Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
- mr533473
- Posts: 59
- Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
If you have only ever existed behind this "porthole" and never experienced the world outside then I don't know where you would have conceived of illusion (or had any experience of your perceptions being falsified) and would inevitably have no reason to doubt the reality of the baggage and food service people. You would be certain that they are real in so far as how you have seen them. You wouldn't infer they are skin, muscle and bone, but surely that they exist in some sense and are real. Besides the glass window that you can touch, they would be the most real thing you are aware of given your limited scope. If you ask if one would be right in assuming they are real then yes. While you state it is your "ONLY connection to reality" you do state it is connection to reality all the same.
In response to the ultimate question:
While I don't thing the scenario you posed necessarily leads to the same question, the question is a straightforward one. It's good that you have defined "real" for us too. 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.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
What makes you so "certain" that it's "real"?avatarogbaby_d wrote:...but for certain, it is real.
I have! -- This "porthole" is called "consciousness".mr533473 wrote:If you have only ever existed behind this "porthole"...
Correct. I have never experienced the world outside! -- My only view of reality is through this porthole of "consciousness".mr533473 wrote: ...and never experienced the world outside…
Knowing that my view of reality is only through this porthole, gives me doubt of the realness of those perceived objects.mr533473 wrote:...then I don't know where you would have conceived of illusion (or had any experience of your perceptions being falsified) and would inevitably have no reason to doubt the reality of the baggage and food service people.
And knowing that, without consciousness (i.e. without this porthole), there is no view of anything!
Not so. -- All I can know with certainty is that my porthole (consciousness) exists. Those objects "out there" cannot be known as 'real' or 'certain'.mr533473 wrote:You would be certain that they are real in so far as how you have seen them.
But a 'perceived' reality is not necessarily the 'real' reality.mr533473 wrote:If you ask if one would be right in assuming they are real then yes. While you state it is your "ONLY connection to reality" you do state it is connection to reality all the same.
How can we possibly know which of our perceptions (views through this porthole) are of real things?
Agreed. Perceptions cannot vouch for themselves; one perception cannot logically vouch for another.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.
- mr533473
- Posts: 59
- Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
I have! -- This "porthole" is called "consciousness".mr533473 wrote:If you have only ever existed behind this "porthole"...
The porthole you posed is an plane window out of which is your only field of view (not consciousness) you seem to change what the porthole represents, initially saying you look out through it and know it is real, then it's actually your consciousness. This would mean there is no longer you and the porthole but you are the porthole and the analogy is kind of redundant.
I have never experienced the world outside! -- My only view of reality is through this porthole of "consciousness".mr533473 wrote: ...and never experienced the world outside…
If you say "view of reality" you imply what is observed through the porthole is REALITY.
Knowing that my view of reality is only through this porthole, gives me doubt of their realness.mr533473 wrote:...then I don't know where you would have conceived of illusion (or had any experience of your perceptions being falsified) and would inevitably have no reason to doubt the reality of the baggage and food service people.
And knowing that, without consciousness (i.e. without this porthole), there is no view of anything!
Why? You have created a character that knows of no other possibilities and would be incapable of doubt. If all you have is consciousness and all you are conscious of are your perceptions through the porthole... you have nothing to compel doubt. Take me through the thought process that leads you to doubting their reality.
Not so. -- All I can know with certainty is that my porthole (consciousness) exists. Those objects "out there" cannot be known as 'real' or 'certain'.mr533473 wrote:You would be certain that they are real in so far as how you have seen them.
How do you know the porthole exists and why not doubt that?
But a 'perceived' reality is not necessarily the 'real' reality.mr533473 wrote:If you ask if one would be right in assuming they are real then yes. While you state it is your "ONLY connection to reality" you do state it is connection to reality all the same.
How can we possibly know which of our perceptions (views through this porthole) are of real things?
You state that its a view of reality. You don't say a perception, you say a connection to reality. I think throughout this little scenario, you intend to pose something other than what you have actually written. It's not good and it's not good at getting to you ultimate question which as we see is really straight forward especially as it is answered in your definition of 'real'...
Agreed.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.
[/quote]
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
The airplane porthole was meant as an analogy of our conscious experiences (perceptions) to that which is (presumably) real.mr533473 wrote:The porthole you posed is an plane window out of which is your only field of view (not consciousness) you seem to change what the porthole represents, initially saying you look out through it and know it is real, then it's actually your consciousness.
No, not so.mr533473 wrote:If you say "view of reality" you imply what is observed through the porthole is REALITY.
Our 'view'-of-reality (aka "perceptions") are one thing, and 'reality' itself, is another. I am NOT "implying", nor conflating, one as the other. These are TWO different things/concepts.
My perception of magic being real, does mean that magic is real. Nor do my perceptions; delusions/dreams/hallucinations/imaginations of a "flying pig" mean that a "flying pig" is real. ...I have doubts of the realness of my perceptions, ...don't you?mr533473 wrote:Why? You have created a character that knows of no other possibilities and would be incapable of doubt. If all you have is consciousness and all you are conscious of are your perceptions through the porthole... you have nothing to compel doubt. Take me through the thought process that leads you to doubting their reality.
RJG wrote:All I can know with certainty is that my porthole (consciousness) exists. Those objects "out there" cannot be known as 'real' or 'certain'.
Although I can easily doubt those 'objects' that I view outside my porthole, I can never doubt my porthole itself (i.e. my 'viewing'; my ability to 'view' itself).mr533473 wrote:How do you know the porthole exists and why not doubt that?
Consciously experiencing (i.e. 'viewing' through the porthole) itself is IMPOSSIBLE TO DOUBT/DENY. Any attempt to do so, only affirms it. ...any view of doubting would still be a view! ...any experience of doubting/denying this 'experiencing', is still an experience!
The porthole exists with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. ...whereas the objects that one sees (consciously experiences) through this porthole (aka "perceptions") may not exist; may not be real, ...we have no way of knowing.
- 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?
I don't think anyone died, but yes sort of and sort of not. If you believe there is such a thing as reality then you think cause and effect applies in reality because you think you've seen it happen. If however reality is just your deluded impressions then cause and effect is just one of them. Let's get a bit more extreme than bicycle cables. If we don't live in a real world but are just part of a simulation game structure, then everything is just part of the rules of the game. Whatever runs this game is clearly so much cleverer than us that we can't really understand it and it may not live in what we have been trained to think of as a real world.
- 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?
How do you know this, how can you make statement about something you cannot perceive. Surely the assumption of an absolute 'reality' has to remain that, an assumption.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
RJG wrote:Our 'view'-of-reality (aka "perceptions") are one thing, and 'reality' itself, is another. I am NOT "implying", nor conflating, one as the other. These are TWO different things/concepts.
Not so. -- Can you 'perceive' something/anything? If so, then 'perceiving' absolutely exists (i.e. it is therefore something that is 'absolutely real'). Or do you deny that perceiving exists? -- And if so, then do you also deny your perceiving of denying?Mark1955 wrote:How do you know this, how can you make statement about something you cannot perceive. Surely the assumption of an absolute 'reality' has to remain that, an assumption.
It is not the 'perception' (i.e. the object of the perceiving) that exists with absolute certainty. It is the "perceiving" itself. It is the content of ones perceivings that are 'suspect', and again, not the perceivings themselves.
And from this absolutely real "perceiving", we can then logically derive a "perceiver" (an entity that perceives) with logical certainty.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
No.RJG wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2018, 3:29 pmRJG wrote:Our 'view'-of-reality (aka "perceptions") are one thing, and 'reality' itself, is another. I am NOT "implying", nor conflating, one as the other. These are TWO different things/concepts.Not so. -- Can you 'perceive' something/anything? If so, then 'perceiving' absolutely existsMark1955 wrote:How do you know this, how can you make statement about something you cannot perceive. Surely the assumption of an absolute 'reality' has to remain that, an assumption.
You are just confusing two completely separate things.
A camera is not a picture, and neither of them is the subject on the photo.
Try to show a bit of discrimination.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: 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?
However I'm happy to play the what if game. If reality is as it appears then logically I should do the best I can. And if reality is some elaborate video game then again I should do the best I can.
For my money there is always some hidden agenda in such mussings being delivered as anything profound or meaningful. Usually used to justify an otherwise unjustifiable position.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
If you mean seriously that one should do the best he or she can, then I contest your position. "Best" is relative to good and good is relative to the declarer of it. One person's good is another person's bad. One person's best is the other person's worst.
- mr533473
- Posts: 59
- Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
Maybe not, but what you are doing is worse. You are conflating consciousness and perception. Above, the porthole (aka "view of reality") you have called "perceptions" and in you prior post seen below it is "consciousness"RJG wrote: Our 'view'-of-reality (aka "perceptions") are one thing, and 'reality' itself, is another. I am NOT "implying", nor conflating, one as the other. These are TWO different things/concepts.
This is fatal. I can't follow your reasoning once you take these kinds of liberties. We have to end here because you, in attempt to defend you analogy's ability to make the point you want, are pretending it says or implies or represents something which it doesn't.RJG wrote: This "porthole" is called "consciousness".
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
Not so. Consciousness and perceptions are NOT the same. (...though one does require the other).mr533473 wrote:Maybe not, but what you are doing is worse. You are conflating consciousness and perception.
Nonsense, you're being silly. Our view of reality is through this porthole (called consciousness in my analogy). Without consciousness (or this porthole) there could be no view of reality (i.e. no perceptions).mr533473 wrote:Above, the porthole (aka "view of reality") you have called "perceptions" and in you prior post seen below it is "consciousness".
RJG wrote:This "porthole" is called "consciousness".
You seem to be responding a bit extreme here. If you don't understand my analogy, then by all means, ask! But proclaiming your misunderstood view of my analogy as "fatal", and is reason enough "to end it here" seems a bit extreme and close minded.mr533473 wrote:This is fatal. I can't follow your reasoning once you take these kinds of liberties. We have to end here because you, in attempt to defend you analogy's ability to make the point you want, are pretending it says or implies or represents something which it doesn't.
I realize you are new here to this forum, but if you wish to end discussing this topic so soon, then so be it. If so, then take care and thanks for the little discussion that we did have. Hopefully we will meet up on another topic.
Hi Felix. Yes, of course I disagree. What does Descartes "I think, therefore I am" have to do with this topic?Felix wrote:RJG, It seems to me that you have just regurgitated Descartes' cogito ergo sum argument, there is nothing new in your commentary. If you disagree, what is it you think you have added to it?
- mr533473
- Posts: 59
- Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am
Re: Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?
RJG wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2018, 1:03 ammr533473 wrote:Maybe not, but what you are doing is worse. You are conflating consciousness and perception.Just because you understand the difference doesn't mean what you have written does not conflate the two. Look at the quotes, they're your words. If you meant to say something different, fine. You might have a better idea about these things in your head but I can only go off what your write here.. I only responded to what you wrote. Eventually the idea of what the porthole stands for was completely lost. I'd like to continue but how am I supposed to if in every post the analogy takes on a new meaning?RJG wrote:Not so. Consciousness and perceptions are NOT the same. (...though one does require the other).
FirstThenRJG wrote:imagine that this porthole is your own private, personal view of realityThenRJG wrote:Our 'view'-of-reality (aka "perceptions")I didn't mean for it to sound extreme, "fatal" might be a harsh word. I'm just saying there's no way of following your point. I don't see a "personal view of reality" as a sufficient definition of perception. Likewise, I don't see perception as equivalent to consciousness. You have referred to the porthole as all three of these things at different points so the analogy is lost.. not just on me but on anyone other than yourself (as you know what you really mean but have failed to express)RJG wrote:This "porthole" is called "consciousness".
2023/2024 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