Comments on: Biased Cognisance ? http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1321 What, Why & How do we Know ? Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:29:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: alice again http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1321&cpage=1#comment-8290 alice again Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:00:52 +0000 http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1321#comment-8290 ok, here I go again, trying to refine my idea. In your first comment you say i might be supposing a more perfect being. what I am supposing is that there is such a thing as reality. pure reality. what I am saying is that because of the way we are constructed we can't ever get there, experience it...whatever. Many have alluded to this phenomemon. Paul's "looking through a glass darkly", plato's cave,...maybe even dennett's cartesian stage? not that we shouldn't try to get closer, mind you, which is what science and maybe buddism try to do. ok, here I go again, trying to refine my idea. In your first comment you say i might be supposing a more perfect being. what I am supposing is that there is such a thing as reality. pure reality. what I am saying is that because of the way we are constructed we can’t ever get there, experience it…whatever.

Many have alluded to this phenomemon. Paul’s “looking through a glass darkly”, plato’s cave,…maybe even dennett’s cartesian stage?

not that we shouldn’t try to get closer, mind you, which is what science and maybe buddism try to do.

]]> By: alice again http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1321&cpage=1#comment-8287 alice again Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:37:20 +0000 http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1321#comment-8287 just watched a video linked by sam which features dawkins. He calls the brain a simulator. And so now I have found a word to replace phoney (kinda close, you have to admit) we are simulators... simulating a reality which allows us to function. just watched a video linked by sam which features dawkins. He calls the brain a simulator. And so now I have found a word to replace phoney (kinda close, you have to admit) we are simulators… simulating a reality which allows us to function.

]]> By: alice again http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1321&cpage=1#comment-8252 alice again Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:51:44 +0000 http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1321#comment-8252 ooops, certainly didn't mean to infer a more perfect being. What would perfect be anyway? I do agree that phoney is an odd choice of word, but I still think it applies. It's just that we are never what we seem to be to ourselves or others. ooops, certainly didn’t mean to infer a more perfect being. What would perfect be anyway?

I do agree that phoney is an odd choice of word, but I still think it applies. It’s just that we are never what we seem to be to ourselves or others.

]]> By: Ian http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1321&cpage=1#comment-8251 Ian Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:41:02 +0000 http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1321#comment-8251 Phoney's is an odd choice of word Alice, as if there existed more perfect beings. I'd say we're all real ... humans that is. Better to work with reality than some non-existent idealisation I'd say. Phoney’s is an odd choice of word Alice, as if there existed more perfect beings.

I’d say we’re all real … humans that is.

Better to work with reality than some non-existent idealisation I’d say.

]]> By: alice again http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1321&cpage=1#comment-8222 alice again Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:39:19 +0000 http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1321#comment-8222 this is a great link and kind of relates to my comment above. There are links upon links and it will take some long time to get through it all. Bottom line, we're all phoneys, but we're all phoneys so it's OK. this is a great link and kind of relates to my comment above.

There are links upon links and it will take some long time to get through it all.

Bottom line, we’re all phoneys, but we’re all phoneys so it’s OK.

]]>