Perception and reality

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4388
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Terrapin Station » February 14th, 2020, 4:19 pm

Prof Bulani wrote:
February 14th, 2020, 12:08 pm
The term "mental model" in the context of this thread means, and has meant since I first wrote it, a model in the mind. NOT a model of the mind. The mind (which I have no problem referring to as "brain states") is not in the mind, therefore "brain states" never was never interchangeable with mental model in the context of this discussion.
Right, so a model in the brain, not a model of the brain (as mind).

"The mind is not in the mind" I don't really understand.

User avatar
Prof Bulani
Posts: 367
Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Prof Bulani » February 14th, 2020, 7:59 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
February 14th, 2020, 4:19 pm
Right, so a model in the brain, not a model of the brain (as mind).
That's what I've been saying for the last few days...
"The mind is not in the mind" I don't really understand.
A "brain state" is not something that is in the mind. We are not consciously aware of, nor consciously controlling, our brain state. According to you, brain state is equivalent to mind. Hence mind is not something that is in the mind.
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4388
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Terrapin Station » February 14th, 2020, 9:09 pm

Prof Bulani wrote:
February 14th, 2020, 7:59 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
February 14th, 2020, 4:19 pm
Right, so a model in the brain, not a model of the brain (as mind).
That's what I've been saying for the last few days...
"The mind is not in the mind" I don't really understand.
A "brain state" is not something that is in the mind. We are not consciously aware of, nor consciously controlling, our brain state. According to you, brain state is equivalent to mind. Hence mind is not something that is in the mind.
You mean that you're not thinking of it as being a brain state (usually). Sure, I'd agree with that.

User avatar
Prof Bulani
Posts: 367
Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Prof Bulani » February 14th, 2020, 9:24 pm

An individual's perception is the model of reality they create in their mind, composed of information from sensory input (direct data from the external world) and some internal processing that integrates the sensory information into a cohesive model.

Is there anything in the above statement I still need to clarify?
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 2001
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Perception and reality

Post by RJG » February 14th, 2020, 10:31 pm

Prof Bulani wrote:An individual's perception is the model of reality they create in their mind, composed of information from sensory input (direct data from the external world) and some internal processing that integrates the sensory information into a cohesive model.
...or to put it more simply -- "We can only perceive 'perceptions', not 'reality' itself."

BUT, this does not prevent us from knowing objective 'reality'!

Atla
Posts: 1194
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Atla » February 15th, 2020, 2:58 am

Technically, the human mind is the same as some brain tissue / EM fields etc. in the head. The model in the mind constructed from sensory data is also the same as some brain tissue / EM fields etc. in the head.

Not sure if you guys understand that technically the model is also part of objective reality? Almost every philosophy throughout history missed this.

(And of course the mental being the same as physical doesn't mean that the mental is reducible to the physical, like TS believes. That's just a popular logic fail.)

User avatar
Prof Bulani
Posts: 367
Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Prof Bulani » February 15th, 2020, 7:04 am

RJG wrote:
February 14th, 2020, 10:31 pm
Prof Bulani wrote:An individual's perception is the model of reality they create in their mind, composed of information from sensory input (direct data from the external world) and some internal processing that integrates the sensory information into a cohesive model.
...or to put it more simply -- "We can only perceive 'perceptions', not 'reality' itself."

BUT, this does not prevent us from knowing objective 'reality'!
I'll go with this, treading cautiously. We can only interact with reality through our perception, which should be constantly being updated as sensory information is constantly being corrected and integrated into it. Our perception is the interface, as it were, between reality and the self.
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4388
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Terrapin Station » February 15th, 2020, 7:13 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
February 14th, 2020, 9:24 pm
An individual's perception is the model of reality they create in their mind, composed of information from sensory input (direct data from the external world) and some internal processing that integrates the sensory information into a cohesive model.

Is there anything in the above statement I still need to clarify?
No. But you keep resorting to representationalism, whatever you'd want to call it.

Your perception isn't a model, and it's not of a model. A model is something you can construct partially based on perceptions, but that's not what perception is.

User avatar
Prof Bulani
Posts: 367
Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Prof Bulani » February 15th, 2020, 8:16 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 7:13 am
Prof Bulani wrote:
February 14th, 2020, 9:24 pm
An individual's perception is the model of reality they create in their mind, composed of information from sensory input (direct data from the external world) and some internal processing that integrates the sensory information into a cohesive model.

Is there anything in the above statement I still need to clarify?
No. But you keep resorting to representationalism, whatever you'd want to call it.

Your perception isn't a model, and it's not of a model. A model is something you can construct partially based on perceptions, but that's not what perception is.
So tell me what perception IS and let's see if it's different from I just said.
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

User avatar
Prof Bulani
Posts: 367
Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Prof Bulani » February 15th, 2020, 8:18 am

And while you're at it, break down what "representationalism" means to you, and show how it is incompatible with realism.
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4388
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Terrapin Station » February 15th, 2020, 8:42 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:16 am
Terrapin Station wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 7:13 am

No. But you keep resorting to representationalism, whatever you'd want to call it.

Your perception isn't a model, and it's not of a model. A model is something you can construct partially based on perceptions, but that's not what perception is.
So tell me what perception IS and let's see if it's different from I just said.
Perception is the sensory reception of extramental data, which you're directly aware of (ceteris paribus--that is, assuming there isn't something going wrong with your sensory or perceptual faculties).

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4388
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Terrapin Station » February 15th, 2020, 8:45 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:18 am
And while you're at it, break down what "representationalism" means to you, and show how it is incompatible with realism.
Representationalism is illustration #2 re my illustrations earlier.

The gist of representationalism is that you do not directly perceive the external world. Under representationalism, we make an assumption that there's an external world, which we assume we receive data from. That data is then processed by our brains into a representation of some sort, correlated in ultimately indeterminate ways to the external world (because of implications of this view), and we are only aware of our brain's representation (which we could call a model that out brains created). We're not aware of the data from the external world itself.

User avatar
Prof Bulani
Posts: 367
Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Prof Bulani » February 15th, 2020, 11:07 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:42 am
Prof Bulani wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 8:16 am

So tell me what perception IS and let's see if it's different from I just said.
Perception is the sensory reception of extramental data, which you're directly aware of (ceteris paribus--that is, assuming there isn't something going wrong with your sensory or perceptual faculties).
Is it possible to perceive something that did not originate completely or even in part from direct sensory data? Does perception persist beyond the direct data being received? And if either are true, how do we account for that if perception is solely sensory reception of external data?
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4388
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Terrapin Station » February 15th, 2020, 11:16 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 11:07 am
Is it possible to perceive something that did not originate completely or even in part from direct sensory data?
You'd have to give the definition of sense/sensory data that you're using. I'm not a fan of sense data theory--I think it's a mess, but in any event, "sense data" was defined many different ways by sense data theorists. (And maybe you're not even alluding to any sort of formal sense data theory here, but that would indicate even moreso the need to define just what you have in mind.)
Does perception persist beyond the direct data being received?
Not on my view, no.

User avatar
Prof Bulani
Posts: 367
Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm

Re: Perception and reality

Post by Prof Bulani » February 15th, 2020, 11:27 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 11:16 am
Prof Bulani wrote:
February 15th, 2020, 11:07 am
Is it possible to perceive something that did not originate completely or even in part from direct sensory data?
You'd have to give the definition of sense/sensory data that you're using. I'm not a fan of sense data theory--I think it's a mess, but in any event, "sense data" was defined many different ways by sense data theorists. (And maybe you're not even alluding to any sort of formal sense data theory here, but that would indicate even moreso the need to define just what you have in mind.)
Let's use your term: "sensory reception of external data". I trust that you aren't going to ask me what that term means.

So, to rephrase: is it possible to perceive something that did not come either completely or in part from direct sensory perception of external data?
Terrapin Station wrote:
Does perception persist beyond the direct data being received?
Not on my view, no.
If you are facing a table, you are receiving sensory information about the table. At that point in time, you know that a table is in front of you. If you turn away from the table, you are no longer receiving sensory information from the table. At that point, do you no longer know that a table is behind you? In other words, does the information about the table no longer persist once the sensory input ceases?
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

Post Reply