Mark1955 wrote:LuckyR wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
I am the opposite of a Hume scholar, but Hume did not have issues with his perception nor the concept of perception, by my understanding of his writings. So your reference is a bit murky to me. I am sure I am missing something.
I'm happy with the concept of perception, just not the accuracy of all we perceive. That may be the bit where I developed the idea myself. It's a long time since I tried to read the original and I'm certainly not going back to it.
Basic question do you believe everything you sense is 100% accurate and correct, if not how can you know how inaccurate or incorrect it is, therefore how can you say anything is an absolute fact rather then just the best information you have now?
No, I believe that human perception is INaccurate at every junction. Take sight for example. I believe there is inaccuracy in the light waveform as it travels from the subject to your eye, smaller inaccuracies in the clarity of your lens and orbit, dead cones (pixels) in the retina, signal loss in the optic nerve but the large inaccuracies are next, in the interpretation of the original image and primarily in the recollection of that image later.
However, having said that, I believe there was a "subject" that I "saw". It is likely a bit different from what I perceived but there was something there. Perhaps I will invent photography so I don't have to rely on my inaccurate memory, or perhaps I will invent XRays so I can see stuff in even more detail than I can actually "see". Accuracy cuts both ways. None of the inaccuracies and improved accuracies I have described impacts on the existance or non existance of facts, in my opinion, though.
"As usual... it depends."