Perceptual facts.

[old.Tohtori]

Only topic i could think of.

I started thinking this due to the pregnancy thread. Are the facts, of science etc, due to perception of the majority and could individual percepton change facts in a manner that would make them equally right?

Maybe an example will explain it;

Let's say the whole world blacks out at the same time.

The reason is declared as a dna reset of the whole human race(just go with it).

After this, 50% of the human population see the world as black&white, while other half see colors.

Which side is now right?

Is it now a fact that the world hasa always been black/white and the colors are just a flaw in the brain, or is the black/white a flaw?

If someone who gets what i'm saying can explain it in a more "native english" way, go ahead.

 

[Tuthmes]

Schrödinger's cat

 

[old.Tohtori]

Bit different from what i mean.

Unless you mean that the world would be black and white, and colored at the same time with neither side being correct?

It's a bit hard to explain clearly.

How about this;

Two guys sitting at a space station.

They both are of equal mental, bodily etc status.

They see an explosion that isn't viewed by anyone else.

One says it was green, the other says it was red.

 

[Tuthmes]

Clicky?

 

[aika]

Quantum mechanics - any sort of measurement changes the reality
thus you can't say that the explosion is blue or red, cause the moment you've seen it, you broke its superposition and its wave function crashed into the red color or blue color. Its original "color" will remain unknown. ( Actually its all possible colours at once).

 

[Thorwyn]

This is getting pretty close to philosophical topics such as existentialism.

If our perception tells us that something is "true", and other people say it´s "false", then we may come to the conclusion that either

a. our
b. the other people´s
or
c. both

perceptions might be flawed, incorrect or simply defect. Hence, it´s impossible to derive a fact purely from a percetion. All optical illusions are proving, that especially the visual perception is quite vulnerable to manipulation and misinterpretation.

 

[Tuthmes]

It won't let me make a normal link for some reason. Anyways colour is just a perception (light beeing reflected from a surface). With everyone having a different perception I suppose the answer would be both are correct. Then again you could test what its made off and see what colour it should reflect. Fish out the colourblind person

The people seeing in black and white are just missing the receptors to see the range colours. Just as we are missing a wide range of the spectrum ourselfs.

Or you could be just beeing racist like Taglim.

 

[Tuthmes]

This is getting pretty close to philosophical topics such as existentialism.

If our perception tells us that something is "true", and other people say it´s "false", then we may come to the conclusion that either

a. our
b. the other people´s
or
c. both

perceptions might be flawed, incorrect or simply defect. Hence, it´s impossible to derive a fact purely from a percetion. All optical illusions are proving, that especially the visual perception is quite vulnerable to manipulation and misinterpretation.

And quantum mechanics fly's in the face of this. Then again if you can't rely on your perception and experiences nothing is right or wrong and everything stops making sense.

 

[Thorwyn]

Yep, and that´s where we´re leaving the shores of simple logic and drift into the sea of philosophy.

Coherence theory of truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[old.Tohtori]

Thorwyn i agree and that's why i like topics like this, crossing the boundaries of pure science and philosophy

And quantum mechanics fly's in the face of this. Then again if you can't rely on your perception and experiences nothing is right or wrong and everything stops making sense.

On some issues you can't rely on your perception, you have to rely on other peoples perception(as is with a lot of science). That's where it gets interesting; do we trust the science or are we trusting the perception of other people to tell us things?

I know that experiences are one of the most pwoerful teaching tools for a singular person, for example if i never had alcohol in my life, i could very well percieve it as evil. As it stands, i know what it does and how it can turn things from abd to worse, but also see the other sides of it.

Now if someone tells me; this stuff is dangerous, take cigarettes for example, i have to trust that the scientists A; know what they are saying and B; are not corrupted by otusie influence.

So is modern science something that requires a moderate amount of blind trust?

Afterall, we can't all test out how wheat effects our gastro-organs

 

[Tuthmes]

True Toht, but science is often proven wrong over time and new theory's come and go every (couple) decennia (give or take a few years ).

 

[Ceixah]

It won't let me make a normal link for some reason. Anyways colour is just a perception (light beeing reflected from a surface). With everyone having a different perception I suppose the answer would be both are correct. Then again you could test what its made off and see what colour it should reflect. Fish out the colourblind person

The people seeing in black and white are just missing the receptors to see the range colours. Just as we are missing a wide range of the spectrum ourselfs.

Or you could be just beeing racist like Taglim.

oi! i hadn't even posted yet and already you're starting :>
is that how much u miss me spickmes?

anywho's there's no such thing as "right" or rather "truth" in this situation, as the truth can be taken from numerous viewpoints, this is why history is always innacurate as there's always a different perspective, the trick is to take the stab back and make take an unbiased look on situations.


The problem is that society would try to dictate on which is wrong and right, when they should be embracing the differences and preventing a feud.

such is the way of life we seek conflict in every given opportunity.

 

[old.Tohtori]

True Toht, but science is often proven wrong over time and new theory's come and go every (couple) decennia (give or take a few years ).

Would this mean that we shouldn't trust science, even if we should take the word as a reasonable amount of truth?

The cigarette example works here i think (*);

Should i stop smoking, because science(and there viewpoints and perceptions of) has told me it's dangerous?

Or, should i consider the words of science and then see the facts percieved by myself(it effects everyone different) and decide based on my own health(etc) if i should stop?

I think, that science should be taken as religion should be taken; guidelines and suggestions, where the ultimate decision should be made by acknowledging the science, yet comparing it to personal perception.

* Note, smoking is just an example, this is not a smoking rant etc.

 

[Tuthmes]

Well if smoking relaxes you and would save you from a stress induced heart attack then yeah it would be healthy to you. I know there are other way's possibly for you to relax, but maybe they don't work for you, or stress you more then they relax (over time), etc.

Quantum mechinacs imho is a bit "meh" when it comes to a "theory". To put it short its just doing a whole lot of math's to make every possibility work. Same goes for the string theory, if it doesnt work we'll just add another dimension.

Then again both have proven themselfs over time, so there's hardly any arguing. Untill someone finds another way.

 

[fettoken]

This question you are asking Toht, could only be accurately answered if we knew the true nature(fact) behind our existence.

 

[megadave]

maybe the colour blind people are right, and everyone else is wrong and are actually the colour blind ones?

 

[Marc]

Welcome back Dori

 

[old.Tohtori]

maybe the colour blind people are right, and everyone else is wrong and are actually the colour blind ones?

That's the fun part. We woudln't know.

Most likely, as humaity goes, there would be a war in there somewhere.

 

[Zenith.UK]

I know what you mean Toht.
Everyone has the same method of seeing colour in the eye. I see a red ball and say "That ball is red". You look at it and agree "Yes, that ball is red".
We have both perceived that red ball individually, and we agree that it is red. What's to say that the way *I* perceive red is the same way that *you* perceive red?
Maybe how I perceive red is how you perceive pink and vice versa. It's only because of comparisons with other red objects that we associate the colour red with the idea of redness.

Separating people because of arbitrary differences has gone on since time immemorial. It's the tribal part of our nature and wanting to belong with other like-minded people.

 

[Huntingtons]

Only topic i could think of.

I started thinking this due to the pregnancy thread. Are the facts, of science etc, due to perception of the majority and could individual percepton change facts in a manner that would make them equally right?

Maybe an example will explain it;

Let's say the whole world blacks out at the same time.

The reason is declared as a dna reset of the whole human race(just go with it).

After this, 50% of the human population see the world as black&white, while other half see colors.

Which side is now right?

Is it now a fact that the world hasa always been black/white and the colors are just a flaw in the brain, or is the black/white a flaw?

If someone who gets what i'm saying can explain it in a more "native english" way, go ahead.

well colours are the reflections of light concieved into the brain. we have a 3 colour spectre which we then intreperates colours through, whereas some parrots only have 2. So in that sence you cannot say anybody is right when it comes to colour.