Understanding Stuff

[coberst]

Jehu

 

I question your statement—“ elements that give rise to the perception of a thing must necessarily be distinct from the elements that give rise to its being thought about,”.

 

It seems to me that all living creatures must perceive and conceive to survive. The tadpole and the human must be able to perceive an object and also determine whether that object is friend or foe and whether that object is eat or not eat.

 

We agree, I guess, that humans have evolved from the first creatures on earth. It seems that these very first creatures must have both capabilities. If so, then the natural question is why would such a creature develop the capability of perception and then develop the capacity of conception using distinctly different elements? Also how in the world can a creature survive with one and not the other?

 

My conclusion is that perception and conception are very similar or at least share many of the same elements.

[Jehu]

Coberst

 

You are absolutely right Sir, I did not mean to insinuate that perception and thought were completely disconnected, for by our working definition they cannot be. The distinction that I am trying to draw your attention to is a subtle one, but and exceedingly important one, so if you will bear with me, I will explain the reasoning which led me to the proposition “ the elements that give rise to the perception of a thing must necessarily be distinct from the elements that give rise to its being thought about.”

 

We have agreed that the primitive elements are those elements that are necessary and sufficient to a thing’s being perceived or thought about. As a logical operator, the disjunction “or” allows for the perception of a thing or the thinking about a thing or both. Now, as we can obviously think about a thing, even when we do not perceive it, and perceive many things each instant that we do not think about, it follows that there must be two subsidiary groups of primitive elements, and that we may employ one set or the other or both, depending upon the situation. Furthermore, if the set of primitive elements were precisely the same whether we were perceiving a thing or thinking about it, then perception would be necessarily accompanied by thought, and thought likewise necessarily accompanied by perception. What’s more, a perception arises as a result of sensations, while a thought arises as a result of mentation. However, I am not asserting that these two sets of elements are completely independent, but merely that the one sub-set is in some way “distinguishable” from the other sub-set. Can you accept the proposition if restated: “ the elements that give rise to the perception of a thing must necessarily be distinguishable from the elements that give rise to its being thought about.”?

 

Jehu

[coberst]

jehu

 

"the elements that give rise to the perception of a thing must necessarily be distinguishable from the elements that give rise to its being thought about.”?"

 

Are you saying that I cannot perceive a thing with the same elements as I think about a thing?

 

I am very confused. Can you give me an example of what you are saying?

 

I do not wish to appear dull witted but I am very confused. Can you say why you are trying to estabish this particular statement?

[Jehu]

Coberst

 

I understand completely Sir, for the distinction I wish to draw is an exceedingly subtle one.

 

Within our working definition it is implied that there is some distinction to be made between our perceiving a thing and our thinking about a thing. It draws this distinction because we are able to perceive things without necessarily have to think about them, and because we are able to think about things, without necessarily having to perceive them. I can think about a horse, for example, without having to actually see, hear, smell, taste or touch a horse. Therefore, it follows that the elements that are “necessary and sufficient” to our actually perceiving a horse (the elements of perception), are neither necessary nor sufficient to our merely thinking about a horse, and thus it follows that the primitive elements that give rise to the thought of a horse must somehow be distinct from the primitive elements that give rise to its perception. Nevertheless, both sets of primitive elements are necessary, if we are to satisfy our working definition.

 

The implication here, as I see it, is that there is are two components to every “thing”, the one being the result of the phenomenal experience itself (physical), and the other the result of interpretive mental processes (psychological), but this is mere speculation on my part, for we have not demonstrated this to be so.

 

The reason that I wish to establish this distinction is simply to extract as much information about these primitive elements as can be logically deduced from our working definition, so as to facilitate our identifying them. It would not do, for instance, to have us looking for a single set of elements, when there are fact two sets.

 

I hope that this explanation will be of help.

 

Jehu

[DarkColoredLight]

The reason that I wish to establish this distinction is simply to extract as much information about these primitive elements as can be logically deduced from our working definition, so as to facilitate our identifying them. It would not do, for instance, to have us looking for a single set of elements, when there are fact two sets.

 

I hope that this explanation will be of help.

 

Jehu

 

Ah, but in my world I see triangles.

 

On/Off/Nonexistant or incomplete, would be the three sides.

 

Put enough of these triangles together and you get a sphere. With a sphere you can take many routes to come full circle. A cirle not as a shape but another analogy for coming back to a position you've been in before. With a better grasp of known/unknown/nonexistant triangles.

 

Let me paint a picture for you.

Throughout life we start learning about sections of the sphere(s) we live in/with. Not paying too much attention to each triangle because that takes too much time. Unless someone makes the time to points out a triangle and explains said triangle, or atleast the side of the triangle they know best. When enough triangles, or sides to triangles, are learned we create a sphere of our own. Often times we don't understand the understanding triangle, so are blind to the fact that we, as humans, even have a triangles. Rolling through life trying to teach others of our own triangles. But if you still don't fully understand the understanding triangle, you're liable to try to connect with someone in a way that doesn't "rub them" the right way. Causing conflict. Whether they hid or expose the conflict is up to the configuration of certain triangles.

 

lost my train of thought, bbl :(

something about how we need to explain to each other all sides of all triangles. understand that everyone's sphere's are put together differently. world peace gibba gabba

 

a couple of questions to ask:

What are the two sides of making water?

What are the two sides of creating fire?

What are the two time spaces we know of?

 

uh oh, do i have a point?

[coberst]

Jehu

 

I don’t think this is going to work. I hoped we might ‘reason together’ and construct a dialogue. We can easily see some of the problems that are inherent in dialogue.

 

Maybe we can try again later.

[Jehu]

Jehu

 

I don’t think this is going to work. I hoped we might ‘reason together’ and construct a dialogue. We can easily see some of the problems that are inherent in dialogue.

 

Maybe we can try again later.

As you say Sir, maybe later.

 

Regards, Jehu