Reply With Quote
no. you saw the reflection silly
think about it, seriously
no. you saw the reflection silly
Yes
Agreed.
It doesn't matter if the photons bounced off something first.
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.
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
Damn stoners.
If you were there, were you actually seeing this woman?
No, but you did observe it's reflection :/
I wonder if twins see themselves in a different manner.
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
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
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.
ok i know ur an fugly guy
It most certainly does if what's in the mirror is a Gorgon.
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.
Not if it's a vampire.
this threads done nothing but me up even more. I was thinking about all this earlier while studying earlier and noticed a reflection in a picture frame. i'm thirsty
I have a feeling this is gonna turn religious some how
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.
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.
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.
Looks like its taking that turn...
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.Looks like its taking that turn...
I think so.
I've talked to the man in the mirror.
To 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?
If you only saw a projection of it did you ever really see E.T.?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
