Expression

Is matter an expression of perception or perception an expression of matter?

When an event happens such as a car wreck did was the mass pushed there by the infinite collisions in reality or was that mass pulled there by the need for the occurrence of the event or the desire of maybe the collective perception?

Abstract wrote:

Is matter an expression of perception or perception an expression of matter?

When an event happens such as a car wreck did was the mass pushed there by the infinite collisions in reality or was that mass pulled there by the need for the occurrence of the event or the desire of maybe the collective perception?

You are Abstract!

Our experience of matter is an expression of perception. You and I may perceive a tree differently - qualia - but at the same time, we see the physical tree and its characteristics basically the same. No?
The soul of the tree, on the other hand, we may perceive differently.

Insofar as we are made of matter - and we as matter are doing the perceiving, then one can say that perception is an expression of matter.

Insofar as the car wreck is concerned, I tend to look on it as a continuity of cause and effect. Everything is connected to everything else and in a sense that is what caused the wreck. Realistically speaking, it was human failing that caused it or just some fluke. But there are or appear to be a lot of things that are unexplainable in the universe that appear to have meaning because of random actions and what appears to be synchronicity - are we placing meaning on something because of the good or the bad that comes as a result of it and ought we to?

VaerosTanarg wrote:

You are Abstract!

Our experience of matter is an expression of perception. You and I may perceive a tree differently - qualia - but at the same time, we see the physical tree and its characteristics basically the same. No?
The soul of the tree, on the other hand, we may perceive differently.

Insofar as we are made of matter - and we as matter are doing the perceiving, then one can say that perception is an expression of matter.

Insofar as the car wreck is concerned, I tend to look on it as a continuity of cause and effect. Everything is connected to everything else and in a sense that is what caused the wreck. Realistically speaking, it was human failing that caused it or just some fluke. But there are or appear to be a lot of things that are unexplainable in the universe that appear to have meaning because of random actions and what appears to be synchronicity - are we placing meaning on something because of the good or the bad that comes as a result of it and ought we to?

I think often we place meaning on a specific domino in the line of infinite dominoes because that one is the one that if effected and called the cause, will prevent (as best as we know) the problem from happening again... we punish the murder to prevent further crime not to revenge... (or at least so it should be IMO)

What is to say that we are matter rather then matter is us? that is to say it is just an expression of our perception...I think for that there is no telling, but given where we are in thought now it seems more beneficial to work out the equations so as to 'science' under the assumption that matter is the base rather then perception.

But to the topic; if time were reversed would perhaps the result not be seen as the cause... and who is to say which time perceiver has the 'right' point of view.
Perhaps rather then asking which is the cause we should see that their is no cause.

(perhaps someday they will find that there is no limit to speed but rather that things that go faster then the speed of light simply can't be perceived..by us.. anymore...which might explain why if you are going as fast as light the light beam directed at you from a stand still would still appear as light... because what you are really seeing then is the stuff that was going faster ...)

Quote :

I think often we place meaning on a specific domino in the line of infinite dominoes because that one is the one that if effected and called the cause, will prevent (as best as we know) the problem from happening again... we punish the murder to prevent further crime not to revenge... (or at least so it should be IMO)

Hmmm…but if we consider that one domino as a human being, let’s say, then we would have to see that it was not the cause so much as it was a continuation of or a continuity of flow (for lack of a better word/phrase). In order to find the cause, one has to begin at the beginning or work backwards to the beginning. If I understand what you’re saying here.

We might punish the murderer to prevent further crime but as you may know, punishment in itself can be, at best, only a deterrent, and does not get at the cause or the root of something.

Quote :

What is to say that we are matter rather then matter is us?

Can you explain the distinction you are making here?

Quote :

that is to say it is just an expression of our perception...I think for that there is no telling,

Unless I am misunderstanding you here, I don’t think of ‘matter’ as ‘just’ an expression of our perception. It is a word that we have coined to ‘mean’ and to ‘describe’ something, unless that is what you meant. We all ‘perceive’ things differently, in the larger sense of the word, as the way in which each individual first sensates and then ‘sees’ it - but we recognize them within the category which we’ve given them. You and I recognize the ‘sky’ – at the same time, the words which we might use to express the way in which we ‘perceive’ it - because of our personal sensations - may be worlds apart. I hope that makes sense.

Quote :

but given where we are in thought now it seems more beneficial to work out the equations so as to 'science' under the assumption that matter is the base rather then perception.

“Base’ as in physical evidence? Perhaps we 'may' also consider 'perception' as a base - perception as the base under which we tend to adopt our beliefs, for instance, but of course, I'm digressing here probably.

Quote :

But to the topic; if time were reversed would perhaps the result not be seen as the cause...

Psychologically speaking - yes.I suppose that I could see it that way. In terms of my own life, accepting everything as it is and loving that – as in Amor Fati, I could see both as being the same...or the result being the 'real' cause ..but one could only see that in hindsight. Aside from that, one might say that considering how things did turn out, could it have turned out any other way – the end result is always determined by its beginnings and its continuity of flow.

There is also a school of thought that the Big Bang is actually the end result of another universe destroyed...so not the beginning as many think but an end which gave rise to a new beginning . It just depends on how one looks at something. Cause and effect is not so black and white.

Quote :

and who is to say which time perceiver has the 'right' point of view.

There really is no right point of view – it just depends on where you are standing when you are looking.

Quote :

Perhaps rather then asking which is the cause we should see that their is no cause.

Well, I am not so sure that there IS NO CAUSE. But there is not just one cause – the cause is the whole of it.

Quote :

(perhaps someday they will find that there is no limit to speed but rather that things that go faster then the speed of light simply can't be perceived..by us.. anymore...which might explain why if you are going as fast as light the light beam directed at you from a stand still would still appear as light... because what you are really seeing then is the stuff that was going faster ...)

Is this somehow tied into cause?

VaerosTanarg wrote:

Quote :

I think often we place meaning on a specific domino in the line of infinite dominoes because that one is the one that if effected and called the cause, will prevent (as best as we know) the problem from happening again... we punish the murder to prevent further crime not to revenge... (or at least so it should be IMO)

Hmmm…but if we consider that one domino as a human being, let’s say, then we would have to see that it was not the cause so much as it was a continuation of or a continuity of flow (for lack of a better word/phrase). In order to find the cause, one has to begin at the beginning or work backwards to the beginning. If I understand what you’re saying here.

We might punish the murderer to prevent further crime but as you may know, punishment in itself can be, at best, only a deterrent, and does not get at the cause or the root of something.

Well my point would be that "cause" is ultimately not a reality just an abstraction. There is no cause... because the dominos stretch back to the beginning of time... "beginning" of time is a contradiction so realy there is no beginning things just are... The point of identifying what might be called the cause is to find that which when prevented deters as I said... and yes often our punishments don't work...I feel we need more 'corrective in our corective instituion of course... perhaps though the reason what corrections we make don't really work is because we are trying to correct the wrong thing..perhaps a symptom rather then the actual problem.


[quote]

Quote :

What is to say that we are matter rather then matter is us?

Can you explain the distinction you are making here?

Quote :

Quote :

that is to say it is just an expression of our perception...I think for that there is no telling,

Unless I am misunderstanding you here, I don’t think of ‘matter’ as ‘just’ an expression of our perception. It is a word that we have coined to ‘mean’ and to ‘describe’ something, unless that is what you meant. We all ‘perceive’ things differently, in the larger sense of the word, as the way in which each individual first sensates and then ‘sees’ it - but we recognize them within the category which we’ve given them. You and I recognize the ‘sky’ – at the same time, the words which we might use to express the way in which we ‘perceive’ it - because of our personal sensations - may be worlds apart. I hope that makes sense.

I believe what I meant was that perhaps matter is just a thing we have created with our spirit/mind/perception...and really all there is is thought... ( that i believe is one of those things like the concept of god, it cannot be proved or disproved...)

Quote :

Quote :

but given where we are in thought now it seems more beneficial to work out the equations so as to 'science' under the assumption that matter is the base rather then perception.

“Base’ as in physical evidence? Perhaps we 'may' also consider 'perception' as a base - perception as the base under which we tend to adopt our beliefs, for instance, but of course, I'm digressing here probably.

What I meant was the actual reality = base... the true 'thing' that all is made of...

Quote :

Quote :

and who is to say which time perceiver has the 'right' point of view.

There really is no right point of view – it just depends on where you are standing when you are looking.

but if you are standing in the same spot as another and think something else is the right point of view then which is right...?

Quote :

Perhaps rather then asking which is the cause we should see that their is no cause.

Well, I am not so sure that there IS NO CAUSE. But there is not just one cause – the cause is the whole of it.

Quote :

Quote :

(perhaps someday they will find that there is no limit to speed but rather that things that go faster then the speed of light simply can't be perceived..by us.. anymore...which might explain why if you are going as fast as light the light beam directed at you from a stand still would still appear as light... because what you are really seeing then is the stuff that was going faster ...)

Is this somehow tied into cause?

Lol.... I have no idea why I said that...

Quote :

Abstract wrote:

Well my point would be that "cause" is ultimately not a reality just an abstraction. There is no cause... because the dominos stretch back to the beginning of time... "beginning" of time is a contradiction so realy there is no beginning things just are... The point of identifying what might be called the cause is to find that which when prevented deters as I said... and yes often our punishments don't work...I feel we need more 'corrective in our corective instituion of course... perhaps though the reason what corrections we make don't really work is because we are trying to correct the wrong thing..perhaps a symptom rather then the actual problem.

But an abstraction ultimately points to something concrete, some truth, right?
I think that there has to be a cause - as in meaning that something was affected by something else. Speaking of the origin of the universe, isn't it a bit unrealistic to say that there was no beginning? I do understand though what you mean by no cause - since everything from the 'beginning' has continued to be affected by everything else as in a continuity - or as you say, the domino effect.

Perhaps the only reason things do not get corrected is because we do not get at the root of the problem. We need to go back to the very beginning in order to see it all or we are taking things out of context. There cannot be healing or movement without total seeing.

Quote :

What is to say that we are matter rather then matter is us?

Can you explain the distinction you are making here?

It was Vaeros Tanarg who was asking for the distinction here. The only thought that comes to me here is that, as matter, we ALSO happen to ourselves. We do not simply make things happen. You may find that a bit silly.

Quote :

that is to say it is just an expression of our perception...I think for that there is no telling,

I believe what I meant was that perhaps matter is just a thing we have created with our spirit/mind/perception...and really all there is is thought... ( that i believe is one of those things like the concept of god, it cannot be proved or disproved...)

What do you mean here - as the buddhists believe - that it is all illusion? Are you saying that matter is not real and that it has no physical properties? That it is simply illusion? Try pinching yourself, Abstract, do you not feel or hurt when you do that?

Matter isn't simply a concept - it's also reality. It's physical. God is a concept which cannot be proven except within our minds and hearts. Unless I am misunderstanding your meaning. As a thing of matter, Abstract, do you see yourself as simply a concept - or do you see a physical you...though the physical you barely touches the surface.

Quote :

but given where we are in thought now it seems more beneficial to work out the equations so as to 'science' under the assumption that matter is the base rather then perception.

“Base’ as in physical evidence? Perhaps we 'may' also consider 'perception' as a base - perception as the base under which we tend to adopt our beliefs, for instance, but of course, I'm digressing here probably.

What I meant was the actual reality = base... the true 'thing' that all is made of...

Beautiful swirling atoms? I think that there has to be a zillion 'things' that all is made of. If we ever come to truly know the thing that all is made of - then we might just touch on god...know that which can, in reality, at least for now only be a concept.

Quote :

and who is to say which time perceiver has the 'right' point of view.

There really is no right point of view – it just depends on where you are standing when you are looking.

but if you are standing in the same spot as another and think something else is the right point of view then which is right...?

That's a really good question, Abstract. Not so easy to answer. I suppose that I would say that each individual must move to another location and see what they see, without judging, just seeing what they see. Their perception might change. Carl Jung said that truth needs the concert of many voices. Here truth would need the concert of many different vantage points and perspectives. I suppose that you might also say that the point of view which is correct or more correct would be the one which actually held the most intelligence, logic and validity. But in order to know this, both parties MUST BE interested in knowing the truth - not in proving a point.

Quote :

(perhaps someday they will find that there is no limit to speed but rather that things that go faster then the speed of light simply can't be perceived..by us.. anymore...which might explain why if you are going as fast as light the light beam directed at you from a stand still would still appear as light... because what you are really seeing then is the stuff that was going faster ...)

Is this somehow tied into cause?

Lol.... I have no idea why I said that...

The only reason truly that I asked that question is because I didn't know how to respond. I am not really scientifically inclined though I enjoy science and am very curious about it. The only thing there that came to my mind is how we are still able to see the light from a particular star and don't even realize in that moment that that star may have long ago died out but the light is still reaching us.

Quote :

why if you are going as fast as light the light beam directed at you from a stand still would still appear as light...

Perhaps that would be because if you are going as fast as the speed of light you would have some of the characteristics and qualities, be of the same nature as light and so you would recognize it...no matter how swiftly it was going. We can only recognize that which we are a part of - true? Aside from that...