Feynman on knowing the name of something

[UnbornTao]

What if we apply this principle to everything that is conceived and perceived? 

[Joseph Maynor]

This is a good insight but most people think knowing the name or class of something is knowing what it is in essence.  Even physicists like Feynman.  

[UnbornTao]

On 5/29/2026 at 7:43 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

This is a good insight but most people think knowing the name or class of something is knowing what it is in essence.  Even physicists like Feynman.  

Is it possible that all of us do the same when it comes to perceiving any given object?

In other words, do we assume our perception is reality or the same as what exists? (Not as a philosophy but as a factual happening?)

How can we even recognize this as such, if it is true?

Based on this assumption, it's virtually impossible to see any contrast by which to gauge what reality is, other than our perception of it - except as an intellectual possibility that neither touches nor alters what is experienced, or assumed to be.

Edited yesterday at 12:21 AM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

On 5/29/2026 at 8:46 PM, UnbornTao said:

Is it possible that all of us do the same when it comes to perceiving any given object?

In other words, do we assume our perception is reality or the same as what exists? (Not as a philosophy but as a factual happening?)

How can we even recognize this as such, if it is true?

Based on this assumption, it's virtually impossible to see any contrast by which to gauge what reality is, other than our perception of it - except as an intellectual possibility that neither touches nor alters what is experienced, or assumed to be.

what the fuck are you talking about Jesse?

Edited yesterday at 12:22 AM by UnbornTao

[Osaid]

"What something is" seems to require something other than what is. The question itself seems to be mistaken.

I had a strange experience where I could clearly and factually see that we don't know anything. All notions were void and essentially seen as complete nonsense. Greatest day of my life. Visually everything stayed the same (no substances involved), but at the same time everything felt/seemed very different, like very playful and "alien". Thoughts would pop up like "grass" and yet it was obvious it wasn't actually describing anything, the notion that it was seemed completely ridiculous. All ideas and descriptions were like sounds or images popping up with no relation. When people talked it was obvious what they were saying doesn't exist. I think this is always true and it's just a matter of "tapping into it" right now.

[UnbornTao]

15 hours ago, Osaid said:

"What something is" seems to require something other than what is. The question itself seems to be mistaken.

See an object, then close your eyes. Visualize it in your mind. Is your experience of that thing the same as before?

In the experience that you shared, there would be no encounter with "grass" to not think about if you had your eyes closed. Just pointing out some basic mechanisms of perception, if you will.

15 hours ago, Osaid said:

Visually everything stayed the same (no substances involved),

Good, no need for artificial fireworks.

15 hours ago, Osaid said:

I had a strange experience where I could clearly and factually see that we don't know anything. All notions were void and essentially seen as complete nonsense. Greatest day of my life. Visually everything stayed the same (no substances involved), but at the same time everything felt/seemed very different, like very playful and "alien". Thoughts would pop up like "grass" and yet it was obvious it wasn't actually describing anything, the notion that it was seemed completely ridiculous. All ideas and descriptions were like sounds or images popping up with no relation. When people talked it was obvious what they were saying doesn't exist. I think this is always true and it's just a matter of "tapping into it" right now.

Thanks. Even prior to or independent of thinking and labeling, you likely still differentiated between one thing and another. The relationship with this or that particular thing would've mostly stayed the same. You might not have 'thought of' grass but in the background you knew that it wasn't a cat, or a cloud, or cancer. Trying to ground this a bit. 

I guess one of the goals here is recognizing that we don't know what anything is for real. Lots of "distractions" that make it seem as though we do but deep down we likely remain apprehensive that these are adopted and artificial in a deep sense.

[Osaid]

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

See an object, then close your eyes. Visualize it in your mind. Is your experience of that thing the same as before?

No. "Same as before" would be a present thought. Like "tomorrow".

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

In the experience that you shared, there would be no encounter with "grass" to not think about if you had your eyes closed. Just pointing out some basic mechanisms of perception, if you will.

Right, it's totally independent. But when we open our eyes we think it isn't, lol.

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Even prior to or independent of thinking and labeling, you likely still differentiated between one thing and another. The relationship with this or that particular thing would've mostly stayed the same. You might not have 'thought of' grass but in the background you knew that it wasn't a cat, or a cloud, or cancer. Trying to ground this a bit.

I think the entire realization was that knowing is symbolic. You definitely do not need to know or symbolize anything to see "grass". It's just a given. There's the thing by itself, then there's the "knowing" of it which introduces something else. When you say "this is grass" it's as if what you're perceiving is put into a relationship, but it was very clear that there isn't actually any relationship.

You can invent any sound or image or symbol or thought that you want, like "cat" or "this isnt a cat" or "this is grass" and you will not get closer to knowing what anything is, because what actually exists is not symbolic or relational. You could say "grass" or "rock" or "phone" and it would "slip off" of what you're perceiving in a way where it's very obvious that you don't actually know anything about what you're perceiving. 

Edited Sunday at 08:48 PM by Osaid

[UnbornTao]

On 5/31/2026 at 9:46 PM, Osaid said:

No. "Same as before" would be a present thought. Like "tomorrow".

We could do this all day.  

On 5/31/2026 at 9:46 PM, Osaid said:

Right, it's totally independent. But when we open our eyes we think it isn't, lol.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you mean the experience of grass?

"Grass" for you would be a different experience than for everyone else if you were blind, or didn't know of its existence at all.

Even before language there would be some learned correlation or distinction between that thing and that other thing. I'd say this faculty of recognition is not a function of language, although it does add to the experience of objects.

On 5/31/2026 at 9:46 PM, Osaid said:

I think the entire realization was that knowing is symbolic. You definitely do not need to know or symbolize anything to see "grass". It's just a given. There's the thing by itself, then there's the "knowing" of it which introduces something else. When you say "this is grass" it's as if what you're perceiving is put into a relationship, but it was very clear that there isn't actually any relationship.

You can invent any sound or image or symbol or thought that you want, like "cat" or "this isnt a cat" or "this is grass" and you will not get closer to knowing what anything is, because what actually exists is not symbolic or relational. You could say "grass" or "rock" or "phone" and it would "slip off" of what you're perceiving in a way where it's very obvious that you don't actually know anything about what you're perceiving. 

Sounds good. Some additions, just for fun: "Grass" isn't a fact of the universe. You had to learn it, recognize it, differentiate it. Imagine how humans lived prior to the development of the conceptual mind. It might not have been a given at all. It might have been invented. And then it became a given. I'm just using the mind as an example.

It's likely that by "the thing by itself" we still mean our cognition of it, our experience of it.

We may be trying to open the door to some kind of direct encounter with being, independent of perception. Tricky.

[Osaid]

47 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

If I'm understanding you correctly, you mean the experience of grass?

Right. Certainly I use the word "grass", but there is an "actual phenomenon" beyond the word. There isn't actually something called grass. The word only points to something which is ineffable. It is ineffable because it exists by itself. The actual observation of it excludes everything else.

It's very similar to how I can use my physical hand to point at the moon, but the finger is clearly not the moon. Similarly, words and knowledge seem to actually be "mental pointers", they don't define or illuminate what they point at any more than a finger does.

47 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

"Grass" for you would be a different experience than for everyone else if you were blind, or didn't know of its existence at all.

It would be knowledge. It differs because it is knowledge. There would be the word "grass" and all the associations with the word with all of its properties. But the actual thing that this knowledge is "about" has no association. 

Knowing a chair is quite clearly a different process compared to the existence of a chair. You can be in a room which has no chairs and still say "I know what a chair is". A blind man can do this as well.

47 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Even before language there would be some learned correlation or distinction between that thing and that other thing. I'd say this faculty of recognition is not a function of language, although it does add to the experience of objects.

That seems very hard to do. From my POV all distinctions arise from language/thoughts/words. Without that there's nothing distinguished at all. The body can move around and do its thing, but that all happens by itself in one movement, it doesn't actually need something else.

I do suspect there is a kind of "intuition" or "knowing" which doesn't require separation which is actually inherent to awareness or observation itself, though. You are likely referring to that. Emotion is like that.

47 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Sounds good. Some additions, just for fun: "Grass" isn't a fact of the universe. You had to learn it, recognize it, differentiate it. Imagine how humans lived prior to the development of the conceptual mind. It might not have been a given at all. It might have been invented. And then it became a given. I'm just using the mind as an example.

It does seem that all words are made up, and that therein all the objects we perceive are "man-made" or learned over time. But the stranger and trickier aspect I noticed is that this conclusion is itself made of words, and so the insight runs into a kind of "dead-end". It loops in on itself. Catch-22.

Edited 17 hours ago by Osaid