing things’

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

‘seeing things’

Here is my interpretation of how i see things.

My conciousness has as part of its nature an subjective observer, this is utilised in the perception of all things of the world and mind.

If analogously we think of the mind as physically a sophisticated camcorder reading ass our senses;

the observer is the thing by which the object is the object in the observers eye. There isn’t and cannot be a single instance in the equation [e.g. Just an observer], but the observed and observers must be counted collectively. This is because you cant get something from nothing, and you cannot have nothing where there is something, thus there can only be a collection and an infinity.

All things brought into view of an observer, are not the observer [where there are objects which do not derive from the observers mind].

What we ‘see’ as an observer viewing ‘the screen’ [?] of our ‘organic camcorder’ [instrumentation of the mind], is a composed image representative of information, namely; patterns & polarities of ‘observers ~ as the objects in the eyes of the observers’.

What we see when we are dreaming or visualising, on the same screen [?], is also an image representative of information, but this time derived internally ~ in the mind.

Where ‘colour’ and ‘light’ are projected on the screen from both internal and external sources [there are informations you now know that you didn’t once know, so there are external informations], the mind is the same subjective observer, using the same instrumentation to produce an image either from internal or external sources.

The object in ones vision is of the same ‘stuff’ - i state, and is not of the observer alone i.e. it is part of an equation that doesn’t only contain a single observer [reality].

There is thus;

1.An object in the physical world.
2.An object representing the physical world.
3.The representative object in the mental world.
4.The mental and the physical at based are composed of observers observing.
5.The observed object is not of the observer.
6.Colour and light [qualia] are not of the object nor observer; where the position of colour/light in the schematics, is not located at the same place as said objects and observers.
7.The mind knows the difference between colour with derivative informations of the world, and colour with derivative informations of the mind. This is because its instrumentation are in the schematic and part of the/this function of reality. That doesn’t mean there are no areas of confusion of course, this is due to the continuous feedback loop between observers and objects [both = causality + drive/momentum [where momentum is the affect of the rate of change between observers and the objects in their eye ~ other observers.
8.Colour qualia is of the world.
9.Colour [qualia] only occurs in the conscious mind.
10.The world contains all of the above, there is more but not less than that.

  1. Observation is a quality the mind >has<, not >is<?

_

2

Hello Amorphos

This is not known for sure. Things that are in my consciousness might be self-generated (by the mind), such as dreams, or acquired indirectly in relation to the world, but it is possible to make a mistake. For example, during an audiogram, the patient is asked to press a button when the hear a series of beeps. After every click the beeps get softer, lower in volume, though in the same tone. At the beginning you are responding undoubtedly to the external sensations, but, as they get lower and lower, doubt creeps in your mind as to whether you have actually heard a beep or only imagined it, that is, the content in your mind was self-generated.

3

Hi omar

Interesting point. Visually if the mind is thought of kind of orb-like, at its outer edges informations would blur and fade incoming and outgoing.

I am confused by this last part, it seems a bit of a jump from the rest of your post. Why is >everything< ‘internally generated’ + ‘because some things are non-causal via mistakes’? I seem to be missing the information background to that.

Well i was making that as a ‘this is so’ type statement, so i was actually stating that it is sure that a thing being brought into the view [or vision/perception] >is< necessarily external to the thing observing it. Analogy, the observer could be visualised as a torch where its beam is equivalent to the observers ‘view’ or perceptive field, and anything that beam ‘sees’ is external to the torch and its beam/perception.

:slight_smile:

4

Hello Amorphos

The way that the brain is structured, as far as we know, would allow information to be of a mixed quality all the time, not just at an edge. But let’s use your metaphor with reservations. The acquisition of information, I believe, is not a passive activity. Reality is filtered and categorized, and in the process we create a replica, faithful to a degree, but limited by the human senses, such as the field of vision. Another way that the mind mediates information is by applying default beliefs that allow us to think about what is being received. To put it this way, not everything is reasoned, but taken as a given which facilitates thinking. Information acquisition is also affected by how salient the information is. Suppose you have a phobia of snakes and you encounter a snake skin belt on a chair. Your first impression might not be “Oh, what a curious belt” but a “Oh shit there is a snake on that chair”. This is not coming from the pre-frontal cortex, but from the part of your brain that deals with phobias and yet it reacts to a mix of an actual reality and the salient memory that is brought up and completes what is then treated as “information”.

Not everything. My point is that one cannot be sure of everything being externally acquired. And it is not just via mistakes. I speak from experience that while I am told that there was no beep, I still “heard” the beep. This goes to the quality of the judge. I am a fallible observer. If I make a mistake about a mirage it is not because I didn’t see water. Under certain conditions the senses can perceive what is not. But is this a mistake? No, the eyes react to the effect of light in either case, but the design of the eye leaves us prone to illusions.

I understand the type of statement you were making- I simply disagree with the content of the statement. The main difference that disqualifies a torch as a good analogy is that torches do not dream, nor imagine, nor fears, which can act as an internal “light”.

5

omar

Indeed, the instrumentation of the brain calibrates information and contrasts that with existing informations in the minds eye ~ memories and visualisations.

Let us not beat around the bush, a visualisation in the mind is as real [and >means< information out there in the world] in the equation, as a wavelength is real and means information out there in the world. If listening to an orchestra, at some point the informations of what a wave means, must marry what the sound means in our perception [experience].
We should think of the brain as in instrument producing everything from vague 3D images [with both more precise and also vague conceptualisations, both physical and mental], to clear and concise concepts and conceptual objects. Then that ‘engine’ is working all the time not stopping to be interrupted by causality ~ they are shaping each other. This is the reason why we are not driven by causality, well apart from our subjectivity of course which is a further reason.

There is a dialogue.

I see, no i agree it is not a mistake. The brain does have random/chaos aspects, just as the genes which built it, the world which built them, the universe which built the world, and the information which builds the universe. Our minds and reality itself is not perfect, but is better due to this.

Our minds are ‘free’ [doesn’t means ‘owns’] because the universe would be like a machine if it didn’t have chaos elements. As there is only the universe/s, or otherwise one reality, a machine of any kind would not be able to do things its machine like nature cant produce. Nature: includes notions; schematics, mathematical patterns or whathaveyou. You need something which is more than a machine! …and that is what the universe is, and is what human beings are ~ more than machines/more than causal.

Ok. Is a dream external to the observer, or is it part of the observer? The observer is the torch, and a dream or anything else in its perception is being viewed even if it feels like we are part of it. It’s the same instrument working, weather we are ‘watching’ a film or a dream - i state. If for example; where films can become 3D immersive experiences, with eventually in the future all the senses stimulated, the observer would be outside the system it is experiencing.
So is the dream/all experience external?

6

Just got up had a rough night and read ‘orb generated’ and my consciousness hovering over an anomalie here between wakefulness and sleep, kind of made a prejudge mental inference, that perhaps there was some objects out there , and objectives, by which tools can be developed to make a difference.
Jung was very young when he had he kind of experience where he could similarly not delineate the one from the other , and in a totally conscious state.

7

Perhaps Lacan’ Imago de focusing? Who knows.

8

sry I didn’t understand ~ could you elaborate?

9

Hello Amorphos

I don’t think that we are beating around the bush-- this is the issue between us. A visualization in the mind is never as real. The light that strikes the eye is real, but the effect, the mental picture, may not be in accordance with what we think we see. I bring up the mirage again. The light is very real, which gives us the picture of a wet surface out on the distance. The picture is catalogued, interpreted under the rubric for wet, but this thought, in the case of a mirage, does not correspond to what is actually out there…and we find this out soon enough. In the case of an orchestra, again, there is a problem with the judge. The ear might be a bit deaf and fail to reveal an accurate picture of what the orchestra sounds like. After they stop playing your ears might still sense a sound which is probably the nerve endings (hair-like nerves that glide inside the cochlea) still slanted down creating “noise”. Happens with bright lights that leave us blind even after the source is turned off. All of this is to say that sensations are not necessarily external.

Internal. I can dream that I am flying and seeing the earth from far above-- this picture is the creative use by the unconscious mind of memories. Memory engages, I think, the imaginative side of our brain, which is why memories are not that reliable and also how we can dream.

10

From Lacan’s point of view, the categorization a result in images (Imago), which basically are slow
replacements of actual structural (categorical), entities, and as the structural referens is lost, they are reinterpreted as images. So we come full circle,
and the idea becomes a picture,albeit,which donot re
present the original perception. At this stage, dream states may not differ significantly from awake ones, and the difference becomes one of another
reinterpretation. This complex becomes variously
differential, depending on many factors. One may argue one way or another, depending on various perceptions or have ideal mixes, where regardless of
interpretation, an idealization occurs.

11

Lacan is a constructional its, and a structuralist. The deconstruction has a bottom tier, and that is the mirror stage, the very level at which basic knowledge is gathered as to the perception, the meaning, and the infusion of the ‘other’, in terms of identity. At this point there is no way to conceivably analyze one way or the other, as to whether the information-or sense data presented is of outer or inner interpretive source. The categories melt into a nihilistic nothingness. that is why, it seems that a total regression of sense data in the Russle/Ayer sense, is analogous to a psychotic regression to this basic level. I think this is the problem with the philosophical basis of psychology, and the structural nexus retroactively of psychology with a philosophical foundation. Please ignore this later paragraph, if You Will, am just musing.

12

My apologies i didn’t make the statement in that sense. I was attempting to impute the idea of equal realities in all things - at some level.

The electrical signals are real, that all quantum particles observe is real. Perception or otherwise conscious observation has the quality ‘to observe’. A function of observe is to correlate informations. Another function of our instrumentation of mind is similar; to ‘compare’, so now there are two classes; that of the inner comparative e.g. brain processing and experiential thought, + the classification; outer comparative, the informations from external sources. They are different sets/classes, and so there will be areas of incongruity and that is where the mental picture wont marry the visual one. That and where the brains instruments are at fault.

What i am trying to say is that, because there are dubious correlations, we need that to learn what something new is [as a ship to indians]. It doesn’t i think, mean that all informations are dubious!

I think our instrumentation is highly sophisticated, and if you had the same thing in technology you would have no doubt of its capabilities. At least that there are dubious and non-dubious classes.

Like our computer can make worlds, the brain cake make the sorts of worlds it usually makes e.g. when composing the world from worldly informations. It can also make changes to that to adjust for unpredicted changes and randomness, hence make new and different worlds.

The value of correlating data = the value of comparative reproduction between worlds. …how well the created world matches info from the world ~ or how well the ‘models’ match one another.

The info in the mind and as we experience it, must match the world enough for contrasts and correlations to exist. Your thoughts must either marry informations or not know them, the music must meet the wavelength enough to translate respective informations.

13

I am sorry,but I’d do not think my elaboration made an impression. It was not on the same level as my previous note on Your comment, do You think this may yet be cleared up, or let go for now?

14

I get the impression that You are implying that either there is or is not non dubious,more believable correlations. Correlations of quantume particles with judgments according to their inherent picture, or Imago, need a structural derivation, from that , and I would suppose, there is a tendency to judge within contrasting elements with that Image. This seems to indicate, that there is an intermeshing probabilistic system of reality testing of the difference, and that, such difference may or may not be highly variable depending on context, on an up and down structural basis. The doubt itself correlates within this scheme, and uncertainty can be viewed from almost transparent to almost totally saturated. In other words, there may be doubtful doubt, and doubtful doubt of doubt, offering a total regression, in the correlates. That was my point. The end point of the regression is the basic logical principles of identity and contradiction, where they are subsumed under a level two dimensional matrix. This is the mathematicalization of psychological processes, this seemingly failed additionally with Levin.

15

I agree that is somewhat true for human thought, psychology and the like. What i would do is come up from base level, hence my use of machines like camcorders to define our instrumentation. Informations in the physical world are correlative and derivative, admittedly they are dubious at possibly the quantum pre-universal level, and at the uppermost level e.g. Human thought. This is because those areas of information in the world have subjective factors; the subjective/observers at both ends are looking at, and hence changing the observed.

The subjectivity wont stop a speeding bullet aimed at our heads, so there are two truths; that some things are predictable, and some things are dubious.

We are both right in our assertions. The things we ‘see’ have both correlating informations and dubious informations.

Perhaps ‘trust’ is somewhere in the picture, though i don’t know how that would work outside of our minds.

16

Perhaps knowledge is accessible somehow, even without the marriage of perception and raw data.

17

From the ground up [post quantum level] informations correlate and there is an accurate marriage between them. The observer looks at information similar to a view screen on a camcorder, the informational image is what it is, our interpretation is based on that. Though due to our subjectivity and that there are a mass of ‘screens’ in our minds, our experience is dubious ~ but that is the basis also of our ‘free will’, so, grand job God, i say.

18

Yes it is, but for the meaning of the old covenant, where from not to eat and why? The tree of knowledge? The new covenen augments or replaces it, it is redeemed absolutely, I guess He felt we were ready. That is why in Wagner contra Nietzche Wagner kind of solves Faust’s problem.