Where is here in the subliminal depths of perception?

Qion

Qion

Uber Nothing
Hello all-

I've had this question as part of my signature ever since I've been here, and I've never had a comment, question, or just someone giving me their 2 cents about it. This is a question that I made up, and I want to hear peoples' responses and thoughts about it.

Looking forward to all responses.
 
'Here' is relative like most things in life. I often wonder if my life is just some massive experiment or some sick kid playing a game of The Sims in the future. To me its more of a question of where we came from. Did God put us here for some reason? Who/what is God? Can you feel the earth spinning under your feet?
 
"Here" has only become a relative concept since the advent of the internet. "Here" in the personal sense is, surely, absolute.
 
One can not question... or more precisely, have answered... where 'here' is until one understands the many dimensions in which 'here' is representative. My 'here' is not your 'here'. Your 'here' in the now is not the same 'here' which you were pondering a moment ago or a mile away or in a mood that has passed. 'Here' is quite likely the only transient absolute in all of existence.

For now.
 
dude... it's 6Am. I've been up since 4AM after taking Nyquil and being medicated for a sinus infection the last few days. Quit making me do that!! :)
 
But for every person, "here" is absolute in all 4 dimensions: 3 dimensions of location – X, Y & Z – and the 4th dimension – time.
 
yes but in mathematics it's normal to think about not only 4 dimensions, but to consider many other dimensions... if you admit that they exist, you also have to admit that a simple concept like 'here' becomes impossible to be defined absolutely, or as for 'every person'...
 
Who said 'here' had to be defined for everyone? It's a personal "feeling" (I'm tired and that's the best I could think to describe it. :p ).

It's like saying everyone has to 'see' the same - not going to happen.
 
I'm not a mathematician. My e-mail sig defines me as a "Philosopher in Design". Mathematically speaking, you could tell me that 2+2=9 and I'd believe you. But in the non-mathematical world, "here" is surely "here" as defined in my earlier post. :p
 
"here", just like "now" and "I" etc., is an indexical. When one utters a sentence like "I am here now" all the indexical words get an "index" (hence the name). Those indexes are then used to fill in the blanks. They function like variables in mathematics and get interpreted in context. While I mean certain constants and values by the expressions "I", "here" and "now" the listener or reader can interpret them differently. That is why you can speak of speaker-meaning and listener-meaning. The indexicals can then be embedded in whatever system one pleases, whether the standard four-dimensional system or the higher mathematical and physical systems. Simple, no? ;)
 
Because not all views of perception are identical- that is what's so cool about this question. One person could view perception as something completely different than someone else. Cat has got it right when he says that's why you can talk about speaker-meaning and listener-meaning, and even that can be broken up into what multiple listeners interpreted it as. I have had so many different responses to this question over the months, and each person answered it differently. Like, you guys seem to be taking the more analitical side of it, whilest I took more of the philosophical side to it. With this question, I see that it almost satisfies my own personal hunger of knowing that perception is made up of more than what we see every day. Think about it. As we view the world though what limited vision God(or whatever your belief is) gave us, how much of the world do we actually take in? For instance, one day I closed one of my eyes, and I saw in a different hue than when I looked just from the other eye. For all we know, the world could look insanely different to each one of us! And, not one of us 30000 at this site could tell us exactly where "here" is, except through philosophical speculation.
 
Cap'tn Quark said:
But why?
Click to expand...
That, sir, is a good question. :D

Quion said:
For all we know, the world could look insanely different to each one of us!
Click to expand...
Nah. Don't think so. That would make it hard to explain why we all get along so well, like speaking the same language and understanding each other and building bridges and stuff ... different, of course! but not insanely different.
 
Yeah, maybe insanely is a little extreme. But, our actual, physical VIEW of the world could be different. Thats all I was trying to say.
 
You physical view is dependent upon your physical self and how you developed as a child. We all had different levels of different chemicals in our developing brains at different times thus shifting HOW we perceive things. Our perception of the physical should be all the same but every one sees it differently because of our physical bodies.
 
Which makes you think: Which one of us has perfect perception? Or are none of us getting the whole/real picture? Not to sound too much like Morpheus, but how do you define real? Is there anything there that we have no way of perceiving? For instance, if you watch Animal Planet, you might know that there is a certain type of lobster-like creature that can see more than double the colors that we can.
 
Is there anything there that we have no way of perceiving?
Click to expand...
There most definitely is, but this doesn't really matter to define reality. How else could you acknowledge scientific discoveries? Someone discovers something that has been there all along, he doesn't simply "invent" it. It doesn't then become real all of a sudden, just because we can perceive it.
 
Thats what I'm getting at, Cat. We don't know whats actually there if we can't percieve it.
 
Well, there are some things that you cannot perceive, but still know that they are there. A classical example is causality (from Hume iirc). We see one ball hit the other, but we never see the "causality" directly: we deduce it, i.e. we project it onto the state of affairs. Another problem is that we cannot always neutrally express "what is there". Example: A - B. We can say "there is and A to the left of the B" or "a B to the right of an A", but while this changes our take of the situation, it doesn't change what really is there. So "perceive" is tricky too. We know some things are there, while we cannot really and truly perceive them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top