Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
If your claim is that there is experience without an experiencer, that is illogical.
I can direct my thought processes and choose to think some thoughts and not others. Sorry to hear that you do not possess that ability.RJG: We don't actually "think", we merely only "experience thoughts".
I can choose to accept or doubt, apparently you are an automaton without that ability.We don't actually "doubt", we merely only "experience doubts".
You are speaking strictly for yourself, replace every "we" with "I" in your sentences above and they will be correctWe don't actually "understand", we merely only "experience understanding".
We don't actually "affirm/deny/will/refuse/imagine/sense/etc, we merely only "experience affirming/denying/willing/refusing/imagination/sensations/etc"
- mr533473
- Posts: 59
- Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
Yes, every post you have made to me on the matter, check it. So then, yes it is your words that cause the confusion, the ones I carefully laid out that you didn't respond to. I'll do it again for you (perhaps this time you could either recognise the inconsistency or explain how this is reasonable)RGJ wrote: Every post? Really?? So then, is it MY words, or is it YOUR interpretation (of my words) that causes your confusion?
First
RJG wrote:
imagine that this porthole is your own private, personal view of reality
Then
RJG wrote:
Our 'view'-of-reality (aka "perceptions")
Then
RJG wrote:
This "porthole" is called "consciousness".
You switch between these, sometimes within the same post. Unless you're saying they are all equivalent to each other, how is it anything other than confusing?
Swiss cheese is simple, doesn't mean it's not full of holes.RGJ wrote:This analogy is very simple, and no where near as complicated as you seem to make it out to be.
Yes (in regard to "right?"), but either there is an "I" that is separate from this porthole but looks through it, as it is my limited scope of the world (which would mean there is some identifiable me separate from consciousness that looks through consciousness) OR I am the porthole (my consciousness is the porthole) in which case I don't necessarily look through it "on to the other side of the porthole". The former is what your initial analogy reads as, the latter is what you seem to switch to but if you mean the latter, it would be more apt to say "Image you are a plane window" at which point it would be worth dropping the analogy.RGJ wrote:1. A "porthole" is something that you look through, and is a 'means' of seeing something out-there (on the other side of the porthole), ...right? So in this analogy, "porthole" is analogous to "consciousness". For it is consciousness (i.e. this porthole) that allows us to see (perceive) what is "out-there", ...true?
Yes, true, but redundant, without our eyeballs we wouldn't be looking at anything in the first place. You don't seem to recognise that your analogy now says there's a porthole (consciousness) and that's all you have to perceive reality with. So no eyes? ears? nose? If this is the case, questioning reality doesn't come up as you don't sense or perceive anything that can be questioned. Imagining consciousness on its own and how it would function independently is absurd.RGJ wrote: Without consciousness, we wouldn't know what our eyeballs were looking at, nor could we know what our bodily senses were sensing, ...true?
This is not useful until the other stuff is resolved ^RGJ wrote:2. "Perceptions" are that what we perceive, ...right? So, in the analogy, that what you see (perceive) through this porthole is your view of reality (i.e. your "perceptions"). We don't actually perceive/sense/experience actual 'real things' themselves, ...right? It is through the window of consciousness that we perceive perceptions, sense sensations, and experience experiences, ...right?
Is this now your point? You appear to be drilling something home that was never really in question. I wish you would apply the same level of scrutiny to your own words as you do to Descartes.RGJ wrote: Without this porthole of consciousness, there would be no perceiving/sensing/experiencing of ANYTHING!
Remember in my first post..
mr533473 wrote:
If the definition is "exists with certainty independent of our perceptions" then it's easy. No, at least on their own, perceptions can surely not be used to verify that which is independent of them.
Agreed. < you
While it did rely on your own definition, that was pretty much the end of it. Look at where it's at now, you have switched out perception for consciousness and are on a complete tangent all because of your inability to accept the analogy is not very good and recognise that you have been inconsistent in your defense of it.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
No, not meaningless. Experience is multiple perceptions accompanied by intellectual assessment of the perceptions. Thus it always trumps a single new perception, since it is the superset including perception.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2018, 12:21 pmYou are missing the point.Mark1955 wrote: ↑June 19th, 2018, 9:44 am
Of course as several good murder mystery programs have used in the plot, one day it might be real and your experience will be wrong. As a more likely example, I pull the brake lever on my bike, my bike slows down and stops. Except one day the cable snaps and the bike doesn't stop. Accidents are nature's way of reminding us that cause and effect is not always as consistent as we'd like it to be.
There is no experience without perception, so the phrase "experience trumps perception" is utterly meaningless. it's like saying the omelette trumps eggs.
- Mark1955
- Posts: 739
- Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
- Location: Nottingham, England.
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
David Hume addressed this, we cannot live life as though anything goes we have to make rules, all I'm asking is that you realise your rules are always going to be wrong in some circumstances.Eduk wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2018, 7:27 amYes a leading principle behind the scientific method. The interesting thing is the conclusions that can be drawn from the above. These range from anything goes to, well, the scientific method.My entirely unhidden agenda is that if nothing you think you know is certain, then don't be so certain you have the 'right' answer, be prepared to adapt your answer to new information and even if you don't get new information realise you're probably at least partly wrong so don't be so damned cocky, or dictatorial.
Not a lot of point, they'd be my biases. I'm more interested in you looking at your own certainties and questioning them [Exception; if you're a sports official the rules are the rules, apply them, it's how we play the game].
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
At the risk of misinterpreting what is being asked here by jumping into the conversation:Out of interest can you name specific instances where you feel that lack of certainty is improperly applied and the opposite where lack of certainty if properly applied. Ideally the best examples of the largest import would be most interesting.
A specific instance of large import where lack of certainty is properly applied might be in modern particle physics. In at least one possible interpretation of the observed results of particle physics investigations it serves no purpose, in itself, to ask whether our observations are giving us certain knowledge of a "reality" that is the cause of those observations. Rather, it is more productive simply to regard any such "reality" as a useful model for finding connections between those observations and thereby predicting future observations. Remembering that it is a model and, as such, can be modified or replaced if it is not adequate for its purposes of describing and predicting observations is useful.
So, for example, "electron" is the collective term for a set of observations. The question of whether the electron "really exists" or is part of something that we might call "reality" is only useful insofar as it helps to successfully predict future possible observations. If we forget this and get too hung up on the idea of the reality that we think we're observing then we sometimes get in a mess and have trouble coming to terms with the seemingly odd things that we've observed.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
Thanks for trying to change the goal posts, my post stands.LuckyR wrote: ↑July 4th, 2018, 2:20 amNo, not meaningless. Experience is multiple perceptions accompanied by intellectual assessment of the perceptions. Thus it always trumps a single new perception, since it is the superset including perception.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2018, 12:21 pm
You are missing the point.
There is no experience without perception, so the phrase "experience trumps perception" is utterly meaningless. it's like saying the omelette trumps eggs.
There is NO experience without perception. There is no TRUMP (wishing that were true in a political context)
No eggs no omellete
- RJG
- Posts: 2768
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
Sorry, but I see no contradiction here in these 3 statements. When one looks through a porthole they see a "view" on the other side. If we call this view the "view of reality", it is still a view, it is NOT the porthole! Seems obvious to me.mr533473 wrote:Yes, every post you have made to me on the matter, check it. So then, yes it is your words that cause the confusion, the ones I carefully laid out that you didn't respond to. I'll do it again for you (perhaps this time you could either recognise the inconsistency or explain how this is reasonable)
First
RJG wrote:
imagine that this porthole is your own private, personal view of reality
Then
RJG wrote:
Our 'view'-of-reality (aka "perceptions")
Then
RJG wrote:
This "porthole" is called "consciousness".
You switch between these, sometimes within the same post. Unless you're saying they are all equivalent to each other, how is it anything other than confusing?
Mr533473, you are jumping way ahead of this very simple analogy. This analogy doesn't identify the "I" or make the connection of "I" to consciousness.mr533473 wrote: RGJ wrote:
This analogy is very simple, and no where near as complicated as you seem to make it out to be.
Swiss cheese is simple, doesn't mean it's not full of holes.
RGJ wrote:
1. A "porthole" is something that you look through, and is a 'means' of seeing something out-there (on the other side of the porthole), ...right? So in this analogy, "porthole" is analogous to "consciousness". For it is consciousness (i.e. this porthole) that allows us to see (perceive) what is "out-there", ...true?
Yes (in regard to "right?"), but either there is an "I" that is separate from this porthole but looks through it, as it is my limited scope of the world (which would mean there is some identifiable me separate from consciousness that looks through consciousness) OR I am the porthole (my consciousness is the porthole) in which case I don't necessarily look through it "on to the other side of the porthole". The former is what your initial analogy reads as, the latter is what you seem to switch to but if you mean the latter, it would be more apt to say "Image you are a plane window" at which point it would be worth dropping the analogy.
The purpose of this simple analogy is to give a sense of disconnect, or difference, between perceptions and reality, (...which is the focus of this topic). That's all.
- mr533473
- Posts: 59
- Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
I understand the purpose, remember, I got it in my first post.RJG wrote: ↑July 4th, 2018, 10:07 amSorry, but I see no contradiction here in these 3 statements. When one looks through a porthole they see a "view" on the other side. If we call this view the "view of reality", it is still a view, it is NOT the porthole! Seems obvious to me.mr533473 wrote:Yes, every post you have made to me on the matter, check it. So then, yes it is your words that cause the confusion, the ones I carefully laid out that you didn't respond to. I'll do it again for you (perhaps this time you could either recognise the inconsistency or explain how this is reasonable)
First
RJG wrote:
imagine that this porthole is your own private, personal view of reality
Then
RJG wrote:
Our 'view'-of-reality (aka "perceptions")
Then
RJG wrote:
This "porthole" is called "consciousness".
You switch between these, sometimes within the same post. Unless you're saying they are all equivalent to each other, how is it anything other than confusing?
Mr533473, you are jumping way ahead of this very simple analogy. This analogy doesn't identify the "I" or make the connection of "I" to consciousness.mr533473 wrote: RGJ wrote:
This analogy is very simple, and no where near as complicated as you seem to make it out to be.
Swiss cheese is simple, doesn't mean it's not full of holes.
RGJ wrote:
1. A "porthole" is something that you look through, and is a 'means' of seeing something out-there (on the other side of the porthole), ...right? So in this analogy, "porthole" is analogous to "consciousness". For it is consciousness (i.e. this porthole) that allows us to see (perceive) what is "out-there", ...true?
Yes (in regard to "right?"), but either there is an "I" that is separate from this porthole but looks through it, as it is my limited scope of the world (which would mean there is some identifiable me separate from consciousness that looks through consciousness) OR I am the porthole (my consciousness is the porthole) in which case I don't necessarily look through it "on to the other side of the porthole". The former is what your initial analogy reads as, the latter is what you seem to switch to but if you mean the latter, it would be more apt to say "Image you are a plane window" at which point it would be worth dropping the analogy.
The purpose of this simple analogy is to give a sense of disconnect, or difference, between perceptions and reality, (...which is the focus of this topic). That's all.
I'm half way through Hume's 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' so your point about perceptions and reality is not what I find interesting or what I feel that I'm engaged in here (no offense). I'm interested in the way you try to arrive at it through your talk of a porthole and baggage people. This I am questioning, not the end goal, which we established early on.
That said, no further questions. Thanks for entertaining the ones you did with answers.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
You are, of course correct that there is no experience without perception. However, if the option is a new single perception versus accumulated past experience including past perceptions, experience will be correct more frequently.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑July 4th, 2018, 9:24 amThanks for trying to change the goal posts, my post stands.
There is NO experience without perception. There is no TRUMP (wishing that were true in a political context)
No eggs no omellete
If I was proposing that experience without perception was better than perception, I would agree with you. But I am not saying that.
- Mark1955
- Posts: 739
- Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
- Location: Nottingham, England.
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
That's what I mean about people having their own priorities. There I am thinking about the bone headed politicians, religious leaders, teachers ... who all 'know the right answer' and F*** the world up as a result and someone wanders off into esoteric physics.Steve3007 wrote: ↑July 4th, 2018, 6:20 am From Eduk to Mark1955:At the risk of misinterpreting what is being asked here by jumping into the conversation:Out of interest can you name specific instances where you feel that lack of certainty is improperly applied and the opposite where lack of certainty if properly applied. Ideally the best examples of the largest import would be most interesting.
A specific instance of large import where lack of certainty is properly applied might be in modern particle physics. In at least one possible interpretation of the observed results of particle physics investigations it serves no purpose, in itself, to ask whether our observations are giving us certain knowledge of a "reality" that is the cause of those observations. Rather, it is more productive simply to regard any such "reality" as a useful model for finding connections between those observations and thereby predicting future observations. Remembering that it is a model and, as such, can be modified or replaced if it is not adequate for its purposes of describing and predicting observations is useful.
So, for example, "electron" is the collective term for a set of observations. The question of whether the electron "really exists" or is part of something that we might call "reality" is only useful insofar as it helps to successfully predict future possible observations. If we forget this and get too hung up on the idea of the reality that we think we're observing then we sometimes get in a mess and have trouble coming to terms with the seemingly odd things that we've observed.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
- Mark1955
- Posts: 739
- Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
- Location: Nottingham, England.
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
But the principle remains, if sub atomic physics is the most important thing in the world to you it's the right answer. Guessing my prejudices is unimportant.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
- Mark1955
- Posts: 739
- Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
- Location: Nottingham, England.
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
As far as I'm aware nothing can be ascertained with absolute certainty so while it is theoretically possible that you are absolutely right in a specific situation, probabilistically it's highly unlikely. Therefore the best psychological approach to all your decisions and actions is "I'm doing this because it seems the best option now, but I'll probably learn something down the road that means I could have done something better". This hopefully leads to a) a lack of arrogance about your decision making b) a willingness to accept some extra or different information when it comes to light and modify your actions accordingly.Eduk wrote: ↑July 6th, 2018, 5:33 am Please correct me if I am wrong. You seem to be saying that everything anyone says/thinks not only can't be proved absolutely but is also partly wrong. Not just potentially partly wrong but absolutely partly wrong. I don't know how you can be so sure of yourself.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023