Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
odysseus

Scientific view of perception

9 posts in this topic

Do we agree that something is wrong with our perception, you know the apparatus that interpret our sense data? What is perception anyway? Can it be located in the body, is it physical or immaterial? An interesting video about perception.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pretty sure Hppd is a problem with sensory gating.    So a 'trail' for instance is a lingering artifact of what you just looked at, hasn't been filtered out properly.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Well yes it can be considered physical. It doesn't have to be degraded to a pessimistic view of "it nothing but electrical and chemical soup", as it goes both ways.
That said, if there's something to tip the scales of balance, then something like HPPD or DP can arise.

Will watch the film tomorrow if I remember, but you should definitely look in to sensory gating enhancement if you think it may be involved in the pathogenesis of HPPD.
I for one do, which is why I'm also going to try EVP-6124.

Off to bed, cheers.

 

edit: thanks for posting video :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Well yes it can be considered physical. It doesn't have to be degraded to a pessimistic view of "it nothing but electrical and chemical soup", as it goes both ways.

Could you elaborate on that?

We've touched on the subject a few times lately. I maintain that it boils down to the ''psycho-physical problem'' or the ''mind/body problem''. A few members here seem to have some pretty fixed ideas about this (such as the one you just mentioned), but no compelling arguments as to why their 'solution' to the psycho-physical problem is so obviously true as they seem to think. 

 

It's all very interesting to consider loosely; a unified theory of perception. But don't hold your breath.

0

Share this post


Link to post

[Edit: Sorry if I come across as a bit grumpy in the following. Philosophy does that to me, nothing personal against any of you :D ]

Also, to be frank, that video reeks of new age nonsense from the very beginning. It starts out by asserting (at length...) that we have five senses. No more, no less. What about equilibrioception? Thermoception?

I don't see how the ideas discussed in that video are of any use. 'Sensory data is all we have to work with' - true, and so what? The empiricists have recognized this fact for decades (read David Hume).

The content of that video is what I like to call 'mental masturbation', it produces no useful, viable ideas. It doesn't touch (in any satisfactory way) on the subject of how neural processes beget subjective experience, even though this seems to be the only interesting problem that it actually vaguely hints at.

As with all science, my view is that it'll be beneficial to ignore the philosophical questions and adopt a more instrumentalist practice. Being able to produce, predict and manipulate phenomena in nature (be they phenomena of quantum optics or neurology) is all we can realistically hope for. We don't understand how neural processes beget subjective experience, but by doing careful research, coupling features of subjective experience to physical processes in the brain, we may understand the correspondence between the two sufficiently, which is all we require. The rest is just (highly speculative) icing on the cake, so to speak.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Also, to be frank, that video reeks of new age nonsense from the very beginning. It starts out by asserting (at length...) that we have five senses. No more, no less. What about equilibrioception? Thermoception?

I don't see how the ideas discussed in that video are of any use. 'Sensory data is all we have to work with' - true, and so what? The empiricists have recognized this fact for decades (read David Hume).

The content of that video is what I like to call 'mental masturbation', it produces no useful, viable ideas. It doesn't touch (in any satisfactory way) on the subject of how neural processes beget subjective experience, even though this seems to be the only interesting problem that it actually vaguely hints at.

As with all science, my view is that it'll be beneficial to ignore the philosophical questions and adopt a more instrumentalist practice. Being able to produce, predict and manipulate phenomena in nature (be they phenomena of quantum optics or neurology) is all we can realistically hope for. We don't understand how neural processes beget subjective experience, but by doing careful research, coupling features of subjective experience to physical processes in the brain, we may understand the correspondence between the two sufficiently, which is all we require. The rest is just (highly speculative) icing on the cake, so to speak.

 

Sure it could be compatible with new age but it´supposed to be compatible with science too! What if science does not have the complete view neither? Actually, the sixth sense is the mind which you mentioned lacking in the video, maybe so. If we are materialists, we have not much to go on except our sensory data but it seems that you disagree with this idea, as I do. There´s a lot more to work with except our senses.

 

How could neural processes create subjective experience (as you say) when science still disagree about the immaterial components of our being?

 

I think it is a cool video, even if too shallow for you. It´s open minded, not dogmatic. You probably have a healthy inquisitiveness, perhaps you should look further than contemporary science to complement your views... The first explanation does not necessarily rule out the last.

0

Share this post


Link to post

How could neural processes create subjective experience (as you say) when science still disagree about the immaterial components of our being?

What does this even mean? That sentence is exactly what's wrong with the video, and others like it. Science, as I know it, is about making physically meaningful assertions about the world and testing them. It doesn't concern itself with fluffy quasi-philosophical questions or the haphazard use of ill-defined concepts. At least good science doesn't.

 

What if science does not have the complete view neither?

Who ever said that it does? I certainly didn't.

 

Actually, the sixth sense is the mind which you mentioned lacking in the video, maybe so.

What are you saying? How is the mind a sense? The definition of a sense that Wikipedia mentions is the following: 'Senses are physiological capacities of organisms that provide data for perception.'

 

You probably have a healthy inquisitiveness, perhaps you should look further than contemporary science to complement your views...

I'll listen to anybody who exhibits clear thinking. Again, think about my earlier 'instrumentalist' remark. I really do not think that playing around with ill-defined concepts is gonna get us anywhere. Science has been so immensely successful for a reason, namely that it did away with the so-called rationalist ideas (in the Cartesian sense) and ideas of  'a priori' knowledge about the world. 

0

Share this post


Link to post

How could neural processes create subjective experience (as you say) when science still disagree about the immaterial components of our being?

 

What does this even mean? That sentence is exactly what's wrong with the video, and others like it. Science, as I know it, is about making physically meaningful assertions about the world and testing them. It doesn't concern itself with fluffy quasi-philosophical questions or the haphazard use of ill-defined concepts. At least good science doesn't.

All I´m saying is that we have an immaterial component in our being which science also acknowledges, despite the popularity of materialism. It´s not exactly quasi-thought, rather based on proper science.

 

 

What are you saying? How is the mind a sense? The definition of a sense that Wikipedia mentions is the following: 'Senses are physiological capacities of organisms that provide data for perception.'

I would take Wikipedia articles with a grain of salt. It´s well held in both Eastern and Western science and philosophy that the mind is an organ that is interacting with the common sense-apparatus. How can mind-objects like concepts and ideas come into effect without the mind knowing it?

 

I'll listen to anybody who exhibits clear thinking. Again, think about my earlier 'instrumentalist' remark. I really do not think that playing around with ill-defined concepts is gonna get us anywhere. Science has been so immensely successful for a reason, namely that it did away with the so-called rationalist ideas (in the Cartesian sense) and ideas of  'a priori' knowledge about the world.

I´m not sure what you mean by "instrumentalist", but these thoughts are held to be observable by various means (at least in ancient and also modern literature). Remember, science is often based on hypothesises, not only observable fact. Sure it´s compatible with modern science, but you seem to hold on to a dogmatic view that everything can be manipulated only through purely physical means, but I might get you wrong.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm also going to try EVP-6124.

You rock the boat, where do you dig up these substances? What a name, sounds like from a distant planet like Glyx-13. But I would try the same, hppd can be really debilitating. Been a guinea pig myself in the health system so what the heck I´m a drug bucket too!

:-/

0

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0