Can you read?

BECAUSE I want you to justify your statement.


simple.

Maybe you should define hallucinating as you make that claim? Essentially, I agree with you - but there is at least one use of the word which requires that the hallucination be false; by that definition, we cannot hallucinate an accurate rendition of reality

But my previous sentence misses the point - our experience is synthesized based on information which is, in turn, reality based

There is a small place within our fields of view that is blocked by the nerve that leads into the eye from the back. However we never see this, which means that our brains are constantly filling in the gaps with stuff that does not exist: the common or colloquial definition of hallucination. Now if the brain fills in the gaps accurately, you are still perceiving the image, it may correspond EXACTLY to the real world and yet not be real real image data.

ie we are always hallucinating, %100 of the time even when what we see is accurate.

Many many many many tests are done by cognitive scientists that conclusively show that our brains do a decent job most of the time decoding reality.

Perception is representational, and most of the time it represents what is really going on, however it cannot be trusted without validation. Science is not agreement, it is a process by which we can validate concepts, or invalidate them.

We do not create our own realities with thoughts, we do not even change reality with JUST our thoughts, and there are no theories that explain your experience (JB) outside of cognitive science.

Not true, well not entirely. We can hallucinate an accurate rendition of reality just like a cartoon can offer an accurate rendition of reality, or a movie can. Just becuase the data is missing does not mean the guess is wrong.

The definitions are more flexible than that which most people want to admit, definitions are not math equations with a single answer. We must add to a definition when the world presents us with something that does not fit and we have nothing else to describe it with, either make a new word, or as is more common extend the meaning of a current word.

Cognitive science has done just that.

What is fun for me, is that I work in radiology software, and we take image data and often times we will "enhance" that data, we use powerful mathematics to take very intelligent guesses as to what is "between" the data. It is AMAZING what you can get out of a crappy image, however you MUST always understand that it is a representation of a representation of reality even doctors as educated as they are forget this easily and base an understanding of something off of the enhancement features, which is always made up, but also almost always accurate. Testing and calibrating is key, that is where science comes in.

I can personally validate a concept myself, or invalidate it. But if there is no agreement, the validation is pointless. You need agreement (more than one person) to acknowledge and approve the validation process in order to call it "science."

So many people seem annoyed at this fact that agreement is necessary. I don't understand that.



That is your opinion. Not mine.

And it is sort of off topic.

With the word 'false' and with the word 'accurate' we are dealing with shades of degree here, and arbitrary lines at which one might call something 'truly false' or 'accurate enough to be called accurate'. A cartoon or movie can be said to be both accurate and inaccurate.

Hallucinate is a good word to use in that it emphasizes the 'fabricated' aspect of perception. And yet in some ways it is not the best word to use to characterize a process that accurately models reality, since some people use the word hallucinate only for inaccurate models of reality.

Exactly. I think the word fabricate is better than hallucinate in terms of common language.

I don't think we have good terms for this. Fabricated can also imply that that which is fabricated is fictional, to some people. Consider that lies are called 'fabrications'.

We just have to make do with what we have, and explain what we mean by our terms.

Doesn't the word also imply fabric? As in the fabric of reality? Or is that a completely different word?

On the other hand, if a lot of what we 'see' is made up stuff to represent reality (hallucination or fabrication) then fabrication in that respect could mean "not real" or "a lie."

We mostly call it "perception." So if our perceptions are partly made up stuff, then that stuff could be called hallucination or fabrication. It's not "real" it just represents what we view as "real."

Very strange.

Now it would be interesting to see if you can separate the real from the made up stuff or from hallucination.



I'm beginning to understand why people have called this reality a persistent illusion.

Yes, fabric (cloth) is a man-made thing. Fabric earlier meant 'to make' and eventually became applied to one of things that are made - cloth.




I'm not sure what you are saying, but want to note that: if the fabricated perception is sufficiently accurate, we can't call it 'a lie'.




By 'it' do you mean the perception or the underlying reality?

Just because our perceptions are fabricated, doesn't make that which or perceptions represent 'not real'. (Unless our perception deviates wildly from the underlying reality, and becomes a true hallucination in the common sense of the word).




I hold that we cannot absolutely do so, but that most of us (and through our collective effort) can do so reasonably well.

What saddens me is when the anti-reality people apply a high standard of rigor and certainty to the question 'how do we know whether the scientifically validated reality really exists', then a very low standard of rigor to other ways of viewing 'what is true'.

Anti-reality people?

The question "how do we know.." is a valid question. What saddens me are people who are so sure they have it all figured out.

(I lied. It doesn't "sadden" me. That's a figure of speech.)

There are many more things on earth to be sad about than something like that.

*******

Well of course it (reality) "exists" as we define existence. And of course it is "real" as we define "reality."

But our perception of reality is probably very different from what a worm or an ant or even some animal or some fish perceives.

Our "reality" is actually reality according to human perception.

There may be a lot more to reality than what we perceive, just as there is a lot more to reality than a worm perceives.

***

Now I will be gone for a few days because my father is in the hospital and I am his private nurse. I will be staying with him.

See ya'll later.

Don't let those "anti-reality" people get you down.

The only people I know who think they have it all figured out are religious people, and those who are into 'woo'. I don't know any science oriented people who think we have it all figured out; but I know many who think they have enough figured out to dismiss the 'woo' people. There is a difference, for example, between knowing that you know enough to 'decide that homeopathy is a complete crock of ****' and 'thinking you know everything'.




Many of the other sad things in the world (warfare, prejudice, hatred, violent crimes, genocide, environmental destruction) are exacerbated by the failure to apply reason. Which is not precisely what we were just discussing, but closely related.



We know that there is more to reality than our senses give us, but many of us carry models of reality that are based not just on our senses, but the information gained from the use of instruments and intelligent, deliberate, collaborative investigation by many people over long periods of time.

I believe that the 'facts' about reality to which humans collectively have access encompasses and surpasses that which worms have access to - even if an individual worm can sense things and individual human cannot.

Ahem...

Utter bollocks.

Best of luck with your father Jb.

Ummmm, can you justify that claim?




Why would you think that poorly paraphrased, out of context quotation is testicles?

I can, but I doubt that it would be understood, so I'd rather not waste my time with testicular cancer.

According to your own posts in the "Justification..." thread, you cannot justify anything on your own...



and





So, would you care to ask the general public who may or may not be active on this forum if you were justified in mis-quoting and taking said mis-quote out of context and calling it bollocks?

hmmmm. is it a fact that infants can die from injuries or a fact that have died from injuries? can a fact be an even that may happen in the future? not debating, just that i see little agreement among folks regarding what is fact and what is not even in past occurances much less what may happen. any democrat will tell you it's a fact that increased taxes will save the economy and claim it has worked in the past. most republicans would say it's a fact that the oposite is true on either count. so just what is fact? what is reality?