 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
If you say so, that makes it true?
Perception is always secondary to existense if existense takes place.
If you say my words are equal to someone else, and since someone else refuted someone else, then by your reasoning my words are equal to what you call 'matter exists' axiom?
If I say that perception exists I am not parroting the words of someone else, in my own words, if you can't understand that, then you can't, and if I can't understand you, then I can't, and therefore communication does not exist.
When I type words such as perception exists I mean something specific, not something subject to interpretation by you or anyone else.
Perception is always secondary to existense if existense takes place.
To me the above words mean something that I do not understand, since there are in those words many possible meanings that go way beyond the mere understanding that perception exists. In those words are meanings that I perceive to be evidence of things other than perception existing, but as far as I know there is only perception with which to measure the existence of anything other than perception.
So I can ask for additional reports which I may, or may not, perceive, whereby anything other than perception does, in fact, exist, and how will I know of this existence of a report, if I do not perceive it?
I can ask. Can I know the answer without perceiving it?
Existense is the cause of perception, not the other way around.
There is English symbols arranged in such a way as to report a claim made by someone else, and I happen not to agree with that claim. It is a claim made by someone else, and I happen not to be capable, at the moment, of agreeing with that claim. That report depends upon my power to perceive it, but I am not claiming that my power of perception proves that that report exists - at all.
If I am not claiming that my power of perception proves that that report exists, then my power of perception is not going to prove that someone other than me wrote that report, as if there were a belief I had that works instead of perception for me to then use this belief to prove that the report exists, or that another person exists, when in my power of perception all I have is my power of perception to use in the effort to know anything, at this time, in this place.
Yet perception doesn't account for everything.
More words written and perceptible by me, and where can I know the existence of anything other than my perception if, in fact, there is anything other than my power to perceive?
I can ask, and ask, and ask, and some day I may actually find this belief that other people may, or may not, have, or whatever it is, that I do not have, whereby perception is not needed to know, to prove, that anything other than perception exists.
Things that I can account for, prove, with the most complete proof possible, never failing, so far, is that perception exists, and I use perception to prove perception exists. If something else exists, other than perception, call it belief, call it a new word invented by me, or someone else, and when I know this other thing, other than perception, call it belief, or call it Fried Chicken, or call it anything other than perception, or call it perception II, whatever, then I can know that thing too, that belief, or whatever.
Meanwhile all I have is perception as my own known fact, proven to be a fact every time I attempt to prove it, and every time I attempt to disprove it.
If you can prove that there is another way to prove something, to do so without perception, then a word can be used to label that method of proving that there is another way to prove something other that perception.
If not, then not, and how will I ever know if I am wrong, if not by use of perception?
I can trust that you will help me know, but so far I can not trust that you can help me know without my use of perception.
There is no duality perception/not-perception as there is with matter/space.
Now the reports I perceive are moving back toward the end of the scale of having nothing to do with my measures of perception. Those words report something that makes no sense to me, has nothing to do with me, as if those words are these words: akovo amocodeoe cojfoafmoe coooafofheochd.
I could spend weeks trying to make sense of those words, but I would have to be making things up along the way, or asking for answers to what appears to be a never ending series of questions.
I can try to ask one question and see what happens.
Who said anything about a perception/not-perception duality?
Perception and existense of perception will always be secondary to the existense of matter.
Here is where, again, my perception of what I can know is such that I can ask for the process by which someone can know something without perception, and once I can know that process too, then I can ask for an agreeable name for it, or a symbol, a symbol that just points to it, since it does not require perception, so pointing to it merely acknowledges that perception is not required for it to exist, it merely exists, this process by which proof of existence, of anything, does not require perception.
Always is a long time, so the word choice of always, to me, is unprovable to me, at this time.
Even if perception doesn't exist - it says nothing about matter.
I don't know if perception is it, and if perception can say anything, but what I do know is that I understand that perception exists, if perception says anything, how would I know?
If perception says anything about matter, how would I know?
If there is anything that could be called matter, how do I know that there is anything other than perception, such as matter?
If the report you offer to me, as fact, or written as if your report to me is fact, or perceived by me as if you are making an absolute claim of absolute fact, is fact, if it is fact, as you appear to claim, then what is the process by which I no longer need to trust you, or believe you, when you make such reports of facts to me?
Yet if matter doesn't exist - there can be no talk of perception.
Your reports of facts to me, are yours, your perceptions, not mine, so what may explain the differences? Is it that language is not a good tool to be used to convey accurate meaning?
There can be no talk of perception without perception of talk, as to what is, or is not, matter, to me, there can be no measure of matter, without perception of the measure of matter, unless there is a process by which measuring matter can be done without perception, and so that can be known by me, some day, but not now. Now, as far as I know, the process by which matter is measured involves the use of perception, but I can ask for another process, and some day I may find it, and it might be a process that is called belief, and perceived as belief, but having no need for words, or perceptions.
They are directly connected by perception existense being nothing more than a direct logical consequence of matter existense.
In those words there is a message, and to me the concept of logic, which is a perception of something, inspires a question, and the answer will be either accurate, or the answer will be inaccurate: what is this something called logic? To me, which is my perception, my measure, of the word logic, there is a process in view, and the process in view, called logic, is binary, or the employment of arrangements of 2 symbols into various arrangements that intend to record perceptions, or measures, of things.
Failing to know what the reporter means by the word "logical" could contribute to failure of the reader of the report, that being me, to perceive the intended message intact.