Different worlds

[Illiad]

I wonder...

 

if my brain processes information exactly the same way as yours

 

if no

 

is the blue sky I see the red sky you see?

 

if yes

 

Who am I but not you and who you are you but not me?

[Vox]

I wonder...

if my brain processes information exactly the same way as yours

if no

is the blue sky I see the red sky you see?

if yes

Who am I but not you and who you are but not me?

 

How would you know "you" if there would not be "me" ?

 

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Albert Einstein

Edited August 14, 2010 by Vox

[Illiad]

'me' does not define 'you' and neither the other way around. If my brain works exactly like yours and person A, then I, you and A are the really the one and the same entity, but we are not connected, and we each experience the part of the world we live in separately. If you do not exist, there is still me and A, if A does not exist, there is still me and you, if I do not exist, there is still you and A, if both A and you do not exist, there is still me.

Anyway I'm more interested in the first argument. I believe it's much more likely, since we each have our own preference and such. You can't really define the color blue, red, or any color for that matter. The best we can do is come up with is something like blue is the color of the sky, and green is the color of grass. So, is my blue what you will call red, and your red is what i will call blue?

[Vox]

'me' does not define 'you' and neither the other way around. If my brain works exactly like yours and person A, then I, you and A are the really the one and the same entity, but we are not connected, and we each experience the part of the world we live in separately. If you do not exist, there is still me and A, if A does not exist, there is still me and you, if I do not exist, there is still you and A, if both A and you do not exist, there is still me.

 

Let´s assume for the sake of discussion that you would be the only human and you have never seen another human being.. how would you mind form your identity as you..due you have not been able to see/experience nobody else..I´ll assume that we need to have also "not me /you" to create "me" definition/identity in our minds ? And If you have only seen for example men, how could you state yes we are men not women? You need contrast to create identity

 

 

Anyway I'm more interested in the first argument. I believe it's much more likely, since we each have our own preference and such. You can't really define the color blue, red, or any color for that matter. The best we can do is come up with is something like blue is the color of the sky, and green is the color of grass. So, is my blue what you will call red, and your red is what i will call blue?

 

My take is that we all are different in this respect, even laws of the nature are same for all of us. If we go to very detail level each and every one of us have a unique perception of the reality due complex organism / structure via we are observing/forming the "reality".

[Illiad]

Let´s assume for the sake of discussion that you would be the only human and you have never seen another human being.. how would you mind form your identity as you..due you have not been able to see/experience nobody else..

OK, let's assume. If i were the only one on this planet, who never seen another fellow homo sapien, I would not build my identity based on contrast between humans, since they aren't any. (Tarzan comes into my mind now lol ). If my world is nothing but a void (nothing to contrast myself with), I cannot know that I even exist at all. But a human that doesn't know that he is a human is still a human, at least to a secondary observer. The notion will hold no meaning for the 'human' anyway. At least, this is what I think.

My take is that we all are different in this respect, even laws of the nature are same for all of us. If we go to very detail level each and every one of us have a unique perception of the reality due complex organism / structure via we are observing/forming the "reality".

Yes, I think we observe our own reality, but we don't create it. But my reality can't be too far off from your reality since our mind works though not exactly but generally the same way, I guess.

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at debatable things, where there are two opposing sides, each group can see the same data and view the conclusions in different ways. These views of reality are dependent on the filters we set up in the mind, which process the input data. But there are also other filters, connected to language.

 

For example, on this clear day I can see the blue sky. Someone from France, standing nearby tells me he sees the bleu sky. I think to myself, he is out of touch with reality, since to me the sky is clear and not a blur.

 

Since we don't fully understand what each other is saying, we think each is seeing things differently. Instead of slapping each other with a glove and having a duel, we decide to learn more about each other's language. I learn that bleu means blue and should not be literally translated into blur. Now our filters are in synch, so we see the same thing not only in reality but also in the context of our filters.

 

This could have turned out differently. I could say to myself, he thinks this clear sky is a blur, so the guy is an idiot. Since we both see the same reality, but have a language filter problem, we can't merge our filters to transfer our common experience. To him, he knows what it sees and the sky is bleu. But to me, I know what I see, and the sky is not a blur. I decide to fight harder to convince him the sky is clear and blue and not a blur. But he won't back off since he also sees reality.

 

In the world of specialists and speciality jargon, two people can see the same thing, but one person's bleu can seem like a blur creating the filter impression he can not see reality like we do.

Edited August 15, 2010 by HydrogenBond

[Illiad]

Dear Illiad,

 

Qfwfq has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Different worlds - in the Psychology forum of Science Forums.

 

This thread is located at:

http://hypography.com/forums/psychology/23892-different-worlds-new-post.html

 

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

I doubt Illiad was aiming to discuss linguistic matters of misunderstanding. The OP is more about going from the physiology of perception to that which we (the I of each person) naturally recognize as the sensation. Once this boundary is crossed, the matter becomes very evanescent. To what extent does it even make sense to say whether or not different people see red as being "the same" sensation?

 

Why do we consistently associate yellow and red with warm/hot and blue and green with cool/cold?

 

I suspect it has to do with the natural everyday environment we evolved in. For example, few objects are blue hot but fire is a common enough observation; the cool water of lakes, rivers and sea is often green or blue and foliage can also contribute to keeping cool. The evolutionary correlation between perceived sensations is a kind of "making sense of" the environment, actually what it really does is to help us sort things out in a manner helpful to fulfilling basic necessities. A flaming red flower is usually no hotter than the green leaves around it, or the nearby blue flower, but the correlation often enough helps in reaching our needs. We also similarly compare many sounds with sensations of other kinds; we tend to understand each other when describing tactile sensations, colours, smells, sounds &c. each in terms of the others.

 

Still, we can't be sure that my red and hot are the same as yours and aren't the same as your blue and cold. The fact that we sort out the sensations in much the same manner, according to similar needs, does however suggest the ultimate perception being similar for all us apes, while I wouldn't be as confident of as much similarity between our perception and that of cats, dogs and so on.

***************

Odd, this post didn't appear here

Read the explanation~

thx tormod~

Edited August 20, 2010 by Illiad
Explanation: It was posted right after we started moving our forums to a new server, so it accidentally wasn't moved!

[Illiad]

An 'ultimate' perception suggests that we all live in a common reality, not a bubble of some sort for each individual.Rather encouraging. If we all live in a common reality, I take that dogs, cats and others share the same common reality as us too( I don't see why apes are special), but with their perception geared for their own survival. But I doubt very much that my blue is indeed your blue. Mine could be a shade lighter, darker or a different color altogether. Sensations like pain we should generally feel the same way but I doubt, exact. A could feel that losing an arm hurts more than losing a leg while B could feel the other way, if they both had lost both an arm and a leg in the same manner so they could compare properly. So, within this ultimate reality, we build our reality around us, and most of our realities we build are different from each other.

[HydrogenBond]

One needs to look in terms of the data train to better answer this. When I look at the sky, the reflected light enters my eyes, where it is converted to electrochemical signals. These signals go down the optic nerve and diverse to various parts of the brain and merge with other electro-chemical processes. Our consciousness works at the level of these merged electro-chemical processes, interpreting what we see at that point. Although our eyes might work similarly, the aspects further down the data cascade are not as uniform, due to the nature of consciousness. Consciousness decides what enters the brain and which data it stores more of. The specialists will see more than just a blue sky, since their merger area will bring to light other details the layman man not perceive.

 

When we say we all see the same thing, this assumes the external object is the same, the way the eye translate the energy is the same, the biochemical divergence is the same, the way the brain merges this with existing biochemical process is the same, and how consciousness interprets this merger is the same. If we add variables, at any step, we can see things differently.

 

In the ancient world, they may have seen the blue sky as the dome of the heavens. Relative to the data stream, the sky was the same and the eye functionality was the same. The way the brain sends these signals forwards was the same. The main difference was the memory organization at the merge. Since the primary sensory mechanics were working fine, an unconscious part of the brain knows what it see is real. But consciousness, which is different than the unconscious, might interpret the natural "this is real", meaning their merge composite is also real. They see the heavenly dome. If you don't know there are two checks going on and assume one, the heavenly dome would seem real. The second check would have pondered the taught information at the merge, which can make the collective see the same thing, since all else will the similar.

 

Later science altered the data organization at the merge. Now we see it differently. But back in the day, if one tried to tell the collective about the modern, they would assume he was out of touch with reality, since they all could see the dome, as taught.

[Qfwfq]

Later science altered the data organization at the merge. Now we see it differently. But back in the day, if one tried to tell the collective about the modern, they would assume he was out of touch with reality, since they all could see the dome, as taught.

Current science doesn't mean there is no dome. The layer of upper atmosphere in which the scattering occurs is a spherical shell and slightly more than half of it is invested by solar radiation at any moment. Why would you go back and tell ancient folks there is no dome?

 

In any case I still think the OP referred to the direct effect of the perception, not to the interpretation that intellect gives it. Kant distinguished these as intuition (our mind, or Geist in his original text, passively receiving perceptions) and intellect (our mind interpreting and analysing them, relating them to each other &c.). The topic of aesthetics comprises the former.

[HydrogenBond]

If you consider the two political parties, each sees the same reality, but each are optimized in two different ways. Both see the same data, but once this data merges with their belief system, the data organizes itself the way we expect it to organize. Which is reality? Science is a little different in that we try not to deny data, whereas political parties won't use all the data.

 

For example, we have two scientists, doing a single experiment. After all the data is collected, we separate the data in half, in a polarized way. For example, one gets the high data and the other low data. We then tell each to formulate their theory. We would get two theories, one for the high data and one for low. Both are valid POV based on their data. This gives each POV a certain strength of conviction since the theory is indeed explaining their data.

 

For example, business drives the economy, however some businesses can get sleazy. Welfare helps people who are down, but some people can get addicted and dependant. Relative to the data of each political party, the democrats use the valid data; business can get sleazy and welfare helps people who are down. The republicans use the valid data; business drives the economy and welfare can get addictive and create dependency Then both form the best theory with this half of the data to define the reality for the group. Ignoring half the observable data creates an inner denial that adds the emotional fuel that makes a one-sided reality appear emotional compelling. This is a bonus jolly. Moderates are less animated, since they try to look at more of the data, thereby having less denial of data to drive their emotional reality veil.

[Illiad]

In any case I still think the OP referred to the direct effect of the perception, not to the interpretation that intellect gives it. Kant distinguished these as intuition (our mind, or Geist in his original text, passively receiving perceptions) and intellect (our mind interpreting and analysing them, relating them to each other &c.). The topic of aesthetics comprises the former.

 

Thanks for the replies~

 

Qfwfq

I think I was referring to both (in a way I guess)

I'm looking for a confirmation that our brains are wired differently and indeed I am not you and you are not me

if a set of twins are separated during birth, kept in two separate but exactly the same environment so the decision of 1 twin does not affect the other. ( Another dimension where the train of events are exactly the same, if you must)

Will they make the same decisions (with each other) very time they have to? and perform the same actions(with each other) at the same time? and interpret the world in the same way?

 

Hydrogenbond

The more data we accept and process, the more objective we become, correct?

People with their own agendas will always try to bend reality to suit their cause. And unless we are objective enough, we can never tell who is doing the bending. To gain objectivity, we must not be selective of information to be processed. Propaganda feeds on Ignorance.

I have heard an interpretation of science roughly as follows:

' Science is not an objective collection of knowledge, but merely a tool to advance mankind '.

how many of you agree with this statement?

If it's true, then science is never really objective to begin with, correct?

I don't but I think there is a significant number of people do.

[Ken]

Why is it necessary to postulate conscious and subconscious epiphenomena?

 

Just because most people use the same word or words to describe monochromatic light at, say, 560nm that similar verbalization does not mean that their their internal representation (experience) is the same for everyone, nor does it mean they are different. Conscious and subconscious experience are simply theoretical constructs that have no place in science. As theoretical constructs they lack the most fundamental requirement for a theory -- they lack falsifiability.

 

What can be demonstrated is the perception of certain energy changes in the external environment and their transduction into neurochemical events (sensation) and their organization and interpretation by the nervous system in ways that allow the organism to respond to its environment (perception).

 

Whatever we "experience" as our perceptions can never be established as identical to what others experience. Blue, for example, is just a name that we learn to attach to monochromatic light at approximately 480nm. What "color" is ultraviolet? For humans there is no color, it can't be detected, it produces no sensation. For many insects it does produce sensation. As a graduate student I was given the task of measuring the visual sensitivity curve for cockroaches.

 

Using the "emitting" side of an old spectrometer and fine needle electrodes I was able to plot a curve showing nerve impulse frequency as a function of wavelength with a pronounced peak at around 380nm. The cockroach was sensing the UV light which was invisible to me. I have no idea what it was experiencing nor could you.

 

"Replying to Different Worlds", the thread title, is an apt and somewhat poetic comment on the uniqueness of individual experience. It's an elegant way of describing the isolation of our personal experiences (if in fact YOU also have them :P )