How accurate is our perception?

[Surreptitious57]

To answer the OP our perception is not absolutely accurate but apart from our cognitive capability it is all we have when it comes to experiencing and understanding. So we have to use it to the best of our ability. Knowing it is not completely reliable can prevent us from thinking reality is exactly as we experience it. We or indeed any biological organism with sense capability can never do this as all interpretation by definition is subjective both in the physical and psychological sense. We can however accept this limitation and try to interpret reality as objectively as possible and that is what science and more specifically the scientific method attempts to do

[Sy Borg]

God either has zero testes or ovaries or It has billions of each. Thus, God is an It.

The sexing of God is a naive diminution of the concept, rendering something so much bigger than us as merely human (animal, really) and, thus, the idea too often descends into nonsensical anthropomorphication. Maybe fewer people would have insane religious ideas if God was routinely referred to as "It"?

[Surreptitious57]

God is anthropomorphised because it is a creation in all of its multiple manifestations born out of human imagination. Even if God
existed it would still be anthropomorphised in order for its believers to understand it better and to make them feel closer to it too

[Eaglerising]

How did an inquiry about "perception" become a discourse about God?

SURREPTITOUS57 wrote – "To answer the OP our perception is not absolutely accurate but apart from our cognitive capability it is all we have when it comes to experiencing and understanding. So we have to use it to the best of our ability. Knowing it is not completely reliable can prevent us from thinking reality is exactly as we experience."

First of all, some people have experienced more than just their cognitive ability.
Secondly, my interaction with over 1,000 people in the course of 50 years has allowed me to see most believe their perception is accurate and never question or examine it.
Thirdly, there are various clues or indicators which can assist us in seeing the flaws in our perception or where it is inaccurate. One of them is defensiveness, another is contradiction, saying one thing and doing another or contradicting ourselves in other ways. The absence of thought allows us to use consciousness to examine and challenge our perception.

-- Updated April 5th, 2017, 5:17 am to add the following --

This indicates or suggests the possibility there may be other clues or indicators I can use to to see the flaws in my perception.

[Surreptitious57]

You cannot experience anything without a functioning brain because all knowledge and experience is processed by it. So I am
very sceptical of any one claiming experience that is apparently beyond this. So called higher states of consciousness such as hallucinating and meditating are just more profound examples of cognitive ability. Also perception is accurate but not entirely
so because as I said it is subjective. And in actual fact there is no such thing as objective perception. For that is an oxymoron

[Eaglerising]

Based upon your definition of cognitive, I will agree with you that you need the brain. What I meant was there are many different levels of consciousness.

[Woodart]

If we accept your definition of what a God is.

I still say God's a Him. Because 99% of the people in the world call God a He. Seven and a half billion people can't all be wrong. But 100 million people can. Only going on the strength that they oppose the seven-and-a-half billion.

Religions are so democratic!! Sex of a God, for instance, is decided by plebiscite.

-1- I hope you see I was making a joke.

I clearly said God is both male & female. However, I do not think it is in our providence to know what God is. If God is omnipotent – then “it” can be whatever it wants. It can have no gender at all.

I think God is in all parts of the universe simultaneously. It is everything and therefore experiences all. This is my working hypothesis until I get a direct clarification from “the source”. My meeting is not until next Tuesday – so I will let you know what I find out.

[Toadny]

Hello Woodart,

I've seen your private message but I can't respond for some reason: would you message me again with the titles of the threads you would like me to look at, I can't navigate to them with the information you provided.

Cordially,

Toadny
(and apologies for jumping into this discussion)

[Spraticus]

You cannot experience anything without a functioning brain because all knowledge and experience is processed by it. So I am
very sceptical of any one claiming experience that is apparently beyond this. So called higher states of consciousness such as hallucinating and meditating are just more profound examples of cognitive ability. Also perception is accurate but not entirely
so because as I said it is subjective. And in actual fact there is no such thing as objective perception. For that is an oxymoron

Several factors make all perceptual experience, (which is really the same as all experience), unreliable. In visual processing for example, most of the perceived visual field is generated by the brain and is not an immediate direct result of the light input. The brain, via its eyes, scans the field and updates its predictions of what is out there now, using processed light input combined with memory of how the world works. The percentage of the total visual field that results from external input in each fixation is very small; the rest is added by the brain.

In a famous experiment using a man in a gorilla suit jumping about behind the events that the subjects were attending to, a lot of the subjects did not register the gorilla at all. There are many other examples.

[-1-]

Hello Woodart,

I've seen your private message but I can't respond for some reason: would you message me again with the titles of the threads you would like me to look at, I can't navigate to them with the information you provided.

Cordially,

Toadny
(and apologies for jumping into this discussion)

Yes, here too. I also confess that your invitation, Woodart, to respond to posts is very flattering. However, I go as I please... if I have to respond to posts on demand, I fear that the fun will leave the activity for me. So please forgive me, but, at least for the time being, I'll ignore your plea to respond to your selected posts.

-- Updated 2017 April 5th, 6:17 pm to add the following --

God either has zero testes or ovaries or It has billions of each. Thus, God is an It.

The sexing of God is a naive diminution of the concept, rendering something so much bigger than us as merely human (animal, really) and, thus, the idea too often descends into nonsensical anthropomorphication. Maybe fewer people would have insane religious ideas if God was routinely referred to as "It"?

In the two most populous religions, the God is male. Unmistakably. You can't impregnate a virgin if all you ever gots are ova. You need sperm, most obviously.

Religions are run and made by those who can make others follow them. The churches and islam are run by males. Or Look at Scientology.

"The god of a carpenter is a carpenter. The god of a businessman is a businessman. The god of an atheist is an atheist. The god of a Christian is a Jew." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. (With a little help from me.)

Female-driven gods are of those religions that harken back to matriarchal societies. Voodoo and witchcraft, created by female witches, switches to femdom from making sandwiches.

-- Updated 2017 April 5th, 6:23 pm to add the following --

God is anthropomorphised because it is a creation in all of its multiple manifestations born out of human imagination. Even if God
existed it would still be anthropomorphised in order for its believers to understand it better and to make them feel closer to it too

"... and in his image created he Him." Works both ways.

Religions run by women have female deities.

Religions run by dogs, hogs, tapeworms and transvestite alien robots, revere, respectively, dogs, hogs, tapeworms and transvestite alien robots as God.

[Spraticus]

Could those who want a religious discussion perhaps go somewhere else?

[Eaglerising]

Yes, please do. It's rude and disrespectful to invade and take over different topics that have nothing to do with religion.