Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as "illusions." What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see. If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about. This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems "bent" that our senses deceive us, and we can't know what it "really" is we interact with every day.It seems to me that the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" are idioms rather than illusions. We should probably have new terms that suggest what is really going on.
Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as "illusions." What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see. If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about. This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems "bent" that our senses deceive us, and we can't know what it "really" is we interact with every day.But the sun doesn't rise nor set. It never moves in relation to the planets in our solar system. It is an illusion to descrube the sun as rising and setting, whether it's what we "should" see or not. The point is not what we see, it's how we describe what we see. Is there any intelligent person on earth who doesn't know that the sun seeming to rise and set is an illusion? If it is not an illusion, what would you say it is, reality? Lois When we call something an illusion, we maintain it is not real. The word "mirage" was also used. A mirage, likewise, is not real. The sun is real, and so are the characteristics of the universe which make the sun appear to rise and set to an observer on a planet. What we see is the sun, not something which is not "really" the sun. We also see the sun "overhead." We still see the sun, not an illusion, i.e. something which is not the sun. The words we use to describe the sun are not illusions, either.
When we call something an illusion, we maintain it is not real.The episode was about relative motion. We're moving at millions of miles per hour but hair isn't sticking out to one side. The illusion is that we are standing still.
<![CDATA[
When we call something an illusion, we maintain it is not real.
The episode was about relative motion. We’re moving at millions of miles per hour but hair isn’t sticking out to one side. The illusion is that we are standing still.
Motion was referred to as well, but statements were made regarding how the sun appears on the horizon and sunset are “illusions.”
Is it the case that when we stand in one place, we’re the victims of an illusion? We’re simply standing in one place ]>
What is it that is not real about doing so?It's real, but it's wrongly perceived. The earth is rotating, the sun isn't setting. That fits the definition of "illusion".
If I say that I'm sitting in a car while it is moving am I suffering from an illusion if I claim that I'm sitting in a car? It would seem silly to respond "No, you're not sitting, you're moving! Because your moving, you can't be sitting.""Sitting in a moving car" would be accurate, "sitting still" would be less accurate. "Rotating away from the sun" would be more accurate than "the sun is setting". Everyone has had the experience of sitting in a non-moving car when the car next to them starts moving. They grab the armrest or step on the brake because the other car gives them the illusion of movement.
Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as "illusions." What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see. If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about. This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems "bent" that our senses deceive us, and we can't know what it "really" is we interact with every day.But the sun doesn't rise nor set. It never moves in relation to the planets in our solar system. It is an illusion to descrube the sun as rising and setting, whether it's what we "should" see or not. The point is not what we see, it's how we describe what we see. Is there any intelligent person on earth who doesn't know that the sun seeming to rise and set is an illusion? If it is not an illusion, what would you say it is, reality? Lois When we call something an illusion, we maintain it is not real. The word "mirage" was also used. A mirage, likewise, is not real. The sun is real, and so are the characteristics of the universe which make the sun appear to rise and set to an observer on a planet. What we see is the sun, not something which is not "really" the sun. We also see the sun "overhead." We still see the sun, not an illusion, i.e. something which is not the sun. The words we use to describe the sun are not illusions, either. We see the real sun, yes, but we speak of it as moving. THAT's the illusion, not the sun itself. The sun doesn't move no matter how we describe it or "see it." Does your definition mean that when Criss Angel is conducting his tricks that they are not illusions because what we see is the actual Criss Angel? Lois
I repeat, “sunrise” and “sunset” are idioms. Better terms might be something like “sunreveal” and “sunconceal” (with the understanding that the revealing and concealing are accomplished by the Earth’s rotation eastward). It’s a matter of perspective.
I repeat, "sunrise" and "sunset" are idioms. Better terms might be something like "sunreveal" and "sunconceal" (with the understanding that the revealing and concealing are accomplished by the Earth's rotation eastward). It's a matter of perspective.It doesn't matter what we call it as long as we realize what is actually happening and that the appearance of the sun moving is indeed an illusion. Sunrise and sunset are ingrained in our language, Any halfway educated person knows they are only figures of speech. Changing the words would have no effect on reality. Lois
I repeat, "sunrise" and "sunset" are idioms. Better terms might be something like "sunreveal" and "sunconceal" (with the understanding that the revealing and concealing are accomplished by the Earth's rotation eastward). It's a matter of perspective.It doesn't matter what we call it as long as we realize what is actually happening and that the appearance of the sun moving is indeed an illusion. Sunrise and sunset are ingrained in our language, Any halfway educated person knows they are only figures of speech. Changing the words would have no effect on reality. Lois When I was a child, I used to see the face of a man-in the-moon, when I looked at the moon. As an adolescent, after I watched a real person walk on the moon (live on TV), I only saw craters when I looked at the moon. "Sunrise" and "sunset" imply that the sun is moving across the sky relative to us. A child, or anyone who doesn't know better will simply assume that is the case. Why misguide our children?
Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as "illusions." What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see. If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about. This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems "bent" that our senses deceive us, and we can't know what it "really" is we interact with every day.But the sun doesn't rise nor set. It never moves in relation to the planets in our solar system. It is an illusion to descrube the sun as rising and setting, whether it's what we "should" see or not. The point is not what we see, it's how we describe what we see. Is there any intelligent person on earth who doesn't know that the sun seeming to rise and set is an illusion? If it is not an illusion, what would you say it is, reality? Lois When we call something an illusion, we maintain it is not real. The word "mirage" was also used. A mirage, likewise, is not real. The sun is real, and so are the characteristics of the universe which make the sun appear to rise and set to an observer on a planet. What we see is the sun, not something which is not "really" the sun. We also see the sun "overhead." We still see the sun, not an illusion, i.e. something which is not the sun. The words we use to describe the sun are not illusions, either. We see the real sun, yes, but we speak of it as moving. THAT's the illusion, not the sun itself. The sun doesn't move no matter how we describe it or "see it." Does your definition mean that when Criss Angel is conducting his tricks that they are not illusions because what we see is the actual Criss Angel? Lois Alas, I've never seen Criss Angel or his tricks, but assume he's a magician. Let's say one of his tricks is to float unaided in the air. I don't know whether the real Criss Angel floats unaided in the air, but doubt it. However, I think seeing the sun set or rise is not the same as seeing Criss Angel apparently floating in the air. There is no trick involved in the sun setting or rising. We aren't tricked, or fooled, or deceived, or even wrong when we see a sunrise or sunset. We couldn't see anything else. You may object to the use of the words "sunrise" or "sunset" but that is not to say there is an illusion, either.
If you watch the sunreveal or the sunconceal tomorrow, the very language will remind you that you are seeing the effect of the Earth rotating towards the east relative to the sun. Stop confusing the reality with antiquated language.
I repeat, "sunrise" and "sunset" are idioms. Better terms might be something like "sunreveal" and "sunconceal" (with the understanding that the revealing and concealing are accomplished by the Earth's rotation eastward). It's a matter of perspective.It doesn't matter what we call it as long as we realize what is actually happening and that the appearance of the sun moving is indeed an illusion. Sunrise and sunset are ingrained in our language, Any halfway educated person knows they are only figures of speech. Changing the words would have no effect on reality. Lois When I was a child, I used to see the face of a man-in the-moon, when I looked at the moon. As an adolescent, after I watched a real person walk on the moon (live on TV), I only saw craters when I looked at the moon. "Sunrise" and "sunset" imply that the sun is moving across the sky relative to us. A child, or anyone who doesn't know better will simply assume that is the case. Why misguide our children? It could be used as a learning opportunity. My 9 year old neice knows that the earth revolves around the sun even though we call it sunrise and sunset. It wasn't a hard lesson to teach her. She also learned that things are not always as they seem to be. Lois
Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as "illusions." What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see. If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about. This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems "bent" that our senses deceive us, and we can't know what it "really" is we interact with every day.But the sun doesn't rise nor set. It never moves in relation to the planets in our solar system. It is an illusion to descrube the sun as rising and setting, whether it's what we "should" see or not. The point is not what we see, it's how we describe what we see. Is there any intelligent person on earth who doesn't know that the sun seeming to rise and set is an illusion? If it is not an illusion, what would you say it is, reality? Lois When we call something an illusion, we maintain it is not real. The word "mirage" was also used. A mirage, likewise, is not real. The sun is real, and so are the characteristics of the universe which make the sun appear to rise and set to an observer on a planet. What we see is the sun, not something which is not "really" the sun. We also see the sun "overhead." We still see the sun, not an illusion, i.e. something which is not the sun. The words we use to describe the sun are not illusions, either. We see the real sun, yes, but we speak of it as moving. THAT's the illusion, not the sun itself. The sun doesn't move no matter how we describe it or "see it." Does your definition mean that when Criss Angel is conducting his tricks that they are not illusions because what we see is the actual Criss Angel? Lois Alas, I've never seen Criss Angel or his tricks, but assume he's a magician. Let's say one of his tricks is to float unaided in the air. I don't know whether the real Criss Angel floats unaided in the air, but doubt it. However, I think seeing the sun set or rise is not the same as seeing Criss Angel apparently floating in the air. There is no trick involved in the sun setting or rising. We aren't tricked, or fooled, or deceived, or even wrong when we see a sunrise or sunset. We couldn't see anything else. You may object to the use of the words "sunrise" or "sunset" but that is not to say there is an illusion, either. I am not one who objects to the terms. We in the 21st century are not deceived about the sun not moving--but nearly everyone alive at one time was deceived by it. They assumed the sun was moving no matter what it was called and plenty of people swore that the earth could not possibly not be the center of the universe, just as some people claim the earth is younger than it has been shown to be and that global climate change really is not happening and is not wreaking havoc with the environment. ("It still snows in Minnesota, so how can there be global warming?") Lois
I repeat, "sunrise" and "sunset" are idioms. Better terms might be something like "sunreveal" and "sunconceal" (with the understanding that the revealing and concealing are accomplished by the Earth's rotation eastward). It's a matter of perspective.It doesn't matter what we call it as long as we realize what is actually happening and that the appearance of the sun moving is indeed an illusion. Sunrise and sunset are ingrained in our language, Any halfway educated person knows they are only figures of speech. Changing the words would have no effect on reality. Lois When I was a child, I used to see the face of a man-in the-moon, when I looked at the moon. As an adolescent, after I watched a real person walk on the moon (live on TV), I only saw craters when I looked at the moon. "Sunrise" and "sunset" imply that the sun is moving across the sky relative to us. A child, or anyone who doesn't know better will simply assume that is the case. Why misguide our children? It could be used as a learning opportunity. My 9 year old neice knows that the earth revolves around the sun even though we call it sunrise and sunset. It wasn't a hard lesson to teach her. She also learned that things are not always as they seem to be. Lois If you asked your niece this exact question: "Since we know that it is not the sun that is rising and setting, would it be better to call it "sunreveal" and "sunconceal" instead of "sunrise" and "sunset"?", I would be curious to know her response. (If you ask her, please try not to bias her response.)
Just to whine a bit more about this Cosmos, I have problems with referring to sunrise and sunset as "illusions." What we see in those cases is exactly what we should see. If we saw something different, there would be a problem, i.e. something to be concerned about. This is the way problems which are not problems are created, as in the case of philosophers who infer from the fact that a pencil in a glass of water seems "bent" that our senses deceive us, and we can't know what it "really" is we interact with every day.But the sun doesn't rise nor set. It never moves in relation to the planets in our solar system. It is an illusion to descrube the sun as rising and setting, whether it's what we "should" see or not. The point is not what we see, it's how we describe what we see. Is there any intelligent person on earth who doesn't know that the sun seeming to rise and set is an illusion? If it is not an illusion, what would you say it is, reality? Lois When we call something an illusion, we maintain it is not real. The word "mirage" was also used. A mirage, likewise, is not real. The sun is real, and so are the characteristics of the universe which make the sun appear to rise and set to an observer on a planet. What we see is the sun, not something which is not "really" the sun. We also see the sun "overhead." We still see the sun, not an illusion, i.e. something which is not the sun. The words we use to describe the sun are not illusions, either. We see the real sun, yes, but we speak of it as moving. THAT's the illusion, not the sun itself. The sun doesn't move no matter how we describe it or "see it." Does your definition mean that when Criss Angel is conducting his tricks that they are not illusions because what we see is the actual Criss Angel? Lois Alas, I've never seen Criss Angel or his tricks, but assume he's a magician. Let's say one of his tricks is to float unaided in the air. I don't know whether the real Criss Angel floats unaided in the air, but doubt it. However, I think seeing the sun set or rise is not the same as seeing Criss Angel apparently floating in the air. There is no trick involved in the sun setting or rising. We aren't tricked, or fooled, or deceived, or even wrong when we see a sunrise or sunset. We couldn't see anything else. You may object to the use of the words "sunrise" or "sunset" but that is not to say there is an illusion, either. I am not one who objects to the terms. We in the 21st century are not deceived about the sun not moving--but nearly everyone alive at one time was deceived by it. They assumed the sun was moving no matter what it was called and plenty of people swore that the earth could not possibly not be the center of the universe, just as some people claim the earth is younger than it has been shown to be and that global climate change really is not happening and is not wreaking havoc with the environment. ("It still snows in Minnesota, so how can there be global warming?") Lois People who believed the sun was moving around the earth didn't do so because of an illusion, but because they came to a conclusion which, though seemingly appropriate at the time, has been found to be invalid. If sunrise/sunset was an illusion, it would remain an illusion, because it would not be real. Something which is false or not real doesn't suddenly become true or real. We may learn that what we thought was the case is not the case, however. As you say, nobody thinks the sun is moving around the earth now. Because that is the case, how can we maintain there is an illusion?
Have you looked up the definition of illusion?
Have you looked up the definition of illusion?Well, there is no single, absolute, all-encompassing dictionary definition, is there? Among those you'll find is "something that is false or not real but that seems to be true or real." Merriam-Webster. My point is there is nothing false or not real about what we call "sunrise" and "sunset." If you think there is, please let me know what you maintain we should really be seeing.
Well, there is no single, absolute, all-encompassing dictionary definition, is there? Among those you'll find is "something that is false or not real but that seems to be true or real." Merriam-Webster. My point is there is nothing false or not real about what we call "sunrise" and "sunset." If you think there is, please let me know what you maintain we should really be seeing.The implication that the sun is rising and setting, relative to us, is false.
Well, there is no single, absolute, all-encompassing dictionary definition, is there? Among those you'll find is "something that is false or not real but that seems to be true or real." Merriam-Webster. My point is there is nothing false or not real about what we call "sunrise" and "sunset." If you think there is, please let me know what you maintain we should really be seeing.The implication that the sun is rising and setting, relative to us, is false. But an implication is not an illusion. All I'm doing is trying to point out a problem that results when we characterize something that is not false, or is quite real, as an illusion. Philosophers did this (maybe some still do) using the example of a pencil in water. When we put a pencil in water, they would point out, the pencil appears bent, though it isn't. So, they would continue, this establishes that our senses are imperfect, deceitful. We don't experience the world as it really is; we only perceive sense-data which is something different from what is real. Of course, when we see a pencil in a glass of water the pencil doesn't appear bent. It looks like a pencil in a glass of water. It couldn't look otherwise when put into a glass of water. Nobody believes the pencil becomes "bent" on placement in water. When we consider this an "illusion", though, we're setting ourselves up for making all kinds of inferences as we treat something that could not be otherwise, something that is just what it should be, as somehow unreal or false.
Well, there is no single, absolute, all-encompassing dictionary definition, is there? Among those you'll find is "something that is false or not real but that seems to be true or real." Merriam-Webster. My point is there is nothing false or not real about what we call "sunrise" and "sunset." If you think there is, please let me know what you maintain we should really be seeing.The implication that the sun is rising and setting, relative to us, is false. But an implication is not an illusion. All I'm doing is trying to point out a problem that results when we characterize something that is not false, or is quite real, as an illusion... The implication is what is false about what we call sunrise and sunset. Also, anyone (and I am sure there are some, even today, not just young children) who doesn't know that we are actually viewing the earth's rotation eastward relative to the sun, will likely see the sun as moving across the sky, rather than ourselves and our sky moving relative to the position of the sun. When I am driving on a long straight Texas highway in the summertime, I see water on the highway ahead, only I know that it is not water, but rather heatwaves emanating from the surface of the asphalt. Are you suggesting that this phenomenon should not be called an illusion? Seeing a bent pencil in water, is an illusion. Knowing that the pencil is not actually bent does not change the fact that one sees the pencil as bent. There are such things as illusions. We need to know that and to identify those things that we see that are illusory. Philosophy (and anyone else for that matter) be damned for overgeneralizing to say such things as our senses cannot reflect reality. It's merely the case, that sometimes our senses don't reflect reality.