wd gann I had a discussion about this with my art teacher back in high school. He said that that van gogh had a mental problem and precieved the world differently and that is why his paintings were so weird. His was recreating his world. Other art critics said the same thing. I challenged this statement. If he saw a piant brush as crooked for him to reproduce that paint brush as crooked to his perception he would have to draw it straight to our perception. The same with the color argument. What I see as green when I reproduce green it will be green to you. So we may precieve green differently but we have been conditioned to agree that the thing that creates green is "green" to everyone. I now need to go back and look at what to your to see if perhaps I misperceived what you said nevertheless I will leave this standing because perhaps a someone will correct me about my Van Gogh theory.
No. Sound is a psychological and physiological affect of perceiving the movement and vibrations of air molecules as they collide against the eardrum and then get converted into electrical signals via cochlea cells. Therefore, all is quiet without something to perceive that movement of molecules.
No no no... Every thing we "experience" is abstract... Every physical event is reality... What "is" happening is reality... Reality is there but only exists when it occurs... What we percieve is only a history of what reality did and is abstract because it "is not" what is happening... The delay from reality(now) and what we percieve(past) causes us to be abstract no matter what... Because everything we percieve is from the past, it is vulnerable to any interpretation possible. If there is any way we can percieve "NOW", there wouldn't be any interpretation possible because you are in "PURE" acceptance of reality being in true neutral mindless mind... aka zen.
It is, unless it is not. Individual perception through sensory experience/mental constructs defines it. Definitions create boundaries, only to be questioned and explored beyond their perceived limits. A singularity event with infinite expressive possibilities. Pick your post, stake your claim.
LOL -- prove it! JK... We see it all 'through the looking glass' - therefore you will never be able to conceptualize it in any other way then abstractly. Your parents really should have read you the Alice stories when you were kids This is why everyone should be forced to eat shrooms at least two or three times in their lifetimes -- afterwhich there should be no question that we shape "it" as "it" shapes us... PEACE and good-trading, Commisso
in trying to define reality you give yourself into a philosophical discussion. It's to be found in recognition theory. Questions arise such as: - what can I know? - what is knowledge? - How do we know that we know? So first you have to ask the questions above to define reality. For those who care some historical philosophical background you can go with the dialog from Plato in the "allegory of the cave". Good place to start Here are two links: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/plato.html http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm
Reality is by nature concrete. Our perception of it can never be anything but abstract. The fact that we can only perceive things, without ever really knowing if they are concrete, means that we can never really be sure of what is real. Reality can only exist to us in the form of a concept for philosophical argument. Much like in this forum. So in essence, what is real is not worth arguing about, because any argument will be inherently flawed. Much like this argument. Isn't thinking fucked. Runningbear