Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Perceiving is Believing Message-ID: <755@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 18:44:20 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.755 Posted: Mon Mar 25 18:44:20 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 05:46:36 EST References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP> <4898@cbscc.UUCP> <4899@cbscc.UUCP>, <3878@umcp-cs.UUCP> <4958@cbscc.UUCP> <665@pyuxd.UUCP> <4968@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 60 > I am asking *how* the reliability can be verified independant of our > interpretations. I am not inferring that an deity must be around to make > things work. I am asking how your caused "natural flow" judgements jump > the gap to being "proven" judgements in the sense that they are not only > caused but true. It's hard to beleive you are misunderstanding me without > trying. It's this kind of evasion that is the source of my complaints > about discussing things with you, Rich. [DUBUC] Interpretations and objective observations are two different things. The realization of how our interpretations interfere with and influence our observations is precisely the thing which must be eliminated in order to achieve a better view (and not a clouded one) of reality. (I thought we were far past the "this kind of evasion" crap. If I'm misunderstanding whbat you're saying, clarify it more carefully rather than accusing me of evasion.) > All perceptions are not directly related to survival. I may percieve > that I will die if a tiger is chasing me and run, but that does not prevent > some other unrelated event from doing me in (e.g. diving into a lake full > piranha to get away from the tiger). Perceiving one thing correctly and > drawing the right conclusion, does not mean I will perceive things correctly > in general. How do instances of correct perception give one the ability > to perceive correctly? Also, I could think of example where incorrect > perceptions result in survival. If I had incorrectly perceived that > it was raining outside, I may never have taken a walk in jungle in the > first place where I met the tiger. That's called coincidence. The fact that you were influenced not to go outside by a misconception does not make the misconception a cause of your "correct" decision. (I only say this because some would actually assume some source of directed deliberate causation.) Moreover, we are talking about perceptive ability as related to survival, and irrelevant of your statement about their "not being directly related to survival", it is preposterous to claim that perceptive ability has no bearing on survival. If you can't perceive what's around you in an accurate enough way, you WILL make errors that lead to your demise. Thus, it is fair to say that either the perceptive abilities used by animals (including us) ARE at least marginally accurate (with our own more powerful brains often "interpreting", as we discussed above), or, as some might say, it's ALL an "illusion". If you're not claiming that, what are you claiming? }How so? On the contrary, it is very much inextricably linked to the "natural }flow", whether that flow has an intent or not. It is a part of it. You seem }to be bogged down in assuming things about this flow vis a vis intent and }directed purpose, which was my point earlier in the article. > And you seem hard pressed to give me a good explanation of how something > that is caused by natural flow can make perceptions about itself in > any detached manner. Hard pressed? To show what? What is this "detached manner" you speak of? Is it that difficult to conceive of a part of the natural flow making perceptions about that flow and about the world? (P.S. to Paul: haven't heard any responses from you of late. Admittedly this one is late, too, but others that preceded it are unanswered. Did I miss them?) -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr