Nope, demonstrably false. Colors only exist in our head, in the world it’s just wavelengths of light.
Not really. Through science you sort of end up breaking up all the things that help give life meaning. LIke for one not seeing that we don’t live in the present but a bit behind it, that much of what we take to be reacting to something is more our brain predicting than anything else, and that bit about emotions I mentioned.
Vocabulary has an impact on the way we perceive the world.
For instance, colors exist independently of us. but some people with sight defects don’t see them as most of the people or not at all.
And, further, for an European man, blue and green are two different colors. but in some other languages, it is the same.
Please be clear you’re explaining how you feel about it.
You said “all the things that help give life meaning,”
would like to share what gives life it’s meaning to you?
Colors don’t exist independently of us, this is provable false. They only exist in our heads.
Human relationships, helping others, being in the now, stuff like that.
Well in my experience those things blossomed under increasing appreciation for this planet, it’s creatures, each other and myself and body.
That increasing appreciation was driven by my increasing scientific understanding as I read through the layperson “literature” voraciously, followed by great deal of cogitation.
You sound to me like someone who’s been listening to the fanciful notions of philosopher physics and philosopher mathematicians who have learned to play the talk circuit such as Donald Hoffman and his dog’n pony show.
That link goes to a harsh critique I put together.
As for the groovy side of science and learning, if you’re curious, I’ve had a friendly little dialogue with a book written by Steve Daut that gets into the beauty and spiritual profundity to be found within scientific learning. Although it seems you totally missed what I tried sharing at #10, that’s not blowing smoke, it’s actual biography, so probably not much point in trying, but then again, there’s alway the gallery to play to. 
Sounds like you don’t know enough. For example here: Sex And The Illusion Of Physical Form | HuffPost Life
Where the notion of you engaging with another human being is questioned according to science.
Or if you read psychologist Susan Blackmore suggesting that our self is nothing but just a collection of memes from the world around us so there is nothing we can point to as “me” or that is genuine about us.
Or how our vision is delayed by up to 15 seconds, that we live in the past sense-wise. That looking at a star in the sky isn’t exactly looking at a star but rather the light from it, that we you see might already be gone thus further eroding our sense of what can be real or not.
Like… if you think science learning inspires wonder and that stuff you don’t know enough or don’t understand it (or both).
Dont speak to the intelligence of others in this forum. Defend your point with logic and evidence. The things you said are valid, but don’t add up for me. A delay in senses reaching our brain doesn’t transform me into “not me”.
I used staff color here, as a moderator. Review the rules
It’s more than the delay in the senses, our brain adds a lot to our experience of reality. I already also mentioned the various things that also lead to doubt about reality.
I’m not going to respond to every one of your points. No one is required to do that
It’s not so much about questioning the evidence, and experiments, it’s about questioning your interpretation.
“doubt physical reality?”
Why ?
I can’t speak to your arguments.
Though I’ve gotten close in the past.
All I can do is speak from my experience.
My search started with trying to understand myself and the day to day reality I was embedded within. Went through the faith based phases early on. It was unsatisfactory, but using science to learn about Earth and geology and biology and humanity, that was fascinating and fun and a life long, started early on and never stopped.
I’ve been amazed how even through the shocking unexpected discovers, there was still always an internal & externally consistency and harmony that was exquisite.
Stuff like that study establishing some 15sec. lag in visual perception. At first, it’s jarring but it doesn’t take too much consideration and it becomes, why of course, how could it be any other way. Then it offer an explanation for why the trucking trick of front-door, back-door, rocking chair, with the rocking-chair drive actually being able to nap, behind the while and “safely” drive for long distances. If emergency happen, CB is on, a driver gets woke up fast, continuing at the wheel without a beat.
Though don’t be misled by headlines, it’s one study and just scratching the surface, and you can bet there will be way more nuances than you (or me, for that matter) and appreciate.
Oh and it’s not like we process visual information with a 15 sec lag, it’s more like the brain builds up a 15 sec buffer for certain monotonous portions of our vision. Your system is still keeping track in real time, after all if I suddenly threw a ball at your head, you’d be ducking in split seconds.
I find it easy to understand myself as another mammal, my body and mind the product of millions upon millions and even billions of years worth of development and pruning.
My human self-conscious mind is a produce of my body getting on with the business of living and communicating with itself. Our “consciousness” is a reflect of our body communicating with itself. (read Solms and Damasio for more)
Through that lens all those things you seem to be mystify by - have been resolved within this perspective, based on a lot of learning and thinking and living.
good-night
That 15 second bit is actually a delay: Everything we see is a mash-up of the brain's last 15 seconds of visual information
That alone is enough to cause doubt about the world around us.
Not to mention what is said prior to all this about the self and emotions I mentioned.
You aren’t another mammal but just a pile of matter, the notion of life is an illusion as well:
Even further about color not being real as well: https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-see-images-in-our-minds/answer/Paul-King-2?ch=10&oid=773886&share=d77a8c1a&srid=hwLJ3G&target_type=answer
Like…there is no grounding for your view of reality.
I would you like you to address the question of just what this doubt is. It’s established that human perception has limits. But what does that mean to you?
For me, scientific methods were developed for this reason. We need to verify our perceptions with others.
Except those methods are based primarily on our senses and might not reflect reality:
Same in regards to social reality and how, to an extent, what we agree is real shapes our experience of the world around us:
Like…the more you delve into perception the more doubt there is behind it all
Excuse the errors and typos in the previous post, it was late, I was under the gun of other’s expectations and distractions and it turned out a bit sloppy.
Unfortunately, today is even more crowded, so can only give this a fraction of the time I’d like. Lots to going on within your claims.
Well I think that’s your interpretation.
In our latest research, we discovered a new mechanism that, among others, can explain this illusory stability.
“Among others” is a key.
What the brain is essentially doing is procrastinating. It’s too much work to constantly deal with every single snapshot it receives, so the brain sticks to the past because the past is a good predictor of the present.
So how do you explain your ability to dodge the ball I suddenly toss at your face?
Seem to me the above quote (and article) is an example of sloppy wording and that the real concept is a sort of buffering, with other brain components constantly monitoring it real time for changes that matter. And again remember this is early days for this line of research, and further details and surprises are sure to be found.
This idea – which is also supported by other results – of mechanisms within the brain that continuously bias our visual perception towards our past visual experience is known as continuity fields.
How else could it be?
Would you expect your brain to read the future instead. All of our thinking at every level is constantly referring to the past because, because, well how else could it be?
We use the past to guess the future, it’s fun understanding the mechanism better, but it’s not shockingly Earth shattering. After all our body has spent hundreds of thousand of generations refining mechanisms and behavior to navigate the world and meet it’s challenges.
Why?
Yuri Borges:
So, what is the fundamental difference between a piece of rock and a human being? The evolutionary complexity that allows for the emergent phenomenon we call consciousness to arise in us and not in the piece of rock.For me, the fact that humanity has been able achieve information processing in a silicon chip by organising the connections in a certain way is a good reminder that the only thing that separates me from a piece of rock is more complex way matter is arrange in my body.
This is a perfect example of what I mean about giving “evolution” lip service, to totally dropping it from their actual consideration. Getting lost within one’s own mindscape.
Acknowledging that we are the result of evolution.
Then jumping to the conclusion that we are nothing more than molecular complexity.
It’s childish, the stuff of middle school musings, challenges we need to get through for ourselves, for further information can start making constructive sense.
… A few years ago I realized that for all the talk about body-mind, consciousness, perception, reality, or no reality, there’s a most fundamental divide, that I believe, needs to be explicitly enunciated and thought about. A prerequisite before anything else can really start to make sense. …
He will never answer. He’s just going to keep repeating his non-evidence and saying he’s discovered something. Like, of course our brain stabilizes the eyes’ movement. Maybe the world is stable and we move!
No that’s simply what is. That’s kinda how science works.
Not exactly no.
That very thing is what makes one actually question whether what they experience is real or not.
not really, the quora post shows there isn’t really much difference between you and a rock besides how the matter is arranged.
Reality is decided by concensus and with the aid of recording instruments.
I already posted a link that calls that into question. We build this on our intuitions.
Blockquote We also build our physics on a recognition of the limits of perception. The whole point of theories such as relativity is to separate objective features of the world from artifacts of our perspective. One of the most important books of the past two decades on the physics and philosophy of time, Huw Price’s Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point, argues that concepts of cause and effect derive from our experience as agents in the world and may not be a fundamental feature of reality.
Time plays a variety of roles in physics, from defining causal sequences to giving a direction to the unfolding of the universe. How many of these roles are rooted in the contingent ways our brains perceive time? How might an alien being, who perceives time in a radically different way, formulate physics?
Science is not focusing on a headline and ignoring the nuances and how it ties into previous understanding. I read the article you shared, I also saw how you represented it, and it seemed you missed a lot of what the author was sharing.
Can you explain that in a rational systematic way? I ask because I’m curious, and don’t want to prejudge you, I’m willing to try to focus on your words, even if others think it’s a lost cause.
I’m giving you a chance to surprise some and help out with my curiosity.
Which makes it obvious you haven’t given Evolution much consideration.
Can’t build a shelter without building materials.
The fact that we are a bit behind the rest of reality sensory wise is enough to do that. IF it’s not an up to date rendition that raises the issue about how much is the brain adding on.
It’s more or less showing evolution is irrelevant, since it’s all just matter.