Comments on Nathaniel Branden's Benefits & Hazard's talk

Ellen wrote, "I also add: I'm sending from a laptop with an outdated browser on which I can't use italics, hence the resort to quote marks above."

Ellen, I don't know if this will work on your browser, but you might try the following: Immediately before the text that you want italicized, type a less-than sign (which is the upper-case symbol on your comma key), the letter i (or the letters em), followed by a greater-than sign (which is the upper-case symbol on your period key). Immediately following the text that you want italicized, type a less-than sign, a forward slash, the letter i (or the letters em) and a greater-than sign. For bold, substitute the letter b; and for underlining, the letter u. If you want more information on these html codes, google "bare bones html."

- Bill

Post 61

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 11:20am

to claim that something might exist without means of perceiving it is fantasy

Huh?

You can't perceive radio signals, you can only detect and transmit them. Yet they exist.

You can't perceive radiation, you can only be infected by it.

You're not talking about it that way, are you?

rde
Huh?

Post 62

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 11:21am

Bill,

You hit the nail on the head with your analogy of blind person with red ball. That is the kind of data I am talking about. Now suppose that all the other people around this blind person had no idea of what sight was, but this person did. How would he describe red to them? In terms of round and touch? they would laugh at him.

Now suppose that this same person had no structure for "disciplining" such knowledge as color. This phenomenon in that context of the blind would have very little value. Because of the scoffing and so forth, such person would even be inclined to try to "not see" and curse himself for that manner of perception. The only thing that the sensation of sight would bring him is derision and people thinking he was crazy, etc.

You wrote, "... as far as I am aware, none of the claims to anomalous perception asserts anything analogous to experiencing a new form of perception."

I see you have not had much contact with these things. (I have not had that much contact, myself, but I know of organizations devoted to awakening such perceptions. Their efficacy right now is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that they exist precisely for the purpose you say you are not aware of.)

Michael

Post 63

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 11:33am

I'm not sure there's that much point in talking about a potential sense-organ-in-development, although wouldn't that be interesting? :)

There appear to be components in the brain that are used to varying degrees by different people. The so-called "empathy" component, for instance.

With raising consciousness, working towards altered/elevated/alternative states it would seem we are dealing more with mind/body integration. Various practices which align the physical, intellectual, and emotional centers, for instance.

This is a real situation here, folks. If you don't believe it, try this (I've said it before). See how long you can remain physically motionless (no fidgeting, unconscious body motions) while maintaining a sensation of body, and mental awareness- as in being aware of the environment around you, and not having any associative thoughts. No internal dialogue.

If you are like 99% of the people on the planet, you can't hold it together for even 30 seconds.

That's the challenge- working with the existing equipment!

rde

Post 64

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 11:58am

Robert Malcom wrote, "To exist presupposes perceivability - to claim that something might exist without means of perceiving it is fantasy."

Interesting claim! Kind of a spin-off of Bishop Berkeley's "esse est percipi"--to be is to be perceived--viz., to be is to be perceivable. However, while better than the good Bishop's subjectivist declaration, I don't think it will pass muster, at least not as stated. Just to be clear, existence does not presuppose consciousness, even though consciousness does presuppose existence. You could certainly have a world in which there were no conscious beings. Such a world would indeed exist without any means of perceiving it.

But perhaps Robert is assuming the presence of consciousness, and is claiming that given its presence, there is nothing that cannot be perceived. I don't think this is correct either. If the highest form of consciousness were non-rational, it could not perceive anything beyond its unaided senses. Even man could not perceive distant galaxies before the invention of the telescope, or microscopic organisms before the invention of the microscope. There are still aspects of reality that are beyond our ability to perceive--galaxies at the far side of the universe, for example. Whether someone will at some point in the future be able to perceive them is anyone's guess.

Our ability to perceive what exists is limited by the nature of our senses and the extent of our ability to augment their power artificially. Even for human beings in their present state of knowledge, it is far from fantasy to claim that something might exist without any means of perceiving it.

- Bill

Post 65

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 12:19pm

Robert Malcom wrote:

To exist presupposes perceivability - to claim that something might exist without means of perceiving it is fantasy.

Somebody else wrote this in a different, more succinct manner:

I think, therefore I am.

Michael

Post 66

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 12:31pm

Who was it here who said it would have been better as "I am, therefore I think." ? ...

to claim that something might exist without means of perceiving it is fantasy

But just think how good you can be at selling junk bonds!!!

rde
Fleeing.

Post 67

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 1:58pm

Robert Malcom wrote:

To exist presupposes perceivability - to claim that something might exist without means of perceiving it is fantasy.

MSK replied:

Somebody else wrote this in a different, more succinct manner: I think, therefore I am.

No, it was George Berkeley, aka Bishop Berkeley. "To be is to be perceived".

Post 68

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 2:12pm

I think science made things very perceptually (and metaphysically) er, interesting for people. In a relatively short period of evolution, we found out that there are things we cannot see, sounds we cannot hear. We got atomic theory. We got quantum physics...shit, people telling us that the table in front of us actually might actually be in more than one place at one moment--who the hell needs that?

We know that we only perceive a very small fraction of what is going on around us. And we have to filter it down to even less than that in order to focus.

None of this is "mysticism," or "religious". But it is the weirdness of the divine, that's for sure. It's a good thing evolution has the filtering set up the way it is...

rde
And no I don't want those 3-D glasses, hell no!

Post 69

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 2:28pm

Ugh, you guys are making yet another thread entirely usless :) Robert Malcom meant with that statement the following :

To claim the existence of something that will never be perceived by the senses is arbitrary nonsense (supernatural gods, for example).

He's an Objectivist. This is well known by now and so he should be given the benefit of the doubt as to his meaning. There is no need to clutter message threads with useless digressions.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 12/06, 2:35pm)

Post 70

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 3:00pm

Jason,

You are correct, however there is no reason for him to clutter our meanings with useless barbs either.

Or is the Objectivist context only valid for one-liners?

Michael

Post 71

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 6:21pm

My my - go away for a bit to get DSL installed, and the world goes into a handbasket.... thanks, Jason, am glad someone had the brains to know I was not being 'primacy of consciousness' in what was said...

but - the position holds, if one thinks more on it instead of fantasizing 'new' senses... as humans, we are the only ones able to be aware of more than our immediate surroundings, and furthermore, alter it if need be...

further still, while immediate sensing of distant planets and galexies are beyond our eyes, without using 'new' senses, we develop extentions to enable us to 'see' those distances - that is, they are perceivable to us... if it exists, it is knowable - there is nothing within the universe which is not knowable, because measureability is an aspect of existing, and we possess the means of measuring... but that does not mean we can know it all at once... and by the obverse, if there is no means by which something can be known, then it does not exist...

Post 72

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 8:27pm

Rich has hit the nail on the head post after post. Rock on Rich. I agree with your points completely, well said and insightful.

Post 73

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 8:24am

(blush)

Well, thank you for the kind words, Erik!

Overall, I think there has been a lot of spirited and useful exchange in this thread. I've enjoyed it a great deal. It even spun off another thread, did it not? That is a good thing!

best to all,
rde
I wasn't kidding about spiking that punch.

Post 74

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 9:10am

if it exists, it is knowable

That's where the conversation gets interesting. It gets to consciousness, awareness, and how people experience differently based on those two things.

Post 75

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 1:50pm

If people are interested, I've started a new thread in the General Forum, entitled "Are certain things unknowable?" in which I quote Nathaniel Branden's answer and discuss its validity as well as its relevance to the question of perceivability.

- Bill

Post 76

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 1:54pm

If that were so, Bill, why did you not carry on with the further commentings I did on the matter here?
(Edited by robert malcom on 12/07, 1:55pm)

Post 77

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 7:06pm

Robert, see Post 7 of the new thread.

Regards,

Bill

Post 78

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 9:25pm

     This 'thread' started with (check TITLE) and almost immediately segued into chronic discussion of nothing but N. Branden's apparent (and every commenter's Obvious) interest in the idea of...perception-(supposedly-by-some)-by-means-of-which-most-others-are-not-aware-of --- (think 'ESP' as a generic rubric).

     Does anyone have any comment on his ACTUAL 'talk'?

     Just curious...as to what 'TITLED'-threads are bait-switching time-wasters. --- Now, about the 'Benefits and Hazards' talk...anyone care to continue, uh, RELEVENTLY?

LLAP
J:D

Post 79

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 9:52pm