YT2095 Posted May 6, 2004 Posted May 6, 2004 well I`m not sure I was that much help personaly, but if you remeber that Subjective experience can be bypassed with Objective study and equipment that provides an undeniable interface between the 2, you`ll not go far wrong YT2095 toddles off to get another tripple Vodka before the party
x__heavenly__x Posted May 6, 2004 Author Posted May 6, 2004 I am sorry but could you please clear me on Objective and Subjective reality a little. And from my guess my article may be concerned with Subjective reality.Like the world at a whole or personality perception about a person.
BrainMan Posted May 7, 2004 Posted May 7, 2004 The problem is this: Suppose we accept representationalism, and say that there is a represented reality- which amounts to that which we experience. This makes every experience and set of experiences we have a "virtual" reality- a possible reality, but always subject to change, such as touching a stove, jumping thinking you have been burned, and then realizing that you never did experience a burning sensation after all, despite your initial experience (err...maybe experience, or virtual reality). The problem is that you cannot demonstrate that there is a such thing as "ultimate reality" independantly of a set of virtual realities. But such virtual realities are alway subject to reinterpretation and change- that is, they are always virtual realities, and not "reality" proper, as some would like. Yet again, there is no basis, logical or otherwise, for even asserting the existence of a mind independant reality. None. Here is one suggesting that I have heard, that seems close to what YT was getting at. Take the set of all possible experiences- all possible virtual realities- and find out which sets of representations are invariant with respect to transformations between them. Call this invariant set of representations "objective reality". Niffty little idea, but how would you actually go about doing this? It would certainly not be easy, and there is no garauntee that there would be an invariant set- or much of one beyond trivialities. The fact remains that, even with science, any notion of "objectivity" is itself infused with the subjective. Trying to suggest that the world comes chopped up into prearranged catagories independantly of what we ourselves bring to the table is practically impossible, and quite likely wrong.
x__heavenly__x Posted May 7, 2004 Author Posted May 7, 2004 I think we all are living in a virtual reality and the outside reality which is the ultimate according to YT, effects our virtual reality ( here vertual reality is impregnated with the idea of perception)...Which means that the ultimate reality affects our virtual reality and that way of effecting is different for every individual because of how they percieve the ultimate reality, how they decode it in their mind. And this different system of perception or decoding is different because each person devoloped in a different environment!!
BrainMan Posted May 7, 2004 Posted May 7, 2004 But how can you still believe in ultimate reality if you accept YT's definition. As I said, it is not easy to establish such a thing. By YT's very definition of objectivity, "ultimate reality" is not objective! Unless you provide a method that can establish the existence of an ultimate reality, such a notion is, by YT's definition, not objective.
x__heavenly__x Posted May 7, 2004 Author Posted May 7, 2004 Truly speaking..i never understood his "ultimate reality " concept..becasue watever is there it is there...i think the ultimate reality is the nature(which we cannot effect)
YT2095 Posted May 7, 2004 Posted May 7, 2004 that`s why it`s important to base your understanding of things on a solid foundation (Science) "trust your instruments" they won`t lie to you
x__heavenly__x Posted May 8, 2004 Author Posted May 8, 2004 dear YT, sometimes science cannot explain certain things at a cirtain point...or maybe somethings can never be explained. Even if they are tried to another 10 problems come up!!!. Thats the beauty of science which keeps us buisy.
YT2095 Posted May 9, 2004 Posted May 9, 2004 with the exception of "...or maybe somethings can never be explained." I`m in total agreement with you
Kevin Conti Posted May 9, 2004 Posted May 9, 2004 I don't recall saying it wasn't. Don't call me 'kid'. << It seems as though one of our boys has a personality problem And just to MAKE something clear, my post reply was for the poster of the question, not you.
Sayonara Posted May 9, 2004 Posted May 9, 2004 I don't recall saying it wasn't. Don't call me 'kid'. << It seems as though one of our boys has a personality problem And just to MAKE something clear' date=' my post reply was for the poster of the question, not you.[/quote'] The only problem I have is with idiots who are too stupid to use any of the various quote functions.
Kevin Conti Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 ofc, cognitive-behavioural therapy is quite effective in helping individuals with avoidant personality disorder, maybe you should enquire about it.
Sayonara Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 ofc, cognitive-behavioural therapy is quite effective in helping individuals with avoidant personality disorder, maybe you should enquire about it. It would be a lot less effort all around if you simply learned how to use the forum properly, don't you think? You might want to rethink the libel approach too.
Sayonara Posted May 10, 2004 Posted May 10, 2004 That is unimportant. Either you mean the former point, in which case you are truly blessed in that you can cause misunderstandings through your own negligence and not feel responsible in any way; or you refer to the latter point, in which case you have a lot to learn about the world. Either way you aren't giving me any reason to think well of you, so don't expect me to start fawning like an undergraduate who thinks the psychology discipline is the end of all things.
Kevin Conti Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 Really? from what I see i contribute more in this forum than you do, if you analyse the standard of replies. Every since i have joined i have responsed to most questions and gave explanatory information to what I have said. Not that i should mention it, just you questioned my credibility here. You seem a very confused immature young lad. and radical edwards, who win on Sat?
greg1917 Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 Precisely what have you contributed so far? If you check the post count you might find sayonara has posted about 82 times what you have and in most cases in greater detail. id tell you to read over the thread but it would be wasted advice. Second, stop calling him kid, or young lad. He's more knowledgeable than you are. Just because you heard about cognitive-behavioural therapy from a professor doesnt mean you're qualified to recommend it.
BrainMan Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 I don't think anyone has contributed anything of substance to this thread in the past 10 to 12 posts.
Radical Edward Posted May 11, 2004 Posted May 11, 2004 I don't think anyone[/b'] has contributed anything of substance to this thread in the past 10 to 12 posts. which is why I am locking it. If anyone wants it opening again in order to discuss the OP, feel free to PM me or any other moderator/admin.
Recommended Posts