Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

politics, religion, science, art, barack obama, belgium, etc.
User avatar
Vegetarian
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Everywhere

Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by Vegetarian » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:07 am

Well, I didn't explicitly notice one that poses questions of thought. So, that got me wondering certain things about how things.. work. I guess before we walk down that road, I want to present a question. Those that get it right will have me propose more situations in that manner. Those that have more questions, answers will be provided as necessary as the thread moves along. Childish banter will be ignored. Also, if you get left behind.. you probably just missed something. I will try to be as... thorough as possible.

And no, don't be like, "Well what if I take out one of my eyes and make it look at the other??" Hey smart guy, you try and experience how painful it can be to even try to do something like that. So the insanity defense doesn't count.

Question: Why is it, that without the aid of something/someone outside your own body, you cannot view your own eyes from your own personal perspective?
Something goes here, but it's not important
User avatar
mbaxter
Now With Added Calcium!
<b>Now With <font color=#00689c>Added Calcium!</font></b>
Posts: 11458
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:04 am
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by mbaxter » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:28 am

Because without interaction with another, you can never truly understand yourself.


MAN THAT WAS DEEP.
Image
User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 4557
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:52 pm
Location: Falling to Earth

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by Magnus » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:48 am

One cannot view their own personal perspective from themselves, for if they were to perceive themselves from a view other than one's self it would not be their own perspective.

One's personal perspective is wholly their own and no one else, to perceive one's self they either have to use the mind's eye or external aid.
"What isn't remembered never happened. Memory is merely a record. You just need to re-write that record."
"Ummm, if I die... It's gonna be your fault" -Mr.Blip
"J2 I am disappoint."
Gr¦m wrote:dang mangus, is that like 15 inches?
User avatar
Django
Bow down to your King!
<font color=black><i>Bow down to your King!</i></font>
Posts: 8524
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:13 am

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by Django » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:20 am

No, you guys are dumb or something (well, of course magnus is Canadian :smug: )

If you like take your eye off, then put the eye on the table ,and you will be seeing your eye
with your other eye ,while the eye on the table will be looking at your other eye :O

Image
BRO THAT'S SUPER DEEP
Image
"Dream, Django, but dream with your eyes open."
User avatar
NightFantom
fuck you i'm a dragon
<font color=#800000>fuck you i'm a dragon</font>
Posts: 4692
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:16 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by NightFantom » Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:45 am

maybe just me, but i don't see the philosophy in this, it's just plain physics that the light coming into your eyes (aka what you see, your own perspective) cannot be the same as the light that came out of your eyes, at least not without making a 180° turn (which would probably require a mirror or a black hole, or at least something from outside of your body)
that seems like a huge amount of work for no good reason - joe
or, you know, sarcasm - Neelpos
User avatar
tehENEMY

<b></b>
Posts: 4126
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:37 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by tehENEMY » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:11 am

seems like an anatomical problem

solution:
Image
"if only there was such a thing as an affordable gaming laptop" ~collin day, 1993 - 2013

Watch Free the Nipple Online Free
He who casts carcinogenic stones should not live in glass meme houses.
User avatar
Dr. Fisch
Wildcard
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:54 am

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by Dr. Fisch » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:30 pm

though technically if you have a hemorrhage in your eye or cataracts you can see the blood or cornea, etc in the eye with the problem
If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" -Chris Kluwe on Emmett Burns
2014-02-28 17:25:33 RED *DEAD* Cursedbagel67 What, then ban me.
2014-02-28 17:25:44 BLU Cursedbagel67 Do it.
User avatar
Rat-morningstar
sexy Belgian god
<b><u>sexy Belgian god</u></b>
Posts: 9263
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:47 am
Location: belgium

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by Rat-morningstar » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:39 pm

your eyes can't see each other because there's a nose in between, and can't see themselves because what fantom said, light doesn't work that way
Image
User avatar
Vegetarian
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Everywhere

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by Vegetarian » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:05 pm

tehENEMY wrote:seems like an anatomical problem
This answer I like in terms of sheer abstraction. However, it does not solve for problems of simplicity. If the snail has a purpose, it certain does it well and does not stop to think about why it is a snail in the first place. Even if it does, it lacks the ability to directly tell us of what the plight of such a small creature might be. Basically, if we were not there to make an observation about them, there would be no mystery to solve unless you decided to come up with a mystery to solve.
NightFantom wrote:maybe just me, but i don't see the philosophy in this, it's just plain physics that the light coming into your eyes (aka what you see, your own perspective) cannot be the same as the light that came out of your eyes, at least not without making a 180° turn (which would probably require a mirror or a black hole, or at least something from outside of your body)
I guess the problem would be that the scientific method we depend on so much, cannot be complete without the involvement of an observer of some sort. So in simple terms, you cannot solve for light because you are only able to see what it interacts with and not what it actually is, even if it is there regardless of what you do in life.. or what you actually perceive life to be. I suppose you can make it complex and show that light is actually interacting with everything, but not on a level you can actively understand. But then it begs the question how come light is pretty much everywhere and everything. If it's everywhere, why the need to define it? If it is everywhere, then why the need to complicate it further than that?
Django wrote:If you like take your eye off, then put the eye on the table ,and you will be seeing your eye
with your other eye ,while the eye on the table will be looking at your other eye
Like I said earlier, you are welcome to try.. but most everybody you ask will not try it either way. You are making it too complex because you have to break yourself from being whole and separate it into different parts. The definition of whole would be based on your perspective alone, but why would you have to do that to yourself? Pain seems to have a has a purpose, but I guess you can ignore it to prove a point. At least you will fit in perfectly for Halloween. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right?

OK then, let's just say your eye was taken out of it's placement? Well.. to the most people, this is a terrifying thought even if it didn't happen. But why the constant need to keep yourself whole in a physical manner? You would probably scramble to make sure the eye is placed back in, for if it is gone you'll never 'feel' the same. Even if you did lose the eye, you can eventually come to accept the fact it is no longer there. The only way that will remind you of that accepted fact, would be someone else observing you and asking along the lines of, "Hey, what happened to your eye?" And let's face it, your pets don't care if you are missing eyes or limbs so long as you take care of them regardless.. so no animal perspectives.

You also cannot argue for a blind person, because if the same thing happened to them, pain itself would be a clear definition that something is happening in the viewable world which probably should not happen even though it is. Basically, they already see the world in a different "light" so losing their 'vision' would not take away from how they already see the world. I mean, if you cannot visually perceive what harms you, who is to blame? This also applies to losing a piece of one's self that is not an eye. This does not take into account that their other senses can prove wrongdoing under currently understood justice systems running alongside of societal norms. We are just talking about eyes for this one.
Magnus wrote:One cannot view their own personal perspective from themselves, for if they were to perceive themselves from a view other than one's self it would not be their own perspective. One's personal perspective is wholly their own and no one else, to perceive one's self they either have to use the mind's eye or external aid.
You are on the right track. Sadly, you will still need some form of internal or external help in the first place to even view yourself. I guess that begs the question, "If you see yourself from a spiritual and/or metaphysical sense, do you look like you do to everybody else or it is simply not an issue any more?" How does one view themselves from outside, though? I suppose it can be said that anyone can do such a thing with enough effort, but it is also said that it depends on your willingness to do so. So, you make yourself.. view yourself, but via internal methods turned external? Hm.
mbaxter wrote:Because without interaction with another, you can never truly understand yourself. MAN THAT WAS DEEP.
Isn't it, though? If you wanted to argue from an evolutionary method, you have to prove that there was two humans and not one when they got to a certain point in the evolutionary cycle. It's been a while, but where is that 'missing link' they still seek? More questions than answers. If you try the religious method and say that a 'God' created everything, then you assume the same thing up to the point where Eve was created. So Adam needed outside perspective? How come? So on, so forth according to different perspectives written down over thousands of years.

Most views are systematically flawed because they are always based on how someone else tells you how to see the world and not by your own perception. So basically, if someone gives you a good enough argument on what the world should be like according to them, it is still up to you to accept that. But then it makes it their world and not yours any more.

Well, unless you already see the world for how simple it actually is.. then you are what you want to be and you go where you want to go and who is to tell you otherwise? I am not here to tell you why it is complex, but to throw away the complexity and view it simply as just that... simple.
Dr. Fisch wrote:though technically if you have a hemorrhage in your eye or cataracts you can see the blood or cornea, etc in the eye with the problem
Then you would probably figure out that there is a problem internally. If there was no one is around to tell you there is a problem.. is there a problem?
Rat-morningstar wrote:your eyes can't see each other because there's a nose in between, and can't see themselves because what fantom said, light doesn't work that way
Yes, but you are ignoring the part that they are still placed in such a fashion that directly proves light is irrelevant from a singular perspective. In this case, you would still have to judge for yourself if what you see is acceptable to yourself. i.e. if you fashion something to 'bend' light, it doesn't solve for you still having to come up with something to solve for this problem. It is really only paradoxical if you keep trying to explain why you have to make something to fit a want.

In the meantime, the next question shall be: "If good ideas are good on paper, why are they bad in practice?"

Fake edit: Yeah, I am sure there might be some grammatical mistakes here and there, but the emphasis should be correct for most things. I will backtrack as needed later on. Only to correct enunciation, I mean. There are infinite examples for everything, so rewriting something that was already said is pointless.
Something goes here, but it's not important
User avatar
mystic
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2002 6:48 pm
Xfire: mysticsphere
Location: SLO Cal
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by mystic » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:31 pm

are we meant to see ourselves? maybe the reason we can't is so we have to interact with other things/people. or so we don't "fall in love" with ourselves which would not allow us to procreate. we could be made this way so that we would go out and find "ourselves" in some one else.

the other question is what do we get by not seeing ourselves?
User avatar
CaptainTripps
Posts: 4875
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:00 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by CaptainTripps » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:04 pm

Then you would probably figure out that there is a problem internally. If there was no one is around to tell you there is a problem.. is there a problem?
Yes? Or was this a trick question?

In that vein I would ask this - If everyone was born deaf, meaning physically we have the capacity for hearing but the sense is turned off in everyone some time during fetal development, for whatever reason, is it still a disability? Or is it only so because it exists as an anomaly in a world of hearing? Same for any other loss of function, blindness, paralysis, etc. Would someone born with the sense be a god or a freak?
"If good ideas are good on paper, why are they bad in practice?"
Because good is dumb, and people are bad.
Image
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams, Wandering by lone sea-breakers, And sitting by desolate streams;—World-losers and world-forsakers, On whom the pale moon gleams: Yet we are the movers and shakers Of the world for ever, it seems.
User avatar
Vegetarian
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Everywhere

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by Vegetarian » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:09 am

mystic wrote:are we meant to see ourselves? maybe the reason we can't is so we have to interact with other things/people. or so we don't "fall in love" with ourselves which would not allow us to procreate. we could be made this way so that we would go out and find "ourselves" in some one else.

the other question is what do we get by not seeing ourselves?
Well, look who's been reading some philosophy. You are pretty close to the answer. It's quite amazing how astounding the Greeks were at putting these things into words with their limited concepts of the world. Even their math was trying to show how easy it was.
CaptainTripps wrote:Yes? Or was this a trick question?

In that vein I would ask this - If everyone was born deaf, meaning physically we have the capacity for hearing but the sense is turned off in everyone some time during fetal development, for whatever reason, is it still a disability? Or is it only so because it exists as an anomaly in a world of hearing? Same for any other loss of function, blindness, paralysis, etc. Would someone born with the sense be a god or a freak?
Nope, because sound is just a wave. Waves are functions (in math) and wave-functions collapsed into their most simple form translate into wavelengths of light. You know how they say deaf people can walk around because it's almost like sonar? Same idea. They are just interpreting waves of light bouncing around in the everyday world as sound and their mind just conceptualizes their surroundings on the fly. Basically, it's eyesight but on the side of their head. Still can't see yourself either way.

I think there are ways around this that are less.. costly than what modern technology has to offer, though. Unfortunate byproduct of capitalistic society, sadly. I doubt people wouldn't mind being able to see either way.

However, it still stands that if you were absolutely alone with no one to actually observe you being deaf, you could probably just turn it on and off at will. Same goes with being a blind or paralyzed or even being a freak. So if you are a freak and you are absolutely alone, then who cares? You are alone, so you are not a freak unless you want to be a freak. You have your imagination and it is still better than any computer program out there. "Freaks" have some pretty good ideas, from time to time.
Something goes here, but it's not important
User avatar
Chief Cheese
Posts: 3486
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:03 pm
Location: On top of spaghetti

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by Chief Cheese » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:30 am

Vegetarian wrote:Nope, because sound is just a wave. Waves are functions (in math) and wave-functions collapsed into their most simple form translate into wavelengths of light. You know how they say deaf people can walk around because it's almost like sonar? Same idea. They are just interpreting waves of light bouncing around in the everyday world as sound and their mind just conceptualizes their surroundings on the fly. Basically, it's eyesight but on the side of their head. Still can't see yourself either way.
The hell are you talking about. I think you seriously misread something somewhere.

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, seriously what does this mean. Are you saying light and sound are physically the same, or conceptually/mathematically the same.
i <3 cheese. cheese <3 evry1. u= an every1. thus, by transitive property i <3 u
Chief Cheese the amazing wrote:
Neelpos wrote:I eat pig fetuses. Like the kind they dissect in biology classes. Formaldehyde and all. After I have sex with them of course. Also, I loved George Bush and donate all my money to Family Radio.
User avatar
tehENEMY

<b></b>
Posts: 4126
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:37 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by tehENEMY » Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:33 am

Image

I've got some reading to do.
"if only there was such a thing as an affordable gaming laptop" ~collin day, 1993 - 2013

Watch Free the Nipple Online Free
He who casts carcinogenic stones should not live in glass meme houses.
User avatar
NightFantom
fuck you i'm a dragon
<font color=#800000>fuck you i'm a dragon</font>
Posts: 4692
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:16 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Philosophy Rebirth.. uh, thread?

Post by NightFantom » Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:49 am

you basically gave no reason why my explanation was incorrect, are we trying to find the answer you want or the answer we believe until anyone gives a valid reason not to?
that seems like a huge amount of work for no good reason - joe
or, you know, sarcasm - Neelpos
Post Reply