tjohnson

Think we have a webbot in our midst.

Reality-Deniers LOL, I learn many neat concepts hear, first 'pseudo-scholar' now 'reality-denier'. We all "deny" reality now and then, don't we? When I think it's ok to have that chocolate cake after my big supper You know what they say - "figures don't lie but liars can figure" !

What about when the kids grow up and reject naturalism - they may wish their parents hadn't made those home movies. Do they have a right to not be photographed this way? Are they old enough to to make this decision? Questions, questions...

As Fat Bastard said in Austin Powers "Baby get in my belly!"

I don't go in for visual art much - I'm more of a music person. I have played guitar for 40 years or so plus I play violin and piano a little. Sometimes i really appreciate classical music especially baroque music like Bach, Vivaldi, etc. Other time I'm really into James Taylor, Paul Simon, etc. I particularly like the interplay of words and music because it adds an extra dimension to the music. It's like having poetry put to music. Is there anything objectively "good" in my tastes? No, it's just me.

That's really neat It never occurred to me how much we notice the movement of the lips but I guess a deaf person would eh?

LOL, , so are perceptions an abstraction of reality, IMO.

You do not think individual rights is related to getting along together?? What about the concepts of disturbing the peace and verbal abuse? Going around making racial slurs in public would certainly count as that, IMO. If I understand you correctly, i would say that I do judge someone by their beliefs (preferences?). So, for example, if they believe that blacks are inferior or sub-human, even if they don't act on it, then there is something wrong with them, IMO.

I find your use of 'taste' confusing. If someone likes "to make racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs" then this to me is not a matter of "taste". Humans live in close proximity to each other and to avoid violence and allow progress we have learned that certain behaviours are pathological and should be avoided and even forbidden. You mention 'actions' verses 'preferences' but making racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs is most certainly an action in my book.

Yes, I agree that with humans, who do have an advanced nervous system, that perceiving objects is pretty well automatic. My point was that it did not happen overnight and that there must be a continuum from [not perceiving objects] to [perceiving objects] in the animal kingdom. I don't think the expression "perceiving objects" is accurate, to me it makes more sense to speak of constructing objects from data. This way we can simply say that other organisms cannot construct objects as well as we can. Also, I am not suggesting we don't have "reliable perceptions of the world", I am trying to point out that they are constructions, even if they remain consistent.

If you substitute 'rational' with 'sane' you have Korzybski. So the problem reduces to what do we mean by 'rational'?

Yes, there is definitely invariance under transformation (jargon alert in perceptions amongst different perceivers as well as in the same perceiver but at different times. When seeing, some light energy is transformed into nervous energy but information is retained during the transformation. So I agree that the signal processing aspect of perception is automatic but it takes learning or programming to get the information out of the signals. Organisms that may not even have what we call 'consciousness' are still abstracting information from their environment but they wouldn't be doing so to the extent that they could perceive "objects", for instance.

I think it can be both conscious and unconscious. Sometimes when something strikes our eye it doesn't feel right and we then concentrate on what we are perceiving - to try and abstract more information or verify what we are abstracting.

I agree. There main idea is we abstract from something and we don't abstract all there is.

I don't see how this can be reconciled with the idea of evolution. If we evolved from much less developed organisms and this was a gradual evolution then did we one day all of sudden be able to "perceive objects"? I believe that the ability to manufacture representations of objects was a gradual process which started out very simply and became more complex as our organs evolved. Organisms around today, like a worm, would perceive grass and pavement for example.

I'm curious as to your purpose for introducing the abstraction angle. Are you emphasizing the abstraction aspect in order to highlight the subjectivity generated by the observer? The word 'abstract', as a verb, often means something along the lines "to remove or extract". It also implies not all of something. So we abstract (extract some, but not all) from the stimuli we receive and thus perceive objects. So yes, there is an element of subjectivity in this process.

OK, I am not referring to optical (or other illusions) here. I agree that perceptions and conceptions are different kinds of abstractions, but I think it is useful to include them both in the category of 'abstractions'. Perceptions would be of a lower order than conceptions and historically (and evolutionally) would occur first. Conceptions would normally be based on repeated perceptions, however, it is possible to have concepts by postulation (due to Northrop) in which we haven't actually perceived an object with said characteristics. An 'electron' would be in this category.

This is a typical view of how to validate perception, but it relies on the presumption one can be sure other individuals who can help one corroborate one's perceptions exist and, what's more, can be reliably perceived by one. If you can already perceive others, then the original problem disappears -- since you're already admitting you can perceive an external world. If you can't perceive them, then you're stuck with the original problem and must retreat to skepticism or some form of idealism -- since you can't possibly know others exist or reliably perceive them if they do. Don't you agree? I am not going to use the word 'exists'. I admit that I perceive objects (and other people ). But what I (and others) abstract is only a small part of the story that we get with our limited and often coloured perception.

Entirely inaccurate. Some genetically modified plants are reworked to resist the effects of particular externally applied insecticides or herbicides. This is to allow those chemicals to have a broader and deeper set of effects on insect pests or weeds. Monsanto is well-known for promoting its strains that are "Roundup-ready," resisting its broad-spectrum herbicide. Genetic engineering is also being done to make strains of corn, soybeans, and other cash crops that are particularly resistant to certain pests, to the point of interfering with their reproduction. That isn't "an insecticide" in the strict sense, either, and these added effects are targeted toward specific perils. Genetic transfer of those, or any, traits from such plants to animals — even bacteria — does not happen in a casual, non-engineered manner. I don't know who's "entirely inaccurate" (is that even possible?) but I was only repeating what I read. I certainly don't trust anything Monsanto says. See article here.

Actually this is also what has motivated this to a certain degree. However, healthy food is not necessarily easy to come by either. Have you seen Food, Inc.? Yes I have and it was disturbing. I read an article about GM corn and how they have modified the corn so that it produces an insecticide so they don't have to spray it but some research is indicating that when you ingest the corn the gene can transfer to bacteria in your gut and then keep producing insecticide in your gut. Nice.

This is true, but I am referring to private clinics in Canada. Here for example.

You didn't really think you could slip this by us, did you? You are talking about a state monopoly, socialism, doctor enslavement and the human capacity to adapt to something pretty bad if you are pretty sick. --Brant For the record, we are gradually getting a 2-tiered system in Canada whereby if you have the money you can pay for better service than is offered by the government run system. Also, I don't know many doctors I would refer to as 'slaves', that kind of rhetoric doesn't help your cause much, IMO.

I do sudoku.

You didn't really think you could slip this by us, did you? You are talking about a state monopoly, socialism, doctor enslavement and the human capacity to adapt to something pretty bad if you are pretty sick. --Brant I was beginning to think no one would notice my outrageous claim. Seriously though, there's one thing nobody is talking about in this whole healthcare fiasco - people have to start taking responsibility for their own health. Most of the stress on our healthcare systems is originating from unhealthy lifestyles and food.

Now this is interesting. The same kind of issue arises in general semantics. Often people think that it's an attempt to remove all emotion from us which of course is impossible. The idea is to not let pathological emotional responses dominate. The idea is to use our rational faculty to moderate our emotional responses. This is something animals cannot do well because they do not have a well developed cerebral cortex. Humans have it but they often don't use it.