Who are you ? Who are people ?

---

To start over, since the above is getting complicated and scattered (I should have done this first).

Perception:

"...Perception is not the passive receipt of these signals, but is shaped by learning, memory, expectation, and attention."

"...Perception involves these "top-down" effects as well as the "bottom-up" process of processing sensory input. The "bottom-up" processing transforms low-level information to higher-level information (e.g., extracts shapes for object recognition). The "top-down" processing refers to a person's concept and expectations (knowledge), and selective mechanisms (attention) that influence perception"

"...demonstrated that the brain's perceptual systems actively and pre-consciously attempt to make sense of their input. There is still active debate about the extent to which perception is an active process of hypothesis testing, analogous to science, or whether realistic sensory information is rich enough to make this process unnecessary."

"The perceptual systems of the brain enable individuals to see the world around them as stable, even though the sensory information is typically incomplete and rapidly varying."

"Psychologist Jerome Bruner has developed a model of perception. According to him people go through the following process to form opinions:

1.When we encounter an unfamiliar target we are open to different informational cues and want to learn more about the target.
2.In the second step we try to collect more information about the target. Gradually, we encounter some familiar cues which help us categorize the target.
3.At this stage, the cues become less open and selective. We try to search for more cues that confirm the categorization of the target. We also actively ignore and even distort cues that violate our initial perceptions. Our perception becomes more selective and we finally paint a consistent picture of the target."

This reinforces my underlining message, that actions are never void of memory and that we, determined by actions, may be a product of what we learn and observe. Though I need to change one of my statements, my declaration of "thought" as actions should be changed to only "conscious thought".

I feel I have made a few mistakes, or forgot to remove something I didn't want to add, but my head hurts, so I'll clarify and apologies if that is the case. In the time since my last post, I have been reading a number of articles that have clarified some of my misconceptions, uncertainties and/or taught me something new, and I am not sure if I put any of those in here... So, sorry in advance for mistakes.... (I think I'll take a nap)

Too late for me too. A bit worried too, because english not being my mother language, I put some wrong words like "feeling" instead of sensation -- I wasn't sure if the word would exist in english, and those darn on-line traducing engines are not that worth, when it's about very precise concept.

So I think as well we should rewrite a bit of this last exchanges -- tomorrow ?

I'm a benefit to those who like me, a bane to those who I hate and essential to those who I love.

In relation to you all, I see us as brothers in arms who like different things but know that it's important those things be available to fap to on fakku. :)

I'm also writing essays for uni. I don't like writing these essays so I am here. :D

You may say we also like to masturbate our brains from time to time.

The initial question is : are people what they think or what they do ?

Meaning of course I made some dinstinction between the perceptions, though it can also evovle along the discussion. There may be two big axises :

• Are we what we perceive from ourselves or what people percieve from us ?

• Are we that inner built image of ourselve or is it just a delusion, meaning what define ourselve would be our actions ?

Actually we're investigating a lot the last axis throughout recollection of perceptions and sensations.

Still I hope to keep going in the same time along the other axis too, because as social animals it is also an important axis to investigate.

---

Here I let you so time to continue/rewrite and then answer you.


[size=10]EDIT : Writting begins to be a little complicated...[/h]

Sounds like Solipsism,

A solipsist believes in nothing, like their body, fake.

Friends, fake.

Family, fake.

The sun, fake.

They believe their brain creates all of this illusion. Senses, personality, appearances, etc.

people are what they desire, or atleast I think this way because that's basically whats making you you, you want a girlfriend you start thinking about friends and making bonds with people, you want a certain item/thing you start thinking about getting money to buy it, you want to insure your future, you start learning, and if you don't know what to do you are just at home, playing games or watching anime

Sorry meant to say wasn't.

















Sorry for taking so long to respond, the heat wave here has been so bad... suffice to say... I ended up getting sick for the first time in around 2-3 years because of it, and so much so, I was out for a week... Added on top of that, that the new apartment I moved in to, bakes everything inside of it... hotter inside than outside and wind doesn't flow into the dam place... I don't deal well with heat, neither do my electronics... Regardless, I apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

Both really, but let's magnify that.

Perception can be faulty and is subjective. Some people see certain shades of a color differently than other people while some have color-blindness; some have more sensitive and acute hearing. Perception further gets muddied when an individual's views skew the information and when they construe/interpret it differently.

To exemplify the last sentence, let's take a hypothetical (or two):

We have three people. One is a university professor who is eminent in his field after having written several papers that have made considerable breakthroughs; however, other papers that he has published have been criticized and dismissed. He has the belief that he is a failure in his field.

Now the second is a student who admires this professor and sees him as intelligent while the third, another student, thinks of him as pretentious. Their opinions have been formed from the multitude of classes they've had with the professor.

If the case is that his actions are who he is, then there is a conflict: we have two opinions that differ and create two entirely different beings. However, if we take the case that his thoughts are who he is, then he is a failure, but that defies the objective fact that his published papers were breakthroughs in his field.


Now what if we have someone who thinks that they are ugly but is actually isangelously beautiful? Yet another divergence in perception, which is the truth?

Third, what of a hermit who lives in the woods? Is he who he is based on his actions or his thoughts? He doesn't associate with anyone, hunts for his food, and is perceived only by animals. An alternative is a recluse who lives in the city but, again, doesn't associate with anyone else and keeps to himself on- or offline. What then?

I'd say that when thoughts contradict some objective fact, then they become delusions. However, when someone acts only on what they believe to be proprietous (adj. of propriety), then thou don't know everything about that individual, only a superficial affectation. This broaches another point: the location of the individual. In different locations, a person typically assumes a different façade and acts according to it.

Truthfully, it's likely that it is an amalgamation of thoughts and actions.



I don't think that it is entirely wrong, and I interpret it to be more of a motivational thing like "I/'you' can do it!", but there is a disconnect to reality. I think that, for someone to achieve something, there needs to be a prerequisite level of skill. I achieved something when I told myself that I could do it. Doing it shocked me because I tried for several years, on-and-off, to accomplish it.



I concur; actions are often weighted more by society than unspoken/unreified thoughts.



But aren't those two examples more about perseverance and dedication than about an outright lie? I do agree that they are denying themselves the truth, but they are aware of it, so I don't see them arrantly as lies. Maybe (a) better example(s) would help? Are they coping? I'd say so.



I don't 100% buy that. Depends on what thou mean by change. Saying that we gain new information from an experience is true, but the cataloguing of it doesn't necessarily always change who we are, how we perceive, etc.



That's an interesting point. Our memory influences our thoughts and by extension our behavior; thus, loss of memory causes a loss of (the original) identity.



It's an action with an abstract quality to it. Essentially, lying is an action, speaking untruthfully, that could be deemed and construed as truthful but, in fact, is a deception; thus, it creates another dynamic to the thought/action divide.



Yes, but, as bakapink states (later), it depends on how thou define something. But taking the route of any different definition can be viable only complicates things. So, let's ignore that; it would be correct to say that we can't alter what we are because we are objectively human. Objectivity immediately overrides the idea that thoughts can alter our form.



I think that this needs more elaboration because Aristotle's Golden Mean is a good counter to this. So, the person might actually be brave and not foolhardy—he knows when to be brave and when not to (that is, when it's deleterious to him/her)—or cowardly. Context is essential to this argument.



Solipsism reminds me of a conversation I had with my friend one late night. I infuriated him because I didn't let it go.

I'd like to point out that this is in many ways a re-hash of the rationalism\empiricism(\existentialism) discussion. It asks what defines what something is, what makes that definition true, and how do we define what is real and what isn't.

There's no way to definitively resolve the question beyond assuming an epistomological starting point and going from there.

Of course the existentialist will always say a person is what they think, because that's essentially what existentialism is. What another would call lies to ones self don't really even play a factor there, as the self-definition is the starting point of identity.

The rationalist will also tend to think that reasonably established perceptions are more defining than action alone. However in that structure lies to ones self would need to be reasonably addressed and rectified. A reason must be given for the perception of identity, identity itself is not self-defining. Actions contrary to ones stated identity would be a factor in falsifying the identity and call for re-assessing it.

The empiricist would naturally start with what people do, and give only a secondary consideration to what they think. The action is readily observable while the stated motivation is not. Such as person would tend to define a person based on what they do more than what they think by virtue of their philosophy.

[size=10]Huuuh... Thread sleeping for too long, for now I've lost interest.[/h]




Too bad but it is not something like that. Rather exchanging thoughts and possibly facts to build some understanding about the situation and maybe come to make any opinion.




I'll return to that thread later. For now I stay backward until my interest return.

Feel still free to continue.

This only goes to show that you don't understand the basics of philosophy...

XD LOL !

I dare to say I'm very confident about my understanding of philosophy, particularly about Science and epistemology.

[size=10]Hu hu. I won't say why, though :-P[/h]

It's easy to see why:
A critical disconnect between confidence and reality.

Ha ha ! I wonder who's really "connected" here :-)

Fortunately no one else is left with any doubt. You've done nothing but posture for several posts, it's dull.

(Seeing as they are synonymous, I may not address them both specifically)

Every aspect of human life is about preservation and dedication, from preservation of the established (differs from person to person) everyday life to preservation of life itself. I would disagree about it being a matter of "about perseverance/dedication" more so than I originally stated. But I suppose you are right in that I should provide more context...

Example, first could be a matter of a desire to avoid a coworker in the lounge area, but this thought path is conflicting with an overwhelming exhaustion, so the worker is attempting to convince themselves they don't need a break.

Example with the second, the person may fear being alone, fear the negative perception of being single, so clings to any relationship believing that with enough effort (in ignoring the problems) it will somehow work.

Both of them have elements of, and the second can be spinned as "dedication towards a relationship", but also goes the other way as "running away from problems, both personal and relastionship wise" and possibly "unfaithfulness to the partner's perception of a lack of flaws existing in the relationship" (giving up other pursuits believing something, that will indefinitely break in the future, will work out from the collection of false information given by the "lying to themselves" partner). Same for the first, in terms of trying and running. This is the same case for the original examples, simply less clear. The first original was an example of someone running away from their physical limitations, and the second was someone running away from the truth of their relationship and leading along someone who they know they would be miserable with. (Simpler before right?)



Were never fixed (in regards to "individual/self, to avoid misunderstandings with "the physical" leading off subject), we are constantly changing, even on a scale normally unnoticeable, each day of living changes us ever so slightly more, and it does so because we experience something within that day. Even sleeping changes us.

To use it on a smaller and simpler scale, when a 4 year old is taught one day how to count to 10, they gain the ability to account for their possessions and maintain consistency, even if not use, it now becomes a possibility for the child. As we get older, the accumulation of data becomes vast enough, that the newest information changes very little (if not of incredible significance, death of a loved one for example), making it hard to account for changes in behavior or perception, but as long as it is marked down as significant in the brains processing (so that it is not deleted within the sleep cycle), it has an effect on the overall character. That's the intent in maintaining that bit of information, so that it may be used at a later date.

And what I mean in "significant in the brain processing"... You don't remember the face of every person you meet walking down the street right? But you can remember the face, clothing, strut, ect of the person who taught your eye right? Everything else was regarded as unnecessary in the short term memory storage and was deleted, but the image of that attractive person was something you felt was significant, and was stored in long term, till it is no longer necessary...

note: To clarify what I meant about Experience and Interaction, I meant things personally experienced by individuals, even if heard as a third party, and interactions as personal accounts of association with another. So I don't include "patches of dirt not even noticed by the individuals as they walk by" or other events, around the individual, that would normally be regarded as insignificant.

(I'm realizing that interactions can fall under experience, there by making it possibly repetitive to separate them... we'll I did it, so I'll keep it up.)

I disagree. People watch movies, read books, play video games, etc. People do that for entertainment, and entertainment is not about the preservation (of life).

I suppose that both examples have people lying to themselves, but, I don't know, there are indiscernible flaws, not extremes ones, gnawing in brain about these examples.

If something regarded as significant is kept while some regarded as insignificant is kept, then can we really say every experience changes us?

As for the rest, I have no objections, but I'm not entirely convinced.

Both. To the outside, we are what we say, look, and what we do. To ourselves we have a completely different opinion.

It's a fact, not an opinion.



I honestly doubt everyone in the world realizes the previously stated fact, so people will believe in a kind of fantasy or ignorance about perspectives.

I feel this topic is hard to put to words, so I'll just stop here before I start sounding stupid or misunderstand your questions.