100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: On belief... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 10/13/11 07:22 AM
|
|
He was talking about hallucinations being false, which is a given fact by definition and usage. First off, there is no argument between me and Massage we understand each other VERY well.
Second: You have to take definitions in the broadest sense when dealing with things like this (understanding another persons meaning, it is the intellectually honest thing to do and why I wanted to make sure JB understood my meaning), no use trying to use a single snippet of one part of a definition (unless you are trying to straw man the argument). Wiki agrees, the first line of wiki acknowledges this. A hallucination, in broadest sense of the word, is a perception in the absence of a stimulus. Which would make my usage correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination I do not get why this is problematic to understand. On hallucination and how talk regarding degrees of false creates unnecessary confusion...
EXACTLY, and this reveals a more granular understanding of how we can hallucinate.
-- It is important to note here, that it is rarely - if ever - the case that one's entire field of vision constitutes being a hallucination. I mean, the oasis that is being imagined to exist in the middle of the desert is not there. Rather, that image exists only in the imagination and therefore constitutes being a hallucination; breach between thought/belief about fact/reality and fact/reality. The desert is not a hallucination. The point being that if, and only if, we wrongfully/incorrectly speak by calling everything within the entire field of vision a hallucination do we find the need to talk about degrees of falsity. The part(s) of the field/image that correspond(s) to the way things are is not part of the hallucination itself, even if they are a part of the experience of hallucinating. If one holds that the desert is a part of the hallucination, then one is calling that which corresponds to fact/reality a hallucination as well as that which does not. By doing this the term is rendered meaningless through losing it's distinction. Understanding the phenomena requires getting past definitions, however if we look closely we find that the definition fits just fine, but in a subset of the totality of perception. In fact I think it quite RARE indeed that the totality of perception of any individual is a complete fabrication. Even when we dream we find moments where stimulus creeps in and shapes the imagined details. I had a cramp in my leg, I dreamed a dog was sitting on my leg. The perception of the dog was fabricated, the stimulus of my leg hurting was not, the sensory data was accurately measured, the conclusion drawn by my subconscious mind was not. The word dream and the word hallucinate can be interchanged in this scenario and they mean the same thing except that when I am unconscious I am dreaming, and when I am conscious I am hallucinating, however the actual failure of conclusion based on sensory data is the same functionally. No stimulus of a dog was received, only a stimulus of pain in my legs, so the perception of the dog was not generated by a direct relationship between data of a dog, but data of a pain. To go into greater detail wiki goes on to add: In a stricter sense, hallucinations are defined as perceptions in a conscious and awake state in the absence of external stimuli which have qualities of real perception, in that they are vivid, substantial, and located in external objective space.
I think this does a good job of adding useful criteria that does not box in the definition too much. Ill have to bone up on type 1 and type 2 errors, but they play a large role in perception. Creative can you comment on this? After all we rarely mistake a day dream for perception, but if we did it would be called a hallucination. The same goes for reading a book, the error in conclusion makes all the difference. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bushido, you're not following the plot here...
I am well aware of the convo between massage and you. I am also aware of the definition of hallucinate. So that whole post may have been a waste of time. However, you did support my position against creative's redacted quote of massage's post. creative supported it too. (colored and bolded for emphasis)(blue=bushido red=creative) He was talking about hallucinations being false, which is a given fact by definition and usage. First off, there is no argument between me and Massage we understand each other VERY well.
Second: You have to take definitions in the broadest sense when dealing with things like this (understanding another persons meaning, it is the intellectually honest thing to do and why I wanted to make sure JB understood my meaning), no use trying to use a single snippet of one part of a definition (unless you are trying to straw man the argument). Wiki agrees, the first line of wiki acknowledges this. A hallucination, in broadest sense of the word, is a perception in the absence of a stimulus. Which would make my usage correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination I do not get why this is problematic to understand. On hallucination and how talk regarding degrees of false creates unnecessary confusion...
EXACTLY, and this reveals a more granular understanding of how we can hallucinate.
-- It is important to note here, that it is rarely - if ever - the case that one's entire field of vision constitutes being a hallucination. I mean, the oasis that is being imagined to exist in the middle of the desert is not there. Rather, that image exists only in the imagination and therefore constitutes being a hallucination; breach between thought/belief about fact/reality and fact/reality. The desert is not a hallucination. The point being that if, and only if, we wrongfully/incorrectly speak by calling everything within the entire field of vision a hallucination do we find the need to talk about degrees of falsity. The part(s) of the field/image that correspond(s) to the way things are is not part of the hallucination itself, even if they are a part of the experience of hallucinating. If one holds that the desert is a part of the hallucination, then one is calling that which corresponds to fact/reality a hallucination as well as that which does not. By doing this the term is rendered meaningless through losing it's distinction. Understanding the phenomena requires getting past definitions, however if we look closely we find that the definition fits just fine, but in a subset of the totality of perception. In fact I think it quite RARE indeed that the totality of perception of any individual is a complete fabrication. Even when we dream we find moments where stimulus creeps in and shapes the imagined details. I had a cramp in my leg, I dreamed a dog was sitting on my leg. The perception of the dog was fabricated, the stimulus of my leg hurting was not, the sensory data was accurately measured, the conclusion drawn by my subconscious mind was not. The word dream and the word hallucinate can be interchanged in this scenario and they mean the same thing except that when I am unconscious I am dreaming, and when I am conscious I am hallucinating, however the actual failure of conclusion based on sensory data is the same functionally. No stimulus of a dog was received, only a stimulus of pain in my legs, so the perception of the dog was not generated by a direct relationship between data of a dog, but data of a pain. To go into greater detail wiki goes on to add: In a stricter sense, hallucinations are defined as perceptions in a conscious and awake state in the absence of external stimuli which have qualities of real perception, in that they are vivid, substantial, and located in external objective space.
I think this does a good job of adding useful criteria that does not box in the definition too much. Ill have to bone up on type 1 and type 2 errors, but they play a large role in perception. Creative can you comment on this? After all we rarely mistake a day dream for perception, but if we did it would be called a hallucination. The same goes for reading a book, the error in conclusion makes all the difference. I am aware of degrees of truth, as I am sure you are. massage is aware of the degrees also. The conversation between you and massage (which was about those degrees) was taken out of context and redacted which changed it's meaaning. Then I'm told that context shouldn't change the meaning??? So then, a 2-part question for you: 1: Was massage's meaning skewered by the redaction of his sentence and it being taking it out of context? 2: Would you consider such a thing intellectually honest? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rabbit hole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rabbit hole. Huh-Huh-huh-huh huhhhh It's wabbit season! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 10/13/11 03:55 PM
|
|
If the rock I'm staring at is affected by this flaw, does that make the tree I see false too? Neither, unless the rock is small enough to completely sit inside the space I mentioned, and we break down the interactions into single frames of perception.
In that case it would surprise me that you would see the rock at all, perhaps you saw the rock there previously and it was not in that part of the field of vision (thus you previously received that sensory data) and then later your brain knew it was there and so when it fell inside that area your brain then adds that detail without the actual sensory data to fill it in, in which case I would in fact call it hallucinatory, yet accurate and was exactly what I meant in my OP for this fun side bar for belief. In the broadest sense the word means perception without sensory data. If we break this down into single frames of sensory data, and single frames of perception it becomes clear that a 1x1 area of your frame is hallucinatory when it does not have the data to back it up, and the rest is not becuase it does have the data. Each statement given this example would need to be looked at. Ex. If the statement was, your entire perception is a hallucination that would be false. Ex. If the statement was a 1x1 inch of what you perceive in your visual field is a hallucination then it would be valid in this sense based on this broad definition. Just interesting, nothing I have posted was meant in anyway to be seen as contradicting anything anyone else said, so much as adding a new spin to an old outlook. This post is also not really aimed at anyone in particular, just me having fun with the observations raised. You know, I am one to not argue over context, becuase when I look that word up it has more meanings then I care to parse. Just my .02 So instead I like to use examples to make clear in what way I meant so and so. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Thu 10/13/11 09:19 PM
|
|
Speaking of hallucinations... ah nevermind.
-- Bushido, I'm not sure what these error types are that you're asking for comment on. I'd be glad to look into it and offer my thoughts if you could clarify what you mean. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 10/14/11 12:10 AM
|
|
Regarding hallucinations with respect to talking about perceptions and data...
We're talking about making a kind of mistake in thought/belief, and there can be little to no doubt that there are different kinds of mistake. All mistake in thought/belief is mental mistake. All thought/belief has it's basis in being about fact/reality. However, all mistake in thought belief is not hallucination. I leave it here for now... -- Edited in order to remove redundant truth claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of hallucinations... ah nevermind.
-- Bushido, I'm not sure what these error types are that you're asking for comment on. I'd be glad to look into it and offer my thoughts if you could clarify what you mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All that talk of false positives and false negatives can be confusing/counterintuitive. It is my opinion that great liberties are being taken with the terms that add confusion. While the phenomena being described happens(incorrect diagnosis), much of the confusion is of our own making via language use. The "negative" and "positive" reference test results based upon the null hypothesis. The "true" and "false" are the most important aspects, in my opinion, and nothing is ambiguous about how it is being set out...
If the result of the test corresponds with reality, then a correct decision has been made. However, if the result of the test does not correspond with reality, then an error has occurred.
"True" corresponds to reality, and "false" does not. Therefore, the "false positive" refers to a previous false diagnosis of what is the case. A "false negative" refers to a previous false diagnosis of what is the case as well. The problem(kinds of error) lies in how it is being set out within language. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems an unnecessarily complex way to describe what is going on. False positives and false negatives are both false for the exact same reason. Remove "positives" and "negatives" and replace with diagnosis and/or conclusions and it becomes clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did I miss something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the rock I'm staring at is affected by this flaw, does that make the tree I see false too? Neither, unless the rock is small enough to completely sit inside the space I mentioned, and we break down the interactions into single frames of perception.
In that case it would surprise me that you would see the rock at all, perhaps you saw the rock there previously and it was not in that part of the field of vision (thus you previously received that sensory data) and then later your brain knew it was there and so when it fell inside that area your brain then adds that detail without the actual sensory data to fill it in, in which case I would in fact call it hallucinatory, yet accurate and was exactly what I meant in my OP for this fun side bar for belief. In the broadest sense the word means perception without sensory data. If we break this down into single frames of sensory data, and single frames of perception it becomes clear that a 1x1 area of your frame is hallucinatory when it does not have the data to back it up, and the rest is not becuase it does have the data. Each statement given this example would need to be looked at. Ex. If the statement was, your entire perception is a hallucination that would be false. Ex. If the statement was a 1x1 inch of what you perceive in your visual field is a hallucination then it would be valid in this sense based on this broad definition. Just interesting, nothing I have posted was meant in anyway to be seen as contradicting anything anyone else said, so much as adding a new spin to an old outlook. This post is also not really aimed at anyone in particular, just me having fun with the observations raised. You know, I am one to not argue over context, becuase when I look that word up it has more meanings then I care to parse. Just my .02 So instead I like to use examples to make clear in what way I meant so and so. So, when you use examples, aren't you in fact, "setting" the context??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What difference does it make?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. Let's get back on topic...
Belief requires mental correlation. I am inclined to conclude that there are one in the same thing. I think that there is a necessary causal connection. Perhaps it be better put, thought/belief requires a certain chain of events which happen in a specific order. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------->?<---------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former mod none-the-less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. Let's get back on topic... Belief requires mental correlation. I am inclined to conclude that there are one in the same thing. I think that there is a necessary causal connection. Perhaps it be better put, thought/belief requires a certain chain of events which happen in a specific order. you keep coming up with 'belief requrires this' or 'belief requires that' and seem to expect the rest of us to accept YOUR requirement as some kind of law of physics. that's the essence of the strawman argument. taking off on a premise that has not been accepted and running with it. establish that belief requires mental correlation in all of us or that belief requres a certain chain of events which happen in specific order and THEN we have something to discuss. and you're still combining "thought/belief" as if they're one and the same. another not accepted premise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Thu 10/20/11 10:16 AM
|
|
One example of thought/belief that is void of mental correlation would negate the claim.
Got one?
|
|
|
|
|
