Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

3 people discuss a flag in the wind

  1. Dec 4, 2005 #1
    the first one says, "the flag is moving."
    the second one says, "no, the wind is moving, and the flag is inert"
    the third says, "no, they are both moving, the wind moves and also the flag moves."

    a passerby hears their dialogue and says, "mind is moving."

    we can see that all movement is the deception of a mind, when we are in understanding of the nature of a "moving picture"; where the picture is not moving, but there is the appearance of a continuity of motion, via the mind's inability to perceive the frames as being seperate.
    the frames are combined, by the mind, which has succombed to the illusion that the images themselves are moving, due to the rapidity of their appearing to it.

    is all movement a deception, or illusion, imposed by the mind?
    do we perceive movement, because the mind, itself, is moving?

    a better question, perhaps is: if there is not some entity, mind, that is constantly attempting to "make sense of" or "calculate" it's perceptions, will there still be the notion that movement is "real" and "objective"? can there be?

    is our perception of reality an illusion, thusly understood?
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 4, 2005 #2
    Is this not just an example of cognitive bias?
  4. Dec 4, 2005 #3
    how do you mean? bias to what?
  5. Dec 4, 2005 #4
    Well in this case, confirmation bias. Each of the three will have a set idea of what the origin or the motion is and will therefore respond to the stimuli differently, they each wish to confirm their own preconceptions.
  6. Dec 4, 2005 #5
    how can there be a preconception when there is no mind?
    is motion Real? or does a mind make it real? (or seem Real?)
  7. Dec 4, 2005 #6
    Motion is real, things move, but a preconception of motion varies from person to person
  8. Dec 4, 2005 #7
    the assumption here is that "things move", without giving any consideration as to why that is believed, other than, "it seems obvious."

    "it seems obvious" does not equal "True".

    "it seems obvious" when one has not thoroughly explored the question, "why does it seem obvious?"

    philosopher, scientist, priest... all are engaged in the unfolding of Truth.
    one cannot ignore the origination of one's beliefs as irrelevant to Finding the Truth. It is, perhaps, the essential point of examination.

    The search for Truth, built upon a false belief, is the sure way of never finding/Knowing it.

    some clever person once said, "when you assume you make and 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'".
  9. Dec 4, 2005 #8
    leave nothing to assumption.
  10. Dec 4, 2005 #9
    One must assume some basic truths before moving on. Peano's Axioms in mathematics for example and somebody said something about silly people quote quotations - but I couldn't remember it
  11. Dec 4, 2005 #10
    how can a truth be something that is assumed?
  12. Dec 4, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How do you know to leave nothing to assumption?
  13. Dec 4, 2005 #12
    through experience of what can be Known?
  14. Dec 4, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How do you know your experiences aren't misleading you?
  15. Dec 4, 2005 #14
    it is the Experience before experience.

    for example, how can you "know" anything without, first, Knowing what "knows"?
  16. Dec 4, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    sameandnot, how would you propose to differentiate between whether motion exists independently of the mind or is only an illusion?

    Suppose there are two worlds A and B, such that observors in both worlds see motion. Suppose in A the perceived motion corresponds to objective motion, whereas in B the perceived motion is only an invention of the mind. Now suppose we randomly choose an observor P from one of the worlds, A or B, and ask him to tell us which world he belongs to-- the one with real motion (A), or the one without (B). How can P answer this question?
  17. Dec 4, 2005 #16
    this is the primary ignorance, which is the primary assumption.
    all assumption arises from assuming what it is that assumes.
  18. Dec 4, 2005 #17
    first we must see if the mind is a final reality.
    then we may differentiate between "possible worlds"; by knowing who differentiates.
  19. Dec 4, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't see how this responds to either mine or hypnagogue's question. Also this statement is not really backed up with any arguments, it appears to be an assumption in itself. If you want to reason, you have to start somewhere. You have to make some assumptions. I would agree that its a good idea to once in a while back up and think about the assumptions you make and examine the consequences of rejecting those assumptions, but if you assume nothing, then you really have nothing to do at all in life because you'll never even be able to decide if you exist.
  20. Dec 4, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sorry, I am not understanding you. Please be explicit in defining your terms and presenting your reasoning.
  21. Dec 4, 2005 #20
    how about starting where you are?
    but first, isn't it necessary to find out what you are and where that is?
    we need not assume things when we know the primary area of investigation... that being my self; "what is it that plans to find Truth?"

    "am i what i appear to be?"
    so we see that, were we to "move on" without examining it, our whole subsequent search could be founded in a fundamental mis-understanding. that is all.

    but doesn't that make it very difficult, and is somehow self-defeating? virtually everyone overlooks this inquiry into the self, and, from my experience and observations, it is very difficult to remove a pre-conceived notion. once integrated into a "way", it seems very difficult for the will to free itself and accept an alternate way. their is some value it appears to find, in familiarity, and a comfort in standing in what seems to be known. if there were not assumptions to begin with, there would not be this difficulty; in having to face the fact that the "system of knowledge" that one thought one Knew, was, in fact, deeply flawed.
    so it might prove very valuable to excercise patience in unravelling the Truth. it seems that a wiser choice is to "do nothing" rather than do what is ignorant and potentially harmful, to the self and to others.

    but, as to knowing whether "I" exist... that cannot be doubted. the mere fact that i am posing the question points directly to the fact that, at least, "I" exist. for even if i were being decieved, there must be something that is being deceived, and that thing i refer to as "i".

    The question then is, "as what, do i exist?"; "what do i refer to when i say 'I'?" in this way I come to see what "I" am... because i am looking... *having no doubt that, something referred to as, "I" exists; it follows that, by 'looking'/inquiring, it will be revealed and therefore, Known, sufficiently. Or, perhaps it will be found to be un-knowable. but either way, there will be the enlightenment of the inquiry.

    once i am established in the Knowing of my self or not-knowing of my self, it will be possible to move on to other enquiries, if necessary, without having to "go back" or start over. because i started right the first time.

    (earlier, i was not able to post this message, as my computer battery "ran out", so here it is.)

    first we must see if the mind is a final reality.
    then we may speculate and differentiate between "possible worlds".
    the initial task is always, finding out what "I", the questioner/speculater/enquirer/inquirer/differentiater, is? all the rest depends, solely, on this knowledge.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook