|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 27, 2020 19:44:41 GMT
Some philosophers object the existence of such a thing as "sense data". Anyway, if we'd like to understand what is the cause of sense data we could find this theme to be interesting.
First of all, the sense data is a thing that supposedly appears in us when we're watching at something, listening to something, smelling something, tasting something, etc. It can be named "image", however, it's not necessary. The contain of such an image might have a different structure or pattern compare to usual images. So, the sense data is an object that can be taken as a projection to our soul/mind/inner-self/... in us.
Realists say the reason why any sense data appears in our mind caused by the external world, or the world (the things, or a set of things, etc) that is separated from us. And, hence, there are at least two realities: the inner world or the set of all the phenomena which made by sense data, and the external world aka 'the reality'. The inner world is rather the construct, it's not what is real indeed; however, the real world is definitely exist as the real world.
Idealists say that we're the ones who construct the reality, and the appearance of sense data in our heads is the result of our thoughts, our wishes... all of what is made up by our minds. So, the real cause of the sense data is a set of actions in our heads/minds. That's why there's no outer reality beyond our imagination, or beyond our minds. Actually, our minds are what our minds produce, so in general there's no minds/brains as a material stuff, but how a mind construct himself how it looks like for itself.
I don't really care whose position is more correct, I'd like to know how to localize sense data. Where these sense data are located? Are sense data no-where located? Are they similar to universals, abstract things? If sense data are made of a material, of which stuff should we talk about?
|
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Aug 30, 2020 21:48:39 GMT
Some philosophers object the existence of such a thing as "sense data". Anyway, if we'd like to understand what is the cause of sense data we could find this theme to be interesting. First of all, the sense data is a thing that supposedly appears in us when we're watching at something, listening to something, smelling something, tasting something, etc. It can be named "image", however, it's not necessary. The contain of such an image might have a different structure or pattern compare to usual images. So, the sense data is an object that can be taken as a projection to our soul/mind/inner-self/... in us. Realists say the reason why any sense data appears in our mind caused by the external world, or the world (the things, or a set of things, etc) that is separated from us. And, hence, there are at least two realities: the inner world or the set of all the phenomena which made by sense data, and the external world aka 'the reality'. The inner world is rather the construct, it's not what is real indeed; however, the real world is definitely exist as the real world. Idealists say that we're the ones who construct the reality, and the appearance of sense data in our heads is the result of our thoughts, our wishes... all of what is made up by our minds. So, the real cause of the sense data is a set of actions in our heads/minds. That's why there's no outer reality beyond our imagination, or beyond our minds. Actually, our minds are what our minds produce, so in general there's no minds/brains as a material stuff, but how a mind construct himself how it looks like for itself. I don't really care whose position is more correct, I'd like to know how to localize sense data. Where these sense data are located? Are sense data no-where located? Are they similar to universals, abstract things? If sense data are made of a material, of which stuff should we talk about? , The Less You Question It, The More You Will Think You Have Free Will. This World Is Not Created By Our Imagination, This Was A Lie To Throw People Off From Discovering That This World Is Determined. If The World Was Made By Imagination, Rather Than A Deterministic Algorithm, This World Would Not Have Everything, On Every Level, In Every Aspect Of The Universe, Becoming Unhinged, People, Planets, Plants, Weather, Animals, Simultaneously. This Is A Determined System, You Will Find Out That Your Suspicion For Realist Vs. Idealist Is Quite Founded On 12 / 25 / 2020.As For " Sense Data", Electrons Are Subatomic, The Function Of An Electron Was Elevated To What We Now Call A "Bee", The Electrons And The Bees Have An Electromagnetic "Hum", Thus Humans And Electrons Can Be "Tickled", T he Sensory Systems Of Humans Are From Their Subatomic Ancestors At The Subatomic Level, The Very Sensory Allocation Between Man And Atom, Is All Connected To How Humans Sense, If Those Subatomic Particles Are Malleable Aspects Of The Cosmos, Then What We Are Seeing Is People "Sensing" Vicariously Through Atoms And Molecules, Since Humans Are 99.9999999% Empty Space, Made Up Of A Conglomeration Of Atoms Which Is The Universe Experiencing Itself, Then "Sense Data" Is Not Even An Idealistic Notion, But A Realistic Notion, Since What Allows Us To Feel, Is Malleable In Itself, We Feel Because The Universe Feels. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 9, 2020 13:37:42 GMT
IM LITERALLY NEOHi, sekhmet. 9''s to be talking 2 ya. Actually it is not easy to get through this incredible and magnificent world of the numbers - the deity that is the Universe itself: everything is filled with numbers, and it seems our fates have been already numbered... I don't know whether or not the world has been created by our imagination, but why? - Because - what the imagination is? And who are those "we"?.. Okay, I'm fooling around. I guess that there is a thing some people call it "the data of our senses". So, what is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Sept 9, 2020 19:00:44 GMT
Some philosophers object the existence of such a thing as "sense data". Anyway, if we'd like to understand what is the cause of sense data we could find this theme to be interesting. First of all, the sense data is a thing that supposedly appears in us when we're watching at something, listening to something, smelling something, tasting something, etc. It can be named "image", however, it's not necessary. The contain of such an image might have a different structure or pattern compare to usual images. So, the sense data is an object that can be taken as a projection to our soul/mind/inner-self/... in us. Realists say the reason why any sense data appears in our mind caused by the external world, or the world (the things, or a set of things, etc) that is separated from us. And, hence, there are at least two realities: the inner world or the set of all the phenomena which made by sense data, and the external world aka 'the reality'. The inner world is rather the construct, it's not what is real indeed; however, the real world is definitely exist as the real world. Idealists say that we're the ones who construct the reality, and the appearance of sense data in our heads is the result of our thoughts, our wishes... all of what is made up by our minds. So, the real cause of the sense data is a set of actions in our heads/minds. That's why there's no outer reality beyond our imagination, or beyond our minds. Actually, our minds are what our minds produce, so in general there's no minds/brains as a material stuff, but how a mind construct himself how it looks like for itself. I don't really care whose position is more correct, I'd like to know how to localize sense data. Where these sense data are located? Are sense data no-where located? Are they similar to universals, abstract things? If sense data are made of a ma terial, of which stuff should we talk about? Yes, there are many theories, from Plato to Bergson, about sense-data and their location, which can fill a book or a thesis. I will only express my opinion, which started with Aristotle's view that the human mind [Nous] becomes in a way (not literally) that which it knows. My general view: Whenever we experience anything (sensory, like redness, smoothness to the touch, heath ... or not: pain, pleasure, joy, sorrow, triangularity, circularity, ...), we experience what we have become, not things outside our consciousness. However, we classify these data as percepts, affects (feelings), and concepts, more or less according to the body locations where they seem to arise: the sense-organs (including the contacting skin), the heart [in ancient times],and the mind itself or brain. We have further theories as to how they arise. For instance, Plato theorised that physical things (which we can touch) have contacts with parts of our bodies (the sense organs) and percepts are formed out of the contacts of the two. So, we may not attribute redness, heaviness, etc., simply to either the impinging physical objects or the affected sense organs. Hence, for Plato, we cannot have a science (true knowledge) of physical things. Scientific physics was started by Galileo about 20 centuries later by shifting his attention from supposedly objective sense-data (which Plato rejected) to inter-objective or coordination data: meter measurements and clock measurements of physical phenomena. // Anything experienced is preserved in the mind as a memory, or as an "image" of a once-lived experience, which is occasionally re-lived in hallucinations |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 12, 2020 16:34:21 GMT
Some philosophers object the existence of such a thing as "sense data". Anyway, if we'd like to understand what is the cause of sense data we could find this theme to be interesting. First of all, the sense data is a thing that supposedly appears in us when we're watching at something, listening to something, smelling something, tasting something, etc. It can be named "image", however, it's not necessary. The contain of such an image might have a different structure or pattern compare to usual images. So, the sense data is an object that can be taken as a projection to our soul/mind/inner-self/... in us. Realists say the reason why any sense data appears in our mind caused by the external world, or the world (the things, or a set of things, etc) that is separated from us. And, hence, there are at least two realities: the inner world or the set of all the phenomena which made by sense data, and the external world aka 'the reality'. The inner world is rather the construct, it's not what is real indeed; however, the real world is definitely exist as the real world. Idealists say that we're the ones who construct the reality, and the appearance of sense data in our heads is the result of our thoughts, our wishes... all of what is made up by our minds. So, the real cause of the sense data is a set of actions in our heads/minds. That's why there's no outer reality beyond our imagination, or beyond our minds. Actually, our minds are what our minds produce, so in general there's no minds/brains as a material stuff, but how a mind construct himself how it looks like for itself. I don't really care whose position is more correct, I'd like to know how to localize sense data. Where these sense data are located? Are sense data no-where located? Are they similar to universals, abstract things? If sense data are made of a ma terial, of which stuff should we talk about? Yes, there are many theories, from Plato to Bergson, about sense-data and their location, which can fill a book or a thesis. I will only express my opinion, which started with Aristotle's view that the human mind [Nous] becomes in a way (not literally) that which it knows. My general view: Whenever we experience anything (sensory, like redness, smoothness to the touch, heath ... or not: pain, pleasure, joy, sorrow, triangularity, circularity, ...), we experience what we have become, not things outside our consciousness. However, we classify these data as percepts, affects (feelings), and concepts, more or less according to the body locations where they seem to arise: the sense-organs (including the contacting skin), the heart [in ancient times],and the mind itself or brain. We have further theories as to how they arise. For instance, Plato theorised that physical things (which we can touch) have contacts with parts of our bodies (the sense organs) and percepts are formed out of the contacts of the two. So, we may not attribute redness, heaviness, etc., simply to either the impinging physical objects or the affected sense organs. Hence, for Plato, we cannot have a science (true knowledge) of physical things. Scientific physics was started by Galileo about 20 centuries later by shifting his attention from supposedly objective sense-data (which Plato rejected) to inter-objective or coordination data: meter measurements and clock measurements of physical phenomena. // Anything experienced is preserved in the mind as a memory, or as an "image" of a once-lived experience, which is occasionally re-lived in hallucinations I apologize I didn't notice your comment in time. First question: are you group together senses like seeing redness, touching softness, and joy, sorrow? Because I thought that the former have rather intentional nature. Anyway, how do you categorize them (if you do)? Balded: So, you're not a realist, right? You don't agree with realists like G. E. Moore or the others about that there are things outside of our perceptions? Underlined: I'm not sure Plato is the one who held the view of Empedoclus. I do remember Plato tried to think about how (any) ideas deal with another ones, and how ideas related with the sensual nature or the Nature; it was in Parmenides. Can't say that I understand what exactly conclusion Plato did about exactly this question, because in the first part he (Socrates) discussed it, but then it goes about One-ness and Plural-ness. In the result. Being honestly I don't really know what to say about that, because I find myself being confused, rather than having one definite point of all these. What I think is that things, if they exist (I believe they are, but I can't say I suppose they ( things) exist as things; maybe, it's sorta quickness or the pure movements ifself), are made by our conceptions. And this made-ness of them are how we understand them, not how we might experienced them. We just group our experience together in some forms, and as soon as some feelings seem to have more stable nature, we can name (give a concept to) them. Necessity to report about our feelings (or to do something else with them, except for just watching or exceriencing them) is what allows conceptions to appear as they are. Major role in their appearance play social surround. As long as we don't live exclusively separated we discuss with each other and that has influence on how we see things. For instance, the same idea lays in this Soviet experiment (since there's no translation, I'll try to explain it: - a blond guy asked if those five people on photos were different? Did those people have something common? He replied negatively. - then the other people one by one started saying that the second and the fourth pictures had common features, facial, and other. They claimed that noses are similar and ears, and cheeks, etc. Surely, except for a first blond guy everyone were figureheads; - at the end the public opinion of the decoy group won, and the blond guy agreed with them. |
|
