₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:
Good and are Phototropins Matter?

Yeah, they are...

Ayomikun37:
Yeah, they are...

so can one rightly say, Plants photoreceptiveness (awareness or consciousness) are dependent on Matter, Phototropins?

Can one rightly say this Photoreceptiveness (consciousness) is a product of Matter (Phototropins)?

johnydon22:
so can one rightly say, Plants photoreceptiveness (awareness or consciousness) are dependent on Matter, Phototropins?

Can one rightly say this Photoreceptiveness (consciousness) is a product of Matter (Phototropins)?

Hmmm... You scored a bull's eye... I think you'll be the one to give me the answer I seek... So sir, what do you think about THOUGHTS? Could they be dependent on matter too?

Ayomikun37:
Hmmm... You scored a bull's eye... I think you'll be the one to give me the answer I seek... So sir, what do you think about THOUGHTS? Could they be dependent on matter too?

Here the first question is "What is a thought?"

johnydon22:
No my question was in response to the quote "I think, therefore i am" which you said supposedly perfectly cover the mystery of consciousness.

so i asked "Does this imply that everything that is, think? "

Thought processes require consciousness . Processing information picked from our environment shows that we are aware of our surroundings - to cover your nose when your perceive an obnoxious smell , to run for cover when you hear gun shots , the smile back at a pretty girl , to be left transfixed or mesmerized by art . We are certain of our existence because we can experience our surroundings - we are real . Its more of a philosophical proof our existence . 'I am' - a fact of existence God - I am that I am .

And this perhaps spreads out to understanding that whatever we perceive in our surroundings too is real because we are certain of our existence as people who can think . But if it directly implies that everything that is , thinks no .

johnydon22:
so can one rightly say, Plants photoreceptiveness (awareness or consciousness) are dependent on Matter, Phototropins?

Can one rightly say this Photoreceptiveness (consciousness) is a product of Matter (Phototropins)?

"Light not only activates phototropins , but
also affects the level of their expression"

Does this not indicate that this matter ( Phototropins) is activated by something too? ....I hope this doesnt lead to infinite regress...#Following by the way#

Toyolad:
"Light not only activates phototropins , but
also affects the level of their expression"

Does this not indicate that this matter ( Phototropins) is activated by something too? ....I hope this doesnt lead to infinite regress...#Following by the way#

Means that Phototropins respond to the stimuli (light) to produce awareness.. Just exactly same way without light there is no eye sight and light also affects the level of the eye's expression

KingEbukasBlog:
Thought processes require consciousness . Processing information picked from our environment shows that we are aware of our surroundings - to cover your nose when your perceive an obnoxious smell , to run for cover when you hear gun shots , the smile back at a pretty girl , to be left transfixed or mesmerized by art . We are certain of our existence because we can experience our surroundings - we are real . Its more of a philosophical proof our existence . 'I am' - a fact of existence God - I am that I am .

And this perhaps spreads out to understanding that whatever we perceive in our surroundings too is real because we are certain of our existence as people who can think . But if it directly implies that everything that is , thinks no .

So whatever we perceive or that we think we are perceiving is real?... so if I perceive a small pool of water on the road ahead( Mirage) then it means that there is actually a pool water there?...so whatever I perceive while hallucinating exists?

KingEbukasBlog:
Thought processes require consciousness . Processing information picked from our environment shows that we are aware of our surroundings - to cover your nose when your perceive an obnoxious smell , to run for cover when you hear gun shots , the smile back at a pretty girl , to be left transfixed or mesmerized by art . We are certain of our existence because we can experience our surroundings - we are real . Its more of a philosophical proof our existence . 'I am' - a fact of existence God - I am that I am .

And this perhaps spreads out to understanding that whatever we perceive in our surroundings too is real because we are certain of our existence as people who can think . But if it directly implies that everything that is , thinks no .

And human consciousness is that ability to process information picked from our surroundings? (awareness)

Our Perception is not a hallmark to determine what is real so the bolded does not hold sway

johnydon22:
so can one rightly say, Plants photoreceptiveness (awareness or consciousness) are dependent on Matter, Phototropins?

Can one rightly say this Photoreceptiveness (consciousness) is a product of Matter (Phototropins)?

Consciousness is not a product of matter . Consciousnesses creates realities and the physical existence of matter is just one them . When people experience NDEs the brain is inactive . So how come they experience without their brain ?

Toyolad:
So whatever we perceive or that we think we are perceiving is real?... so if I perceive a small pool of water on the road ahead( Mirage) then it means that there is actually a pool water there?...so whatever I perceive while hallucinating exists?

As a thinker you have discerned that it is indeed a mirage and you know what a mirage is . You also could identify that you experienced a hallucination and so its not real . But mind you the conclusion I made from Descartes' Cogito ergo sum is tentative.

cc : Johnydon22

KingEbukasBlog:
Consciousness is not a product of matter . Consciousnesses creates realities and the physical existence of matter is just one them .

How so, teach us how consciousness creates matter and reality

(Same way i showed Ayomikun how awareness is directly dependent on matter)

the realities your consciousness experiences are not dependent on your consciousness to be, so realities are not a child of consciousness but what a mind interprets it's experiences to be.

whether there is a mind or not does not preclude 'things' that are from being, the perception of these things only are important to the deduction of reality to the individual mind that perceives them ..

When people experience NDEs the brain is inactive . So how come they experience without their brain ?

Clinical death is a temporality shut down which resumes afterwards, thus recollections are made and this is an act of the brain and the brain can only give out what it has.

johnydon22:
How so, teach us...

(Same way i showed Ayomikun how awareness is directly dependent on matter)

The quantum double slit experiment

Clinical death is a temporality shut down which resumes afterwards, thus recollections are made and this is an act of the brain and the brain can only give out what it has.

You are missing the point . The experience was made when the brain was inactive . Recollections are just drawn from the experience .

KingEbukasBlog:
The quantum double slit experiment

Show us how this shows Consciousness produces matter

You are missing the point . The experience was made when the brain was inactive . Recollections are just drawn from the experience .

How can the brain recollect what it didn't experience in the first place? That is like a memory card playing a song that was never downloaded into it.

Sorely unlikely.. So how so is it independent of the brain when it still needs the brain for recollecting that which supposedly is independent of it?

KingEbukasBlog:
As a thinker you have discerned that it is indeed a mirage and you know what a mirage is . You also could identify that you experienced a hallucination and so its not real . But mind you the conclusion I made from Descartes' Cogito ergo sum is tentative.

cc : Johnydon22

Lol no this doesn't answer his question. Not everyone that perceives a mirage recognizes it to be one.

This was the question

" So whatever we perceive or that we think we are perceiving is real?... so if I
perceive a small pool of water on the road ahead( Mirage) then it means
that there is actually a pool water there?...so whatever I perceive while
hallucinating exists?"

It is simply evidential that our perception is not the hallmark to determine reality since our neurological interactions also include misfiring and linear interpretations, even placebos that may seem so real to our perception but yet are not.

johnydon22:
Lol no this doesn't answer his question. Not everyone that perceives a mirage recognizes it to be one.

This was the question

" So whatever we perceive or that we think we are perceiving is real?... so if I
perceive a small pool of water on the road ahead( Mirage) then it means
that there is actually a pool water there?...so whatever I perceive while
hallucinating exists?"

It is simply evidential that our perception is not the hallmark to determine reality since our neurological interactions also include misfiring and linear interpretations, even placebos that may seem so real to our perception but yet are not.

Well I said its tentative conclusion . I also thought of the emboldened text . But when you consider apperception - the mental ability to relate past experiences or what has been perceived in the past to a present experience- you'd realise that if someone keeps seeing a mirage over and over again , he can conclude that indeed it is not real when he now comes close with the intent of observation .

Knowledge can be obtained through observation - what thinkers do.

KingEbukasBlog:
Well I said its tentative conclusion . I also thought of the emboldened text . But when you consider apperception - the mental ability to relate past experiences or what has been perceived in the past to a present experience- you'd realise that if someone keeps seeing a mirage over and over again , he can conclude that indeed it is not real when he now comes close with the intent of observation .

Knowledge can be obtained through observation - what thinkers do.

So now we have established human perception is not a hallmark of establishing what is real since it has shown that our perception can also be linearly interpreted to tender an illusionary projection far from reality?

johnydon22:
So now we have established human perception is not a hallmark of establishing what is real since it has shown that our perception can also be linearly interpreted to tender an illusionary projection far from reality?

Individual perception are fallible . What about 'collective perception ' is that fallible too ?

KingEbukasBlog:
Individual perception are fallible . What about 'collective perception ' is that fallible too ?

Yes collective perception can be fallible too. collectively when we look at the sky we all see a blue sky but in actuality the sky is colourless we only perceive the scattered blue wavelength of light in the atmosphere just like a mirage.

testability in order to confirm falsifiability and provability of a perception is the most trusted means of determining Human perceptibility of reality which of course cannot claim to be infallible too cus absoluteness i doubt can ever be attained.

johnydon22:
Yes collective perception can be fallible too. collectively when we look at the sky we all see a blue sky but in actuality the sky is colourless we only perceive the scattered blue wavelength of light in the atmosphere just like a mirage.

testability in order to confirm falsifiability and provability of a perception is the most trusted means of determining Human perceptibility of reality which of course cannot claim to be infallible too cus absoluteness i doubt can ever be attained.

But what do we also see ? Blue . Our visual perception denote the colour of the blue sky . Testing is certainly irrelevant because we indeed visually perceive the 'blue' sky . A wrong visual perception is seeing a totally different colour , say green . Even the outcome of the test will still need visual perception to ascertain the validity of the results - what colour exactly .

KingEbukasBlog:
But what do we also see ? Blue . Our visual perception denote the colour of the blue sky . Testing is certainly irrelevant because we indeed visually perceive the 'blue' sky .

Actually this is wrong, when we put our initial perception under scrutiny, we understand that there is no blue sky at all.

Just a colourless atmosphere.

The blue colour observed from space actually is from the oceans which makes up more than 73% of the earth not the sky (our sky is just a colourless atmosphere)

Areas where there is vegetation green is observed rather

A wrong visual perception is seeing a totally different colour , say green . Even the outcome of the test will still need visual perception to ascertain the validity of the results - what colour exactly .

Exactly but this time this perception has been dug past the surface of a seeming reality.

Say a card board sheet is used to make a wall painted to look indistinguishable from a concrete wall.

Surface perception will tell you it is a concrete wall but further probe ( testing) will reveal in actuality the real nature of the wall.

So our perceptive deductions are strengthened by further probe of initial perception.

And none can lay claim to absoluteness or infallibility

johnydon22:
Actually this is wrong, when we put our initial perception, we understand that there is no blue sky at all.

Just a colourless atmosphere.

The blue colour observed from space actually is from the oceans which makes up more than 73% of the earth not the sky (our sky is just a colourless atmosphere)

Areas where there is vegetation green is observed rather



Exactly but this time this perception has been dug past the surface of a seeming reality.

Say a card board sheet is used to make a wall painted to look indistinguishable from a concrete wall.

Surface perception will tell you it is a concrete wall but further probe ( testing) will reveal in actuality the real nature of the wall.

So our perceptive deductions are strengthened by further probe of initial perception.

And none can lay claim to absoluteness or infallibility

Let us not restrict ourselves to visual perception because perception involves sensory information - touch , smell , sound etc.

Touch

Through 'Collective perception' we can conclude that a surface is either rough or smooth . The temperature of a surface is either high or low . For temperatures we have instruments that validate our perception . The value after the measurement the hotness or coldness of the body can prove that individual perception is fallible but not collective perception

Smell

How pleasant or obnoxious a smell is can be determined by collective perception . Or is there an instrument that can validate our perception ?

Sound

How raucous , pleasing , mild a sound or music is can be determined by collective perception .There also are instruments to validate collective perception .

Taste

Is a meal salty , tasty , spicy , insipid ? This can be determined by collective perception .

We can know if those instruments are faulty through collective perception e.g a bad thermometer

KingEbukasBlog:
Let us not restrict ourselves to visual perception because perception involves sensory information - touch , smell , sound etc.

Touch

Through 'Collective perception' we can conclude that a surface is either rough or smooth . The temperature of a surface is either high or low . For temperatures we have instruments that validate our perception . The value after the measurement the hotness or coldness of the body can prove that individual perception is fallible but not collective perception

Smell

How pleasant or obnoxious a smell is can be determined by collective perception . Or is there an instrument that can validate our perception ?

Sound

How raucous , pleasing , mild a sound or music is can be determined by collective perception .There also are instruments to validate collective perception .

Taste

Is a meal salty , tasty , spicy , insipid ? This can be determined by collective perception .

Let me understand something here before i speak .. elaborate on the usage of Collective perception what does it imply in this regard?

johnydon22:
Let me understand something here before i speak .. elaborate on the usage of Collective perception what does it imply in this regard?

When we all share the same view on what we perceive about our environment . E.g When a family eats their dinner . Everyone agrees that mum's food is always delicious - that's our 'collective perception' . It deals with the majority though . But a member of the family might disagree with claim that the meals are tasteless .

And to add: Since the question is about whether collective perception is fallible, this covers every aspect of perception and if just even one of these shows that collective perception can also be fallible means the whole concept is not 100% certain and therefore fallible.

even if it is as small as 0.1% it is still not total and therefore fallible. . .

Jesuuuuu the church near my house don start morning mass abeg make i sleep first before today's hustles start again.

Reading "The cosmos" by Carl sagan has finished me oo, nothing remain to sleep again before day breaks

KingEbukasBlog:
When we all share the same view on what we perceive about our environment . E.g When a family eats their dinner . Everyone agrees that mum's food is always delicious - that's our 'collective perception' . It deals with the majority though . But a member of the family might disagree with claim that the meals are tasteless .

Ok collective perception as you used here is the collectiveness of individual perception.

Since you and i recognize individual perception to be fallible how then can collective perception being a product of fallible individual perception not be fallible?

It can be fallible but much more reliable than individual perception since it involves distinct interpretations to collectively arrive at a deductive approximation..

Collective perception can only improve the quality of the truth not necessarily infer infallibility

I get your point though!!!

G'night sorry good morning brother if you be witch i no follow.. day don break

johnydon22:
Here the first question is "What is a thought?"

Erm... I really do not know how to define it... can you help?

Ayomikun37:
Erm... I really do not know how to define it... can you help?

The reason why i use questions and through your answers give you desired answered answers is for you to understand the very problem was solved by you..

so you can use any human medium you want to get an idea of what thought is

johnydon22:
The reason why i use questions and through your answers give you desired answered answers is for you to understand the very problem was solved by you..

so you can use any human medium you want to get an idea of what thought is

Thoughts are ideas generated through the process of thinking... I don't know how to define it in Biological terms because it still remains a puzzle for science to solve. I therefore do not think that there's a generally accepted model yet...

Ayomikun37:
Thoughts are ideas generated through the process of thinking... I don't know how to define it in Biological terms because it still remains a puzzle for science to solve. I therefore do not think that there's a generally accepted model yet...

Consciousness in general is what which still puzzles human study which we are getting 'this close' to solving each day but human thinking ability has been credited biologically to the brain

Now in the biological sense The Frontal Lobe of your brain is responsible for thoughts.

Now my ideas of thoughts though personally to me these parts of the human consciousness thinking, problem solving, planning would be understood better with the general understanding of consciousness of which of course we have never been able to disassociate with our brain and every other neuroreceptive network YET.

so since the brain directly as we know it is responsible for thought and the brain is matter, what conclusion can we draw from this?

As we keep mentioning matter none the less let us not forget no matter is expressly the same and while one may think inanimate matter in this case the correct usage is ORGANIC which is a complex network of reacting active values

So what can we infer from this in relation to your question?

johnydon22:
Ok collective perception as you used here is the collectiveness of individual perception.

Since you and i recognize individual perception to be fallible how then can collective perception being a product of fallible individual perception not be fallible?

It can be fallible but much more reliable than individual perception since it involves distinct interpretations to collectively to arrive at a deductive approximation..

Collective perception can only improve the quality of the truth not necessarily infer infallibility

I get your point though!!!

G'night sorry good morning brother if you be witch i no follow.. day don break

Choi nwanna I concur with your post . As I submit that post na so tey I just hibernate lappy sleep . I no be winsh oo . I be like say you no sleep sef

KingEbukasBlog:
Choi nwanna I concur with your post . As I submit that post na so tey I just hibernate lappy sleep . I no be winsh oo . I be like say you no sleep sef

I sleep ooo but my problem be say once day break i no fit sleep again.. And the constant singing from the church close by did not even make it easy for sef