Perception is Absolute

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Fja1
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:17 pm

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by Fja1 »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:30 pmFja1,

You've got me there, I am anything but mathematical. If you come up with one that would be meaningful to the argument by all means.
Essentially I was just making an interrogation, not yet proposing anything, but ok, let's go. Plainly, the reactive ramifications (of the parametres of a function) may vary depending on the inclusion criteria of some agent (not that it matters, but in mathematics, it's actually called an 'argument', and inclusion of an argument is called a declaration). After being comfortable with this idea, we don't need math anymore now to go ahead and ask ourselves whether or not an agent/action conform to inclusion criteria. And if the answer is affirmative, we need to be clear as to why it would be in our interest to narrow down 'inclusion criteria' to mere reaction (perhaps including emergent state). You should note the prominence of the word 'interest' here. For if there exists a way to circumvent the reactive ramifications of some part of the expression, I see no other perspective pertaining to it than one which conforms to our interest. Not volition, not affect, but interest! (Surely you're familiar with the pragmatist philosophy of William James, if not, check it out!) It's the question of how are we invested in the state of affairs which invokes the answer as to whether it's of any value to think about the reactive ramifications of the agents. Consider the sentence "John or Mary did all the work." The sentence is about doing work, which means it reacts to something. "John" and "Mary" merely conform to criteria which includes or excludes agents, but nothing is said about as to what acts on these criteria. As long as the cause eludes us, it makes no sense here to categorically speak of 'reaction' and thus we refer to "John" and "Mary" as agents.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by popeye1945 »

Fja1 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:13 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:30 pmFja1,

You've got me there, I am anything but mathematical. If you come up with one that would be meaningful to the argument by all means.
Essentially I was just making an interrogation, not yet proposing anything, but ok, let's go. Plainly, the reactive ramifications (of the parametres of a function) may vary depending on the inclusion criteria of some agent (not that it matters, but in mathematics, it's actually called an 'argument', and inclusion of an argument is called a declaration). After being comfortable with this idea, we don't need math anymore now to go ahead and ask ourselves whether or not an agent/action conform to inclusion criteria. And if the answer is affirmative, we need to be clear as to why it would be in our interest to narrow down 'inclusion criteria' to mere reaction (perhaps including emergent state). You should note the prominence of the word 'interest' here. For if there exists a way to circumvent the reactive ramifications of some part of the expression, I see no other perspective pertaining to it than one which conforms to our interest. Not volition, not affect, but interest! (Surely you're familiar with the pragmatist philosophy of William James, if not, check it out!) It's the question of how are we invested in the state of affairs which invokes the answer as to whether it's of any value to think about the reactive ramifications of the agents. Consider the sentence "John or Mary did all the work." The sentence is about doing work, which means it reacts to something. "John" and "Mary" merely conform to criteria which includes or excludes agents, but nothing is said about as to what acts on these criteria. As long as the cause eludes us, it makes no sense here to categorically speak of 'reaction' and thus we refer to "John" and "Mary" as agents.
Fja1,

Excellent, intriguing but I think the answer not that complicated, any response to the world must be made the will of the subject in order to move without, this means the stimulus affecting the subject instills a desire to change/to affect something in the outer world. In this way the word agents simply means agents of their own will but the motivation/s came from without. If you think I am missing something please do indicate.
Fja1
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:17 pm

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by Fja1 »

If we're to say that we both treated actions/reactions/agents as objects (for example, like vectors), then in a way, the inclusion criteria can be represented as equivalent objects (also like vectors). I think where we diverge is how I'm referring to these objects, from a topic-prominent point of view, in a way that they're not interchangeable even when they live in the same universe. (Like statements and propositions can have the same values, but they're not the same thing, etc.?)
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by popeye1945 »

Fja1 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:01 pm If we're to say that we both treated actions/reactions/agents as objects (for example, like vectors), then in a way, the inclusion criteria can be represented as equivalent objects (also like vectors). I think where we diverge is how I'm referring to these objects, from a topic-prominent point of view, in a way that they're not interchangeable even when they live in the same universe. (Like statements and propositions can have the same values, but they're not the same thing, etc.?)
Fja1,
No, in this discussion I am maintaining the subject and object dichotomy the world as object and the individual as subject, both have the same values due to the fact that indeed they are inseparable take one away and the other ceases to be the significance being the relation between the world object as cause and the individual as a reactive organism.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 12, 2022 6:09 am
In terms of philosophy, 'absolute' is totally unconditional upon anything i.e. existing by itself.

How can perception emerge without a brain and what-is-perceived?
Perception is conditioned by the person, brain and what-is-perceived.
As such it cannot be absolute.

In any case that 'perception is absolute' has no practical philosophical value at all.

When a theist claim 'god is absolute' it meant God is untainted by anything thus it pure to be believed for one's salvation to avoid the inherent fear of death and hellfire. This is irrational and for that purpose only, but there are rational alternatives to resolve the fundamental psychological problem that drives irrational theism.

On the other hand to accept all perception are conditioned by the person, brain and what-is-perceived [no absolute] is highly useful because we can then develop models and strategies to improve perception where there are its related issues.
The brain, and all connected to it, is perception considering its composition, that of atoms, is a series of actions and reactions resulting from mirroring. Mirroring is perception.

So perception is not conditioned on the brain, it is conditioned on itself.
What 'perception' are you talking about?

Note this typical definition of "what is perception" which is conditioned upon the brain and the person within reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
Perception (from Latin perceptio 'gathering, receiving') is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information or environment.[2]
All perception involves signals that go through the nervous system, which in turn result from physical or chemical stimulation of the sensory system.[3]
Vision involves light striking the retina of the eye; smell is mediated by odor molecules; and hearing involves pressure waves.

Perception is not only the passive receipt of these signals, but it is also shaped by the recipient's learning, memory, expectation, and attention.[4][5]
Sensory input is a process that transforms this low-level information to higher-level information (e.g., extracts shapes for object recognition).[5] The process that follows connects a person's concepts and expectations (or knowledge), restorative and selective mechanisms (such as attention) that influence perception.

Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system, but subjectively seems mostly effortless because this processing happens outside conscious awareness.[3] Since the rise of experimental psychology in the 19th century, psychology's understanding of perception has progressed by combining a variety of techniques.[4] Psychophysics quantitatively describes the relationships between the physical qualities of the sensory input and perception.[6] Sensory neuroscience studies the neural mechanisms underlying perception.
And the brain/person is conditioned on atoms relating to each other, this relation of atoms is perception considering perception is relative as action/reaction and atoms act/react to each other.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

fmillo wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2022 10:03 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:07 pm Perception is absolute as perception occurs through perception and is conditioned on nothing but itself, perception is universal, even the reaction of atoms to other atoms is the atom as perceiving other atoms because of its reaction.
You do not clarify here what is perception.

You are doing a tautology with key words perception, absolute and reaction.
And what is not a tautology is one thing leads to another? Dictionaries are tautologies.

Perceiving perception, or perception through perception, leaves perception as no-thing as there is no comparison necessary for form. This no-thingness of perception results in it as absolute considering there is no change in no-thing nor is there a relationship. You cannot define perception because this would require perception thus an indefiniteness in perception results as there is no comparison.
Fja1
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:17 pm

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by Fja1 »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:33 pm
Fja1 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:01 pm If we're to say that we both treated actions/reactions/agents as objects (for example, like vectors), then in a way, the inclusion criteria can be represented as equivalent objects (also like vectors). I think where we diverge is how I'm referring to these objects, from a topic-prominent point of view, in a way that they're not interchangeable even when they live in the same universe. (Like statements and propositions can have the same values, but they're not the same thing, etc.?)
Fja1,
No, in this discussion I am maintaining the subject and object dichotomy the world as object and the individual as subject, both have the same values due to the fact that indeed they are inseparable take one away and the other ceases to be the significance being the relation between the world object as cause and the individual as a reactive organism.
Actually, I wasn't talking about "objects", in the philosophical sense, as distinguished from a subject, but of "objects" which are in comparison to other objects. (like in math, programming, etc.) as constituents of some hierarchy. (They can never be subjects.)
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by popeye1945 »

Ok, you're taking this on a tangent quite abstract, a little over my head.
Fja1
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:17 pm

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by Fja1 »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:07 pm Ok, you're taking this on a tangent quite abstract, a little over my head.
Well, maybe. But what I set out to investigate was whether is action can be seen separate (separate objects) from reaction, depending on what you focus. The idea of topic and comment (also called theme or rheme) might be one way to delineate focus, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_and_comment) as suggested above.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by popeye1945 »

Fja1 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:15 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:07 pm Ok, you're taking this on a tangent quite abstract, a little over my head.
Well, maybe. But what I set out to investigate was whether is action can be seen separate (separate objects) from reaction, depending on what you focus. The idea of topic and comment (also called theme or rheme) might be one way to delineate focus, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_and_comment) as suggested above.
Fjai.

Can action be separate from a reaction. Well no, this is the relation between subject and object and it is my thought that action/cause is the physical world or stimulus there from, in a world of reactionary creatures. This reaction is the basis of evolutionary biology and adaption through natural selection. It is the basis of disease in organisms and it is biological reaction that creates apparent reality/read your everyday experience it being a biological readout of a total or ultimate reality. Think of the well established statement, subject and object stand or fall together.
Fja1
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:17 pm

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by Fja1 »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:52 pmFjai.

Can action be separate from a reaction. Well no, this is the relation between subject and object and it is my thought that action/cause is the physical world or stimulus there from, in a world of reactionary creatures. This reaction is the basis of evolutionary biology and adaption through natural selection. It is the basis of disease in organisms and it is biological reaction that creates apparent reality/read your everyday experience it being a biological readout of a total or ultimate reality. Think of the well established statement, subject and object stand or fall together.
I've been trying to discuss action and reaction, I suppose, in epistemological terms, ie. what it means to say "action" instead of reaction. (Well, I took a bit of a plunge there; even as to have a brush with logic which can be either reversible, or as in "John or Mary did all the work", irreversible, when I might as well had just investigated what it means to say something "acts on" something, or thereon delineating action as a special case of reaction.) I reckon you're discussing action and reaction from another perspective (such as an ontological one?). So if we were to give your perspective another look, we'd have to find an aspect of reality vague enough that it cannot corroborate your argument. For instance, what about energy? If energy is categorically reactive, how do you extract or single out a concept as vague as energy?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by popeye1945 »

Fja1 wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 2:24 am
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:52 pmFjai.

Can action be separate from a reaction. Well no, this is the relation between subject and object and it is my thought that action/cause is the physical world or stimulus there from, in a world of reactionary creatures. This reaction is the basis of evolutionary biology and adaption through natural selection. It is the basis of disease in organisms and it is biological reaction that creates apparent reality/read your everyday experience it being a biological readout of a total or ultimate reality. Think of the well established statement, subject and object stand or fall together.
I've been trying to discuss action and reaction, I suppose, in epistemological terms, ie. what it means to say "action" instead of reaction. (Well, I took a bit of a plunge there; even as to have a brush with logic which can be either reversible, or as in "John or Mary did all the work", irreversible, when I might as well had just investigated what it means to say something "acts on" something, or thereon delineating action as a special case of reaction.) I reckon you're discussing action and reaction from another perspective (such as an ontological one?). So if we were to give your perspective another look, we'd have to find an aspect of reality vague enough that it cannot corroborate your argument. For instance, what about energy? If energy is categorically reactive, how do you extract or single out a concept as vague as energy?
Fja1,

Energy In the case of understanding apparent reality is a cause affecting a biological subject and it is the biological subject's reaction to this energy which is the biological readout creating a world of things. In the absence of all biological life, apparent reality would not exist. Energy is said to change form but never ceases to exist. Absolute or ultimate reality is nothing but energy and is said to be a place of no things. When one thinks of a biological subject it is obvious he/she cannot respond to the world without being motivated to do so, which again makes it a reaction. All organisms are reactive creatures but I would suppose energy is reactive with other forms of energy, again energy does not become things but due to biological interpretation/reaction.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by popeye1945 »

Fja1 wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 2:24 am
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:52 pmFjai.

Can action be separate from a reaction. Well no, this is the relation between subject and object and it is my thought that action/cause is the physical world or stimulus there from, in a world of reactionary creatures. This reaction is the basis of evolutionary biology and adaption through natural selection. It is the basis of disease in organisms and it is biological reaction that creates apparent reality/read your everyday experience it being a biological readout of a total or ultimate reality. Think of the well established statement, subject and object stand or fall together.
I've been trying to discuss action and reaction, I suppose, in epistemological terms, ie. what it means to say "action" instead of reaction. (Well, I took a bit of a plunge there; even as to have a brush with logic which can be either reversible, or as in "John or Mary did all the work", irreversible, when I might as well had just investigated what it means to say something "acts on" something, or thereon delineating action as a special case of reaction.) I reckon you're discussing action and reaction from another perspective (such as an ontological one?). So if we were to give your perspective another look, we'd have to find an aspect of reality vague enough that it cannot corroborate your argument. For instance, what about energy? If energy is categorically reactive, how do you extract or single out a concept as vague as energy?
Fja1,

Energy In the case of understanding apparent reality is a cause affecting a biological subject and it is the biological subject's reaction to this energy which is the biological readout creating a world of things. In the absence of all biological life, apparent reality would not exist. Energy is said to change form but never ceases to exist. Absolute or ultimate reality is nothing but energy and is said to be a place of no things. When one thinks of a biological subject it is obvious he/she cannot respond to the world without being motivated to do so, which again makes it a reaction. All organisms are reactive creatures but I would suppose energy is reactive with other forms of energy, again energy does not become things but due to biological interpretation/reaction.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by Phil8659 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:07 pm Perception is absolute as perception occurs through perception and is conditioned on nothing but itself, perception is universal, even the reaction of atoms to other atoms is the atom as perceiving other atoms because of its reaction.
Absolute and Relative are synonyms for the two parts, or elements of a thing. See Plato and Aristotle. What you can actually name are the two parts of a thing, the absolute or correlative, or again, shape or form, and the relative, any relative difference whatsoever.

This produces information processing which today we call binary recursion, Plato called it dialectic, grammar in accordance with the two elements of a thing. His dialogs were presented to help teach you how to use it. Aristotle did not grasp it sufficiently to even write a system commensurate with the resulting Grammar Matrix, Plato tried to formalize but could not get a good grasp of how it is done in geometry.

So, at what point in the recursion of the binary progressing are you talking about?
If it is, as the distinction between body and mind, You are ass backwards. Perception is of the many particulars, i.e. relative. where the intelligible, the ability to map the perceptible into the intelligible of grammar systems is absolute. And if this is too hard, the perceptible can be seen, but as Aristotle noted, we know everything by its form, and the form is the definition, i.e. the intelligible which cannot be seen.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Perception is Absolute

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Phil8659 wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:34 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:07 pm Perception is absolute as perception occurs through perception and is conditioned on nothing but itself, perception is universal, even the reaction of atoms to other atoms is the atom as perceiving other atoms because of its reaction.
Absolute and Relative are synonyms for the two parts, or elements of a thing. See Plato and Aristotle. What you can actually name are the two parts of a thing, the absolute or correlative, or again, shape or form, and the relative, any relative difference whatsoever.

This produces information processing which today we call binary recursion, Plato called it dialectic, grammar in accordance with the two elements of a thing. His dialogs were presented to help teach you how to use it. Aristotle did not grasp it sufficiently to even write a system commensurate with the resulting Grammar Matrix, Plato tried to formalize but could not get a good grasp of how it is done in geometry.

So, at what point in the recursion of the binary progressing are you talking about?
If it is, as the distinction between body and mind, You are ass backwards. Perception is of the many particulars, i.e. relative. where the intelligible, the ability to map the perceptible into the intelligible of grammar systems is absolute. And if this is too hard, the perceptible can be seen, but as Aristotle noted, we know everything by its form, and the form is the definition, i.e. the intelligible which cannot be seen.
1. Binary recursion, or dualism, leads us in circles as it is circular as one thing leads to another then back, everything repeats. From this everything resulting from it is an endless cycle which becomes obscure when observing it from the single position of it being "everything". This obscurity occurs because everything reduced to a cycle makes the cycle mean many different things thus our definition of cycle becomes fragmented and with it the whole of language.

2. Perception perceiving perception leaves only perception thus an absolute occurs. This absolute is without comparison thus is no-thing as comparisons are necessary for forms to take place. From this we can state the perception as an absolute is perception as no-thing. No-thingness is absolute.
Post Reply