• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

26. How do you know your perceptions are real?

LightSun

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,107
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
#9
26. How do you know your perceptions are real?
 

LightSun

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,107
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
#9
"Our perceptions are not real. Their is real reality of which we can see but a tiny sliver and then their is perceptual reality. We rely on our perceptions to live life but our perceptions and our brain lie to us every day on a daily basis. The brain filters in and out information. So, we do not live in reality prime but must trust our senses and walk a path of reason and compassion balancing out cognitive distortions and errors in logic."
 

LightSun

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,107
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
#9
'We do not see reality in its totality for we only have limited perceptions or only angles of truth and reality with these perceptions. Seeing The Pattern Of The Whole Of Reality with greater clarity By Pooling Resources'

"Each person lives in a different as well unique phenomenological universe. People live in different perceptual realities and live by different truths. Obviously not everyone can be right. In fact no one is totally right. This is why we fight instead of listening to each other and both honoring and respecting other people's truths. It is through understanding each individual has a different perspective reality that is just as real to him or her as your own version and perspective of what reality is.

It is by meeting on common ground, respecting individual differences and communicating with respect that we can pool our resources and thereby increase our understanding of reality and the world we live in.
I have an analogy that all of us are part of a giant crystal or diamond, each of us seeing angles of the truth but none of us seeing reality in it's whole entirety.It is as if we are all part of a giant crystal or diamond. Call it the eye of Odin, Odin's eye or God's eyes.

We need to pool our resources and capabilities into a cohesive whole in order getting rid of distortions, which we all have. But one must know self-first or at least have a preliminary knowledge. None of us can see the Truth or understand reality in all it's complexity.. We can catch glimmers of it out only of the corner of our eye. Using Plato’s allegory it is like we are in a cave. What we think we see is only a shadow of truth and in effect almost illusion. We hunt and seek the shadows always striving to find the entrance to the cave and see reality clearly in its entirety.

We are searching for the brilliance of truth. It is as if the life mission to cut away at illogical untruth. Each of us is different with different capabilities, as well as different attributes and with a different life mission. It is all part of the whole. Perhaps the most successful will be those they can see other people's world view and synchronize." lightsun


“To effectively communicate, we must realize that we are all different in the way we perceive the world and use this understanding as a guide to our communication with others.” Anthony Robbins

“The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.” Indeed, the most courageous travelers are those who are willing to look within for what they wish to see “out there.” Marcel Proust

"There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragments by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cell by cell like a laboring mosaic." Anais Nin
 

featherless-biped

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
20
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
Why wouldn't they be? And if they weren't, what would it matter? What is so seductive about this ill-defined notion of "reality?"
 

Quick

New member
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
217
MBTI Type
INFX
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
How do you know your perceptions are real?

Because on some level I have asked the question of whether others exist or not.

Even in the case I don't know my perceptions are "real" all I have to go on is them. So it's either I trust in them (which would become inevitable eventually by everyone), or I adopt the idea of fatalism and cease to exist due to hunger and thirst or whatever might kill me before then. If I have trusted in my perceptions, then I have asked the question of whether others exist or not. So even in the case others do not exist, because I have asked the question in the first place, my perception, if false, has already answered that question as a yes, other people exist. So then because our perception says there are other people in the realm I inhabit and I trust my perception, I can use that information to direct what I do. I also have to assume that others have asked themselves whether others exist or not. So then this would basically mean that because I ask the question of whether others exist or not and that this means that others have asked whether I exist, we can trust our perceptions to be true because we have both identified a similarity between us that is not explicitly able to be proven wrong. If you choose not to believe in your perceptions, then you cannot know anything and knowing something is better than knowing nothing, so there is really no point to not trusting in your perceptions because it's really all anyone has. Because our perceptions say if you don't eat and drink you will die, even in the case that we cannot "trust" in our perceptions it's better to live in accordance to them rather than not to because we know we will die if we do not trust in our perceptions or if we do trust in our perceptions but choose to ignore them because we don't know what will happen if we don't trust in our perceptions and we have a better idea of what will happen if we do believe in our perceptions.

Basically, it make zero prctical sense to not trust in your perceptions because that is where everything else is based.

Keep in mind in none of this am I stating that our perceptions are objective or factual.
 

ducks

Permabanned
Joined
Feb 25, 2018
Messages
172
Technically, since reality is in a constant state of flux (or change), it may not have a definite form and perceptions might be just as real as anything else.
 
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,100
You don’t. But for the sake of consistency I go with them.

Going through life is like traversing a forest path at night with a flashlight that’s batteries are dying. You’ll find yourself having to stop to get your bearings often, you’ll trip over roots and you’ll occasionally smack your head off a tree branch. You make the best of it and work with what you’ve got.
 

Galena

Silver and Lead
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
3,786
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't, and don't even know how I feel about that. There's a part of me that wishes to have them validated unconditionally, and a part that idealizes a perfect mesh between perception and reality and fears I am not capable of that - capable of seeing only truth one day. I get concerned about this pretty frequently, actually. When I'm upset, I don't what I actually want anymore, and that's too much power for an emotion to have.
 

featherless-biped

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
20
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
Actually, science has already confirmed that our perceptions are completely tainted in every possible way, so there's no need to struggle with the question any longer. Nevertheless, it only becomes an issue when your perceptions are significantly misaligned with everybody else's. Reality, for all intents and purposes, is based on little more than intersubjective agreement.
 

ThomasISFP

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 6, 2018
Messages
82
MBTI Type
ISFP
Aristotle said "I think therefore I am' and similarly I know that I am real because I think. I don't know if what I think is real but thats okay beaus it makes life more exciting. :D
 

Lady Lazarus

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
2,148
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Aristotle said "I think therefore I am' and similarly I know that I am real because I think. I don't know if what I think is real but thats okay beaus it makes life more exciting. :D

That was Descartes, actually. But your looking toward interactionist substance dualism is a very clever approach nonetheless, so it detracts little to nothing from your point. Yes, according to that theory of mind, it would be most accurate to say that we perceive there to be a fire before us.

I suppose I really quoted because I want to add that the chain of physical to mental causation is the equivalent to thinking and since existence without a mind cannot be imagined and one of the functions of the mind is thinking then there must be something real about perception in that sense at least. If I'm recalling my stuff correctly anyway.

Thanks for the inspiration.
 
Last edited:

Tater

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
2,421
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.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Reality (whatever that might be in the singular) was a bit of a dick for allowing or creating the evolutionary vehicle that drives human perception to be such an unreliable witness.

Also I don't think cutting away irrational or illogicality is a necessity of understanding reality, or finding truth for that matter, they seem more integral than that. I think it's more that understanding what is irrational or illogical leads us a bit closer to some form of truth. Besides, truth tends to take on such.....ephemeral shapes. I think there can be objectivities, but shared in subjectivities: it's a bit of a paradox & that's the conundrum we have to work with.

Would it be subjective or objective to suggest we share in an assumption of reality?
 

Tater

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
2,421
If the conclusion that perceptions are flawed depends on perceptions such as hindsight, how fully can we trust the conclusion?
 

Lib

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
577
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.
Every object is in a constant state of change and transformation (second law of thermodynamics, Einstein's energy equation) which includes also the physiological processes but we can't observe it correctly due to the limitations of our sensory systems. Simply put, our time scale is different from the time scale of the earths existence or diamond erosion.

If you exclude perceptions from the physical universe because it's a product of a process, then you exclude the physical universe from the physical universe.
 

Tater

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
2,421
Every object is in a constant state of change and transformation (second law of thermodynamics, Einstein's energy equation) which includes also the physiological processes but we can't observe it correctly due to the limitations of our sensory systems. Simply put, our time scale is different from the time scale of the earths existence or diamond erosion.

If you exclude perceptions from the physical universe because it's a product of a process, then you exclude the physical universe from the physical universe.

The bold implies that perceptions are real in the first place. Granted, the implication shines light on criticisms Alfred Jules Ayer had with metaphysical philosophy. Namely, that when we construct premises to illustrate the forms of our arguments, the arguments presuppose that the form actually corresponds to something in existence. For example, if I argue that all unicorns have pink spots, the argument implies that unicorns are real just by virtue of the metaphysical "unicorn" form that corresponds to the term "unicorn."

Nevertheless, arguments of the modus tollens variety rely on premises that correspond with forms. And my argument is that perceptions are psychological (ie. pertaining to the psyche). The psyche is not physical. Existence is physical. Therefore, perceptions do not exist.

Would you argue that if A is a product of B, B and A can't be mutually exclusive? I would not. For instance, if a factory worker produces a chocolate, there (hopefully) isn't any chocolate coming out of the factory worker to produce the item. Similarly, if the brain generates a perception, it does not mean that the perception is physical or real at all.
 
Last edited:

Lib

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
577
The bold implies that perceptions are real in the first place. Granted, the implication shines light on criticisms Alfred Jules Ayer had with metaphysical philosophy. Namely, that when we construct premises to illustrate the substance of our arguments, the arguments presuppose that the substance actually corresponds to something in existence. For example, if I argue that all unicorns have pink spots, the argument implies that unicorns are real just by virtue of the metaphysical "unicorn" substance that corresponds to the term "unicorn."

Nevertheless, arguments of the modus tollens variety rely on premises that correspond with substances. And my argument is that perceptions are psychological (ie. pertaining to the psyche). The psyche is not physical. Existence is physical. Therefore, perceptions do not exist.

Would you argue that if A is a product of B, B and A can't be mutually exclusive? I would not. For instance, if a factory worker produces a chocolate, there (hopefully) isn't any chocolate coming out of the factory worker to produce the item. Similarly, if the brain generates a perception, it does not mean that the perception is physical or real at all.
My argument is a little different than Ayer's because I don't consider anything in existence meaningless, even if it's just a notion in someone's head. If we assume that we have a soul, then it's part of the physical world just as much as a piece of rock is, only with different properties.

You see material world, but it's all energy combined in different configurations. Who said that the concept of soul doesn't fit in there?

Following your logic, if soul doesn't exists, then there is no soul because... it doesn't exist.

The chocolate cannot come into existence if the worker is not putting his energy into it. How could something non-physical be dependent on the physical world?
 

Tater

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
2,421
My argument is a little different than Ayer's because I don't consider anything in existence meaningless, even if it's just a notion in someone's head. If we assume that we have a soul, then it's part of the physical world just as much as a piece of rock is, only with different properties.

Would you argue that rocks have souls? (serious question)

You see material world, but it's all energy combined in different configurations. Who said that the concept of soul doesn't fit in there?

Following your logic, if soul doesn't exists, then there is no soul because... it doesn't exist.

Tautology, but yes, you have arrived at a valid conclusion from what I have said. Roughly analogous to the Hindu concept of anatman or the Buddhist concept of anatta.

The chocolate cannot come into existence if the worker is not putting his energy into it. How could something non-physical be dependent on the physical world?

Energy, as physicists describe it, doesn't exist in the physical world. It's only a concept used to measure the behaviors and potential behaviors of matter that exists in the physical world.
 

Lib

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
577
Would you argue that rocks have souls? (serious question)
I'd first argue whether the soul exists at all apart from being a concept.

Tautology, but yes, you have arrived at a valid conclusion from what I have said. Roughly analogous to the Hindu concept of anatman or the Buddhist concept of anatta.
Well, I was only following your logic :D

But if there is no soul, why isn't perception a part of the physical world?

Energy, as physicists describe it, doesn't exist in the physical world. It's only a concept used to measure the behaviors and potential behaviors of matter that exists in the physical world.
This was how science treated energy before Einstein's eq: E=mc^2. He gave it a mass. Then, QFT suggested that atoms consist of excited states of fields. This is what you see all around you.
 

LightSun

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,107
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
#9
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."
 
Top