This forum has apparently gained some inquisitive, intelligent and decently educated people . I have been attempting to find someone on the web intelligent and educated enough to follow my thoughts who would be interested in doing so. So far, that effort has been pretty much of a waste of time ](*,) . Most of the "against the mainstream" issues posted on this forum in the past have been rather thoughtless comedic presentations. I hope that has changed a bit. As an introduction to my perspective, I would like someone to go through the following logical progression and point out where they believe I have made a mistake in my logic :-? .

1) Our understanding of the universe is based on information gained through our senses 8-[ .

2.) Our senses are preprocessed by our subconscious so as to yield the mental image of reality perceived by our conscious awareness .

As an example of what I am referring to here, I point out that, while I am typing this, I see before me the screen of a monitor at about arms reach displaying the words you are reading . Now, according to the modern scientific explanation of how this comes about, the lens of my eye focus an image of that screen on the retina of my eye where nerves (excited by photons) transmit a message to my brain \/ . Somehow, my brain then creates an illusion of that screen before me :-k .

Certainly this transformation is performed by my subconscious as I have utterly no conscious awareness of the activities required to produce that result 8-[ . Try as I might, I cannot "perceive" this as an image on the retina of my eye nor as electrically firing nerves in my brain #-o ; I can only "perceive" it as a real object about two feet in front of me . It seems to me to be undeniable that my perceptions of reality are all illusions created by my subconscious [-( . That is to say, I sense the illusions my subconscious mind puts before my conscious awareness and that these illusions include the fundamental meanings of those senses themselves :roll: .

Please note that I do not regard this as evidence that reality is an illusion! There are a lot of people out there who stop at this point with the belief that they have demonstrated reality must be an illusion 8) . I think that step is a bit premature. There is another possibility here.

3) Reality exists and there is a serious conundrum here as to how our subconscious has managed to perform this feat #-o .

Our mental image of the universe is constructed from data received through mechanisms (our senses) which are also part of that image. I believe that any scientist worth his salt would hold it as obvious that one could not possibly model the universe until after some information about that universe were obtained. The problem with that position is that we cannot possibly model our senses (the fundamental source of that information) until after we have modeled the universe.

This implies that our subconscious has constructed a mental image of the universe given totally undefined information transcribed by a totally undefined process. What is important here is that the problem is solvable; it has to be solvable as our subconscious mind has solved it.

Everyone in the scientific community to whom I have raised this issue has dismissed it as meaningless trivia and utterly refused to even discuss the issue with me. Now I would accept it being dismissed as being a problem beyond our capabilities as that would be a very rational contention, but it seems to me that to simply refuse to admit its existence is irrational. To set any aspect of reality above examination is to scuttle rational science.

I believe I have discovered a solution to that very problem and that the solution implies some rather astounding conclusions. Either I am right or I am wrong! All I ask is a little help in determining that issue :P !

Just to be clear - Is this intended to be a different discussion than what might have ensued from your interesting article on the Whitehead thread?

Hardly so... But what if he says 'yes'? #-o

Humans have no reason to believe are subconscious's are giving us a false sense of reality, we have the ability to interpret the reality correctly people just choose not to.

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

Maybe it's just my caffine-deprived brain, but maybe the reason no one can follow your thoughts is the plethora of emotions scattered liberally though your post.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

I'm not exactly sure what this great insight of yours is supposed to be. That our senses have developed ways to model external reality in our minds? This is not exactly news! Generations of philosophers have been pondering it.

Are you shocked, shocked I tell you, that our nervous systems have this ability? How could they not? We have to live in the real world, after all. We have to find water, food, shelter, and mates, avoid predators and hazardous environments, and generally get along. Evolution has been fine-tuning those senses for a billion years. Any organisms that did a poor job of "remote sensing" left no descendants.

Philosophy was one of the very first scientific studies, and has a basis in all following schools of thought.
Philosophy is the science that 'proves' what we conceive as being true.
Most scientists learn some philosophy during their education. They use this science regularly when doing research.

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

I know you're not talking about me.
You probably missed a few. Nobody can read everything though.
Are you familiar with Crick's Astonishing Hypothesis?
What is it?

Maybe hes refering to. For example. An average persons inability to grasp the standard model?

We like to see electrons as orderly, smooth round planet like particles and certainly cannot grasp fuzy logic and photons being particles and waves depending on the instrument you use to interact with.

Well, the response was quite more volume than I expected, but quite below the intellectual level I had hoped for.

Yes and No! I had hoped we might start from scratch! What I posted in the Whitehead thread is no more than a rather trivial observation which arises from the main work; however, I will respond to any comments you have with regard to that post.
I thought you were going to help me out! No comments on my post? What am I to think? Is your intention to dismiss it as meaningless trivia and refuse to discuss the issue with me or do you have an interest in what I have to say?
As I said, "to set any aspect of reality above examination is to scuttle rational science." Be my guest; you certainly have plenty of company!
Sorry I confused you! I just threw those in to keep it from being too serious. I will try to be less flamboyant for your sake.
I think you just missed the entire issue! Come back when you figure it out. Hint: If you read the last paragraph, you will see that I wish to discuss a particular solution!
From the Devil's Dictionary: "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
I am now and it has nothing to do with my work!

No one has appeared to even try to criticize my three opening statements (at least I found no rational criticism here). I will take it that most of you (the intelligent ones at least) admit there is a real problem here which deserves to be examined.

Since he asked for a solution, kilopi apparently agrees there is a real problem worth looking at here. Before I go on to my solution, is there anyone here who thinks they have a solution? That is, a detailed step by step procedure which will develop a valid model of an undefined source of undefined information transcribed by an totally undefined transformation which they can prove yields exactly what we observe.

Please notice that I said "a" solution and not "the" solution. There is a significant difference. I am of the opinion that the fact that I have a solution is somewhat better than nothing!

I have looked at your thread and I am thinking about how to phrase my answer. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you toned down your hostility. Also, just because someone answers you, or in the event that peope don't answer you, neither of those facts make your theory any more or less credible. I will be back when I have some more time.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

That's okay, your posts haven't reached a very high intellectual level either. I'll give you a piece of advice: Being condensending your posts does not make you seem more intelligent, it just makes your choice of names more obvious.

You never raised an issue. You pointed out something that people have been wondering for ages, and then you said you have a solution. You made a statement and that's it. For it to be an issue you would have had to make an assertion of some sort, for instance telling us what your solution is.

What's the problem? Just because you cannot see objects as images on your retina instead of as a phyiscal object you determine it to be an illusion?

We are a product of reality, reality is not a product of us.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Dear Dr Dick

I'm really sorry the intellectual level of the responses to your posting did not meet your expectations. We all hope you can find a place more suited to your unique needs.

Bye!

__________________
Standing on the shoulders of giants...

Well, at least it wasn't FOAD.
You mean, you've gotten familiar with it, since I brought it up? I'm impressed.
Let me paraphrase:
1. We observe with our senses
2. The senses are interpreted by our subconsciousness
3. Reality exists. And we don't know how our subconsciousness works.

Hardly surprising that no one would criticize those. The definition of "sense" seems to include observation, and the definition of "reality" depends upon existence. How does subconsciousness work? I'd like to see an answer to that. Crick has been working on that question as well. Whether his work has anything to do with your work is to be determined--I'm sure you're not that familiar with his work, and we apparently haven't seen yours.
Very funny.

But do go on.

OK, DD, I'll take it on. But try not to be so snootty to my friends here. As John Sourwine noted, a fine aesthetic does not preclude a wide range (Just because we wear clown suits does not make us necessarily clowns).

Your points, condensed (as I read them):

1) Conscious understanding of the external world must derive from sensory input.

2) All sensory input must be preprocessed by subconscious mechanisms to present a consistent model to the conscious.

3)Without preexisting understanding, the subconscious cannot construct a consistent model to present to the conscious. Hence the conundrum.

Am I on the right track?

IF the assumption of 3) is correct, then the preexisting pattern in the subconscious must be supplied from extranatural processes. For example, God. Therefore, if all the assumptions are correct, the logical outcome is that God exists (God = whatever extranatural process you are thinking of).

If I am still going in the right direction, a few observations.

a) conscious and unconscious are not rigorously defined. You yourself cannot 'find' your unconscious. Therefore, it may not exist. Possible counterexample? A lens can make an image of a scene and project it onto film for examination. The image is developed blindly with no preknowledge of what it contains.

b) If I see two marbles and later see two more, I can visualize four marbles together without actually seeing them that way. A general description of a scientific experiment. I have derived a conscious understanding of a part of the universe without sensory input, by assembling pieces into a new whole internally.

If a) and b) are valid counterexamples of 1) and 2), then 3) evaporates as a conundrum.

DICKNice try but your post is still nonesense, do you even know what scuttle means?

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

DoctorDick,

Not sure where you want to go with this perception of reality thing. You should really just spell out what you think and see how others react to it, rather than hinting around and confusing everyone. That said...

I was reading a little of the paper on your site on a theory of conciousness (havent finished it yet)

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Marion/science.htm

I was intrigued by the example of the woman who was brought up in a black and white room and your comment that she would probably not experience color at all if she was exposed to it.

1. her body has color, so she would have experience of color.
2. Ever press against your eyeballs? colored lights will appear

But even so I understand the idea of the analogy. If this is the type of thing you are wanting to speak about (how we percieve reality) what you should do is find some research on people who have been blind since birth and gained their eyesight later as an adult. Find out how they experience color, space, shape and reality. Or people who were deaf from birth and gained hearing.

some stuff I found:
http://www.nvrc.org/Signal%20Process...20Learning.htm
http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/
http://www.richardgregory.org/papers...vations_p1.htm

__________________
Pixelator
Officialway anetplay Xay isinfoday agentway.

This undeniably refutes all three of your statements.

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

Wait a minute, number one was "Our understanding of the universe is based on information gained through our senses"

Are you refuting that?? Seems sorta tautalogical to me.

Our view is based on it, but not our understanding. Do ducks that view the heavens understand them?

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

DICKhttp://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/...shtml?show=top

Now I am realy waiting for your solution.

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

Hi,

This thread is slipping easily off the topic of bad astronomy, but I was confused by the point about "understanding...the universe...through our senses."
Does that mean we had to see black holes in space before we understood of the physics that lead us to conclude that they had to exist?
Or does it simply mean we "saw" the math via our senses of the theory that preceded the first pictures of where real black holes lurk?

Also, silly me but I'm suspicious of theories of consciousness that don't at least mention the work of Julian Jaynes. Maybe I missed it.

This statement is closer.

We conceived the math, calculated it; and then we pointed our 'eyes' in that direction.

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

This may not be as straightforward as you imply. Isaac sees an apple fall from a tree. This is a direct sensory input. But his "understanding of the universe" is derived not only from that input, but also from his own... we'll call it "cogitation." His thoughts that are very much necessary to derive the universal law of gravitation are not any of the five senses. Of course, his thoughts are built up from previous sensory inputs. But I think it's possible to put together such previous inputs in new and novel ways - to transcend the previous inputs, as Isaac apparently did. Humans are not myna birds.

I think use of the word "illusion" carries too much baggage and is therefore misleading. Better would be "Our perceptions are representations." I am reminded of the painting of a pipe, with the text painted below the pipe saying "This is not a pipe." No, it's not. It's a representation.

Yes, I think reality exists regardless of how (or whether) we perceive it. We perceive a representation of it, which isn't perfect but apparently good enough for survival....

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Certainly the nature of our sight is determined (or at least affected) by the configuration of the rods and cones of our retinas. Our mental image of the universe is affected by our senses. So, OK, we should remember that when constructing such images.

Hope this helps! :P

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

What the hay is that? Sounds like something Kant would come up with. Kant would at least state that this would be a intuitive type on 'knowledge'.
If something is undefined it is not knowledge. If the source is undefined then it is not a premiss. By definition there is not knowledge. If something is not knowledge it is but an ejaculation. Nothing but a grunt.

I think this is Dicks solution
http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

If he doesn't clearly refute it, I will: Our understanding of the universe is most decidedly *NOT* based on information gained through ("collected by" would be a better phrase) our senses.

Information is collected by *INSTRUMENTS* which then translate the information into a form that can be sent to our brains via our senses (usualy sight). Thus the data itself cannot be biased by anything our subconscious might try to do to decieve us.

This is an extremely important and oft overlooked concept by people (not saying its you, kilopi) who wish to prove existence is a construct of our minds and not the other way around.

Right. I was sort of assuming that in my response, as I imagine others were.

But this just moves the question back one level. Well constructed instruments should yield unambiguous data which leaves little room for "interpretation," but this isn't always the case. Certainly you've seen the Rodney King video?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Thanx Russ. You did a better job of explaining it than I.

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

DD wrote:
(Thanks for the pointer, Beaver)

Actually, that's not bad. I've missed the earthshaking implications, but not bad at all. "Write, in your own words, what you think Hemingway was talking about in his story, 'A Clean, Well-Lighted Place.'"

Although I'm not seeing the difference between that and a more classical Turing test:
Computer! Let's talk Sports!

Working....How about those Yankees!

Ummm... but to whom does the machine present it? Doesn't this presuppose a consciousness capable of understanding both the original and 'gisted' data? A Teacher, if you will (no theological overtones intended) who can check the essay? So a theory of consciousness needs at least two separate consciousnesses (is that a proper word?) to work, and one must be able to evaluate the consciousness of the other.

Another question: the machine will 'claim' to be aware. How is the claim tested? As opposed to, say, a well-written 'expert system'?