I have come to believe both versions of the saying 'What the eyes do not see, the mind does not perceive' and its spooner sister ' what the mind does not see, the eyes do not perceive.' It is a bit like an a priori Vs an a posteriori viewpoint.
Each is true ...we only know as much as we see around us. Our most fantastic stories, our dreams, our creations arealways shaped by what we have seen, experienced or subconsciously felt....now, perhaps in our childhood.But how we choose to live does depend on that. we have the potential to shape what we call future if we realise that it is just a play of action and consequence....a seemingly endless Goedelian paradox.
So again...if we do nothing...will nothing happen to us. Will that equation be negated because the variables are zero?Theoretically yes. But if we go full out and try the best we can.....is it still a fair equation?Are we limited by our perceptual limitations? Concepts like 'gut feeling' or 'counterintuitive intelligence' probably originate from this line of thought.Yet we never ask ourselves why we thought so.Why it felt that ' this was how it was to be.'
Could we work that into a mathematical deterministic possibility..reliably reusable experience with similar results? Again theoretically yes.Realistically? Dont know.
We have our concepts of time vector based on suppositions we never have seen or perceived.But proven mathematically.It is a far more different realm.It was because someone had a bent of mind to challenge the limits of the a priori .
Again the beautiful and simplistic way in which a genius like Feynman or Einstein explain their theories( we all know of the gas stove example of Einstein's explaining relativity and Feynman's books can be read by you and me) using examples of daily life, events and things we see everyday..they arent schizoid fantasy robots....they probably challenged their limits of perception, thought it not foolish enough to be not rule bound normal.
We do have pop philosophy of movies like MATRIX which make it a fashionable thing.It gets one interested.But at the risk of being labeled cranky. Seeable and believable, but not trustworthy reliable.Like Avogadro principle of homeopathy. Nice in theory, on paper, good for colds....but curing cancer...are U kidding?Maybe thats bridge we have to build. In our thought.
India trip 2025
This trip has been difficult at the onset due to personal problems and I carried some emotional burden traveling with some unresolved issu...
-
This trip has been difficult at the onset due to personal problems and I carried some emotional burden traveling with some unresolved issu... -
As the Tsunami of COVID cases in the Indian subcontinent shows signs of finally receding, what us e d to be a painful routine for many US ... -
Awesome video...look at the hungry ants come in their bellies empty and then slowlydistend with the red sugary stuff.....!!
2 comments:
Good point raised..Shiva.. Well WYSIWYG in only true only for machines it can never stand true for us with other parameters influencing interatively and continuously the output on input grasped. thus eye is a poor servant who delivers the content, but its the master "brain" which process corelates and judges ....
As in 'Matrix' brain interfacing and physical input signals replacement by external hard drive could be possible..work's in progress on cracking these codes of mind and converting them to understable modes later to reverse engineer ...this feat would take up next 30-50 years to be at a presentable stage...
I hope you meant to say something of this context too??
-Amol
Well I am talking about the psychodynamic aspect of it...you the neurobiologic aspect. Anysomeway...as it exists in its entirity, and we dissect out subjects and aspects of it...human brain or emotion is complex.Thought is not a simple quantified 'thing' ( how inadequate a term!) of Cartesian logic. There are so many parallel processes...that matrix , if it were, of all thought in all the minds of the world would be humungously big.That seems more concept than possiblity.
This is not to celebrate our ignorance ( indeed its important to be humble) but I think this is a challenge to our capabilities.
We could create AI thats fantastically innovative...but it would be limited to only as much as we know.The fearful concept of the invention turning to be wiser than the creator ...well lets leave that to Aldous Huxley.
Post a Comment