The Case Against Reality - Dr. Hoffman

[Veritas Aequitas]

RCSaunders,

Note this image;



If you are not familiar with the above, you would like to see either a pretty lady or an old ugly hag/woman.

However, if you are familiar with the above illusion, you are likely to see either the pretty lady or the old hag at any one time. You cannot see them both at the same time. If you want to see the other image you will have to shift perspective to see one from another.

In another circumstance, say there are two [X and Y] groups of people [of say 20,not told of two images] where each group could only one image of either the pretty lady or the old hag.
The group-X that see only the pretty lady is told by the other group-Y they see an old hag, the people in group-X will say the group-Y are delusional, because to group-X there is no old hag at all and it is vice-versa.

In your case, you are like those in group-X who only see what is one perspective of empirical reality but do not have the ability to view the deeper perspective to empirical reality. As such you are caught in a state of illusion in insisting there is only ONE perspective of reality without realizing there are other perspectives of reality in relation to your human condition.

If Group-X and Group-Y want to see both images of the pretty lady and the old hag, they have to be informed where is the other image they missed. Then they will have to learn to shift and toggle from the perception of one image to the other.

I have done a lot of practice with this illusion and can see two image at the "same time" but that is only apparent. With practice I can toggle between the two image and high speed alternatively thus giving the impression of seeing two image at the "same time".

It is the same with view the various perspectives of reality and then develop the ability to shift within them speedily in according with the varied circumstances to optimize the well being of the individual and therefrom for humanity sake.

[commonsense]

What apple on what table? Either there is an apple on a table or there isn't. If there is an apple on a table, seeing it cannot be an illusion. If there is an illusion of an apple being on a table, there is no apple on the table. You are essentially saying, "there is an apple on a table you see, but there is no an apple on the table so you do not see it." It is self-contradictory.

Either there is an apple on the table or there isn’t. If you see an apple on the table either it’s a real apple or it’s an illusion.

The Law of the Excluded Middle is applicable here and is not self-contradictory.

Yes, that's exactly my point. You cannot both see an apple on a table and not see one. If what you see is only an illusion, you are not seeing an apple. If you see an apple, you are not having an illusion. It cannot be both.

Let me put it in your words: "If you see an apple on the table either it’s a real apple or it’s an illusion," and, if it is an illusion, you only think you are seeing an apple when you are not. That's what an illusion is.

There is another possibility. If you think you see an apple on a table, and it is not, it does not have to be an illusion, it may just be a mistaken identity.

Asian pears::

and

Quince:

eal thing with
both look very much like apples.

Since you will see an illusion or even a delusion, and it will look like the real thing either way, you will see an apparent apple either way. It will look like a real apple either way. The same is possible with other senses as well.

[jayjacobus]

When reality is an illusion, is it a trick brain or a trick eye?

[Skepdick]

When reality is an illusion, is it a trick brain or a trick eye?

Both.

It's an eye-illusion because the light waves the eye acquires are refracted/distorted slightly for reasons that are well understood by the field of Optics.

It's a brain-illusion because the eye only acquires partial information from reality - the optical nerve has finite bandwidth. The image which is reconstructed in your brain is necessarily incomplete and skewed.

If this upsets you, consider sending some hate-mail to the architects of the Athenian Pantheon. Its pillars and floors were designed intentionally skew so that they APPEAR straight to the human eye.

[RCSaunders]

VA, do you know who H.L. Mencken was? He was not a philosopher but a journalist and an excellent observer of human nature. You have made me think of him, especially two things he wrote. One thing he wrote was:

The average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of cliches. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over 80 percent of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought.

When I read what you have written all I see is what you have learned from others, and those others are among the worst possible sources for one's beliefs.

Among the things you have said:

[*]Kant argued intensely, ...

[*]What I am discussing had been done philosophically for thousands of years.

[*]Within the Eastern Religion ...

[*]Eastern Religion like Buddhism ...

[*]To the Buddhists, common sense or empirical reality is real ... But when the well-being is threatened by the existential crisis, the Buddhist-proper has to shift perspective to view whatever is real and the empirical-self as an illusion.

[*]Point is you are not thinking deeper and wider, thus stuck in a silo-word of merely common empirical world as perceived by the human visual and conceptual system.

VA, I'm not criticizing you or your views. I personally think they are absurd and dangerous, because I've studied history, and know the consequences of believing the kind of mystic superstitious notions you embrace. I only hope you do not suffer too much because of yours.

Among all the philosophers in history, the worst and most dangerous was Kant with the possible exception of Hume. Of course people entertained ideas similar to yours for thousands of years, and suffered the consequences of that superstitious ignorance in the form of perpetual incurable diseases, plagues, famines, wars, rampant infant mortality, life-spans of forty or less years, squalor, and ignorance. You really want to go back to that?

Do you really think Eastern religions, like Hinduism and Buddhism, are anything more than superstitious nonsense? You are right, when a Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, or any other Eastern mystic religionist, is "threatened by the existential crisis, the Buddhist-proper has to shift perspective," from the real to some baseless mystical "transcendent" reality, and suffers starvation, sickness, or death, because his "deeper wider" knowledge is absolutely useless in the real world. It will be useless to you too, because it is palpably not true; which reminds me of the other thing Mencken wrote:

The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.

Take care, my friend!

[RCSaunders]

If you are not familiar with the above, you would like to see either a pretty lady or an old ugly hag/woman.

This is a very old drawing and I have seen it many times and it always looks exactly like what it is, some squiggly black lines and a couple of black blots. That is all I see, because that is exactly what it is.

It is all you see too. You may interpret that drawing to represent something, like an old woman or a young woman or a couple of amoeba in a puddle of water, but you do not, "see," them, you conceptually make them up from what you do see.
[/quote]

[RCSaunders]

Since you will see an illusion or even a delusion, and it will look like the real thing either way, you will see an apparent apple either way. It will look like a real apple either way. The same is possible with other senses as well.

An apple is not an illusion, or a delusion, or a rock or a kite or anything else. It is an apple. If you see anything else, an illusion, a delusion, a rock, or a kite, you are not seeing an apple no matter what you think it is.

I'm sorry, Common, I'm not really sure what your point is. Do you want to believe what you actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste is not real?

[Skepdick]

VA, do you know who H.L. Mencken was? He was not a philosopher but a journalist and an excellent observer of human nature. You have made me think of him, especially two things he wrote. One thing he wrote was:

The average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of cliches. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over 80 percent of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought.

When I read what you have written all I see is what you have learned from others, and those others are among the worst possible sources for one's beliefs.

From where I am looking this exact criticism applies to you also..

Personally - I don't have beliefs. I have methods and instruments for attaining my goals and desires.

My "beliefs" (expressed in the form of linguistic arguments) are a smokescreen for my pragmatic goals. My telos.

When I see you using the language of "beliefs", I can't think of anything more apt to say than to use your very own words: I see is what you have learned from others, and those others are among the worst possible sources for one's beliefs.

The very notion of "beliefs" is pretty moronic to an instrumentalists. If it's not useful and it's not paying rent - it must go...

I'm sorry, Common, I'm not really sure what your point is. Do you want to believe what you actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste is not real?

I can defend both narratives. I am convinced by neither. Doesn't change the fact that whether I believe money is "real" or "not real" I am still expecting you to pay me for my time.

What does that say about my "beliefs"?

[RCSaunders]

When reality is an illusion, is it a trick brain or a trick eye?

Not sure what you are asking. Reality is reality, and an illusion is an illusion, totally different things. Reality cannot be an illusion any more than a egg can be a doughnut. You wouldn't ask, "when an egg is a doughnut, is it a trick brain or a trick eye?" would you?

Schizophrenics have illusions all the time which they mistake for reality. They are most likely cause by brain anomalies, but those experiences are not reality. That's why they are called illusions.

If you have an experience you think is reality, but it isn't, that is an illusion. If you have have an experience that is not an illusion, it is reality. Simple?

[commonsense]

It seems to me now that we are going to need to determine whether we 3 in particular are using the same meaning for “see”. I’ll go first.

For me, to see is to receive on the retina the light that strikes the corneas, then propagates through the fluids inside the eyes, are converted to electrical impulses and sent as digital signals to the brain for interpretation.

So, seeing takes place within the eye and optic nerve.

Are there other meanings in use here?

[Skepdick]

It seems to me now that we are going to need to determine whether we 3 in particular are using the same meaning for “see”. I’ll go first.

For me, to see is to receive on the retina the light that strikes the corneas, then propagates through the fluids inside the eyes, are converted to electrical impulses and sent as digital signals to the brain for interpretation.

So, seeing takes place within the eye and optic nerve.

Are there other meanings in use here?

The process of "seeing" doesn't stop with the optic nerve. There's many steps after that...

The eye is a DAC (digital to analog converter) which turns light waves into electrical impulses which are then transmitted via the optic nerve to the visual cortex.

From there on everybody starts waving their hands (because nobody has a cooking clue what happens in there) but the digital signal transmitted by the optic nerve only becomes an "image" in the brain (mind?)

[henry quirk]

not

[commonsense]

It seems to me now that we are going to need to determine whether we 3 in particular are using the same meaning for “see”. I’ll go first.

For me, to see is to receive on the retina the light that strikes the corneas, then propagates through the fluids inside the eyes, are converted to electrical impulses and sent as digital signals to the brain for interpretation.

So, seeing takes place within the eye and optic nerve.

Are there other meanings in use here?

This is a refinement of my previous use of “seeing”.

By this meaning, rather than seeing an illusion or delusion we merely think we are seeing the illusion or delusion. We merely misinterpret or imagine what it is that we think we are seeing.

[RCSaunders]

VA, do you know who H.L. Mencken was? He was not a philosopher but a journalist and an excellent observer of human nature. You have made me think of him, especially two things he wrote. One thing he wrote was:

The average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of cliches. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over 80 percent of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought.

When I read what you have written all I see is what you have learned from others, and those others are among the worst possible sources for one's beliefs.

From where I am looking this exact criticism applies to you also.

I wish it were so, then I would not always have to be explaining what I believe. Unfortunately there is almost not a single one of my views that you or most others agree with. Exactly from whom do you suppose my views came from, since no one agrees with me?

Personally - I don't have beliefs. I have methods and instruments for attaining my goals and desires.

My "beliefs" (expressed in the form of linguistic arguments) are a smokescreen for my pragmatic goals. My telos.

When I see you using the language of "beliefs", I can't think of anything more apt to say than to use your very own words: I see is what you have learned from others, and those others are among the worst possible sources for one's beliefs.

The very notion of "beliefs" is pretty moronic to an instrumentalists. If it's not useful and it's not paying rent - it must go...

Good for you, Mr. James; or is it Dewey or Pierce? Pragmatism and instrumentalism are certainly original.

I'm sorry, Common, I'm not really sure what your point is. Do you want to believe what you actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste is not real?

I can defend both narratives. I am convinced by with neither. Doesn't change the fact that whether money is "real" or "not real" I am still expecting you to pay me for my time.

What does that say about my "beliefs"?

Nothing, I guess. You said you don't have any.

[Atla]

The average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of cliches. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over 80 percent of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought.

Yeah about 80-85% of humans never once think in their entire life. I think this is the single most important fact about human nature.