Building Reality: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Building Reality » Building Reality

Building Reality
Long overdue

Page: 1 2

Building Reality

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 10/10/09 - 10:25 AM: Subject: Building Reality	#1
I just had to build my own simple amateur model of reality, now tell me how it is. "In the beginning" there are experiences of sorts, we will call these phenomena. There's no particular subjects or objects involved with these experiences. The peculiar thing about these phenomena is that they're not monotonous, they come with a gradient, good and bad, colors and shapes for example. What could be considered a rather fundamental feature of these phenomena is that the juxtaposition of contrasting values(on the good/bad gradient) creates new phenomena that are noteworthy for they are "conflicts" of sorts that demand resolution. This resolution possibly comes in the form of a drive to alter phenomena accordingly, action. For example, I am sitting in my room and a general sense of well being is experienced. Suddenly a sense of ill pain is experienced in the stomach area, and this contrast leads to a new phenomenon, the need for resolution. All knowledge of how to resolve this conflict aside, perhaps the resolution comes in the form of the primal scream in pain, which does in fact help relieve the pressure a little. While contrasting values on other gradients do not necessarily lead to a drive for resolution, they do often lead to something else, aesthetic appeal. Contrasting colors, shapes and musical notes lead to a certain meaningful appeal that does not necessarily involve the gradient of good/bad, though they do play well together artistically. Well here it is, my attempt at a cleverly simple model of reality. Honestly I'll be quite happy with it as long as it doesn't get moved into the pseudo section. EDIT(quoted from replies to strengthen OP): I suppose an explanation of how the conception of the self is formulated from these subjectless phenomena is required. To me the key lies within the contrasting phenomenal values and the resulting conflict I stated in earlier posts, that particular type of conflict is what we call meaning. The self is then formulated through a bundle of these meaningful contrasts, and the "I" is born. ****To make the picture more complete, let's add on another feature of these phenomena. When contrasting phenomena and meaningful conflicts are experienced, they tend to be retained as well. Memory of these conflicts is essentially what leads to things like self image, or even things like the extension of self image. (ex. Scissorhands) If I was a physicist I would arbitrarily propose some type of "phenomena field" generated by the presence of phenomena that allows phenomenal conflicts to go through "drag" and be "glued" down, allowing the building of a sense of self. Too bad I'm not a physicist, so the previous was just for fun and giggles. Edited by kkiiji on 10/11/09 - 10:48 AM. Reason: To avoid misunderstanding
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

magnusmay
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/10/09 - 12:35 PM:	#2
I agree that in the beginning there are phenomena.....but if you are judging these phenomena you are changing them into your own subjective perceptions of phenomena, so they are not simply "there". "There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of phenomena...." Nietzsche Your introduction of aesthetics is intriguing too - can aesthetic appeal be objective? I think you could be onto something here - introspection is always useful - but if you sharpen up your language it would make more sense to yourself and to others. Note N's use of words, dividing the subjective and objective aspects of the phrase.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 10/10/09 - 12:45 PM:	#3
Yeah I realize that this was a rather fail topic, my head isn't very clear right now since I'm a bit sick. However I fail to understand your distinction of subjective perception of phenomena and phenomena. Are phenomena not simply perceptions and experiences? To say that they are my interpretations is rather absurd it would seem, for the phenomena I am referring to I do not actively translate in any sense. The phenomena I experience simply are experienced by me, pre-translated, pre-interpreted. There is no conscious process of interpretation that I am aware of, not for things like good/bad, colors, shapes etc. In other words, I have direct access to phenomena.
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

hanuma
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 133

Posted 10/11/09 - 03:33 AM:	#4
"Direct access to phenomena"? That would be hard seeing as we are sensory animals whose brains translate everything instinctively into something understandable.

magnusmay
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/11/09 - 03:47 AM:	#5
I think the "phenomena" you refer to are what are more correctly called "sensory experiences". Phenomena are things out there in the world of which, philosophically speaking, we have no direct "knowledge". We have to rely on our sense, which are not necessarily reliable, to perceive these phenomena. Our perceptions of phenomena are just that - we see a painting, for example. The immediate perception of the painting is then elaborated if we continue to look, colours, shapes, size etc. We may then make certain judgements about this painting, well executed, beautiful, poorly rendered etc. The judgements are not part of the perceptive process.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 10/11/09 - 07:13 AM:	#6
"Noumena, in contrast to phenomena, are not directly accessible to observation. Nowadays, "phenomena" are often, but not always, understood as 'appearances'. These are themselves sometimes understood as involving qualia." Just quickly found that on wikipedia. (Implying that phenomena ARE directly accessible to observation, and some definitions of phenomena are involved with qualia, which are obtained "post-interpretation" theoretically right? ) I honestly don't understand what the point would be of making a further distinction between phenomenon and interpreted phenomenon(after the distinction with noumenon), I see it as exactly the same since as you say all phenomena comes interpreted. I think I understand your original objection now, you assumed I was referring to some type of pure phenomenon that is untainted by interpretation, that isn't the case at all. Please also let us not get bogged down by definitions. Just because I left no subject in the description doesn't mean there was no interpretation, note that I specifically said something about the peculiarity of the phenomena being riddled with a gradient of values. I attempted to diverge from overly metaphysical setups and Kantian approaches on the matter, and thus attempted to avoid any mention of the self and its distinction with the "world out there". Hope that clears up some misunderstandings. (I think I was able to catch this just now and not yesterday because I'm no longer sick, yay!) @hanuma: I think the misunderstanding here is all the same. When I speak of phenomena, I informally mean the direct experiences that we have, post-translation. This is because of exactly what you said, considering that we only have direct access to interpreted phenomena, it makes the concept of untainted phenomena useless since we already have something like noumena. Edited by kkiiji on 10/11/09 - 07:23 AM
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

ergot_trot
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 21

Posted 10/11/09 - 09:54 AM:	#7
Your model of reality sounds like pantheism, in that there is no break between sentience (interpreting, feeling the sense of drives, aesthetic value) and "the world out there" as you said. So without a subject or object, everything is one subject or one object, and suddenly those terms become meaningless, and instead you have an all-encompassing God (or whatever you want to call it) experiencing itself. Am I right?

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 10/11/09 - 10:18 AM:	#8
Well I think even that is a little too metaphysical for me, too many strings attached to it. I don't actually deny objects and subjects, I simply think that they are not to be the framework of reality. I suppose an explanation of how the conception of the self is formulated from these subjectless phenomena is required. To me the key lies within the contrasting phenomenal values and the resulting conflict I stated in earlier posts, that particular type of conflict is what we call meaning. The self is then formulated through a bundle of these meaningful contrasts, and the "I" is born. Your idea of being an all encompassing God is quite interesting, similar to Spinoza's approach I think. Though perhaps that would require the combination of all phenomenal experiences ever experienced or something along that line. Edited by kkiiji on 10/11/09 - 10:24 AM
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 10/11/09 - 12:16 PM:	#9
What are you building, reality, or a thought model? kkiiji wrote: "In the beginning" there are experiences of sorts... Beginning of the universe, or beginning of the model? I don't get what you are on about at all - a babies first thoughts? Listen carefully, I will say this only once: There is no beginning in philosophy; one finds oneself already lost in the dark woods.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 10/11/09 - 12:40 PM:	#10
I was telling a tale, an explanation of reality without using overly abstract and overly metaphysical models. An important point of this tale is that it must start with things we humans have absolutely direct access to. In essence it could be said to be a baby's first thoughts, considering that I attempted to start from the very bottom of existence that seems quite fitting. The idea is that in reality, the only thing that we have direct access to is our experiences, everything else is a bunch of concepts and models that are derived from these experiences. Note there is a difference between the experience of the "urge" to formulate models of reality and models of reality themselves, the difference is that we have direct access to the first and not the second.
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.