attofishpi wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:53 pm
Reality has a projection within itself, surely you cannot disagree with this. Consciousness is a unique configuration of reality, in that as a receiver of the projection it has the ability to receive, decipher, and logically comprehend the information received.
projection"? ...What do you even mean by that? Yes, I can agree that there is some projecting going on in reality. There wouldn't be a word for it if not. Your choice of words makes it sound like reality is one projection being played for the benefit of something, and I can't agree with that.
Can a rock remember the appearance of an apple?
They remember the appearance of life, and of the dinosaurs, projections of magnetic fields, and all sorts of other things. The apple is more difficult, but yes, rocks can do that.
All points of 3 are met, they are all from the point of a cause with a result being a projection, and within the confines of our debate, the receiver of the projection is our conscious decipheration of this information. To use 'transmits', for me is your 'firefly' example.
Doesn't seem to work. 3b for instance is to project one's voice in such a way that it can be better heard. That simply doesn't go on anywhere between my senses and conscious processing. My finger doesn't shout to my head that it detects heat, and even if it did, it wouldn't be 3b.
Noax wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:57 am
If it came from the receiver itself, I see no projecting going on.
You are now contradicting your earlier statement:-
'I do project my observations. I'm doing it now, projecting them on this forum to you. Projecting is what one entity purposefully does to a target that is not the first entity.'
You and I are not the same entity. That comes from me, and you are the receiver in that example.
This is all irrelevant, it was just the definition's stance on the source of the projection. 3b also more importantly mentions the sense of hearing (from the projection) as I stated it is limited and should have also gone into other forms of sensory input to a conscious being.
There is normal speaking/singing, which yes, involves this interaction you speak of. I don't deny that. 3b is a specific alternate meaning of the word, and it just doesn't apply. It is a difference in how the sound is formed so that it penetrates better, and doesn't just mean shouting. I'm not trained to do it, but I know several who can, quietly even. It is impressive.
But conveying the image of the apple within your mind, as a memory was something you disagreed with as a projection.
4. present or promote (a particular view or image); convey
That seems to indicate my conveying an idea (of an apple maybe) to you. It could be projecting if I communicate it to something else, and not just imagine it myself. I don't remember using the word 'convey' when describing my imagining of an apple (post 44?). That has the same sort of implication of source->separate-target.
The debate we are having isn't whether there is a purpose to what is received via our retina, the debate is whether it is a projection.
What simulation? What Virtual Reality (VR)? That is the point - there is neither...why are you still on page 1 or 2?
The title suggests otherwise. OK, we're debating if there is projecting going on, apparently from physical reality to the non-physical experiencer. If there is such an arrangement, yes there needs to be information transfer of some sort going on in both directions (only one direction if epiphenomenal). But that information transfer is not well characterized as a projection since the 'projector' is incapable of sending the information. Photons and say EM waves do not leave 'reality'. The receiver, unlike the physical receiver which is an effect of the process, is going to have to be the cause and go out and fetch the information. This doesn't sound at all like 'projection'.
If on the other hand there is no such separation of experiencer from physical reality, then I don't see reality (no need to call it physical reality if there is no other kind) transferring information to anything that isn't reality. Information moves from parts of reality to other parts, so sure, there is projecting going on.
I must also point out that while I don't think there are different realms of reality (I am not fundamentally different than the apple), I see things as being 'my reality' and not 'reality'. That's almost idealism, except it has zip to do with consciousness. I don't hold a conventional view, but I don't intend to assert it. I'm not asserting physicalism here, in case you wonder.
in its own conscious way, the object of the input - from the projection that is external to said consciounsess.
That would qualify except for my objection above where reality has no mechanism to project information to beyond-reality. Fetching the information doesn't violate physics (it does violate most QM interpretations), but the role reversal of cause/effect does seemingly conflict with the definition of projecting.
Funny, ironically I was going to bring up the term 'seems' but I thought you were more certain about such a thing.
That would be horrible. Why philosophize if you already know the answers? I've changed views at least half a dozen times, forever finding contradiction in whatever is yesterday's favored view.