Out of Mythic into Rational consciousness, the EX-JW Journey

by jst2laws 123 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AuldSoul

  Tor,

  To bend a spoke on the wheel you rode in on, consider for a moment the "wheel" of the three primary colors. For paint, the pallete is red, yellow, and blue. For light, red, green, and blue.

  Suppose you keep the color labels exactly the same and turn the wheel one full color clockwise. Suppose this is the primary color wheel as your SO sees it.

  That is, suppose if you were to look through the eyes and perception of your SO you would find that what you have always called blue your SO sees as what you have always called yellow, what you have always called red your SO sees as what you have always called blue, and what you have always called yellow your SO sees as what you have always called red.

  If this were the case the two of you would mix colors to arrive at the mutually agreed upon labels for any given combination color in exactly the same way but you would still be mentally interpreting the visual experience differently. The "scientific data" to which kid-A referred earlier depends on the presupposition of the existence of color as a constant as verbally communicated. That presupposition cannot be extricated from such a test until someone can literally look at the world using someone else's perspective.

  The question of factuality of color is one that is limited to individual perception and science has yet to discover a way to demonstrate contrarywise. It is no doubt frustrating to scientists how easily philosophy can rip straight through all pretense at adhering to their scientific method in attempts to prove otherwise. Individual interpretation of color is a fine piece of evidence to help support assertions that valid experiential individual facts exist that cannot be substantiated through the scientific method.

  It is not the eye which interprets wavelengths it is struck by; it is the mind that interprets them. Science cannot read minds.

  In other words, all that was proven by the results of the test to which kid-A referred was that at the same wave lengths people identify the same color labels, the degree of agreement between the subjects' interpretted perceptions cannot yet be tested scientifically. The results seem objective, but they are based on false (or at least subjective) premises.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  It is not the eye which interprets wavelengths it is struck by; it is the mind that interprets them. Science cannot read minds.

  In other words, all that was proven by the results of the test to which kid-A referred was that at the same wave lengths people identify the same color labels, the degree of agreement between the subjects' interpretted perceptions cannot yet be tested scientifically. The results seem objective, but they are based on false (or at least subjective) premises.

  Interesting point AuldSoul. I didn't major in neurosciences, but I would think that the cortical regions involved, the neural networks proccessing the input, collating it and how they perform those operations, are also basically the same among individuals. So I would expect most people to have very similar perceptions of physical reality if they were subjected to the same course of stimuli.

  Without having that commonality of perceived reality (to borrow from HS), I don't think we could have come very far technologically (it would have been difficult to share learned observations, patterns etc).

  I agree with you though that perception is not exactly the same for all of us. Actually, not even to ourselves at times. If you first stuck your hand into a bucket of water that was 15 degrees celsius, it wouldn't feel all that cold or warm to you. But if you then stuck your hand into an ice-cold pale of water for about a minute then back into that bucket of water that was 15 deg celsius, it would sure feel much warmer to you this time round. I know this effect occurs because the sensors are not gaging absolute temperatures but changes in state - the point still stands though- that perception can be subjective.

  Rationally then, I'd have to say its difficult for any of us to ever say we have an absolute and objective grasp of reality. We'd have to concede that our perceptions and mental constructs may need to, or will change.

  I liked Narkissos' analogy of rationality and mythical thinking being our legs in our journey. Rational thought is very important and I think the ancients were able to be just as rational in thinking as we moderns are. Just consider the mathematics and the physical principles that they already knew back then. A also think the mythical has worht. They are mental constructs generated to account for some intuitively perceived reality. They were interesting ways of describing realities about human interactions with one another and nature in lieu of the data that more advanced technology has now provided for us. I still think the mythical element is useful today in conveying insights about human nature in ways that can be appreciated and grasped by people of any intellectual level or cultural background.
• 

  SixofNine

  "Science cannot read minds."

  To a surprising extent and getting better at it every day. I read just today of a technology that can read the mind's communication with the voice box, and w/o even speaking, the thought sent to the larynx can generate text. I might have to take another look at buddhism!

  Narkissos and Pole should have a field day with that one. Not to mention the CIA.

  "the degree of agreement between the subjects' interpreted perceptions cannot yet be tested scientifically."

  Why not?
• 

  AuldSoul

  SixofNine: Why not?

  Even in the example you gave it is not the perceptions that are being communicated to the technology that generates text. It is the labels the subject has learned to attribute to its perceptions which are being communicated. That is what language is: An elaborate interconnected system of labels assigned to various experiential (or merely conceptual) phenomenon.

  The perceptions occur in the mind, and science can't yet read minds. No matter how skilled they become at trapping and translating into labels the impulses generated by the mind.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  SixofNine

  Again, I'd have to ask, why not?

  I know what language is, I'm not sure it can be so separate from perceptions in a person who has a language. In any case, science, in the "reading minds" department, does in effect read perceptions, when researching emotion and thought using imaging techniques.

  Humans are comparison monkeys. If we were as good with facts as we are with sounds, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. :-D

  Anyway, I'm not seeing, pardon the pun, why you think perception of color is a horse of another color (ptp) than perception of anything else (music, beauty, whether or not Carlos Mencia is funny*, etc).

  .

  .

  .

  .

  .

  .

  *he's not.
• 

  Narkissos

  Communication involves a complex network of signs, including tone, facial and bodily expressions, levels of language besides mere words (on an Internet forum spelling, syntax, typography and smilies -- or the lack thereof -- also convey a lot of "meaning"). Yet anything you "get across" has to be entirely (although mostly unconsciously) reconstructed at the receiving end. So the identity of the message as sent and received is only approximate (except perhaps in mathematical formulae, which rely on strict conventions).

  I personally think ambiguity is an integral part of language, with the possibility of lying and otherwise concealing our thought. Partial opacity and transparence of language are essential to the building of speaking subjects. Both "thought" and "communication" depend on language, but without an excess of the former over the latter there would be nobody speaking. Imo.
• 

  AuldSoul

  SixofNine,

  I do not believe kid-A (or anyone else) attempted to objectively prove scientifically whether Carlos Mencia is or is not funny. While it is accepted as indisputable that humor is in the eye of the beholder, for some reason the researchers kid-A drew upon for "proof" failed to see that perception of color is equally ambiguous as far as can be objectively proven. And yet, it was presented as proof.

  In other words, I did not paint the horse to make it look like a zebra and then call it a zebra. kid-A did that. I just used paint stripper on the "zebra" and proved that it was still a horse.

  Once again, science can test for and trap physical reaction to stimuli and infer conclusions about the thoughts which precipitated those reactions, but they cannot read minds; they still can't be certain that their inferences about the thoughts which originated the reactions are correct.

  What science can trap for is the effect of perception. Science still cannot trap or interpret the perceptions themselves.

  Narkissos,

  I agree that ambiguity plays a major role in communication. I also believe this ambiguous nature of communication is what renders the bare written word so much more evocative than personal interactions. Only a few shades of the whole meaning can be communicated in writing. Even if only a few shades more can be conveyed in person, those extra few shades can make the difference between a perceived insult and a perceived compliment.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  SixofNine

  Perception of color is not particularly ambiguous. Perception of the word "perception", now that can be ambiguous.

  "I personally think ambiguity is an integral part of language, with the possibility of lying and otherwise concealing our thought. Partial opacity and transparence of language are essential to the building of speaking subjects. Both "thought" and "communication" depend on language, but without an excess of the former over the latter there would be nobody speaking. Imo."

  Interesting thought, Didier. I suspect that brain imaging shows very basic responses to common stimuli; it may be a long time before science is able to actually map the complex lies forming as our brains construct a script that shows the world: No, that's not fear, it's anger!
• 

  Terry

  Narkissos commented: I don't think people of ancient civilisations were less rational than we are. I don't think I was any less rational as a JW than I am now.

  It depends on how small you make your daily "world".

  Typically, the cultmember lives in an infinitesimal world. He or she views it, of course, as epic in scope.

  The tiny world doesn't impact on reality very much. You don't bump into the furniture in an empty room.

  By staying in a very narrow world of a forced perspective you cannot be impacted by the dissonance very much. This is why cults encourage a hermetic existence.

  1.Don't read outside writing.

  2.Don't make close friendships with non-believers

  3.Don't engage in higher education at any level

  4.Don't disagree with the official policy

  5.View others suspiciously

  6.Stay in a refutation mode when engaging in conversation or reading magazines or watching TV.

  7.Interpret (or RE-interpret) all data according to how you've been taught to view it.

  Consequently, by keeping the world at a manageable size it is not AS NECESSARY to be RATIONAL in the critical sense. You don't have to TEST your rationality. It atrophies as a result.

  People in ancient times didn't have newspapers, radio, the Internet, tv, etc. They could maintain a cosmetic world view easily unless they were conquered or travelled to distant lands and cultures.

  The heremetic wandering Jews had their world rocked by conquest and their theology instantly modified.

  As Jehovah's Witnesess we stayed in the hive. We eschewed rational tests of our intellect. In fact, we were hellbent on pronouncing judgement on dissonant experiences post haste.

  Our training (as men) was as counterpunchers. We stayed in refutation mode of conversation as though in a debate when at odds with outside views.

  So, in regard to what Narkissos said in the box above, we cannot say we were FULLY RATIONAL as JW's. We stayed out of a neutral point of view. We stacked the deck in our favor. A level playing field we avoided at all costs. We were 100% convinced we were absolutely right MAINLY because we never allowed a fair test on a rational playing field.
• 

  Terry

  Yet anything you "get across" has to be entirely (although mostly unconsciously) reconstructed at the receiving end. So the identity of the message as sent and received is only approximate (except perhaps in mathematical formulae, which rely on strict conventions).

  And yet, we can train ourselves and each to enforce standards of communication to avoid these problems. If serious conversations (as opposed to casual) were held to rigorous norms as if data were involved the results would approach precision.

  Let's fact the fact that if the American Language (notice I don't say "english") weren't so sloppy, slothful and ill-used, we wouldn't constantly fall over the obstacle of cross-purposes.

  One glaring example of this would be the fact that most serious discussion don't begin by clarifying the exact CONTEXT and giving definition (to agree upon) of important terms. This is elementary in debate.

  A lot of what passes for discussion on JWD is rife with dropped contexts and dissonant definition of terms.

  Non-essential elements are presented as essentials because contexts are allowed to float away into the air.

  Does this mean we all turn into boring Academics sucking on pipes and intoning platitudes through clenched teeth?

  Of course not! It just means we can avoid the problem which Narkissos has identified through a bit of disicipline in our thinking and interacting.

  I heartily defend the rational process because it is the ONLY process which has brought progress to man in the form of knowledge, science, technology and advancement for society.

  Our "intuitive" bent, our emotioanl reliance and our "gut instincts" do us harm daily. Let us drag them out of the dark fruit cellar and into daylight. Specificity never destroyed a point worth making.