Object Recognition

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Kepler

This question reminds me a bit of solipsism, perhaps in the extreme case.



I don't mean to sound harsh but please, lemex, take your time when posting. Proof read, be careful of punctuation, etc. It will make it much easier for others to understand.

For example:

What?

I only point this out in an attempt to move the discussion along.

Not a solipsism and not a question. Unfortunately I don't take this as an extreme. I guess I consider it obvious. About Universe and Nature, the nature of it if you will, nature doesn't need to know the laws of physics but operates in spite of it, humans works to explain them but it operates anyway.

Can't say it's going to happen cause I make so many . Simply know the idea was never presented is such a fashion, now feeling I shouldn't have done it. This is karma......

Originally Posted by lemex

Nice, absolutely correct. You do not separate from the idea. Great intuition ability in the science section. I say the tree exist and everyone sees it. Does anyone disagree objects exist. I'm seeing posts about reality, beginning to think I should have put this in the spiritual section then it would be taken differently.

Is what I see really isn't what I see is based on one's decision of reality. I would just like to keep to the point is reality real and we see it, yet there appears to be skepticism about reality. Is there any information out there saying I don't see reality.

so, if the tree is just our perception, what object is actually there in the absolute truth of reality? Do you know?

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Gracey

so, if the tree is just our perception, what object is actually there in the absolute truth of reality? Do you know?

The tree is more then our perception, it is input in the present state. We are tied or connect(ed) to reality. You are an object, the tree is an object. All objects are temporary not permanent anyway.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Sammy

Interesting thoughts Ienex. Lets go with the yellow cup object. If I said for everyone reading this to think of a yellow coffee cup with steaming joe, an image of that reality would form in everyone's mind. However if these images were to become reality, there would be differences in the cup(I.E. designs, handle, shape), the type of coffee flavor, the way the steam moves, it would all be different.

Now lets flip this. Lets say there is just one yellow coffee cup, and many people observing it. If you told them to describe the cup on paper, they would more or less be the same but in a different order or description. Very few of those papers would match word for word. Our differences give us our individuality, and that individuality gives us the ability to compare or gain perspective. Like a theory it propels our advancements in areas unknown or questionable.

Isnt reality fun!?

Nicely said and understand. But in my defense the cup was already there, and because I mentioned it it's Schrodinger's cat or cup. To me it's a word but the cup has and projects properties. Ouch.... recognition is built into us. Does everyone know where the cup is, I did not give the location. Hmmmm ..... how come no one noticed the blue cup., no I mean it

[Sammy]

Originally Posted by lemex

Nicely said and understand. But in my defense the cup was already there, and because I mentioned it it's Schrodinger's cat or cup. To me it's a word but the cup has and projects properties. Ouch.... recognition is built into us. Does everyone know where the cup is, I did not give the location. Hmmmm ..... how come no one noticed the blue cup., no I mean it

I now realize, my point was kind of vague. It was that the cup and where it exists, only has "properties" if someone is there to observe the said properties. Properties are yet another extension of recognition. It's a focus of the observer from the larger picture. Instead of cup, it would be the molecular make-up.

To me its just easier to say cup, and not list off the periodic table of elements as a description of a object. A lot less to remember

Likewise I try not to consolidate mass either. Knowing the difference of elements is the human path of evolution.

I was recently reading about the idea of true forms in a metaphysical sense that Pythagoras and other mathematicians theorized. For some reason this reminded me of it but I don't know if there is any relevance. I think the idea has something to do with objects not being completely real and that a fuller metaphysical understanding must be achieved through a rigorous study of geometry. Pardon me if I might be explaining this poorly and it may be way off from what you are describing.

[Sammy]

Sounds like your on the right track slaga. My guess is they want you to be able to see a object as whole or "real", due to the fact you can measure its volume.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by slaga

I was recently reading about the idea of true forms in a metaphysical sense that Pythagoras and other mathematicians theorized. For some reason this reminded me of it but I don't know if there is any relevance. I think the idea has something to do with objects not being completely real and that a fuller metaphysical understanding must be achieved through a rigorous study of geometry. Pardon me if I might be explaining this poorly and it may be way off from what you are describing.

I like the comparison described. My feeling is mathematicians aren't the only ones who measure. Everyone does measurement, breaks down reality into bits and pieces. Math must be a wonderful language. In respect to measurement this is what I suspect objects do.

The very nature of our reality requires objects. The very nature of objects require reality. Objects are necessary and if objects did not exist, in a simple manner, we would not live. It would be different, I think we all realize this.

Without the sun, for instance, we wouldn't be here in this spot. There are relations to objects (areas) that exist and cannot be out of relation. As far as the mathematician, clearly the scientist will tell you as soon as the observation of measurement happens it measures something. Reality reinforces itself.

Here is one thing I am saying for clarity, just about objects. Objects are patterns we see (look at). The mind/brain never sees a complete object, you only think you do. The mind completes the image itself filling in all the final details that you are measuring or observing. What I am most curious about is, if objects did not exist (for us) would we be spiritual

Probably completely unrelated but, I happen to think from a metaphysical stand point, the physical and spiritual planes are probably parallel universes. Each have there own form and rules to them.

This also brings to mind the idea of artificial intelligence: the concept of programs for object recognition. To consider the converse of what you (lemex) are curious about - what if computers can achieve object recognition on the same level that humans do? Would computers then become spiritual?

[Sammy]

If it fits the guidelines of that description, why not? HAHA