Objective Truth

[Resha Caner]

boagie,

To my question: do you mean that perception never involves anything but the physical? - I believe you are answering yes.

I am trying to be precise, so let me belabor this a bit more with some analogies.

A person looks through a window. Yes, the window is part of what they see in that it filters, reflects, and refracts light. But does that mean nothing else is involved? The light itself plays no part?

Or, a child is learning to write, and the teacher takes the child's hand to guide his motions. Is the child's hand all that is involved in the writing? Is the child unaware of what the teacher has done?

I do not deny that the physical is part of all human perception, but it does not completely define human perception. The light filters through, and we are aware of the teacher's presence. These are only analogies, not literal examples.

So, I ask again, does perception every involve anything non-physical - pick your word: metaphysical, transcendental, preternatural, ...?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

boagie,

To my question: do you mean that perception never involves anything but the physical? - I believe you are answering yes.

I am trying to be precise, so let me belabor this a bit more with some analogies.

A person looks through a window. Yes, the window is part of what they see in that it filters, reflects, and refracts light. But does that mean nothing else is involved? The light itself plays no part?

Or, a child is learning to write, and the teacher takes the child's hand to guide his motions. Is the child's hand all that is involved in the writing? Is the child unaware of what the teacher has done?

I do not deny that the physical is part of all human perception, but it does not completely define human perception. The light filters through, and we are aware of the teacher's presence. These are only analogies, not literal examples.

So, I ask again, does perception every involve anything non-physical - pick your word: metaphysical, transcendental, preternatural, ...?

Resha Caner,

The physical world is object in general, the window is object, the teacher is object, the light is object, of course biology is dependent upon object, as consciousness is dependent upon object. No there are no exceptions, perception is always as far as I can determine dependent upon ones biology, even the materials consciousness might play with in its leasure time, are memories of that obtained through biological experience, example, the creation of a more complex concept out of simplier ones. As I stated in an earlier thread, man is not a creature of action, man is a creature of reaction. The most recent breakthrough in biology states that our genes are rewritten on a fairly regular basis depending upon our perception of and belief about our environment, like all organisms we react to adapt, and all things which are not identified as the self, are objects. All experience, is biological experience, and all experience, all meaning, is to be found in the relation of object to our own biology.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by boagie

Mr Fight the Power,

Yes, we all have pretty much the same apparatus both for sensing and understanding, which makes for universality of value judgements.

How about the same needs?

[Holiday20310401]

Well the same basic needs but even needs can vary. And even basic needs are quantified in different proportions for different people.

Some people need medications that others don't in order to survive.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Fido

How about the same needs?

Fido,

As Holiday has pointed out physcially we can develop needs that the healthy are not subject to. Basically however if we are talking about healthy individuals their needs are very similar, food, shelter, water and community, that is to substain well being, after well being is forfeited however, it a whole new ball game. The needs of basically the same biology will have universal needs.

[iconoclast]

boagie,

would you really place community on a par with food and water? I'd place food and water on a par with oxygen - in that it's IMPOSSIBLE to survive without them - but it's possible to survive without community.

iconoclast.

[boagie]

iconoclast,

No of couse you are right, but community would come into it sooner or later, as a social animal one needs community to be healthy. Even in our large cities said to be communities, there are people that do not have anyone, do not have community, and it shows often as a lack of well being.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Well the same basic needs but even needs can vary. And even basic needs are quantified in different proportions for different people.

Some people need medications that others don't in order to survive.

I would say; get real. You know we have the same needs, and it is people who are not getting needs met who are most in need of medication. Sure, we have let a lot of genetic problems getting out of hand. We wouldn't have done so if people did not let their reason over rule their cultural fear and loathing of illness, especially genetic illness. And part of that is money, that people want to keep it close, and keep their families small, and keep their communities wealthy rather that healthy. But our needs are the same. We all need food, and we all need justice, for example.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by boagie

iconoclast,

No of couse you are right, but community would come into it sooner or later, as a social animal one needs community to be healthy. Even in our large cities said to be communities, there are people that do not have anyone, do not have community, and it shows often as a lack of well being.

What makes a community a community is the common defense of rights. Most of us can see we do not have a community. No union, association, or club would be necessary if the government would join the people in the defense of rights, and we will never be a nation in any accurate sense of the word until the government make a point of defending our rights instead of attacking them. It is no wonder so many feel lonely. That is exactly how the powerful want them to feel, so they will be unable to stand up for themselves.

[Resha Caner]

boagie, your answers often seem obfuscatory to me. I've heard your statements on "biology", "subject/object", etc., so you don't need to repeat them. It will prevent me digging through a paragraph just to get the single word I need.

I simply wanted to know if you see "biology" as part or all of perception. Based on the quote below, I'll conclude that you see it as all.

Originally Posted by boagie

No there are no exceptions, perception is always as far as I can determine dependent upon ones biology

I on the other hand, see it as only part. Further, I would say that it is a window. Therefore, we receive the light filtered, but we do receive it. I conclude you interpret biology as an opaque barrier. The light heats up the barrier, and we can feel the heat, but it is only a translation, and we can never hope to see the light.

Those differences are what make it so difficult for me to answer you. If you will not accept the non-physical, I have no recourse but analogies based on the physical. Again, as an analogy, it is akin to a physicist who will not accept relativity, and expects physics to always be expressed within a Newtonian framework - and then feels satisfied he has proven Newton superior when no good example of relativity can be produced.

It really only leaves me one last question. How would you phrase your position on the non-physical: it doesn't exist, I don't know if it exists, it doesn't matter if it exists, it might exist but it's relative to a particular perception, ... ?