Posted on 09/24/2003 11:25:56 PM PDT by betty boop
I don't know. Personally, I get seasick well within sight of land. I think motion sickness is related to what goes on in our inner ear, which is something that the free-fall motion of the earth through space wouldn't affect at all.
Maybe so, PH. But I wonder what the world looks like to, say, an ant, or a crow...just curious.
Shifting gears from physical perception to perceptions we form wholly in our minds: We may all be dealing with the same reality, but it sure is amazing to me that we have so many different interpretations of it -- i.e., "worldviews." Sometimes it seems that worldviews can be so far apart that it's difficult to find a common language in which to speak of "reality" at all.
Case in point, from an outstanding article by Paul Johnson, in National Review (Oct. 13) on the newist "ism," Pessimism:
"Pessimism...is a critique of society, also a habit of mind, an instinctive reflex, a paranoid psychosis, easy to acquire and to express, highly infectious, which can be made to apply to everything the established order does and produces.
"Karl Popper, in his analysis of pseudo-scientific theories like Marxism and Freudianism, pointed out that their attraction lay in their apparent universality: They could be made to apply to almost any human event, collective or individual, providing explanations sufficiently coherent to satisfy educated people disinclined to inquire too deeply into difficult phenomena, and who merely want a quasi-religious creed in which to believe. Pessimism fits beautifully into this category. It applies to everything, simple or complex. It has coherency, consistency, and self-righteousness, and affords huge intellectual and emotional satisfaction to its believers."
(I posted this elsewhere yesterday, but really wanted it on this thread.)
Examples of this "ism" as they are currently expressed in our society: "George Bush is an incompetent, stupid, lying loser who can't do anything right; he is screwing up foreign policy, and making our friends and allies hate us. He only cares about the rich, and pushing America's weight around." "Global warming is gonna kill us pretty soon." "All senior officers of private corporations are lying, greedy crooks who cheat their stockholders." "Iraq is a quagmire, a second Viet Nam." "Conservatives want to destroy civil rights, set women's rights back to the Stone Age, and abuse minorities." "Morality is nothing but oppression designed to maintain the power of the status quo." Etc., etc.
In other words, the most negative and worst-case spin that can be attached to any person, circumstance, or development is the best one.
And you can read it all at the (incredibly influential -- why???) New York Times, the Oracle of Pessimism.
How does society find a "common language" when language has become merely rhetoric?
This sounds exactly like the problem that Plato encountered in his beloved Athens, in the persons of the Sophists -- master rhetoricians bent on justifying (for pay) such claims as "justice is the interest of the strong."
I guess I'm rambling. Must ramble into my forthcoming diatribe on the Republic. I'll be back!
Motion sickness or, more correctly, motion maladaptation syndrome is a condition that occurs when people (as well as fish and other animals) are exposed to real or apparent motion stimuli to which they are unfamiliar and hence unadapted (Benson, 1988). It has been recognised for more than a century that the term 'Motion Sickness' is a misnomer. Motion maladaptation syndrome is merely an indication of intact vestibular function and, as such, should be regarded as the norm rather than the exception...
The classic theory explaining the causation of motion sickness symptoms is that of Neural Mismatch. The theory is based on work from over a century ago (e.g., Irwin, 1881; James, 1882; Pollack, 1893) but it has only gained wide acceptance since it has been promoted in publications by Reason (1970, 1978), Reason and Brand (1975) and Oman (1982). Neural mismatch generally occurs when there is a conflict between signals received from either the visual system, or the vestibular systems and other gravireceptors. However, it can also happen when these signals differ from those expected by the central nervous system (CNS). It can also occur due to conflicts within the vestibular apparatus, i.e., between the semicircular canals and the otoliths.
It's obvious that the management considers some posters beneath notice.
I donno. Fish don't worry all that much about falling. It's only us land-dwellers that need to be concerned. My immediate response is that if any such creatures were oblivious to falling, they might not survive all that well. We're the descendents of those who got it right.
I had not considered Pessimism in that aspect, but it certainly makes sense. And the New York Times would surely be the trend setter, with the other conventional media following their lead.
It is challenge to even find optimistic news these days, perhaps because people are willing to spend more dough for Pessimism. How many times have we been trapped in a traffic jam as drivers rubber-neck to see the accident on the other side of the highway?
I also agree with you about the language problem. It was bad enough that we had to invest enormous time in culling the "spin" - but now, thanks to the Clinton years, even the common words ("is") must be questioned. What does it mean, and what does it really mean? Sigh...
Yes. In a way, that's really a metaphor for what goes on, all the time -- not just with gravity, but with everything we need to survive. A few days ago a baby squirrel somehow found itself in my back yard. Presumably it tumbled from some overhead branch. The dogs knocked it around a bit before I could attempt a rescue (by placing it over the wall into my neighbor's yard). Despite my intercession, I suspect that squirrel won't be passing its genes on to the next generation.
Yes! Very astute.
Hank
PatrickHenry replied: It would certainly look different; but I don't think it would be different. Many animals have better senses than we do, and many have worse. But I suggest that we're all dealing with the same reality
This is a very important point PatrickHenry has made, and it actually contradicts what betty boop seems to be saying. (Sorry bb!)
Perception is not, "objectifying," at least in the sense that it is what determines "objectivity." It is reality that is objective, regardless of how it is perceived. It is objective because it is what it is independent of anyone's perception or knowledge of it. (I am speaking strictly in terms of human consciousness.)
I also have the impression that bb's view of perception is the Kantian, or what is sometimes called the "computer model".
I have that impression, betty, from this sentence, "What we 'see' seems to be what mostly constructs reality for us." I suspect you think of percepts as something created in the mind/brain with data delivered to it by the nervous system, the way a computer creates images from digital data delivered to it via sensors or a digital camera.
Now this view is not totally incorrect. Certainly our perceptual consciousness is associated with the brain, and certainly the reactions of the nervous system to external and internal stimuli end up affecting reactions in the brain. The part of the description that is most likely to be incorrect the supposition the nervous system is merely transmitting data, and the what the brain is doing is merely processing that data. The actual process is probably infinitely more complex and much more like an analog system of interaction than a one-way digital transmission system. It is also likely that perception is not isolated to specific points in the brain, but an aspect of the whole neural system. (This is one reason simply stimulating nerve endings does not produce the same percepts those same nerves normally stimulated do, and why cochlear implants, for example, cannot reproduce naturally heard sound.)
In any case, what perception does not do is "make-up" or "construct" percepts. Perception, however it works, is our direct awareness of material existence. Perception is not cognitive (i.e. it provides no knowledge). It is only our means of being conscious of existence (including our own). Knowledge is about that which we are conscious of. (Not making this distinction has gotten most philosophers, like Russel, for example, in lots of trouble.)
Here is something for you to chew on, and a challenge:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERCEPTUAL (e.g. optical) ILLUSION!
If you do not already know this, please challange it.
I'll give you a hint why this is true. Perception does not know anything, therefore; cannot make any mistakes.
This business of human consciousness is terribly important. The views of Kant have so corrupted philosophy with his repudiation of consciousness, no field of philosophy today infected by that corruption (which is most of it) is sound.
Hank
This is very fascinating to me. Even flagella seem to know up from down but they aren't really sure how. I'm particularly curious how evolution theory explains the rise of graviperception.
I'm hoping one of you may have a clue -- url, phrase, word or whatever --- to help me know where to look for more information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.