Define "perception." Define "real."
I would define perceptions as psychological phenomena that apprehend objects through intuitive or concrete means. For example, the physiological processes that give me the sense perception of touch allow me to apprehend the keyboard I use to type this message. Additionally, sometimes, in my mind's eye, I perceive a general trend of events, allowing me to get a broad picture of whatever event I perceive.
I would define "real" as: an object that is real resides exclusively in the physical universe.
Perceptions are psychological. Therefore, they are abstract, excluding them from the physical universe. So, they are not real. They are more like a map to a territory.
But how do I know my perceptions are uncorrupted by biases or misleading factors?
I don't.
I'd like to think that I trust them because despite their flaws, my perceptions tend to have a consistent underlying logic to them, implying that a logical world exists to be perceived. However, a general trust in my perceptions is just my programming.
Floki wrote, But how do I know my perceptions are uncorrupted by biases or misleading factors? I don't. I'd like to think that I trust them because despite their flaws, my perceptions tend to have a consistent underlying logic to them, implying that a logical world exists to be perceived. However, a general trust in my perceptions is just my programming.
It is true: (1) Our brain filters in and out information on a daily basis. (2) Most of what we believe are beliefs, subjective feelings on what is true plus real, and opinions. The caveat is the objective world, one based on facts and which can be scientifically validated.
When it comes to trusting our perceptions, if there are no inherent fallacies of cognitive thought (generalizations, emotional reasoning, all or nothing thinking, should statements and other termed distortions in the reasoning process) then we interact with reality in a realistic stoic way and not react with negative projections with our feelings and judgment in err.
"I have the analogy of the warning engine light in a car. It is a warning and Gage point of an internal disturbance. If I have a negative emotion, and my body is not directly being affected there are distortions and fallacies of thought and cognitive reasoning. The negative emotion and the warning engine light are synonymous. It is a reflection of unfinished business and unresolved conflict. Our emotions are being triggered. In a sense we are not awake yet. A goal is being more aware in both cognitive science and Buddhism.
Both cognitive therapy and Buddhism imply that we really need to wake up by being more aware of how we think, speak and act. We in effect take personal responsibility and act with an internal locus of control. This is an opportunity for growth however if we reflect and take pains to act with reason and not react towards reality in an irrational manner or by being negative. In this way we discover the falsehoods and think and act more in accordance with reality.
We become aware of our subconscious thought process and do not react blindly in an automatic fashion. I would recommend 'Feeling Good' by David Burns, 1980 to learn cognitive behavior principles.
We become more truly aware of both ourselves and reality and so grow mentally, emotionally and spiritually. We become awake and reach a heaven on earth, nirvana and personal self-actualization. The bottom line really we will become happier as well as more fulfilled in life.
It is with this handy tool that one can learn and modify one's behaviors and actions in acting with reason, not giving in to the base primitive emotions and acting out negatively and irrationally. Our emotions are a necessary tool for our growth and make life worth living for without emotion everything would pale into meaninglessness."