The Unbelievers

Bumping this to continue to be able to watch the fascinating link in post 16.

 

Perhaps guerllabedlam but I might be better, it doesn't demonstrate the development of perception nor does it fortify your ability to argue. The clip obviously makes more my case as far as I can take it as you suggest, memory permitting, than yours. Consciousness as sensory perception is used for finding direction. There is good in the world and I must have it from the pleasant sensation to food.

 

Nah you can't even spell my name.

 

Nah what?
I have faith that I can learn. My eyes could stand some corrective lenses and l's and i's kind of stumble onto one another and I see my error as you point it out. So is that your summary argument?

 

That was my diffusion of the argument, kind of in jest as well. If you have come to believe that your perception is failing you, you better get those corrective lenses.

 

Perception is iffy as it is always associated with comparisons. Perception is not knowledge but can lead to it. Knowledge is. being shared. The search is not the acquisition but a thing looked for can be found.

 

As I said, I'm good on debating perception although I will borrow this word 'iffy' you used to hopefully further understand what you mean by it.

Knowledge is a strong mental support to rely on in the world but can't knowledge be iffy as well?

I.E. During the Middle Ages, The prevailing knowledge was that the world was flat.

 

Perception is not knowledge but can lead to it.
Perception is the nervous systems reaction to stimulus.
Knowledge is the existence of the nervous system and it's communication.

 

... and you didn't answer my question.

 

I am, for instance, an unbeliever in the certain difference between Gnostic christianity and originally sourced (in scripture) Christianity. There is the centre of all space and time by the essence of physical reality from human reality, and there is the centre of where the light rushes from in the gnostic first centre.

Gravity opposes the light from the sun.

I don't believe the last sentence is true if there is a gnostic first centre for the will to power of the total momentum being conserved for the whole relativistic universe. I also don't believe that the centre couldn't oppose my self/body and just exist unimaginably beyond for some other creature.

 

I did, you just didn't recognize the answer not coming in the form you expected.
The answer is no, shared being is quite definite. Knowledge is always being shared, perception frequently is not. A true answer always appears as some form of conflict resolution or peace a question being an appeal for authority.
The world is flat is a perception as is the world is round as is the world is roughly spherical. All of these observations are accurate perceptions and they have their base in a common phenomena or a shared being. Obviously these perspectives taken separately do not account for the whole picture but in association with each other a picture of the constituents of reality emerges. The world has form then that is influenced by forces of gravitation and momentum and other bodies and these are the things that account for it's shape and these things are not revealed by looking at the surface of things but by examining the contents of mutual experiences through memory, personal appearance, and the anticipation of authority.

I say perception can lead to knowledge. An example I like to use to demonstrate this is learning to tie shoes or learning to ride a bike. It seems difficult at first even though you can see examples of the results of others and have the appropriate instruction but as you practice you develop muscle memory and there is a translation between perception and knowledge as you become tying shoes or riding a bicycle. Something that you can do consistently over time without having to assess or inquire as to it's verity. The universe is made of information and none of it is specifically prejudiced but it all fits together.

As I understand your objection so far it is with the statement that faith is necessary for the formation of perception and I think your objection may be to the word faith and or that perception is formed or developed thinking it immediate. Perhaps you would understand better if I said perception has a motive, and perhaps I would understand better if you told me what significance you think perception being immediate has to this question.

 

Hi, thedope. I'm anti-humanist for the developments a hundred years ago. In realizing the direction for humanism might of gone if that hateful war didn't occur, maybe there was more hope to be resolved in a German humanism than a French humanism. The truth of epistemology was certainly at the concerns of appropriate political intellectual leadership for that imperialistic tradition and crumbling nationalism. If humanism could be understood for the ultimate Progress by action rather than bourgeois contemplation it was there. But they lost the war, and at such a terrible cost of deviance in the worth of economically concerned nationalism. Cartesian rationalism to substitute the theory of knowledge over psychological fallacious debates in the intellectual doubt concerning the mind/body was a flop in France. The truth can only be in mind over matter, and not matter over mind.

France's empire was nevertheless a bad example of matter over mind.

 

From Wiki

However at the time the Flat Earth was widely believed, it would have been knowledge.

So once again, my question is does that make knowledge iffy?

If not define what you mean by iffy.

 

No, perception is not knowledge although real things can be recognized. As I said flat world is an accurate perception owing to the consistent view of the horizon. Knowledge doesn't change, information is always evident but understanding does. Understanding is not knowledge but a reflection of the perceptions you have formulated or the dendritic pathways you have grown. Perception is an indicator there is something there but unless you essentially consume it you don't know if it is good for food or not.

I make a not usual claim regarding the qualities of perception and knowledge and how they differ from one another. These qualifications explain why it takes time to become virtuous in any endeavor but we can in fact become consummate players. I use the definition that knowledge/reality is being shared or for us the experience of relationship. This is useful to us in terms of discerning what is the same and what is different or the process of categorizing relations and therefor coming to consensus and seeing where not to step so as to not fall in holes. So knowledge is not iffy but essentially evident. Perception is subject to atmospheric and etheric distortion, "iffy." By etheric I do not mean as propounded by theosophists as as the first or lowest layer in the "human energy field" but rather subject to the electro chemical animal cues that are orchestrated through our nervous system. Taken disproportionately reproductive instinct becomes jealous rage. We always choose with a guide and this is reflected in the processes of the higher or more genuinely, the more complicated and abstract mind.

 

Oh, I really like that sig picture!

 

I think fundamentally mind in matter and nothing needs fixing but things could stand being revealed. A lot of shadow boxing going on. I'm not so much humanist as human.

 

which is a meaningless statement on both counts. unless by human you mean sapient. because otherwise, "human" is just another sapient species.

 

There is only one human that we know. Humanist is a kind of belief.

Which are both counts?

I think fundamentally mind in matter and things don't need fixing as much as we need understanding about things.

How do you think this statement could be more meaningful?

I was addressing the introduction of the term humanism by Anaximines.

The first Humanist Manifesto was issued by a conference held at the University of Chicago in 1933. Signatories included the philosopher John Dewey, but the majority were ministers and theologians. They identified humanism as an ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and social and economic justice, and they called for science to replace dogma and the supernatural as the basis of morality and decision-making.

There are a few terms in that identification that I don't find useful and they are social and economic justice, ethics, and morality. I disagree with the precept that humanity is a supreme agency. I think we are supremely adapted for our function but not more so than any other thing and I think the world is most accurately apprehended by discerning whether a thing is the same or if it is different and what it's function is.

I find justice overtly apparent in nature and I find ethical and moral models fall under the heading of aesthetics but no matter how defining we think that aesthetic sense is it gives you no information about the world at large but it does tell you how your own nervous system reacts to stimulus and any ethical or moral model you espouse should be based on the evidence of your own condition rather than what you imagine the motives of others might entail. That is if your eye offends you, pluck it out. If your sense of rightness causes you to take up arms or otherwise attack what you perceive as wrongness then you are in jeopardy of being put in your place.

 

while not every denial of reason can be blamed on any one religion or one ideology, every wrong thing in this world, can be blamed, on denial of reason. (not nature, not a god or gods, but denial of reason)

------------------------------------------

every discussion of personalities and their conceptual constructs, is a digression from the observation of existence.

i too find no unjust intention in diversity, which is nature.
but rather, that while there is some pain, along with everything else, there is also hope, in its lack of susceptibility to human pettiness.
indeed, it is only because the nature of reality IS diversity, that such a thing as hope exists at all,
and again, thanks to the inviolability of diversity, that it is eternal.

 

It's called sharing thoughts. But, I digress.