From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Jul 25 2002 - 19:45:53 MDT
On 26 Jul 2002 at 2:28, Dr Sebby wrote:
> ...'real' to a point of minimum effectiveness to 'get by'long enough to
> procreate a few times. yes, it IS real...but only an edited version of the
> full version, and with many specific shifts in cosmetic elements....and as
> half-truths are not the truth, nor can an edited version of something be an
> entirely objective version. we were talking about "interpretation" remember?
> this involves something more than simply registering information...reality
> becomes subjective the moment the processing of received information begins.
> i see your point, but on human terms i still think youre wrong...in terms
> of physics/chem./hard scientific reality, youre absolutely correct....eg,
> whether i see black as black or something else, it's still gonna get hotter
> in the sun if i leave it out(whatever it is).
>
The interplay between scientific theory and the experimental practice
and technological progress that its advance have made possible has
allowed us to technologically augment both our actions and our
perceptions, to the point that we are now perceptually exploiting a vast
array of hitherto unavailable informational media (higher and lower
frequency light and sound waves, chemical testing finer than out taste
and smell, laser testing finer than touch, seeing inside objects by many
means, including fMRI and PET and CAT scans as well as sonic
sounding), giving us a much more complete grasp of our objects of
study, on many more scales (microcosmic to cosmic - microscopes,
channelling tunnelling electron microscopes, telescopes, x-ray
telescopes, radio telescopes, etc.) that ever before possible.
>
> drsebby.
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: joedees@bellsouth.net
> Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: Let's Try Again, Blunderov (Postmodernism)
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:10:08 -0500
>
> On 25 Jul 2002 at 23:30, Dr Sebby wrote:
>
> > ...however, our interpretation of everything is relative due to our
> > sensorium filters known as nerves, eyes, ears, brain, and nose. but
> since
> > that is going to be universally true for anything biological or otherwise
> > which tries to 'interpret' anything; is there any real point in me
> > mentioning it? there shouldnt be.
> >
> Our sensorium does not detect all the levels of all the possible modes
> originating or reflecting from an object, true, but that renders it
> incomplete, not incorrect. Countless millennia have selected the
> sensorium most consonant with our survival and reprodiction, and this
> would have to include, for us, a capacity to sensuously construct a
> workable (thus veridical) model of the environing world.
> >
> > drsebby.
> > "Courage...and shuffle the cards".
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> > http://www.hotmail.com
> >
>
>
>
>
> DrSebby.
> "Courage...and shuffle the cards".
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:49 MDT