|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.25.11.220
In Reply to: RE: No objective reality.... posted by genungo on September 11, 2014 at 21:19:57
There is perhaps something objective outside of our heads, but we have no direct access to it as it is always translated into neural signals and influenced/modified by our brain before even getting to cortical processing centers.
Follow Ups:
You tell me if it's "subjective" or "objective."
Two people would perceive that kick in different ways. A masochist would perceive it differently than do I.
A kick in the ass is just that. If you like it or not is another question.
As Samuel Johnson said a few centuries ago, you can argue about a salt-shaker upon a table, whether or not it really is there, but there it is. And also, (paraphrasing, again): all argument against it, all belief for it.
I don't know the point of separating phenomena from experience. How else can it exist to a person? It resembles the "angels on the head of a pin" thing.
Edits: 09/12/14
Philosophers, traditionally, had no access into the nervous system that provides us our perception of reality. The neural perspective fundamentally changes the argument about objective vs. subjective. This isn't an argument about whether an object exists; it's an argument about the interpretation of sensory signals from said object.
example, though you might argue we'd disagree about "concrete?"
If you look at the processing of any sensory information in the nervous system, you see that the brain is sending fibers to the earlier processing stages, modifying that information before it even gets up to the cortex. In the auditory system, there are fibers from the brainstem, for example, that project out to both the middle (auditory ossicles) and the inner ear (Organ of Corti), shaping the information at the point of transduction. In auditory processing, there are half a dozen relay nuclei throughout the brainstem (e.g., cochlear nuclei, superior olivary nuclei, nucleus of the lateral lemniscus, inferior colliculi), each of which receives descending information from the cerebral cortex or other more rostral structures. As such, before auditory information even makes it to the cortex for processing, the cortex has influenced that auditory information. The auditory information we thus perceive "consciously" has already been shaped (and colored) by our brain before we even process it.
Our internal state (including emotional factors) and our expectations thus affect what we hear--and that issue seems to have been brought up several times in response to the original post.
I wish I had been tuned into this discussion as it developed, but as I read through the exchanges, I realized that there was nothing* I needed to add. Knowing how you 'earn your keep', that came as no surprise, but it still would have been fun to join the argument from the neurological perspective. Your final (thus far) post in this discussion shovels the last load of dirt on top of the notion of objective perception.If anyone is interested in learning more about how they perceive the world, I still think one of the best launching points is Donald Hoffman's Visual Intelligence .
*Edit: Actually, I do have something to add. There is also the chemistry of the brain to consider, and dopamine ramps up in anticipation of reward. Ergo, simply expecting something to be more pleasurable can make it so, in a very real sense.
Edits: 09/13/14
Ah yes, without dopamine, music is rather worthless! This is what makes Maggies the best: you can hang an IV L-dopa drop from them because they are so tall! :)
Any worthwhile music will have me in a different emotional state at the end compared to the beginning. Audio memory is notoriously unreliable, so those two things together make it impossible for me to play something, make a change, then play it again to evaluate the difference. Unless of course, the difference is huge, i.e., something's broken!
Unfortunately, that's the highly flawed method just about everybody uses.
Some would hardly perceive the kick at all, judging by the size of their buttocks.
True, but so long as our senses can verify the existence of forms or sensations that are believed to exist and so long as the *character* of our observations remains fairly constant, we can indeed form a reference of sorts.
Yes, but the reference for each individual is specific to that individual's perception of that reference. What we have is a shared, consensual "objective" reality.
Yes, and I thank you for sharing!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: