The Central Topic

[Cleric K]

Submerge myself in ancient states of consciousness?

OK. I can go on with the ancients states but it is not necessary. As I said, it was to give some historical context but it is completely optional for the Central Topic. So let's focus on our modern state of consciousness and move on.

You may Think you can differentiate raw perceptual input from thinking but I think you are completely wrong on that point.

This is has been discussed many times (with FB too). It's not the goal separate perception and thinking into completely independent phenomena and investigate them in isolation. Obviously they're always intertwined. Yet we are justified to recognize their different aspects.

From whence this justification comes? From the simple fact that we can vary through thinking the meaning we experience against certain perceptions. For example, you can't change the perceived color of the desk in front of you through thinking. You can call it whatever you want, you can say it is black even if it is white, but the perceptual color will remain what it is. On the other hand, you can think about the desk in many different ways - you can think that it is a physical object out there, outside your consciousness. You can think like an idealist that the desk is only a symbol within MAL, you can think that you're dreaming and the desk is only a floating image, and so on. Note how the perception of the desk stays the same but the meaning that you relate to that perception can be different.

This is one of the most important skills we can develop - to recognize what the given really presents us with and what is there only because we think about the given in a specific way.

[Lou Gold]

Submerge myself in ancient states of consciousness?

OK. I can go on with the ancients states but it is not necessary. As I said, it was to give some historical context but it is completely optional for the Central Topic. So let's focus on our modern state of consciousness and move on.

You may Think you can differentiate raw perceptual input from thinking but I think you are completely wrong on that point.

This is has been discussed many times (with FB too). It's not the goal separate perception and thinking into completely independent phenomena and investigate them in isolation. Obviously they're always intertwined. Yet we are justified to recognize their different aspects.

From whence this justification comes? From the simple fact that we can vary through thinking the meaning we experience against certain perceptions. For example, you can't change the perceived color of the desk in front of you through thinking. You can call it whatever you want, you can say it is black even if it is white, but the perceptual color will remain what it is. On the other hand, you can think about the desk in many different ways - you can think that it is a physical object out there, outside your consciousness. You can think like an idealist that the desk is only a symbol within MAL, you can think that you're dreaming and the desk is only a floating image, and so on. Note how the perception of the desk stays the same but the meaning that you relate to that perception can be different.

This is one of the most important skills we can develop - to recognize what the given really presents us with and what is there only because we think about the given in a specific way.

I agree, Cleric, having arrived at similar via a very different path/process. Now, I like to say that I trust my experience and am sceptical toward my interpretations until they have survived many tests.

[Cleric K]

I agree, Cleric, having arrived at similar via a very different path/process. Now, I like to say that I trust my experience and am sceptical toward my interpretations until they have survived many tests.

Yes, Lou, this is of course the most healthy approach - to put everything to the test. What we're speaking of here aims to go a little further than this.

Normally we feel as an "I" which expresses itself in thoughts. We feel these thoughts as bubbling up in consciousness. You use these thoughts to interpret perceptions and to evaluate if these interpretations seem faithful. The question can you follow the post here and envision the possibility that in your inner world, hitherto unknown processes can be brought to light, which reveal, so to speak, the soul guts of Lou? To be lifted in your Spirit (which you know as your thinking activity) and see how before your thoughts reach their 'mineral phase', they pass through layers of preparation - the ideas of Lou, the sympathies and antipathies of Lou, the fears and hopes of Lou?

[Lou Gold]

I agree, Cleric, having arrived at similar via a very different path/process. Now, I like to say that I trust my experience and am sceptical toward my interpretations until they have survived many tests.

Yes, Lou, this is of course the most healthy approach - to put everything to the test. What we're speaking of here aims to go a little further than this.

Normally we feel as an "I" which expresses itself in thoughts. We feel these thoughts as bubbling up in consciousness. You use these thoughts to interpret perceptions and to evaluate if these interpretations seem faithful. The question can you follow the post here and envision the possibility that in your inner world, hitherto unknown processes can be brought to light, which reveal, so to speak, the soul guts of Lou? To be lifted in your Spirit (which you know as your thinking activity) and see how before your thoughts reach their 'mineral phase', they pass through layers of preparation - the ideas of Lou, the sympathies and antipathies of Lou, the fears and hopes of Lou?

Yes, Cleric, I have lived doing this regularly for years. The 'proof of truth' in what I say is that, although my path is different, I can recognize the truth that is embedded in much that you say. Of course, as a non-philosopher, I'm reminded of a story:

Once a disciple asked a famous saint if everyone recognized him as holy? He responded, "Of course not -- a thief would see me as a thief."

[Jim Cross]

For example, you can't change the perceived color of the desk in front of you through thinking. You can call it whatever you want, you can say it is black even if it is white, but the perceptual color will remain what it is.

Actually not so.

The way we perceive colours can also change during our lifetime. Greek speakers who have two fundamental colour terms to describe light and dark blue – “ghalazio” and “ble” – are more prone to see these two colours as more similar after living for long periods of time in the UK – where these two colours are described in English by the same fundamental colour term: blue.

This is because after long term everyday exposure to an English speaking environment, the brain of native Greek speakers starts interpreting the colours “ghalazio” and “ble” as part of the same colour category.

But this isn’t just something that happens with colour, in fact different languages can influence our perceptions in all areas of life. And in our lab at Lancaster University we are investigating how the use of and exposure to different languages changes the way we perceive everyday objects. Ultimately, this happens because learning a new language is like giving our brain the ability to interpret the world differently – including the way we see and process colours.

https://theconversation.com/the-way-you ... peak-94833

Color perception is both physical and psychological. It involves the eye, but also the mind. Whether side-by-side or from afar, memory is a factor that affects our ability to see, describe, and match colors. There are a couple of different ways color is affected by memory.

First, memory affects the way we name and perceive colors. We’re likely to call the identical orange-yellow color “yellow” if seen on a banana, but “orange” if viewed on a carrot because of our previous experience of both objects and expectations about their colors. Beyond naming, “memory color effect” has been shown to make viewers see a banana as yellow even if it’s actually gray.

Secondly, memory of color isn’t terribly accurate over time and distance. For example, it’s difficult to match the color of an accessory in a store to an article of clothing at home. Our memories are inaccurate, and the lighting and other context variables can change the perceived color, too. A study on the effect of memory and context changes on color matching was published a few years ago.

https://www.datacolor.com/factors-that- ... erception/

[Jim Cross]

Cleric,

I came to this thread by invitation and I started with a lot of questions about your first paragraph.

You declined to answer almost all of them and advised me to submerge myself in "ancient states".

So when I ask what does that mean, you shift to the topic about color constancy and tell me to ignore "ancient states".

You're not just giving me the run-around, are you?

Or, should I just consider the first paragraph as unessential to your argument and move on to the next paragraph?

[Cleric K]

Yes, Cleric, I have lived doing this regularly for years. The 'proof of truth' in what I say is that, although my path is different, I can recognize the truth that is embedded in much that you say. Of course, as a non-philosopher, I'm reminded of a story:

Once a disciple asked a famous saint if everyone recognized him as holy? He responded, "Of course not -- a thief would see me as a thief."

Thanks Lou!

[Lou Gold]

For example, you can't change the perceived color of the desk in front of you through thinking. You can call it whatever you want, you can say it is black even if it is white, but the perceptual color will remain what it is.

Actually not so.

The way we perceive colours can also change during our lifetime. Greek speakers who have two fundamental colour terms to describe light and dark blue – “ghalazio” and “ble” – are more prone to see these two colours as more similar after living for long periods of time in the UK – where these two colours are described in English by the same fundamental colour term: blue.

This is because after long term everyday exposure to an English speaking environment, the brain of native Greek speakers starts interpreting the colours “ghalazio” and “ble” as part of the same colour category.

But this isn’t just something that happens with colour, in fact different languages can influence our perceptions in all areas of life. And in our lab at Lancaster University we are investigating how the use of and exposure to different languages changes the way we perceive everyday objects. Ultimately, this happens because learning a new language is like giving our brain the ability to interpret the world differently – including the way we see and process colours.

https://theconversation.com/the-way-you ... peak-94833

Color perception is both physical and psychological. It involves the eye, but also the mind. Whether side-by-side or from afar, memory is a factor that affects our ability to see, describe, and match colors. There are a couple of different ways color is affected by memory.

First, memory affects the way we name and perceive colors. We’re likely to call the identical orange-yellow color “yellow” if seen on a banana, but “orange” if viewed on a carrot because of our previous experience of both objects and expectations about their colors. Beyond naming, “memory color effect” has been shown to make viewers see a banana as yellow even if it’s actually gray.

Secondly, memory of color isn’t terribly accurate over time and distance. For example, it’s difficult to match the color of an accessory in a store to an article of clothing at home. Our memories are inaccurate, and the lighting and other context variables can change the perceived color, too. A study on the effect of memory and context changes on color matching was published a few years ago.

https://www.datacolor.com/factors-that- ... erception/

Yup, Jim. There are rainforest folks who do not see blue and green as separate since they regularly see both as part of the overhead canopy. And, yes, naming also carries cultural connotations. For example, in the U.S., 'cult' is associated with Jim Jones and in Brazil it is associated with the followers of Mother Mary.

[Cleric K]

Or, should I just consider the first paragraph as unessential to your argument and move on to the next paragraph?

Yes, that's exactly what I said in the previous post:

OK. I can go on with the ancients states but it is not necessary. As I said, it was to give some historical context but it is completely optional for the Central Topic. So let's focus on our modern state of consciousness and move on.

So when I ask what does that mean, you shift to the topic about color constancy

I didn't shift the topic - I was answering your question about the 'world content'. Maybe it will help if you take into account that what we're speaking of here is nothing complex. It doesn't require university degree but only our ability to observe what we're doing in our mind when we think.

It was the simple point that through thinking we can give different meaning to seemingly the same perceptions. The obvious example was that there can be different philosophical outlooks which interpret differently the world content (the totality of perceptions, feelings, thoughts, etc.). Again I repeat that through this I'm not trying to place perceptions and thinking in some separate worlds but only to recognize that the meaning that we experience in relation to the world content, changes as a result of our thinking about it. I'm not saying this in any special way, it's all that science and philosophy are doing. The biological basis of man hasn't changed that much for the last 200 years but before that people didn't think about curved space time, for example. So even though for our eyes the Cosmos hasn't changed, with our thinking we can conceive that planets move not because of forces but by following geodesics in curved space time. This is all I wanted to point out, nothing spectacular - that through thinking we alter the meaning that we experience, even if perceptions may be quite the same.

[Shajan624]

Cleric,

The exact way we experience these thoughts vary from person to person. Some do the math using verbal words, others imagine visually what they would otherwise write on paper and so on. In any case, our thoughts embodying the mathematical concepts, are the object of thinking.

As you say, the exact way we experience these thoughts vary from person to person.

We should be able to express our thoughts (in speech or writing) to communicate unambiguously. It is possible to do so with thought forms associated with, for example, ‘13x17’. Totality of such communicable thoughts is what constitute scientific knowledge.

But there are thoughts that cannot be communicated unambiguously. In such cases we employ metaphors or other indirect means, hoping the other party understand what is in our mind. IMHO, any attempt to express the inexpressible/unknowable with precision will only lead to confusion.

This is not to suggest the unknowable isn’t real. I believe it is the role of philosophy to explain, starting from the knowable, why a part of reality has to be unknowable.

Observing one’s own thought process is the beginning of wisdom. But silence born of wisdom is not an effective counter to the excesses of physicalism. We should find an intelligible path to ‘higher knowledge’ starting from ‘lower knowledge’.

Here is a short essay I wrote some time ago.