Look over your head... I'm up there. You're almost there, but you're missed your exit. Just take the next one and double back..
How is repeating what I said a response? Ofcourse MY perception is MY reality and yours is yours.
I thought this was common knowledge. History Books. Science Books. Religious books, we have the option to believe it or not. None of us know whether any of it is true. Not the poor an in Chicago. Not the man with the BS in Chemistry. We all are using beliefs to side with what we feel is true.
Wrong.
Same exact words came of out this white dudes mouth when I was arguing against him that racism still exists. You know what he said? "Well I have never seen it so therefore it doesn't exist anymore in my experiences." Perception is reality, but you must believe in things that you have not witnessed.
Two totally different situations. You can WATCH racism happen everyday. You can only deduce that a miracle happened.. or that God exists... or etc. Racism exists, fact. God exists, opinion held by many -- which is untestable universally because no one will ever agree on what is a standardized test or a measurable result.... BUT... I believe in God.
Huge difference.
How many of you actually seen microtubules form in your cells or electrons orbiting protons and neutrons? NO ONE, so it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In reality it does happen, but you have never witnessed it. YOUR perception and experience would mean that you don't believe in it and its not true.
Replace the scientific dogma with religious dogma and read that part aloud... there's so much bias in that sentence I don't know where to start. Yes I do.. we'll start at the electron. Considering scientist cannot PINPOINT a electron in it's "cloud" at any given point in its movement, what you're implying is that it's reasonable to believe a scientific assumption (such as, "valence electrons are always there in that ring, even though we can't see them... we just know... oh, and electrons are made up of even smaller particles that the smaller they get the less they behave like anything we've every experienced [q.phys]... but...we can't exactly demonstrate it or explain it, we just know its happening) than a religious assumption. And all I'm saying is that weighing one assumption over another is stupid when they're all assumptions anyway.. There are people in China that have never prayed to God as I know him to be. And yt, they've neve felt a disparity between their faith and their reality. Surely a red flag would have gone off if our faiths are NOTHING alike and we're using them to explain the same existence. Truth is, his faith covers enough angles to make sense of the world as he perceives it. It's the same with science. If micro tubules and organelles make more sense to you than magic or miracles, go with is. But life was here and thriving waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before biology, so don't be surprised if some people just don't give a levy about what the latest break through says about the world. Hell, they said Pluto isn't a planet. I can't go.. it is to me.. why bother to change my perception on the matter..?
Reading IS Fun-demental.
How am I contradicting myself? You know reality as you see it and as others tell you. That is one statement not two contradicting one.Originally Posted by Master Zik
How is repeating what I said a response? Ofcourse MY perception is MY reality and yours is yours.
You also are off on the magician example. How does my argument start and end with that? To the untrained eye you'll think a bunny was actually pulled out of a hat and not have any idea of where it came from and then possibly believe in magic. I don't know where you came up with another universe, I've never heard a magician give that stupid answer. Now if that's what you originally thought that's on you. Once you figure out how it's done you're privileged to new information granting you a new understanding of reality; basically you have to perceive acts and events in multiple ways to get a better understanding.. The statement (perception is reality) shouldn't be seen as an absolute one from the basis that we're not omnipotent so there's no reason to assume that one person's perception of reality is the same for everyone else's or that a person's perception can not change, thus changing their understanding of reality.
Why did you contradict yourself in the bold part
I never once said we can't know anything if we don't perceive it. YOU foolishly assumed that.
I'm getting the feeling you don't know what perception actually is and just think ppl are just saying "whatever you see is reality" or you're thinking what a person initially perceives is final and they can not perceive it a different way at a later time.
Originally Posted by GrimlocK
Look at yourselfs now, you guys started off on a good note but look at what your reduced too...debating YOUR beliefs....what the hell does it matter anyways. Saying this one can't read and that guy can't have his own opinion on this or that. Too much ego and not enough substance.
As far as this post not being a "presription for a way of thinking" topic you guys already effed it up
Two totally different situations. You can WATCH racism happen everyday. You can only deduce that a miracle happened.. or that God exists... or etc. Racism exists, fact. God exists, opinion held by many -- which is untestable universally because no one will ever agree on what is a standardized test or a measurable result.... BUT... I believe in God.
How many of you actually seen microtubules form in your cells or electrons orbiting protons and neutrons? NO ONE, so it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In reality it does happen, but you have never witnessed it. YOUR perception and experience would mean that you don't believe in it and its not true.
Replace the scientific dogma with religious dogma and read that part aloud... there's so much bias in that sentence I don't know where to start. Yes I do.. we'll start at the electron. Considering scientist cannot PINPOINT a electron in it's "cloud" at any given point in its movement, what you're implying is that it's reasonable to believe a scientific assumption (such as, "valence electrons are always there in that ring, even though we can't see them... we just know... oh, and electrons are made up of even smaller particles that the smaller they get the less they behave like anything we've every experienced [q.phys]... but...we can't exactly demonstrate it or explain it, we just know its happening) than a religious assumption. And all I'm saying is that weighing one assumption over another is stupid when they're all assumptions anyway.. There are people in China that have never prayed to God as I know him to be. And yt, they've neve felt a disparity between their faith and their reality. Surely a red flag would have gone off if our faiths are NOTHING alike and we're using them to explain the same existence. Truth is, his faith covers enough angles to make sense of the world as he perceives it. It's the same with science. If micro tubules and organelles make more sense to you than magic or miracles, go with is. But life was here and thriving waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before biology, so don't be surprised if some people just don't give a levy about what the latest break through says about the world. Hell, they said Pluto isn't a planet. I can't go.. it is to me.. why bother to change my perception on the matter..?
I understand what your saying, but I am arguing with that, because without accepting the words of others we wouldn't know 1/2 the things we know today. And, its this same argument that makes the religious nuts only believe in their faith their PERCEPTION of things. They don't give any thing else a chance. You see. So yes your perception is your reality, but It doesn't make it right or true. You can believe in others perception of things as well and test them yourself. I strongly agree with the bold statement though I just want people to be more open minded.
It is two totally different situations, but I am merely talking to others about perception and reality. NOT religion is anyway shape or form. For you to say YOUR perception is YOUR reality always, oh except for in the case of racism. That is a fallacy. I know that you can not test to see if GOD is real that's why they call if faith. But, I'm not talking about religion or having faith in anything. The arguments I am making are towards things which you can test others perceptions. Such as the existence of racism. Just cause you have never witnessed it doesn't mean its not there.
Ah but, here is the thing. I have witnessed the formation of microtubles, and I have see scientific evidence of electrons orbiting an atoms nucleus. I was merely pointing to the fact that probably none of you have, but does that make it false? Does my reality and perception not have any weight in yours. So you just won't believe me unless you see it with your own eyes? As I said before I am not talking about religion. I talking about believing in somethings that you have never perceived, but if you wanted to you could test.
Not sure what you're getting at in the last bold sentence. But, as I said I am not even talking about religion. I am however, talking about believing in the presence of electrons. Through scientific testing, which has been done, but not by any individual here. It is therefore not a part of these individuals reality, but should that mean they shouldn't believe it? NO!
The presence and orbit of electrons around an atoms nucleus is not an assumption though. It is a proven fact. And, we should all believe it, even if YOU have not perceived the results of the experiments.
You're right about Pluto you don't have to change your perception, but you must accept your perception as being wrong then, since they have evidence of it not being a planet. Back to my racism comment. So just cause I don't witness any it doesn't exist? and even if you do witness it you don't have to change your reality "perception" of it not existing? LOL with that argument you can say anything you want.
That's why I'm a science major and not an english major LOL. Thought you were saying not one scientist can say the laws of physics are untrue. Then again how does that make science a religion? There are plenty that agree and disagree. They are not uniform and all believe in one faith like religion.
Do you know what a contradiction is? This is what you said:Originally Posted by PleasurePhD
How am I contradicting myself? You know reality as you see it and as others tell you. That is one statement not two contradicting one.Originally Posted by Master Zik
How is repeating what I said a response? Ofcourse MY perception is MY reality and yours is yours.
You also are off on the magician example. How does my argument start and end with that? To the untrained eye you'll think a bunny was actually pulled out of a hat and not have any idea of where it came from and then possibly believe in magic. I don't know where you came up with another universe, I've never heard a magician give that stupid answer. Now if that's what you originally thought that's on you. Once you figure out how it's done you're privileged to new information granting you a new understanding of reality; basically you have to perceive acts and events in multiple ways to get a better understanding.. The statement (perception is reality) shouldn't be seen as an absolute one from the basis that we're not omnipotent so there's no reason to assume that one person's perception of reality is the same for everyone else's or that a person's perception can not change, thus changing their understanding of reality.
Why did you contradict yourself in the bold part
I never once said we can't know anything if we don't perceive it. YOU foolishly assumed that.
I'm getting the feeling you don't know what perception actually is and just think ppl are just saying "whatever you see is reality" or you're thinking what a person initially perceives is final and they can not perceive it a different way at a later time.Reading comprehension buddy.
By repeating your sentences I am showing you how your arguments can be used against your views. If you can't see that connection that is your misunderstanding.
Your argument starts with I have now perceived or witnessed any action to disagree with my argument. HOW can ANYONE argue with that? MY argument on the other hand goes. I have not seen any thing to go against my argument, but someone can interject and say "oh but I have seen otherwise, the bunny is already in the hat, the hat is not empty." I would say through his perception I believe it to be true and reality. NOT my own. In your argument you would say I saw, "perceived" the hat to be empty so I can not believe you. Starts and ends there.
So how am I off? You just contradicted yourself we are not by saying we are not omnipotent but some how your suppose to know that the magic is fake even though through your perception is looks real. I understand your argument, but it won't hold up to anyone that knows reality isn't always what you see. Your reality does cahnge over time and through events, but not always through your own.
With your argument you must not believe any history cause you have never witnessed anything the professors are telling you. You just have to believe.
You know reality through YOUR perception and the perception of OTHERS (not yours)
Explain why you put "not yours" in parentheses after saying "You know reality through YOUR perception". IT MAKES NO SENSE as stated. Plus that statement supports perception is reality. Grouping your perception with others does not support your claim that perception is not reality.
I saw what you tried to do with what I said but you failed in making assumptions about what I said and w/e else you thought I implied. I said that in the last post but maybe you didn't read it.
I didn't contradict myself and I didn't say we're suppose to know the magic is fake. Your making plenty assumptions about my argument. It's almost as if you didn't read the bulk of my post. I said you'll initially perceive it one way. Now going off what perception is, it is up to the person what conclusion they come to on the magic trick for example. I didn't say all ppl will always believe what they see and leave it at that but like I said I don't think you know what perception is. It's not "seeing is believing" and I originally said that a person's perception can change over time. I really don't think you understand and my argument and I've noticed you're not even sticking to your inital claim of "perception is not reality" cuz I've been supporting the opposite from the jump. Like I said you and the other guy are talking about individual perception like this is some argument about subjectivism and personal taste.
Read the bold part aloud to yourself famThen try to make sense of it for me cuz the "we are not" parts just makes the whole sentence nonsensical.
As far as history you're exactly right, you're not suppose to believe everything you're told about it. No need to work off of beliefs when you have proof of what's being claimed as fact. I have never once supported the claim that if I don't see it it didn't happen. I said that in my last post too but I'm guessing your selective readig kicked in.
Explain why you put "not yours" in parentheses after saying "You know reality through YOUR perception". IT MAKES NO SENSE as stated. Plus that statement supports perception is reality. Grouping your perception with others does not support your claim that perception is not reality.Originally Posted by Master Zik
Do you know what a contradiction is? This is what you said:Originally Posted by PleasurePhD
How am I contradicting myself? You know reality as you see it and as others tell you. That is one statement not two contradicting one.Originally Posted by Master Zik
How is repeating what I said a response? Ofcourse MY perception is MY reality and yours is yours.
You also are off on the magician example. How does my argument start and end with that? To the untrained eye you'll think a bunny was actually pulled out of a hat and not have any idea of where it came from and then possibly believe in magic. I don't know where you came up with another universe, I've never heard a magician give that stupid answer. Now if that's what you originally thought that's on you. Once you figure out how it's done you're privileged to new information granting you a new understanding of reality; basically you have to perceive acts and events in multiple ways to get a better understanding.. The statement (perception is reality) shouldn't be seen as an absolute one from the basis that we're not omnipotent so there's no reason to assume that one person's perception of reality is the same for everyone else's or that a person's perception can not change, thus changing their understanding of reality.
Why did you contradict yourself in the bold part
I never once said we can't know anything if we don't perceive it. YOU foolishly assumed that.
I'm getting the feeling you don't know what perception actually is and just think ppl are just saying "whatever you see is reality" or you're thinking what a person initially perceives is final and they can not perceive it a different way at a later time.Reading comprehension buddy.
By repeating your sentences I am showing you how your arguments can be used against your views. If you can't see that connection that is your misunderstanding.
Your argument starts with I have now perceived or witnessed any action to disagree with my argument. HOW can ANYONE argue with that? MY argument on the other hand goes. I have not seen any thing to go against my argument, but someone can interject and say "oh but I have seen otherwise, the bunny is already in the hat, the hat is not empty." I would say through his perception I believe it to be true and reality. NOT my own. In your argument you would say I saw, "perceived" the hat to be empty so I can not believe you. Starts and ends there.
So how am I off? You just contradicted yourself we are not by saying we are not omnipotent but some how your suppose to know that the magic is fake even though through your perception is looks real. I understand your argument, but it won't hold up to anyone that knows reality isn't always what you see. Your reality does cahnge over time and through events, but not always through your own.
With your argument you must not believe any history cause you have never witnessed anything the professors are telling you. You just have to believe.
Originally Posted by BOTTOM74BOTTOM
I understand what your saying, but I am arguing with that, because without accepting the words of others we wouldn't know 1/2 the things we know today. And, its this same argument that makes the religious nuts only believe in their faith their PERCEPTION of things. They don't give any thing else a chance. You see. [color= rgb(0, 0, 255)]So yes your perception is your reality, but It doesn't make it right or true.[/color] [color= rgb(0, 0, 255)]You can believe in others perception of things as well and test them yourself. I strongly agree with the bold statement though I just want people to be more open minded. [/color](AGREED)[color= rgb(0, 0, 255)][/color]
It is two totally different situations, but I am merely talking to others about perception and reality. NOT religion is anyway shape or form. For you to say YOUR perception is YOUR reality always, oh except for in the case of racism. That is a fallacy. [color= rgb(255, 255, 0)](You're misunderstanding the difference.. racism is something testable and falsifiable. We're talking about the perception of a reality above and beyond a testable notion -- such as religion)[/color] I know that you can not test to see if GOD is real that's why they call if faith. But, I'm not talking about religion or having faith in anything. The arguments I am making are towards things which you can test others perceptions. Such as the existence of racism. [color= rgb(255, 255, 0)](Then you're arguing your apples against my oranges)[/color] [color= rgb(0, 0, 255)]Just cause you have never witnessed it doesn't mean its not there. [/color](AGREED)
Wasn't even arguing on religion, only of what I stated above; so I'm not arguing against your view of religion and perception. I'm not comparing apples to oranges or even apples to apples, I'm not making that comparison of perception of religion to racism.
Ah but, here is the thing. I have witnessed the formation of microtubles, and I have see scientific evidence of electrons orbiting an atoms nucleus. I was merely pointing to the fact that probably none of you have, but does that make it false? (Truth is, even the word [color= rgb(255, 255, 0)]microtubule[/color][color= rgb(255, 255, 0)] is taking a leap of faith. You're trusting that the term is accurate to what you've claimed to witness. You;re trusting that the explanation for what you've witnesses is accurate. You've never actually seen a microtubule in ontext and studied it with your own instruments and measuring devices. At best, you've learned what someone taught you about [/color][color= rgb(255, 255, 0)]microtubules[/color][color= rgb(255, 255, 0)], right? That doesn't make it wrong by default, but it makes you as much of a speculator as the guy who thinks there's a magic wizard in the sky that grants wishes and if you pray for strong bones, you only get 2 more wishes. You're jut trusting what you believe is a more valid source. and I agree, but still. )[/color]
No, actually I have worked directly on microtubules and their formation within the cellular cytoplasm. So I'm not taking a leap of faith at all. SO
Does my reality and perception not have any weight in yours. So you just won't believe me unless you see it with your own eyes? As I said before I am not talking about religion. I talking about believing in somethings that you have never perceived, but if you wanted to you could test. ([color= rgb(255, 255, 0)]I never said that. Show me where I said I ONLY believe what I perceive and I REFUSE to lend credence to the perceptions of others. Actually, I've implied the opposite for the longest time. All I asked in this thread was to RESPECT other's perspectives. I never said "reject" or "accept" in regards to what either of us thought. I consider myself open minded so I'm always building on what I know and how I percieve this realm. If I feel you have a valuable perspective, I add some of it to my own. It's all growth and development man.)[/color]
But, this is all I have stated so how did we come to this argument if you were not saying that? Then again it wasn't directly you it was others quoting and adding in their reply that perception is reality. These are the individuals I have been arguing against.
Not sure what you're getting at in the last bold sentence. But, as I said I am not even talking about religion. I am however, talking about believing in the presence of electrons. Through scientific testing, which has been done, but not by any individual here. It is therefore not a part of these individuals reality, but should that mean they shouldn't believe it? NO!
[color= rgb(255, 255, 0)](Come on man, THINK! Do you not get that you're using the same blinded logic that half the religious idiots around the world kill for? How can you logically concede that some concept may not even seem REAL to Joe Blow but that he should BELIEVE in it because you do? Who are you to him, in his reality? You as, a scientific thinker, say electron. The Gypsy says fortune telling. The magician says magic. The priest says miracles. Everybody has something or some thing they want you to BELIEVE in and every one has their own brand of supporting evidence. And so far science has been the most valid method of explanation. But it's all just hocus pocus if you don't BELIEVE in it.. Think about it.. for real man.. what, besides Gov't backing, has made you think scientifically? If Church was not separated from State, your science books would be bibles. THINK about it.) [/color]
How is it blind? Especially in the biological aspects those are tried and true facts. I'll give you electrons, but even those have strong theory, which have TONS and TONS of empirical evidence for their presence. Not very many of today's technology would even work or exists if electrons were not present and did not act how WE define them.
The presence and orbit of electrons around an atoms nucleus is not an assumption though. It is a proven fact.[color= rgb(255, 255, 0)](Not even close...where are they? Grab one.. tell me what it looks like. Just because there's a name and a chart for something doesn't make it real. One could look at the evidence of supposed miracles and derive that miracles do indeed exist. But point to one. Hand me "a miracle". Create one from scratch RIGHT now.... you can't. BUT..you could just point me to a science religious book and let me read where someone tells me what THEY know to be true about miracles. Right? It's all a leap of faith, whether or not you believe religion or science, it's nothing YOU'VE seen or done to verify most of what you believe. you're just trusting YOUR sources.. )[/color]And, we should all believe it, even if YOU have not perceived the results of the experiments. [color= rgb(255, 255, 0)](I'm telling you, the electron model is not even perfect man..there are still inexplicable anomalies happening at the sub-atomic level.... just relax.. it'll change in THIS lifetime.. then what? Will that shatter your understanding and just maybe lean you a little closer towards understanding others? And there goes that fascist "We should all...". Name 5 good things that happened after someone said "We should all..")[/color]
There is some what of a leap of faith with science, I don't argue that, and I'm not sure how much you understand about the actual physics and chemistry as well as the experiments that have been done with said questionably-existent electrons. But, the empirical evidence and use in everyday technology is more than enough for one to not believe they are taking a leap of faith. Yes, at the sub-atomic level (quantum physics) we are not sure exactly how particles act, but this does not out rule our understanding of other concepts in science. Including, the existence of electrons and their orbit around an atoms nucleus. We can't just grab an electron out of the air because our technology is not that advanced, but we do have devices that can emit electrons. As well as so many other devices that can manipulate atoms and sub-atomic particles which prove their existence:
ion collider
fluorescent microscopy
MALDI-TOF mass spec
devices that can emit and detect alpha, beta, and gamma radiation.
atomic bomb
carbon dating
The list goes on and on. How can you not believe in the existence of electrons and sub atomic particles and not believe they act how we define them? As stated before the evidence is empirical, but substantial. Please give me scientific and tested evidence of the imperfections in the current electron model. Don't just feed me hypotheses or theoretical information.
You're right about Pluto you don't have to change your perception, but you must accept your perception as being wrong then, since they have evidence of it not being a planet. (They had 'evidence' that it was a planet though...such a strong and convincing word, right? Evidence... like the stuff they didn't have enough of withh OJ. Right.. So who's to say they don't redefine what a planet is 10 years from now, do a recount, and tell us we have 12 planets instead of 8? It's all just arbitrary definitions man... perception is the only concrete measure of what is and isn't real to the individual)Back to my racism comment. So just cause I don't witness any it doesn't exist? and even if you do witness it you don't have to change your reality "perception" of it not existing? LOL with that argument you can say anything you want. [color= rgb(255, 255, 0)](Which is why I never made that argument.. I NEVER said any one HAD to believe or disbelieve a damn thing..LET =/= FORCE...) [/color]
I know and agree with last statement, but we didn't change our definition of a planet. We conducted further analysis of Pluto which allowed us to determine that it was in fact not a planet by our set definition. LMAO Now you're comparing apples to freakin dogs man, they aren't even in the same kingdom. You really trying to connect the analogy of a LAW trial with SCIENCE? $%% where is the appreciation for science man? Do not belittle scientific evidence by even speaking about it in the same conversation with law evidence LOL. Once again they never refined what a planet is. They might in the future, but I highly doubt it. It is all just definitions, but I'm not just talking about definitions and hypothesis I'm talking about facts. The fact that pluto exists (i know that's not my original point, but it just goes well with my perception thing. I for one have never seen Pluto through a telescope, but I believe it's there), the fact that electrons exist as we define them, the fact that microtubules exist and form in the cytoplasm of cells.
Now, I guess we can agree in regards to our views on perception and reality, but as far as scientific fact against hypotheses and theories. We definitely DO NOT agree.
Thank you! My fellow scientist. Although, I have "faith" in some scientific theory.
