Superior? hell no!!!!

We coexist with every single organism on this planet. Sometimes for the
better, sometimes for the worse.
BUT, if we were to no tbe here, the rest of the planet would go on
living; probably wiht less problems than it has now, lol.

So are we superior? No, we are not.

I still say it's more of a "translation" than an "illusion". But great
explanation, red.

Poet - put everything, that this whole superiority topic has been about,
aside for a moment.
ready - First I will say that you are a creature of some intelligence
and I know you read a lot so I will proceed expecting you know that
science has proven that there are many animals and insects who "see" the
same exact "things" in this world that we see but not as we see them.

When I say to you 'tree' your mind call into focus some copy of a
tree.

If I say 'flower' it doesn't matter what kind you picture first, maybe
a whole series of them runs through your head, but you still picture a
flower.

Now if a fly or a bee had the ability to speak, to communicate in
verbal language and I said 'flower' would that fly or bee have the same
picture or pictures run through thier mind as we do?

If you come up with any answer other than no, then please refer to the
internet to review how animals 'see'.

The actual answer is no. So, is their picture reality or is our
picture reality, or are they just illusion? By the way that was a
question open for debate. lol

The only translation in this is within the brain function, when it
translates sensory into a code that takes the form of a label, which is
then translated into what our 'conception' of the label is. A person
who can not hear, can still play an instrument and make, what we
consider beautiful music. They do this by sensing the vibrations of the
instrument. To them that is music. So who what is reality in this
case, the vibration or the sound. Do our ears actually HEAR the sound
or do they sense the vibration and the internal workings of the brain
tell us it's music? This is the illusion of reality being referred to.
Before you get argumentative, you are not being threatened or
questioned, just trying to get a point accross for the sake of
discussion. So are you with it now?

You say this like you're telling me something I didn't already know
and, for the most part, agree with. I wasn't being argumentative. I was
stating there's a difference between "illusion" and "translation". A
bee's perception of a flower, of course, comes with their censory data.
A human's comes with human perceptions.


Don't think I'm arguing or disagreeing just because I put a different
interpretation on things.

Good Morning...well it is from here..


Red wrote..

Now if a fly or a bee had the ability to speak, to communicate in verbal
language and I said 'flower' would that fly or bee
have the same picture or pictures run through thier mind as we do?

If you come up with any answer other than no, then please refer to the
internet to review how animals 'see'.

The actual answer is no. So, is their picture reality or is our
picture reality, or are they just illusion? By the way that was a
question open for debate. lol

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

Although this is almost a side-bar train of thought, and a step by step
discussion, in regards to illusion and reality..

One quote keeps re-appearing...for me..

"My reality is not your reality"

And for the sake of debate...humans have decided what the bees reality,
ie vision, "sees', in comparison to how a human "sees"...humans decided
the "control" of what vision is..

We are comparing us against all others using 'our' rules, laws, based on
a majority consensus, (humans are the centre of the universe, and all
things revolve around their belief structures) which still, is a biased
control, and not a reality...

Hmm. So we translate our perception of their translation and how it's
different from our translation.... you know, this could be the start of
a really nice headache.


Can we just call this a "mirrors reflecting mirrors" paradox and walk
away with our sanity intact?


Although our view of how other species operate isn't completely lacking
in empirical facts. Mostly gleaned by disecting their brains. I have a
favorite "flawed understanding" of other species.

Which is that "multi-fascet" eyes that insects possess. (Run with me,
this is a great study on human brain function, too). Now, the "cartoon"
view is that insects see millions of tiny pictures. Which, although
(kinda) true, is also completely flawed. The fasceted insects will view
the world much as a human does (in the context of a three-dimensional
field around them with perspective lines like our own).

Humans (kinda) see two pictures at the same time. The best way for
anyone to experiment with this is by holding their left hand in front of
the left eye, close enough that the hand dominates the view, but not so
close to block out the light. Now part your fingers a bit, so you can
see this screen through them. If you close your left eye, you'll view
the screen as normal. If you close your right, you'll see the hand and
bits of the screen. But if you open both eyes, you'll see the image of
your hand "ghosting"- you can "see through it". If you focus on the
image of the hand, you'll see all the details of it. If you focus on the
screen, you'll see that instead.


It's really fascinating. Our method of vision, like all visual
creatures, is to overlap the two images, which is how three dimensional
vision works.

Jess you wrote:
""We are comparing us against all others using 'our' rules, laws,
based on a majority consensus, (humans are the centre of the universe,
and all things revolve around their belief structures) which still, is a
biased control, and not a reality...""

Actually we aren't comparing us against all others, that was totally
just 'me' trying to find an easier way, to explain how we 'relate' to
the world around us. I see by both you and Poet that I have not only
failed, but I have sent you both farther out. My apologies. Please let
me try again.

Most people 'believe' that when they visually make contact with
something that the eyes have a direct link to the brain and the brain
immediately associates what the eye sees with what's going on. When
someone shouts our name and and yells out a hello, people 'believe'
their brain automatically receives that message and associates the
voice with a person and the words of that person. This is not the case,
not in either of these or in anything that affects us through outside
stimulus.

What really happens when we hear, is first the ears pick up vibration
and frequency and whatever other phisological thing the ear does. It
sends these directly to the part of the brain specifically designed to
deal with those vibrations, pitches, and frequencies. That part of the
brain put it in a frame of reference, maybe distinguishing it from all
the other info the ear is also picking up. The emotion part of the
brain scans it to determine if an emotional, or an immediate intuitive
or instinctual responce is required, and then also passes it, in a
manner recognizable, to the 'thinking or analytical' part of the brain.
This is where it takes on the voice of somone we recognize, let's say
Tom, so now it also has a label, and then it determines, analizes what
to do next. It is not from ear to thought, it can not be, because the
way the ear hears is not the perception we actually end up with in the
brain. Same with sight, the eye does not see a tree. The eye sees
color, shape, density, dimentional, it's not a tree until this
information passes through the correct channels and the label "tree" is
assigned.

That was the point I was trying to make in saying that, we know that
'how' another creature visualizes with their eye, does not end up being
the same thing that our brain defines as a tree. By the mere fact that
they see multi faceted, or are color blind or see infrared, but what our
eye really sees, is not what we end up thinking it sees, that's just
what our brain tells us it saw. but again as I said that was a bad
choice on my part, sorry.

When you quoted "your reality is not my reality", you were pretty right
on target. The childs game, telephone, or 20 witnesses to a car crash
and no two of them can ever get every part of the incident to coincide.
This is because each of our brains, while actually seeing, hearing, in
effect witnessing the same event, gains a different perception. That
perception is affected by the analytical part of the brain, which is
already being affected by one's emotions, ideas, preconceptions and the
like. In effect, what we THINK or BELIEVE we are experiencing is
illustion, because it is diluted in the process of being received.

I still take exception to the term "illusion". A video game is an
illusion. What we witness is reality. (If ANYTHING is reality, that
is.... let's not delve into that aspect of philosophy for now).


Now, how we percieve the real event is an issue. Our "translation". But
to call it an "illusion" carries the implication that it never happened
in the first place. Witnesses may not see a crash the same. But a crash
*did*, in fact, happen.

Oh, I thought of another avenue. How many people have been convicted of
rape and sat in a prison for years. Primarily based on the testimony of
the main witness. Later DNA testing found them innocent of the crime.
Why or how could anyone that close to the situation, that sure of all
they saw, heard and felt be so wrong? Psychologists have all kinds of
reasons, excuses actually, as to why there was a mistake.
Much of the truth in these matters is that the passing of information
to the thinking/analytical part of the brain, must take on or have a
'frame of refernce'. In the case of a rape, when the rapist is totally
unfamiliar to the victim, there has never been a frame of reference
conditioned. So that frame of reference takes on what it has to access
in it's huge database. While it, by chance, gets some things acurate
(the shape of the chin, the color of the hair) it misses the whole
picture. Hence there is only an illustion of who did this.

Is this making any more sence, can we agree on the basics of this
idea or is there more to discuss?

Ok, so it's not a perfect translation. Since when was anything? We're
humans- not camcorders. Speaking of which, a camcorder would be
comparable to the "higher", logic part of the brain.


And it isn't "by chance" that the witnesses get some things right. The
"chance" lies in the parts that were gotten wrong.

No Poet,the chance lies in the fact that there was no frame of
reference. Most people have been exposed to enough other humans through
so many different media that there will be some frames of reference to
adhere to. It's putting them all together to create the perfect
duplicate picture that can not be done, more so in a case when there is
great emotional trauma occuring in the instinctual part of the brain,
because it is feeding and reacting at the same time, so much data, so
much raw emotion that the messages are bound to be faulty.

Well if we were all created for the sake of sustaining this planet then
this conversation would not be under the religion tab. But since it is,
I will comment in that form. I believe that the universe was created to
serve us. Animals down to organisms. If we are God's greatest creation
then it is logical to say that we are superior. For those who don't
believe in a god then by all means accept the fact that mother earth is
your deity.

We are all living a natural life, which in itself is abnormal. The real
goal is for us to return to the supernatural life that our forerunners
Adam and Eve enjoyed for a short period of time.

People's ideology now is based on convenience. It is more convenient to
say what one feels than to challenge a possible truth that we were
created by God.

Superior YES (unless you believe aliens put us here) lol