If You Only See Something's Reflection, Did You Ever Actually See IT?

[CubanSucks]

think about it, seriously

[SourCandy]

no. you saw the reflection silly :)

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Yes

[Wild Cobra]

Yes
Agreed.

It doesn't matter if the photons bounced off something first.

[The Reckoning]

uh yeah, duh.

everything is a projection anyway. doesn't matter if you see the projection of the projection - it's still what is initially projected.

[CubanSucks]

But you're not really looking at THAT, you're looking at a mirror or water or glass. I can't make up my mind about it. If I could I wouldn't have made this thread

[Dex]

Damn stoners. :smokin

[Solid D]

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/1772497_f520.jpg

If you were there, were you actually seeing this woman?

[circ]

No, but you did observe it's reflection :/



I wonder if twins see themselves in a different manner.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

uh yeah, duh.

everything is a projection anyway. doesn't matter if you see the projection of the projection - it's still what is initially projected.

Actually no you are not. If the glass is curved or tinted or any myriad of things then the object will have been distorted and you are not truly seeing it.

Now you can infinitely regress and argue that you do not directly experience anything. Everything that you experience at the very least is distorted. The light could be missing visible spectra, there is a time delay as the light reaches you, there could be extrasensory influences involved, the media has to be processed by a sensory organ before the mind then interprets it again.

When it comes down to it, you cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that none of these are true. This was the logical extension that Hume came to.

Now Kant refuted that with the concept of a priori knowledge which basically means that we are granted by God the innate knowledge of the truth of things.

Personally, I find the whole God thing to be without any basis but on a practical level you have to formulate some baseline of reality that you accept or everything truly becomes pointless.

This entire discussion is the basis of the quote in my sig. At a certain point you have to accept your instincts. The alternative is despair.

[circ]

Actually no you are not. If the glass is curved or tinted or any myriad of things then the object will have been distorted and you are not truly seeing it.

Now you can infinitely regress and argue that you do not directly experience anything. Everything that you experience at the very least is distorted. The light could be missing visible spectra, there is a time delay as the light reaches you, there could be extrasensory influences involved, the media has to be processed by a sensory organ before the mind then interprets it again.

When it comes down to it, you cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that none of these are true. This was the logical extension that Hume came to.

Now Kant refuted that with the concept of a priori knowledge which basically means that we are granted by God the innate knowledge of the truth of things.

Personally, I find the whole God thing to be without any basis but on a practical level you have to formulate some baseline of reality that you accept or everything truly becomes pointless.

This entire discussion is the basis of the quote in my sig. At a certain point you have to accept your instincts. The alternative is despair.

fuuuuu... perfectly summarized what I was thinking.

you have to accept what your seeing otherwise wtf can you believe

[BlackSwordsMan]

if you OD and have an out of body experience and look in a mirror and see your spirit do you see actually see it

[The Reckoning]

Actually no you are not. If the glass is curved or tinted or any myriad of things then the object will have been distorted and you are not truly seeing it.

Now you can infinitely regress and argue that you do not directly experience anything. Everything that you experience at the very least is distorted. The light could be missing visible spectra, there is a time delay as the light reaches you, there could be extrasensory influences involved, the media has to be processed by a sensory organ before the mind then interprets it again.

When it comes down to it, you cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that none of these are true. This was the logical extension that Hume came to.

Now Kant refuted that with the concept of a priori knowledge which basically means that we are granted by God the innate knowledge of the truth of things.

Personally, I find the whole God thing to be without any basis but on a practical level you have to formulate some baseline of reality that you accept or everything truly becomes pointless.

This entire discussion is the basis of the quote in my sig. At a certain point you have to accept your instincts. The alternative is despair.



:lol

you sound like this guy i know who's a philosophy major (which wont do anything for him) who spews out what his books tell him. i know, because i took philosphy, and the whole class is "what did this guy say? now, what did this guy say to counter that which was said?"

i used to be all into that "what is the sound of one hand clapping" crap. i guess i became burned out by all that, and now im more of a "it is what it is" kind of guy. if i see myself distorted in a glass, then i am seeing myself. although myself in reality is hypothesized (scientifically) to be a projection on three dimensional space, but i guess philosophy doesnt teach that.

[TDMVPDPOY]

ok i know ur an fugly guy

[ChuckD]

Agreed.

It doesn't matter if the photons bounced off something first.

It most certainly does if what's in the mirror is a Gorgon. :lol

Mirrors only reflect and reverse the image. You haven't seen it, not truly. It's the reason why no one really knows what they look like to other people. They only see their mirror image every morning while shaving or putting on makeup.

[tlongII]

Not if it's a vampire.

[gospursgojas]

I have a feeling this is gonna turn religious some how

[CubanSucks]

this threads done nothing but fuck me up even more. I was thinking about all this earlier while studying earlier and noticed a reflection in a picture frame. Fuck i'm thirsty

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

you sound like this guy i know who's a philosophy major (which wont do anything for him) who spews out what his books tell him. i know, because i took philosphy, and the whole class is "what did this guy say? now, what did this guy say to counter that which was said?"

i used to be all into that "what is the sound of one hand clapping" crap. i guess i became burned out by all that, and now im more of a "it is what it is" kind of guy. if i see myself distorted in a glass, then i am seeing myself. although myself in reality is hypothesized (scientifically) to be a projection on three dimensional space, but i guess philosophy doesnt teach that.

I took an intro philosophy course at UT about 16 years ago and thats about it. I have read Hume, Kant, Russell, Locke, Sartre, Rousseau, Nietzsche Rawls etc on my own. I am very good at math and its much more lucrative so I went that direction in my formal studies.

Actually yes philosophy does teach coordinate systems. Descartes is the one that came up with the cartesian coordinate system which is the basis of your 'projection.' The projection is not reality, it is a mathematical representation of reality. Descartes was one of the first to apply skepticism to his decision making. He talks about the limitations of the senses etc.

The reason why philosophers quote other philosophers is because good philosophy is based on logic. Conclusions are not reached arbitrarily but are deduced. You can question assumptions and the like such as a priori knowledge but the trains of thought are structured.

As such as knowledge of the physical world expands philosophy expands. With wave theory, biological reductionism and the like assumptions change and thus the entire train of logic.

For example, I believe that if you can completely reduce human behavior down to brain and general physiology then the notion that there is a soul for every human is false. If there is a soul then its in that direction that the answers will be found.

Thats not in any book I have read.

[gospursgojas]

I took an intro philosophy course at UT about 16 years ago and thats about it. I have read Hume, Kant, Russell, Locke, Sartre, Rousseau, Nietzsche Rawls etc on my own. I am very good at math and its much more lucrative so I went that direction in my formal studies.

Actually yes philosophy does teach coordinate systems. Descartes is the one that came up with the cartesian coordinate system which is the basis of your 'projection.' The projection is not reality, it is a mathematical representation of reality. Descartes was one of the first to apply skepticism to his decision making. He talks about the limitations of the senses etc.

The reason why philosophers quote other philosophers is because good philosophy is based on logic. Conclusions are not reached arbitrarily but are deduced. You can question assumptions and the like such as a priori knowledge but the trains of thought are structured.

As such as knowledge of the physical world expands philosophy expands. With wave theory, biological reductionism and the like assumptions change and thus the entire train of logic.

For example, I believe that if you can completely reduce human behavior down to brain and general physiology then the notion that there is a soul for every human is false. If there is a soul then its in that direction that the answers will be found.
Thats not in any book I have read.


I have a feeling this is gonna turn religious some how

Looks like its taking that turn...:blah

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Looks like its taking that turn...:blah

I suppose. Plato talked a lot about the soul. It was not in the context of religion. Its the idea of essence that is metaphysical not religious. Perfect forms all that kind of thing.

[Boris]

I think so.

[JoeChalupa]

I've talked to the man in the mirror.

[CosmicCowboy]

To hell with the reflection. If you look straight at it, are you really seeing it? It's just your brains interpretation of electrical impulses sent by your eyes after they try to interpret/interpolate various frequency light waves they receive. What if we are looking at the wrong frequencies or interpreting them wrong?

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

If you only saw a projection of it did you ever really see E.T.?

[MannyIsGod]

This is what happens when you ignore the advice in the other thread and think its cool to get high everyday.

[JamStone]

Reflections "reflect" the object you are seeing. Some have already mentioned that reflections can be distorted by a number of things. You aren't seen that "exact" object.

Otherwise, wouldn't they be "exactions?"

[CosmicCowboy]

And why don't the people in Australia fall off the globe? Do they have to put sticky stuff on their feet?

[Sisk]

I have a feeling this is gonna turn religious some how

Every thread seems to do that these days in The Club. We should change it to "Religious talk"

[leemajors]

you saw his dick, and you probably liked it. quit running from it.

[admiralsnackbar]

If phenomenology = chocolate, and spurstalk = peanut butter.
DJLDF6qZUX0