valid points made by all...while steping in the path of a speeding vehicle to ascertain reality may constitute nomination for the darwin award,it kinda makes ya wonder.lol....pondering reality always reminds me of that old bill hicks rant about perception ...
Larry <larrytremblay@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
Legions of philosophers, pseudo-scientists, religionists, mystics, drug
users, etc
have disappeared up their arses discussing these topics...
The existence of reality is easily tested by stepping in the path of a
speeding
truck. The proof for non-existence naturally follows from this test also.
;-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hartung, Kris"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:39 PM
Subject: RE: AW: zen and the fluent music
It is the Hawthorn Effect, Ted....is that what you were getting at?
Here is something laughable and apropos. Bertrand Russell once said in a
paper that when a brain surgeon is operating on the brain of a patient,
what he is observing is not in the patient's head, but inside his own
head. He said he hadn't found a philosopher yet that
understood what he
meant by this. But the general thinking is that when you think you are
perceiving reality or a physical object, in this case an exposed brain,
you are not perceiving it at all, because light reflects off the
physical object, travels through the air, hits your retina, triggers a
nerve response, travels to the brain, and finally generates a perception
of so-called "reality". We are really enclosed and shut off from the
physical world in this model. But the real kicker is that while you are
observing this phenomenon, and substantiating the claim that the surgeon
is not perceiving the physical brain, YOU (or we) are in the same
blasted predicament. And this goes on ad infinitum to generate a rather
interesting paradox. We really don't know what this physical realty
is, then, based on this conundrum. This line of thought has led some to
reject the notion of a physical world (the Idealists) and posit that
there is only mind, no
material world; and others have rejected the
endeavor of trying to find out whether there is a physical world, and if
there is one, its nature (the phenomenalist). This latter group
considers all sense-data neutral. It is what it is, period.
Hence, to some extend, and back to Rick's comments, this philosophical
model of perception forces us to be more skeptical in our thinking about
the so-called world of "external reality" and what we can know about it.
It's actually worse than the Heisenberg principle...it forbids any sort
of objective perspective of the physical world, if that world even
exists beyond our mental perceptions of it. And back to your comments,
Ted, because we don't have this objective advantage, we instead create
models or reality which we "project" upon the world, whatever that world
may be.
Kris
________________________________
From: ArsOcarina@aol.com [mailto:ArsOcarina@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday,
July 12, 2005 4:37 PM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: AW: zen and the fluent music
Just a thought,
I dunno if this has anything to do with Heisenberg or not. But there
is a generally held theory that (on some level) observation alters the
observed and therefore affects the results. I do not know if this is
some corollary to the principle that the more accurately you determine
the position of a sub-atomic particle the less you can determine about
it's specific direction and/or velocity or not -- but there seems to be
a
tangential connection of some sort there (in my mind at least). I'm
cetainly no expert though.
I'm also not sure if this is the connection that Rick's friend might be
refering
to but it seems plausable that it could be -- if only as a metaphoric
parallel.
We observe the universe and perceive (and then project on it) "paterns"
and
schemes of organization to help us understand
it based on what we see.
But what we see is always incomplete at some level -- and changing too.
So the paterns we develop are always inevitably inacurate, incomplete
and (from time to time) changing. Also, the more we know (if we are
wise)
the more we know we don't know.
Some new-agey folks believe our "projections" actually alter the
"reality"
around us. I don't believe it a bit. But that's an "idea" that's making
the
rounds. "Think nice thoughts and it will become a world of love and
peace . . .
oh yeah . . . and send all you money to Guru Wannahockaloogey." I
believe it's
more like Ed Abby says in one of my favorite quotes by him: "Better a
cruel
truth than a comfortable delusion."
Some truths are mutable, some (in my now cantakerous AARP-member years)
seem much less so. What can I say? I'm a cranky OLD GUY and I like to
hear
myself talk.
Best regards,
tEd (r) kiLLiAn
In a message dated
7/12/05 2:25:35 PM, rs@moinlabs.de writes:
I don't see the Heisenberg influence here at all. It seems like
taking
Einstein's laws to explain why cars do not drive faster than 55
or
65 mph on American highways...
"Different is not always better, but better is always different"
http://www.pfmentum.com/flux.html
http://www.CDbaby.com/cd/tedkillian
http://www.guitar9.com/fluxaeterna.html
http://www.garageband.com/artist/ArsOcarina
http://www.towerrecords.com/product.aspx?pfid=2845073
http://www.netmusic.com/web/album.aspx?a_id=CBNM_17314
http://www.indiejazz.com/ProductDetailsView.aspx?ProductID=193
Ted Killian's "Flux Aeterna" is also available at: Apple iTunes,
BuyMusic, Rhapsody, MusicMatch, MusicNet, DiscLogic, Napster,
AudioLunchbox, Lindows, QTRnote, Music4Cents, Etherstream,
RuleRadio, EMEPE3, Sony Connect, CatchMusic, Puretracks,
and Viztas. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Blah, blah, blah.
So???
