"Perception is reality"

[nightning]

Yes.

Perception is biased. There is no objective reality that we can observe because:

1. The act of observing changes the system
2. The way we choose to observe alters the results (We look at the variables we expect to change in the way we expect it to do so.)
3. Interpretation of what we "saw" is based on our past experiences

If we can't ever comprehend the "objective reality"... then reality as we know it for all intents and purpose will be subjective. Hence perception is reality.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Yes.

Perception is biased. There is no objective reality that we can observe because:

1. The act of observing changes the system
2. The way we choose to observe alters the results (We look at the variables we expect to change in the way we expect it to do so.)
3. Interpretation of what we "saw" is based on our past experiences

If we can't ever comprehend the "objective reality"... then reality as we know it for all intents and purpose will be subjective. Hence perception is reality.

Reality remains an idea that is absolute. Like I mentioned earlier.

There is only one reality, but it can only be falsely identified as subjective.

We all know there is one reality, because if that wasn't the case we wouldn't exist. But we can't ever understand that reality to its fullest. Saying reality is subjective or is perception, is just a cheap way to try and understand that which you can not.

 

[Moiety]

Yep, I do think perception is reality in the sense that that is how the person experiences things. Schizophrenics think the things they see are real because that is how they feel to them.

If someone was born blind he/she will sense the world and think differently. Maybe there is an alien species out there with 10 senses instead of 5 that would challenge our views of what is really happening at any given moment. What is real and what is not.

 

[nightning]

I wanted to see where this topic could go.

I obviously don't believe a blanket statement of "perception is reality" can ever be applied, however, when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, what really matters? If "the people" aren't happy with the perception, does the reality even count for any thing? I'm looking at this from a broader scale, like a nation and its people.

Blah my bad for double posting but I don't care.

It's not a blanket statement. It's a constrain that has always existed. We tend not to think about it because we assume other people's perception would be the same as our own. Egocentricity and all. As Night said, people must believe there's order in the world... rules, patterns, laws etc. Without that, there's no purpose to life... to working... to making an effort. Because if the world is truly chaotic nothing we do will ever change the outcome. People can't abide to that idea. So they (myself included) believe in cause and effect and our ability in changing "fate".

For the "bug" to work... infecting one person is not enough... you need to infect everybody. I believe that's what communism is based upon. Change the perception of the masses and get them to believe if everybody does their share, then the world will be a better place. *cough cough* 1984...

 

[mlittrell]

our perception defines our reality. true reality isn't anything we perceive since we all perceive something different. if we all perceive different realities, then which reality is truth?

 

[nightning]

Reality remains an idea that is absolute. Like I mentioned earlier.

There is only one reality, but it can only be falsely identified as subjective.

We all know there is one reality, because if that wasn't the case we wouldn't exist. But we can't ever understand that reality to its fullest. Saying reality is subjective or is perception, is just a cheap way to try and understand that which you can not.

For all intents and purpose... what the true reality is doesn't matter at all if we cannot comprehend it. What is truth? How do we know our understanding of it is correct? We cannot. Yet life still goes on. For us to make decisions subjective reality is all that matters.

I'm not saying I try to understand reality by that which is subjective. I'm saying for us to operate within it, we need a basic working definition and that's provided by our subjective version of truth.

Also we don't know there is one reality either. How do you know there's only one version, one form? All we know is that reality exists in some shape and form because our own individual consciousness exists. The rest of it, including you, could just be a figment of my imagination.

 

[Fluffywolf]

If there are 'two realities'. Then the absolute reality is that both are part of one reality.

So. There can only be one absolute reality.

 

[Totenkindly]

It's not a blanket statement. It's a constrain that has always existed. We tend not to think about it because we assume other people's perception would be the same as our own. Egocentricity and all.

Exactly. This is one reason why people fight over "religious" issues when actually neither side has any real ground to stand on -- no higher "claim" to being more true than another. They just assume that how they view the world is the way it should be, they don't listen well or regard other views as having equal validity.

Even with religious thought, let's say someone has a "spiritual experience." if it's intense enough, they use it to validate their own perceptions -- not really willing to acknowledge that other people also do have religious experiences of the same intensity in other practices. So the experience or perception is NOT necessarily reality (at least to the exclusion of some other realities) but to them it's reality and the deepest one.

For the "bug" to work... infecting one person is not enough... you need to infect everybody. I believe that's what communism is based upon. Change the perception of the masses and get them to believe if everybody does their share, then the world will be a better place. *cough cough* 1984...

Perception is reality .. a la Matrix.

I was also going to say that on a micro level, we play with perception = reality too. Everyone to some degree (some far more than others) broadcasts who they want to be perceived as to others. If the broadcast is strong enough or cohesive enough, compared to the resistance by the receivers to that broadcast, then it becomes the reality even if it's not true or firm -- that's how people perceive you.

And sometimes if you broadcast something enough, you begin to believe it yourself... and become that. Perception has become reality. And the same vice versa: If you accept the perceptions of others imposed on you as reality, then you actually might become what they are telling you that you are.

 

[nightning]

If there are 'two realities'. Then the absolute reality is that both are part of one reality.

So. There can only be one absolute reality.

Then you're just defaulting on the definition of reality. What we defined is always correct.

 

[mlittrell]

If there are 'two realities'. Then the absolute reality is that both are part of one reality.

So. There can only be one absolute reality.

exactly.

its like two people looking at a cloud. one says it looks like a duck, and the other says it looks like someone getting a prostate exam. but no matter what they see it is still just a cloud slightly skewed from two different points of view..

EDIT:

the third person sees a duck getting a prostate exam.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Then you're just defaulting on the definition of reality. What we defined is always correct.

Right, so each and everyone's subjective view on reality, are all part of the absolute reality. I can dig that.

Like my forest through the trees topic. I somehow always come back to that view on philosophy. Everything ends up being a piece of the puzzle.

edit:

the third person sees a duck getting a prostate exam.

Sounds like his reality/perception just got influenced by other peoples reality/perception.




But to go back to reality is perception. I still don't see it as anywhere near truth. Perception is a part of subjective reality. But my view on reality, is much more then just our and everyones perception. It goes beyond perception.

 

[matmos]

Beat's question has a lot to do with our shared instinctive desire to instill 'order' in our world. To impose order is to assert comprehension. The belief that we have a reliable encapsulation of all available possibilities in any given scenario tends to assuage some of the emotional burden we might otherwise feel when dealing with an unknown, as we believe we have the necessary intellectual experience to react to potential hostilities from our subject.

Same instinct goes for reality. Finding pattern is how we convince ourselves that we are safe.

Evolutionary traits are like the curate's egg. It gave you the tools to get on the train from the country, but not the tools to live in the big city.

The way events are filtered and acted upon may have been useful to a Neanderthal; transplant them into a complex environment and they become reductive and potentially dangerous. In the course of a day you may negotiate hundreds of complex transactions, but rely on that old favourite, pattern recognition, to ride to the rescue. The significance of such observations is highly debateable. What has happened and is tangible take preference to that which is intangible, remote or seemingly improbable.

I'll end with a story. While at school, I had a classmate who used to hang about under a bridge at lunchtime, smoking with his cronies. He was a thoroughly unpleasant character - but that is not the point. He would amuse his clique by shouting random abuse at passers-by (old women, mainly), most of whom were too old or too timid to confront what seemed like a gang of aggressive teenage boys. This lasted some time - I guess from 14 years plus. Every time he got away with it was, to him, further confirmation of how he could further get away with it. He made a fatal error in his ability to calculate risk - that because something hasn't happened is evidence that it won't. Neither was he able to evaluate reward (the glee of being bad and impressing his friends) with the risk.

He tried it with the wrong old lady and was very violently assaulted by (I assume) her sons - two tough nuts who made mincemeat of him. The attack left him severely epileptic and I don't believe he ever worked. I guess his pattern recognition skills weren't much cop.

 

[Totenkindly]

exactly.

its like two people looking at a cloud. one says it looks like a duck, and the other says it looks like someone getting a prostate exam. but no matter what they see it is still just a cloud slightly skewed from two different points of view..

EDIT:

the third person sees a duck getting a prostate exam.

My question is, "how do you know it's actually a cloud?"

You can't step outside of your frame to know that.
You think it's a cloud, because you've created a definition of what a "cloud" is... but really, that's just an arbitrary viewpoint and description in itself, based on your valueset.

You have no idea whether it's merely part of something bigger or not.

All of those definitions are still subjective, although the quality of subjectivity is still a bit different with the cloud vs the other perspectives.

 

[Fluffywolf]

About the story. I've seen teenagers dragged into doing stuff they don't really want to do just because they want to be part of a group. But has -nothing- at all to do with their own reasoning skills, per se. Ofcourse to some extent, but wanting to be part of something can really overshadow someone's inner rational. I've seen it happen a few times too many. And once first hand, which I regret to this day.

I never felt the need to be part of any group. I had plenty of friends, but that came natural. When I was 19 and drunk, as were my friends, things escalated and stuff happened better left unmentioned in a drunken haze. Afterwards, I made a pact with myself never to get drunk again.

edit: Jen, I believe his point was to show the levels of perspective.

? > Condensed water > Cloud > Figure > White, etc.

 

[matmos]

About the story. I've seen teenagers dragged into doing stuff they don't really want to do just because they want to be part of a group. But has -nothing- at all to do with their own reasoning skills, per se. Ofcourse to some extent, but wanting to be part of something can really overshadow someone's inner rational. I've seen it happen a few times too many. And once first hand, which I regret to this day.

Only an example, Furrywolf. You can extrapolate the situation to anything you chose... your job for life, the housing market. The banking system.

All the best.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Just saying.

 

[Night]

Evolutionary traits are like the curate's egg.

Impressive analysis. Well-defined.

 

[Mitzy]

read kant and schopenhauer

 

[Snow Turtle]

Would most people here disagree that there is an objective reality even though we experience it subjectively?

 

[Fluffywolf]

To disagree with objective (absolute) reality would be to disagree objecive (absolute) existance itself. So I doubt it.

Not me anyhow.