Members banned from this thread: ParachuteAdams


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: The Fine Line Between Reality and Imaginary

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default The Fine Line Between Reality and Imaginary

    But a recent study I ran together with metacognition expert Steve Fleming at University College London’s Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, where I am a senior research fellow, affirms that the 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume was right all along—distinguishing reality and imagination is less straightforward than we might think.

    As it turns out, reality and imagination are completely intermixed in our brain which means that the separation between our inner world and the outside world is not as clear as we might like to think. If our imagination is vivid enough, we will think it is real and we use our imagination to create our perception of reality, which means, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.

    https://nautil.us/issue/104/harmony/...-and-imaginary

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Descartes' hope was probably not achievable - that we can have absolute and indubitable certain knowlege about observable reality in and of itself.

    I am perfectly comfortable with a pragmatic posture of scientific realism: We can achieve knowlege which at least approximates truth and objective reality.


    scientific realism: Another idea that comes in several flavors, scientific realism has at its core the claims that scientific theories aim to correctly depict both unobservable and observable reality and that, in general at least, adopting a scientific theory involves believing what it says about all of reality. Realism (roughly) asserts that scientific theories can and sometimes do provide an accurate picture of reality, including unobservable reality.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...89#post4276989

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    70,468
    Thanks
    3,125
    Thanked 15,029 Times in 12,559 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 1,401 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    But a recent study I ran together with metacognition expert Steve Fleming at University College London’s Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, where I am a senior research fellow, affirms that the 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume was right all along—distinguishing reality and imagination is less straightforward than we might think.

    As it turns out, reality and imagination are completely intermixed in our brain which means that the separation between our inner world and the outside world is not as clear as we might like to think. If our imagination is vivid enough, we will think it is real and we use our imagination to create our perception of reality, which means, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.

    https://nautil.us/issue/104/harmony/...-and-imaginary
    In other words you have to work at it. The very first thing one must do if they are determined to see reality is to stop lying.
    This illegal illegitimate regime that runs America is at fault...not me.... they do not represent me and I have long objected to their crimes against humanity.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Descartes' hope was probably not achievable - that we can have absolute and indubitable certain knowlege about observable reality in and of itself.

    I am perfectly comfortable with a pragmatic posture of scientific realism: We can achieve knowlege which at least approximates truth and objective reality.
    If there is no objective reality then the pragmatists are deluded.

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    In other words you have to work at it. The very first thing one must do if they are determined to see reality is to stop lying.
    Okay.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Descartes' hope was probably not achievable - that we can have absolute and indubitable certain knowlege about observable reality in and of itself.
    Descartes thought the imagination was just the mind reconfiguring of normal sense perception. He is not see imagination as fundamental in producing reality.

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    Descartes thought the imagination was just the mind reconfiguring of normal sense perception. He is not see imagination as fundamental in producing reality.
    Concerning the topic of reality, Descartes' project was to begin by doubting anything is true, and then using reason to try to determine what knowlege we can be indubitably 100 percent certain in. He generally favored reason over empircism as providing access to knowlege and truth. . Descartes famously thought that he could prove the existence of God through reason.

    Modern thought, especially scientific-thinking has pretty much abandoned Descartes' project of a quest for certain, indubitable truth. The pragmatic, realist tradition widely held today is that our knowlege is provisional, and always will be, but we can nonetheless acquire knowlege which at least approximates truth and objective reality.

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    If there is no objective reality then the pragmatists are deluded.
    I do not think the pragmatists and realists are saying there is no objective reality.

    That was George Barklay's contention in the 18th century, but nobody today buys into Barkley's program.

    We may never have direct access to truth and ultimate reality, but a realist approach posits that we can approximate objective reality.

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Concerning the topic of reality, Descartes' project was to begin by doubting anything is true, and then using reason to try to determine what knowlege we can be indubitably 100 percent certain in. He generally favored reason over empircism as providing access to knowlege and truth. . Descartes famously thought that he could prove the existence of God through reason.

    Modern thought, especially scientific-thinking has pretty much abandoned Descartes' project of a quest for certain, indubitable truth. The pragmatic, realist tradition widely held today is that our knowlege is provisional, and always will be, but we can nonetheless acquire knowlege which at least approximates truth and objective reality.
    I know about Descartes.

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    I do not think the pragmatists and realists are saying there is no objective reality.

    That was George Barklay's contention in the 18th century, but nobody today buys into Barkley's program.

    We may never have direct access to truth and ultimate reality, but a realist approach posits that we can approximate objective reality.
    Right. I am saying pragmatists have no concept of the real beyond the useful.

  11. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    2,213
    Thanks
    420
    Thanked 568 Times in 454 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 77 Times in 72 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    In other words you have to work at it. The very first thing one must do if they are determined to see reality is to stop lying.
    With leftists lying is their lifes work.

  12. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jakemax View Post
    With leftists lying is their lifes work.
    Can't people let a thread about perception be a thread about perception?!

  13. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    Right. I am saying pragmatists have no concept of the real beyond the useful.
    Sounds right. I read that the American pragmatist philosopher William James said something like, it's true if it works.

  14. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Sounds right. I read that the American pragmatist philosopher William James said something like, it's true if it works.
    The "cash value" of an idea. Said James.

  15. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    SE USA
    Posts
    1,474
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 40 Times in 35 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    But a recent study I ran together with metacognition expert Steve Fleming at University College London’s Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, where I am a senior research fellow, affirms that the 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume was right all along—distinguishing reality and imagination is less straightforward than we might think.

    As it turns out, reality and imagination are completely intermixed in our brain which means that the separation between our inner world and the outside world is not as clear as we might like to think. If our imagination is vivid enough, we will think it is real and we use our imagination to create our perception of reality, which means, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.

    https://nautil.us/issue/104/harmony/...-and-imaginary
    Real time is relative to genetic reproductions mutually evolving in a series parallel ancestral position of everything alive now. Relative time logistics is breaking down details that existed to existing in real series of ancestral results occupying time geographically present geometrically part of the whole numbers mutually living among generations present.

    Society defines people by how they behave occupying space spontaneously here and describe each person by race, creed, color, gender, choices they are willing to die for that don't match simultaneously alive as spontaneously here. Philoosophies and psychologies are physical methods to keep people debating power of suggesting life cannot be eternally separated as biologically here.

    Everyone serves their contextually defined character like tomorrow depends upon changing behavior achieved to date. Syllables over substance, mind over matter, language is the means to communicate brain to brain while mutually evolving as conceived to decomposed apart now.

    Kinetically self evident since each reproduction survives this mutual adapt or become extinct moment. Contextual history is the means people chose to ignore how and why biology eternally separates living in this atmosphere anywhere laws mandate obey context or else be removed from all practices of vernacular trigalism.

    Reality limits intellectual choices where everyone is mandated to ignore the simplicity of compounding DNA conversion of ancestors timed apart now.

    Is that that fine line between does happen and interpreting how life should move socially forward imagery and reality by majority of we against anyone being instinctively honest about occupying space mutually evolving here now?

    Gee what does it take to have such means to an end of organizing people to work against life physically self evident in kinetic motion of adapting to space biologically timed apart now? Think outside the box philosophy looks like what intellectually and how does living remain navigated instinctively from each brain mutually alive now?

    Picture-170.jpg Here is what my instincts mapped out from the contextual history of mankind making believe we aren't being eternally separated as biologically present. Within a box there are twice as many inside angles as outside edges of 6 equal sized sides and 8 corners with 7 axises 3 perpendicular and 4 diagonally. The image on the left keeps secrets, the one on the right keeps everything real self evidently timed apart now as ancestrally changing forms shaped since conceived here. that damned thermal dynamics, specific gravity, kinetic, static energy, motion and stationary event horizons shared by each type of objects occupying space at the same time spontaneously separate cycles evolving currently here.

    All the vocabulary and all the power, wealth, fame doesn't change actual results, just interpretation of what it all means to those never accepting life being "It is what it is.".

    Oh, here is my instinctive mapping of 5 generations where original lifetimes at inception became 1 of 16 great great grandparent generation, that added 8 great grandparent generation, which reproduced 4 grandparent generation, giving birth to parenting generation of great great grandchildren that may grow up to become 1 of 2 parents, 1 of 4 grandparents, 1 of 8 great grandparents, 1 of 16 great great grandparents and this thinking really changes the differences between those that do and those never became a parent cradle to grave.

    Accountability rule of law doesn't tolerate in social debate controlling everyone's personal income in social circles of a global economic practice of selling biological time to serve pretending reality is all anyone needs to know about cradle to grave to become immortal by context of human behavior repeating the arts of self deception as greater good scenarios.

    separation of sole displacement from contextual soul of social identity. Gender vs character role playing socially, globally.
    Last edited by serenity; 07-31-2021 at 06:56 AM.
    Every brain born has a lifetime conflict with ancestral displacement and intellectual social position within the population present. Why, life is a compounding connection between inception, conception, death, extinction life doesn't exceed what exists now.

Similar Threads

  1. An imaginary coup.
    By Oneuli in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-2019, 07:02 AM
  2. Imaginary genders.
    By Grugore in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-25-2018, 05:35 AM
  3. Reality star Trump seems to be facing reality
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-11-2016, 08:36 PM
  4. OBAMA; What stinking RED LINE, I never said Red Line
    By SJJRSJJS in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 09-04-2013, 05:23 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-27-2006, 05:01 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •