|
|
|
What we can perceive 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 10
|
|
Maybe this will end up being better situated in the open forum, but on the (off?) chance that it works here: saw this on another forum, the title of the thread signalling me by name (that place is like a 175 degree turn around from ephilosopher, so when I try unloading my formal logic jokes, etc. on 'em, it makes me stand out—as frackin' crazy if nothing else—hence why this was aimed at me):
This image is hidden for guests. Please login or register to see it.
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/03/16 14:28 By Szavieur.
Reason: Clarified explanation of reference
|
|
|
¡¿
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:What we can perceive 2 Years, 1 Month ago
|
Karma: 4
|
|
The bird doesn't have special powers. This is because... IF the bird really did have a special powers, then we (the reader) shouldn't be able to see that rabbits, because... seeing the rabbit should be 'special'. Obviously; the reader can see this rabbit, and apart from the rabbit and the bird (this 2 person), (the reader) is the ONLY third person that proclaim: "I saw the rabbit, the same as how the bird sees the rabbit, and the rabbit sees himself". Therefore, without other character saying otherwise (with no one else is playing the prank), the notion of 'specialty' is thrashed. The bird, the reader, and the rabbit had sets the norm.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/04/02 20:11 By Msafwan.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:What we can perceive 2 Years, 1 Month ago
|
Karma: 4
|
|
ops... [one over-convoluted post, removed]...
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/04/02 20:21 By Msafwan.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:What we can perceive 2 Years, 1 Month ago
|
Karma: 4
|
Msafwan wrote:
The bird doesn't have special powers. This is because... IF the bird really did have a special powers, then we (the reader) shouldn't be able to see that rabbits, because... seeing the rabbit should be 'special'. Obviously; the reader can see this rabbit, and apart from the rabbit and the bird (this 2 person), (the reader) is the ONLY third person that proclaim: "I saw the rabbit, the same as how the bird sees the rabbit, and the rabbit sees himself". Therefore, without other character saying otherwise (with no one else is playing the prank), the notion of 'specialty' is thrashed. The bird, the reader, and the rabbit had sets the norm.
A few years back, there were a number of fascinating cases of UFO sightings by large groups of people who all swore to the nature of the apparitions. Objectivity perception gone wrong? 
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:What we can perceive 2 Years, 1 Month ago
|
Karma: 4
|
YadaYada wrote:
A few years back, there were a number of fascinating cases of UFO sightings by large groups of people who all swore to the nature of the apparitions. Objectivity perception gone wrong?
or... maybe they THOUGHT they saw a ufo, but instead it was actually something else?? -for example; a statically charged methane gas, from a nearby swamp (if any) could glow in the dark, producing some sort of an eerie (but harmless) glowing apparition and flying colors, which, could be mistaken for ufos and ghosts.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/04/03 15:22 By Msafwan.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:What we can perceive 2 Years, 1 Month ago
|
Karma: 5
|
|
Confirmation bias?
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
