Perception...

[derek]

"The historically most central epistemological issue concerning perception is whether and how beliefs about physical objects and about the physical world generally can be justified or warranted on the basis of sensory or perceptual experience"

source - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Incredibly general philosophical question here, but I am interested as to where you all fall in this divide? Realist, Idealist?

My two cents: Not sure it's an issue. If I believe the physical world exists, I continue how I am and if I believe it does not exist I can either retreat into my own mind or pretend it does and continue to live as I do.

Any thoughts?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Has anyone ever thought of this idea? You are a mind/brain that has been observed from your conception by alien scientists. They are monitoring your thoughts/actions and the world that you have created through your thoughts, without you ever realising that it is not real. The aliens are watching it in a "Truman Show" kind of way and are very impressed by the complexity and amazing creative imagination that you have shown. You are so sure that everything exists that you can feel it and see it and it all makes some kind of consistent sense. Sometimes things happen that you think unexpected, and yet you did actually just have that idea without it reaching your conciousness yet. (This is a bit Matrix-like as well I suppose).

Does this sound really ignorant and naive? Anyway, there seems to be no reasonable way of proving whether this is true or not, whether you are really sensing what you think you are sensing, so just make the best of things.

 

[En Vind Av Sorg]

Has anyone ever thought of this idea? You are a mind/brain that has been observed from your conception by alien scientists. They are monitoring your thoughts/actions and the world that you have created through your thoughts, without you ever realising that it is not real. The aliens are watching it in a "Truman Show" kind of way and are very impressed by the complexity and amazing creative imagination that you have shown. You are so sure that everything exists that you can feel it and see it and it all makes some kind of consistent sense. Sometimes things happen that you think unexpected, and yet you did actually just have that idea without it reaching your conciousness yet. (This is a bit Matrix-like as well I suppose).

Does this sound really ignorant and naive? Anyway, there seems to be no reasonable way of proving whether this is true or not, whether you are really sensing what you think you are sensing, so just make the best of things.

This is actually the first scenario one of my philosophy teachers posed to me awhile back. We were discussing Descartes meditations and the "Ergo Sum Cogito" theory when he posed the question of precisely how we know we are not simply this brain in a jar in someones laboratory. Descartes never really convinced me with his meditations in proving his theory of thinking = being. Ever the skeptic, I still have not found a logical way of proving the awareness of our own existence. It seems no matter what question I ask myself, the only thing I can be certain of is that I am uncertain, and perhaps even that uncertainty is not my own.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Well I think that because of the limited frequencies that we percieve leaves us quite in the dark concerning what is really happening. We only percieve a fraction of the world in our own subjective thoughts, which also limits us to what we can experience. From what I have heard from the fringe of science, that consciousness can effect reality, and the discoveries of mainstream sciences of molecules and atoms, and the theory that for the most part, we are empty space. With experiments in quantum physics showing that the testers expectations can affect the result of the experiment brings up the question of what is consciousness and what is experience. Its it only the the sum of our memories? or something more? If theories of matter being energy vibrating at slower levels mean that it is possible to experience without having a body. To be aware while not having a brain? Or possible such an evovled brain type of energy that defies what we consider to be consciousness in a brain?

Such question can never answered because in a physical way, with our limited comprehention, we could never really know if more exists, because we cannot relate to things that are not physically based but only thought of as abstract and having no real physical evidence.

 

[ARC150]

It is indeed a general topic...but a worthwhile one - one worth the issue.

Instead of bothering with certain arguments derived from ideas related to (for instance) solipsism or debating the incongruities of En Vind Av Sorg's "Ergo Cogito Sum" in light of Descartes's actual statement of "Cogito Sum," I would like to table the relevancy of the original statement in light of views on the physical world that now exist as a product of quantum theory.

In short, the idea that "The nature of sensory experience and its relation to the physical world...is typically...formulated as the question of what are the immediate objects of awareness in sensory experience" [also from the same Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article] seems to require a different approach in light of the fact that, at the quantum level, our perception of the object-real world is understood to be inaccurate at said quantum level.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I stand by the priciple that the subject is the sum of its relationships. If one eliminates the subject's relationships the subject ceases to exist.

Keeping this assumption in mind I would answer the original question by saying that one can always know that what one percieves is real as it is a genuine relationship between multiple subjects.

 

[En Vind Av Sorg]

It is indeed a general topic...but a worthwhile one - one worth the issue.

Instead of bothering with certain arguments derived from ideas related to (for instance) solipsism or debating the incongruities of En Vind Av Sorg's "Ergo Cogito Sum" in light of Descartes's actual statement of "Cogito Sum," I would like to table the relevancy of the original statement in light of views on the physical world that now exist as a product of quantum theory.

Well, Im not going to debate you on latin usage, technically he simply says "I am, I exist" in Meditations on First Philosophy. This avoids use of the cogito, however in the text itself he refers to this idea as "the cogito." The actual statement however, be it with or without the Ergo, does not conflict with my position.

 

[jervi]

Hi all -
What I perceive and call reality, is real enough to me,
regardless of what generates it, or what its source might be.
Cause hey, it's just a ride
-Ashen

 

[proglodite]

Has anyone ever thought of this idea? You are a mind/brain that has been observed from your conception by alien scientists. They are monitoring your thoughts/actions and the world that you have created through your thoughts, without you ever realising that it is not real. The aliens are watching it in a "Truman Show" kind of way and are very impressed by the complexity and amazing creative imagination that you have shown. You are so sure that everything exists that you can feel it and see it and it all makes some kind of consistent sense. Sometimes things happen that you think unexpected, and yet you did actually just have that idea without it reaching your conciousness yet. (This is a bit Matrix-like as well I suppose).

Does this sound really ignorant and naive? Anyway, there seems to be no reasonable way of proving whether this is true or not, whether you are really sensing what you think you are sensing, so just make the best of things.

And Christians should be put in mental institutions? Try subtracting the words "alien scientists" and replacing with the word "God". Then you've just described exactly my opinion on perception/reality.

All this emphasis on answers coming from quantum physics; I'd be more interested in neuroscience - how does the brain turn 'electrical signals' into our percieved reality?

 

[Norsemaiden]

And Christians should be put in mental institutions? Try subtracting the words "alien scientists" and replacing with the word "God". Then you've just described exactly my opinion on perception/reality.

All this emphasis on answers coming from quantum physics; I'd be more interested in neuroscience - how does the brain turn 'electrical signals' into our percieved reality?

I probably would be insane if I lived my life as if the alien scientist scenario was true! We have to assume it isn't true. Okay, what if I am a God, and I have created the universe our of my imagination, but because I am immortal I like to find fun things to do and so I decided to temporarily wipe out my memory of being a God and have a bit of fun being a woman instead.....! It is all just wild speculation. And it is not as worthy of belief as more rational explanations.

 

[proglodite]

We just have to assume it's not true? Surely there should be some grounds on which to base this...?

 

[Norsemaiden]

We just have to assume it's not true? Surely there should be some grounds on which to base this...?

The grounds on which to base this are that there are an infinity of imaginary ideas about what really might be going on and there is no more reason to latch onto one notion any more than another. From my own observations I can see that if I believed in the aliens observing me idea, it would make me behave in a far less cautious and sensible way. I would have to see everyone else as no more than a figment of my imagination and my feelings towards them would reflect that. Imagine how the world would be with everyone (or a lot of people) all treating eachother as if they were imaginary. That would be tragic. While accepting that the apparant world we live in may be entirely different from how it seems, and that this infinity of possibilities exists, we risk harming ourselves and others by deciding to choose an improbable explanation for what we perceive. So we would be best playing by the rules of the game as they appear to be, rather than trying to tip the board over.

 

[proglodite]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. But it would make a lot more sense if you were worshipping the alien scientists instead of treating life as unimportant because of them.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. But it would make a lot more sense if you were worshipping the alien scientists instead of treating life as unimportant because of them.

We should all be worshipping the multicoloured mammoth that is about to sit on the Earth and squash it flat if enough people don't realise the good news that there is a large theme park in another dimension that we could all go to.

 

[proglodite]

ALL HAIL!!

 

[Silver Incubus]

I have to make a new point as I have been thinking more about this subject lately. It seems to me that because all we percieve is just electrical impulses in the brain, as to what this reality is, it basically means that nothing at all exists except for the experiencer. But what is it that we experience? Dreams we also experience, and are also just impulses in which we see and hear touch taste and feel. So if all matter we experience is only a figment of an imagination created entirely by our minds, then that means our brains are only a tool for this experience. What is left then is consciousness that knows it is experiencing, everything else is only product of the imagination. SO in essence we create reality solely in our minds.

 

[proglodite]

Again, spirituality becomes of utmost importance.

 

[jervi]

Do we create reality?
Do reality create us?

Can you deny either of the possibilities?

 

[Silver Incubus]

Yes I can, simply because if you have ever seen a hypnotist tell someone that they are eating an apple when in fact it is a potato, and they can tell you it tastes like an apple, jucy and sweet. It then becomes the persons mind which is creating reality not the other way around. You can even suggest that they cant see a person, and you can hold something behind the person, something that they wouldn't be able to see like a tennis ball, but they will be able to see it because they are told that the person in front of them isn't there so there is nothing obstucting their view, even though you see it in the audience.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Do we create reality?
Do reality create us?

Can you deny either of the possibilities?

Problems with this question. For one it places the subject starts out seperate from reality, which is impossible. A subject cannot be striped from its surroundings without being anihililated. Ignoring this for a moment, why is the relationship between "reality" and "us" heiarchical? I believe a more proper answer to the questions would be: we, as a self-regulating portion of reality, participate in a reciprocal relationship in which we recreate reality as reality recreates us.