Horizon: Do You See What I See?

hackenslash · #1 by **hackenslash** » Aug 13, 2011 10:51 am

I thought about posting this in the general science forum, or neuroscience, but decided this was the best place for it.

This episode of Horizon deals with colour perception.

Some really interesting stuff in part 4 about how language shapes perception.

campermon · #2 by **campermon** » Aug 13, 2011 10:54 am

Bookmarked :thumbup:

ughaibu · #3 by **ughaibu** » Aug 13, 2011 12:35 pm

What is the "personal experience canard" and how is it "shafted"?

rEvolutionist · #4 by **rEvolutionist** » Aug 13, 2011 12:37 pm

hackenslash · #5 by **hackenslash** » Aug 13, 2011 9:50 pm

ughaibu wrote:What is the "personal experience canard" and how is it "shafted"?

Animavore · #6 by **Animavore** » Aug 13, 2011 9:54 pm

That last bit was mad. I couldn't believe they couldn't see the blue square which was so obvious to me while I thought the green square question was a trick question.
I guess subjective experience means feck all.

Mazille · #7 by **Mazille** » Aug 13, 2011 10:02 pm

The invisible gorilla comes to mind... :think:

Thanks for sharing, slacknhash.

ughaibu · #8 by **ughaibu** » Aug 13, 2011 11:25 pm

hackenslash wrote:
ughaibu wrote:What is the "personal experience canard" and how is it "shafted"?
:what:

Was the subtitle automatically generated or did you choose it?

hackenslash · #9 by **hackenslash** » Aug 13, 2011 11:36 pm

I chose it. I would have thought that an entity of your calibre could make sense of three simple words, namely personal, experience and canard. Surely you don't need that explained.

ughaibu · **#10** by **ughaibu** » Aug 13, 2011 11:40 pm

hackenslash wrote:I chose it. I would have thought that an entity of your calibre could make sense of three simple words, namely personal, experience and canard. Surely you don't need that explained.

According to various online dictionaries, a canard is an intentionally misleading account, basically; an elaborate lie. I conclude that you think that the linked videos have some relevance to some unstated elaborate lie about personal experience, and your use of "shafted" suggests that these videos refute that lie.
1) what is that lie?
2) how do these videos refute it?
3) why did you post a "psychology and neuroscience" thread in "nontheism?

hackenslash · **#11** by **hackenslash** » Aug 13, 2011 11:46 pm

ughaibu wrote:According to various online dictionaries, a canard is an intentionally misleading account, basically; an elaborate lie.

See! I knew you could do it!

I conclude that you think that the linked videos have some relevance to some unstated elaborate lie about personal experience, and your use of "shafted" suggests that these videos refute that lie.

You're the best caller ever!

1) what is that lie?

That personal experience/testimony constitutes robust evidence.

2) how do these videos refute it?

By demonstrating that our personal experience is wholly unreliable as a means of generating information about the real world (metaphysical caveats aside, for the sake of linguistic simplicity).

3) why did you post a "psychology and neuroscience" thread in "nontheism?

Perhaps you should have read the OP, wherein this was explained. :wink:

ughaibu · **#12** by **ughaibu** » Aug 13, 2011 11:54 pm

hackenslash wrote:
2) how do these videos refute it?
By demonstrating that our personal experience is wholly unreliable as a means of generating information about the real world (metaphysical caveats aside, for the sake of linguistic simplicity).

But they dont demonstrate this, and what means other than personal experience is there?

hackenslash wrote:
3) why did you post a "psychology and neuroscience" thread in "nontheism?
Perhaps you should have read the OP, wherein this was explained.

'I decided' is an explanation. . . . ?

hackenslash · **#13** by **hackenslash** » Aug 14, 2011 12:16 am

ughaibu wrote:But they dont [sic] demonstrate this,

Actually, they do demonstrate this, as if it actually required any further demonstration. Did you actually watch the videos? They show that our perceptions are not congruent, and that our brains are virtual reality machines par excellence, again, as if that required any further demonstration to any but the terminally credulous.

and what means other than personal experience is there?

There's this little thing called intersubjectivity. Perhaps you've heard of it.

hackenslash wrote:'I decided' is an explanation. . . . ?[sic]

Yes, I decided, based on certain issues that arise from this topic, that this was best placed here (if you think it best placed somewhere else, you could always hit the report button and request a teleport; how fucking hard was that? Would you like me to google it for you?). I placed it here precisely because of the fucking-over that it gives to the 'personal experience' canard. I'm sure that all this ground was covered in the OP, so either you're struggling to understand plain English, or you're failing to properly draw relevant inferences, or you've just decided to erect against any post I put up. I could be wrong about the latter, but it's certainly starting to look that way. If this is not the case, then my apology is unreserved. If it is the case, then stop beating about the fucking bush and get on with it. If you're merely looking to get a rise out of me then a) you've come to the wrong place and b) you really need to work on your approach, because it's failed at every turn thus far.

Why don't you just come straight out and say what it is you're after? I'll answer any honest question with pleasure. Haven't come across one of those from you yet, only skirting around looking for a gotcha, and failing miserably to do so. Whenever you're ready...

ughaibu · **#14** by **ughaibu** » Aug 14, 2011 12:26 am

hackenslash wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
hackenslash wrote:our personal experience is wholly unreliable as a means of generating information about the real world
But they dont demonstrate this
Actually, they do demonstrate this, as if it actually required any further demonstration.

Of course they dont. And if it were true that personal experience is "wholly unreliable as a means of generating information about the real world" then you and I would be guessing about what we're replying to. Do you seriously maintain that the apparent ability to communicate is just a coincidence of lucky guesses? or do you think that each person's experience is a personal illusion, and that you and I (if either of our interlocutors even exist) are talking to ourselves?

hackenslash · **#15** by **hackenslash** » Aug 14, 2011 12:39 am

ughaibu wrote:Of course they dont [sic]. And if it were true that personal experience is "wholly unreliable as a means of generating information about the real world" then you and I would be guessing about what we're replying to.

Utter fucking drivel, and entirely beneath the degree of intellectual competency that I know you possess. Frankly this is a laughable strawman of my contention, and I'm fairly certain you know it (unless you really are fucking thick).

The simple fact is that you ARE guessing about what you're replying to. There is no observation that you can make that can confirm or refute any premise concerning whether or not I exist. You have absolutely fuck all to go on other thn your own perceptions.

What our perceptions generate is not reality, but a model of reality at the very best, and demonstrably not a true picture even of phenomena, let alone any sort of noumenal reality.

Do you seriously maintain that the apparent ability to communicate is just a coincidence of lucky guesses?

Perhaps you could point out where I said that.

or do you think that each person's experience is a personal illusion,

Yes, I maintain that very thing.

and that you and I (if either of our interlocutors even exist) are talking to ourselves?

This I do not maintain, and nor did I ever suggest it. It is certainly a possibility, though, and one that cannot be ruled out.

To be clear: What I suggested in the OP, and what was demonstrated in the video presented, is that our personal perceptions (and possibly even our intersubjective perceptions) cannot be trusted to provide a true picture of noumenal (or even phenomenal) reality. I can provide further demonstrations, if necessary.

ughaibu · **#16** by **ughaibu** » Aug 14, 2011 12:46 am

hackenslash wrote:What I suggested in the OP, and what was demonstrated in the video presented, is that our personal perceptions (and possibly even our intersubjective perceptions) cannot be trusted to provide a true picture of noumenal reality.

The videos have nothing to do with noumenal reality, if such a thing is even meaningful, they are to do with phenomenal reality, precisely because they are about sensations.

hackenslash · **#17** by **hackenslash** » Aug 14, 2011 12:47 am

Check my edit. I already addressed this.

ughaibu · **#18** by **ughaibu** » Aug 14, 2011 1:02 am

hackenslash wrote:Check my edit. I already addressed this.

You're going in circles. There is nothing in these videos which suggests that personal experience is "wholly unreliable as a means of generating information about the real world", whether the "real world" be understood as phenomenal or noumenal. The videos, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with any "personal experience canard" (though I've still no clear idea of what this is supposed to be), and the videos are entirely neutral regarding theistic stances.

hackenslash · **#19** by **hackenslash** » Aug 14, 2011 1:36 am

ughaibu wrote:You're going in circles.

No, that would be you, although this is hardly surprising, given your history.

There is nothing in these videos which suggests that personal experience is "wholly unreliable as a means of generating information about the real world", whether the "real world" be understood as phenomenal or noumenal.

This only highlights just how utterly ignorant you are of basic logic. Let me lay it down for you, in the vain hope that you might fucking get it for a change:

The video highlights that ALL our perceptions are personal, and further shows that our brains are virtual reality machines par excellence, perfectly capable of constructing an internal image that is indiscernible from reality. And this only deals with phenomenal reality, which is somewhat detached from noumenal reality.

Really, dude. If I am going to get into a battle of wits, I'd rather have an opponent that is actually armed. You ain't it/

The videos, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with any "personal experience canard" (though I've still no clear idea of what this is supposed to be), and the videos are entirely neutral regarding theistic stances.

The videos may well be neutral with regard to the theistic stance, at least directly, but of course that this was my argument is a Wurzel Gummidge entirely of your own construction. What it actually demonstrates is that personal experience is subjective, and therefore unreliable.

If you want to take me on, as you seem to want over the last few months of myself and others demonstrating your drivel to be not even a challenge, stop fucking around like a freshman trying to undo a bra for the first time and fucking get on with it. Think you can take me? Do it!

Good fucking luck with that.

ughaibu · **#20** by **ughaibu** » Aug 14, 2011 1:51 am

hackenslash wrote:brains are virtual reality machines par excellence, perfectly capable of constructing an internal image that is indiscernible from reality.

So, now your position is that personal experience is wholly reliable. Well done.

hackenslash wrote:And this only deals with phenomenal reality, which is somewhat detached from noumenal reality.

Noumenal reality is:
1) a contentious notion
2) a philosophical concern
3) nothing to do with any "personal experience canard"
4) outside the scope of these videos.