Roger Waters

I like eating paper sometimes....

suitkees wrote: And a bit more about Roger Waters, this time with the Germans...

Hugh Manatee wrote: The map however is not territory.

There must be some really good weed going round.

All things are quantum fluctuations. We (people) give those quantum fluctuations a sort of "identity" by naming them. However, depending on all sorts of things like the perception of wave length, density, mass etc, different creatures (and indeed people) will interpret these quantum fluctuations differently.

Edited by Hugh Manatee - March 16 2023 at 19:12

Lewian wrote: The thing that is apparently hard to get about what I'm saying is that by stating the importance of perception and perspective I'm not saying there are no facts. I'm not saying "it's solely perception and therefore it's not a fact". All I'm saying is all we know about facts comes from perception and perspective. Even if we say "XXX exists independently of our perception", there is no way for us to know this independently of our perception.

Facts still would exist even if there no living beings that have a perception existed in the universe. Our knowing or not knowing the facts does not change reality/realities.

Lewian wrote: Easy Money wrote: If someone sees a tree and he says, look its a tree, then he is using perception, but if he does not even see the tree or calls it a cow, its still a tree. The fact that it is a tree does not require perception, perception is only necessary for someone to realize its a tree. "Tree" is a word. It requires somebody to say it, and somebody to see the tree, who necessarily has a perspective. For me there is no contradiction between perspective and fact. All facts we are aware of are declared to be facts by somebody, from some perspective. Everything we know about trees comes from perception. You can say the tree is there without perception, but it isn't there as a tree, as tree is a word and connected to people who perceive the tree.

Yes at some point someone had to use perception to define what a tree is and label it as a 'tree', but that said object does not need that definition to exist. Call it whatever you want to and it is still the same object that is "something that exists", which is the definition of the word fact. This thing that we call a 'tree' is something that exists no matter what we call it.


Edited by Easy Money - March 16 2023 at 18:18

About the recent discussion;

The original quote that caused this says "not". So, a perception/perspective exists but truth does not without the other. Or opinions exist but facts do not without the other.. Or else, nothing can exist without perception/perspective. Or no truth can exist without opinion. Quintessentially, it says that nothing is the truth and nothing is a fact. I think this is utterly laughable. I'm a solid materialist. Even if we, the living beings, perceive everything (every material thing) differently, they still exist materially. We, the animals, touch a stone. Right? It doesn't matter how we see it, in essence. Some get burned if the stone is hot, some are not affected at all. But the temperature of a stone can change from hot to cold. Is this solely a perspective? I think not.

Anyway. Here's a poem about "truth" that I like very much:






Edited by Archisorcerus - March 16 2023 at 18:13

Easy Money wrote: If someone sees a tree and he says, look its a tree, then he is using perception, but if he does not even see the tree or calls it a cow, its still a tree. The fact that it is a tree does not require perception, perception is only necessary for someone to realize its a tree.