Limits of Human Perception

[Anonymous No.12508729]

Do there exist things immediately in front of us that we are fundamentally incapable of perceiving? When a bird looks at a computer screen, it can see the computer and what's going on, but it cannot understand any of it. The bird doesn't look at the screen and think to itself "What's going on there?" The bird looks at the screen for only a split-second, and doesn't think anything of it. To the bird, the computer screen is just another flat plane within his local environment. The bird is fundamentally incapable of perceiving the computer screen. There must be things that humans are fundamentally incapable of perceiving. What exactly is consciousness, and do there exist non-physical beings? At least currently, we cannot scientifically define consciousness, and we cannot scientifically prove the existence of a non-physical world of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.12508733]

[Anonymous No.12508744]

[Anonymous No.12508754]

>>12508729
if you want to get really schizophrenic with it, you could posit that the human senses are fundamental dimensions of reality that we lack the ability to understand, with abnormal phenomenon, like DMT "machine elves", being actual sentient beings existing within such incomprehensibly different spaces. maybe an entity living at a perpendicular angle to our dimension (a concept not requiring definition as it is inherently incomprehensible) would understand light and colours as rigid, spatial concepts, with the physical dimensions that we perceive as fundamentally "spatial", being variable and malleable like light is to us.

[Anonymous No.12508758]

>>12508744
nice

[Anonymous No.12508761]

>>12508729
existence exists as a result of perception.
your thought is naturally absurd.
there are limits to reason.

[Anonymous No.12508805]

>>12508754
>like DMT "machine elves"
DMT gives you psychedelic hallucinations. What about the Benadryl and Datura demons caused by extreme psychosis? You realize that the demons clearly weren't real after you've become sober. I've never had any experiences with strong psychedelics before, though.

[Anonymous No.12508808]

>>12508744
why dont they make houses like this. there are too many windows in mine.

[Anonymous No.12508811]

>>12508805
DMT hallucinations aren't comparable to other hallucinogenics, that shit is fucking insane and makes every other hallucinogen look like baby shit on par with a cigarette. DMT is produced natural in the vast majority of plants and animals on earth, including humans and some plants that produce so much it can be concentrated (aka ayahuasca). the clinical understanding of the importance of DMT and what the body uses it for is extremely poorly understood, all they really know is that it causes mind-shattering hallucinations. one possibility is that it is used by the brain to process sensory information.

[Anonymous No.12508816]

>>12508744
god i wish god, i could live there, existence is such a pain. i wish i could live forever in solitude...

[Anonymous No.12508819]

>>12508761
Reason and perception (in op's usage meaning to have awareness if things) are two different things retard.

[Anonymous No.12508821]

>>12508729
Plenty of things cannot be seen with the naked eye, that does not mean they are not there, but if they cannot be detected in principle, then it is not meaningful to refer to such things in a physical context. This is the essence of the physicists positivism.

[Anonymous No.12508826]

>>12508816
make money, save money, create and embrace standard of living that is a balance of comfy/frugal as is desired and sustainable.

[Anonymous No.12508836]

>>12508819
they aren't different. they are naturally ancestral to each other.

[Anonymous No.12508838]

>>12508729
If you take Dirac seriously

[Anonymous No.12508844]

>>12508821
ignoring concepts that are too difficult to conceptualize is nothing more than a safety net for human limitation.

[Anonymous No.12508848]

>>12508838
What did Dirac state?

[Anonymous No.12508865]

>>12508729
>Do there exist things immediately in front of us that we are fundamentally incapable of perceiving?
Yes

[Anonymous No.12508872]

>>12508865
We are capable of perceiving everything on the electromagnetic spectrum with tools we create. There must be certain things we are fundamentally incapable of perceiving, just like the bird who is fundamentally incapable of perceiving a computer.

[Anonymous No.12508873]

>>12508848
Dirac's equation proves the existence of antimatter, if you take that to its natural conclusion then there exist an entire world that is inaccessible to us

[Anonymous No.12508874]

>>12508865
Hell yeah dude

[Anonymous No.12508882]

>>12508872
We use tools to translate imperceptible things into perceivable things. But their fundamental form changes when those tools translate them into something we can understand/interact with. We can listen to the radio but we are definitely not perceiving radio waves.

[Anonymous No.12508936]

>>12508844
That's just stupid. If they cannot be conceptualized, they aren't concepts, human or otherwise. If its manifestation (material or otherwise) cannot be computed in principle on whatever machine you can imagine, it's not meaningful to discuss the thing. Such ideas are not ideas, they don't even rise to the level of a meaningful utterance

[Anonymous No.12508942]

>>12508882
that's fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.12508943]

When you look out at a city, or even just a small group of people's behavior, you are like a bird looking at the computer screen. Just doing the best you can, but there is logic and nearly obvious truth right in your face but you simply cannot comprehend it and therefor are entirely blind to it. Take acid and look out at the city and think about this post though and you might get a glimpse of what that comprehension might be.

[Anonymous No.12508945]

>>12508936
So sayeth the dog watching TV.

[Anonymous No.12508947]

>>12508942
I must stress that there is a difference between being able to perceive something and being able to perceive information contained in something

[Anonymous No.12508948]

>>12508945
shut the fuck up kid, get off my board

[Anonymous No.12508949]

>>12508936
>If its manifestation (material or otherwise) cannot be computed in principle on whatever machine you can imagine, it's not meaningful to discuss the thing.
That's a philosophical statement. I wouldn't be surprised if there exist aliens who are capable of perceiving certain things we would never in a million years be able to perceive. Maybe we'd have robots who'd learn to make themselves smarter who'd develop patterns of thinking fundamentally different from our own patterns of thinking that we would've initially programmed into them who would be capable of discovering such things.

[Anonymous No.12508950]

>>12508729
Dark matter

[Anonymous No.12508960]

>>12508947
>I must stress that there is a difference between being able to perceive something and being able to perceive information contained in something
Almost completely wrong, even if I'm being generous.
>>12508949
>That's a philosophical statement... gibberish gibberish gibberish
Not science or math. Do you even like math? You have no future in mathematics. Fuck you, insolent child. Learn some math. You need to go. Holy shit leave /sci/

[Anonymous No.12508966]

>>12508960
>Almost completely wrong, even if I'm being generous.
You can perceive me, but you cannot perceive the information contained in me.
You cannot perceive radio waves, but you can listen to the radio.
Do you have a counterexample?

[Anonymous No.12508981]

>>12508966
>You can perceive me, but you cannot perceive the information contained in me.
>You cannot perceive radio waves, but you can listen to the radio.
I can perceive the information contained in you. The computation going on inside your head can in principle be physically extracted and replicated, although this is not practicable. As for radio waves we perceive them using the instruments we have available to us, and there is no other physically meaningful way to describe perceiving these things. I can in principle augment my body to interpret radio waves into whatever form I desire, like sound, and I can fuck with my current perception of sound as well-- it's all in the physical tuning of physical information, and all physical information can be extracted in this way (in principle). That is the limiting extent to which it is meaningful to describe things like "radio waves" and "the stuff in your head." Anything outside this physical context, things that cannot be represented on a computer, is just meaningless nonsensical gibberish. If you meditate on this long enough, you will agree, I promise.

[Anonymous No.12508986]

>>12508744
never get a shower addition

[Anonymous No.12509004]

>>12508986
Thanks for pointing that out. Now, that bunker doesn't look so comfy. I'd go crazy from being sweaty all the time.

[Anonymous No.12509297]

>>12508729
>The bird is fundamentally incapable of perceiving the computer screen.
You'd really need to explain what makes you think so, because this is quite obviously false otherwise

[Anonymous No.12509322]

>>12509297
The bird can only perceive a flat plane with some colors.

[Anonymous No.12509341]

>>12509297
The bird only perceives a flat plane with some colors.

[Anonymous No.12510629]

>>12509341
There is no good reason for thinking so.