Re: Mind's Eye Re: Perception as action

Sartre (1940) and Wittgenstein (1967 §§627, 632) also argue that (in sharp contrast to perception) we can derive no new information about the world from our imagery: No image can contain anything except what the imager put there, which must already have been in his or her mind. However, not only observation, but also inference can lead to knowledge, and it has been argued that mental imagery can and does support certain types of inference that give us genuinely new knowledge about the real world (Kosslyn, 1980, 1983; Taylor, 1981, Georgiou, 2007; Thomas, 2014).[2] McGinn, however, (2004 p. 19ff) argues that although Sartre and Wittgenstein overstate their point, there is a genuine and important insight underlying what they say: The information we can derive from our imagery is of a different sort, and is derived in a different way, from that which we get from perception.

I forget where the above comes from.  There is a massive discussion on whether something non-perceptual can lead to new knowledge.  My first non-scientific writing was called 'Would a Change of Title Change the Work' an MA thesis on human resource management!  I was taught by some good people who didn't think my regard for the subject as drivel should exclude me.  These days I think of it as evil drivel.

Science strikes me as rather consumed with myths of origin - big bang and evolution - that may restrict our ability to grok what we construct and the limitations of our senses and geometry.  I favour  a lot of what Tony says and constructs (it's Neil here).  My aliens wonder how to communicate in earth-language mostly designed to deceive and delivered in words that are a fraction of main sense communication.  And I've always seen the sense of Allan 'throwing a stone-chiselled tablet with a few spots of colour on it' into a lawsuit between Apple and Samsung.

On Sunday, 5 October 2014 05:26:18 UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote:

Tony been through that and agree with you except you apparently do not accept common meanings of words.
So what else is there ,, we covered the topic of the 3D ..
Someday Tony an original thought is rare, extremely rare.
If you look at the idea there is a totality of knowledge in Hinduism it is referred to as a cosmic egg and contains all knowledge. You cross a time/space barrier and bring an idea into our reality . . . 

Allan
Living Soul

-----Original Message-----
From: "'facilitator' via \"Minds Eye\"" <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
To: minds-eye@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Perception as action

As I said before Allan, there is no "Present"  everything, now matter how perceptively small a fraction, is in the past.  The only possible way to be in the "Present" is to freeze time.  And again, it is not a substance or a quantifiable entity.  It is simply an invention of man. 

On Saturday, October 4, 2014 5:07:44 PM UTC-4, Allan Heretic wrote:

Time only marks a point in non time. The present , the future is only a possibility and does not exist ~ yet ~ and the past is only a reference point.
The quirkiness of time really begins in observations of electrons highly observable in the hydrogen's solitary electron as it changes orbit without time lapse. Considering orbits are specific distances ..  The leap of orbital distance is tremendous. Leaving one orbit continuing on in a totally different orbit in random selection.
Time is strange to say the least considering sciences dependency on it.


Allan
Living Soul

-----Original Message-----
From: "'facilitator' via \"Minds Eye\"" <mind...@googlegroups.com>
To: mind...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:48 PM
Subject: Mind's Eye Re: Perception as action

Perception is everything.  We actually have the arrogance to call something "3D"!   Our mind tells us what scale to place items in and at what distance.  I find it humorous also from a philosophical point of view when people call something "A near death Experience". Everything in life is a near death experience when we finally realize the deception of something known as "Time".  It is not quantifiable but we still rely on that tick that somehow represents 1 second.

Back to perception.   From a historical perspective, what have we not created that we have not perceived at first?  The Sci Fi people seem to have a leg up on this, still,  the gap of idea to invention keeps getting narrower.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.