The false gap between reality and perception.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2013, 10:06 PM
RE: The false gap between reality and perception.
Confused Fuck.
I'm glad I'm not hanging around in this thread. Dodgy

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
01-04-2013, 10:44 AM
RE: The false gap between reality and perception.
(04-10-2012 10:51 AM)I and I Wrote:  In it's most basic form, mans belief towards understanding or relationship with objects outside our mind has been.

1. The world is a subjective mind experience: This has led to internet forum philosophers and many of the like to claim that it's all subjective and there is no way to know if anything out side our subjective individual selves is real.

2. the world outside our mind is an objective series of events in that there is an objective world and a subjective world. This separation of subjective and objective is known as the perception vs reality argument. According to the group that believes this (which there are many) there is 1. a perception and there is 2. reality.


For language purposes humans have came up with words like objective and subjective, but modern philosophy now points out that it's not one or the other and that human mind doesn't oscillate between the two either. What if there is no separation between reality and perception. What if the process of human minds perceiving real objects is itself reality and that there is no separation of reality and perception?

In that case what is the mind perceiving? If there is only perception then is the mind exceptionally self stimulating in a deceptive manner? I go with number 2. If there is no line between them then anything we perceive is reality.

Then how do we then explain optical illusions? Optical illusions are the result of a confused brain. Typically it manages to construct our image of the world around us just fine, but the brain can be fooled as well as manipulated (with some magic mushrooms for instance).

Everyone's brain is different, everyone perceives the world differently. So do you think reality at any given moment is dynamic and not static?

The perception of reality, which is processed by the brain (sensory and thought integration), of humans on brain chemistry altering drugs is indistinguishable from reality itself. Surely perception and reality are the same thing!

The perception of organisms is a piece of reality. But an organisms perception does not necessarily have to parallel reality perfectly. In the case of humans, with multiple conflicting views, I think it's safe to say that a bold line can be drawn between reality and perception.

(04-10-2012 11:11 AM)I and I Wrote:  no I didn't perceive or think that the circles were moving because I know what optical illusions are.
(04-10-2012 11:33 AM)I and I Wrote:  I know that I am perceiving something that isn't happening, that is the reality of my experience when I looked at that picture and yes my knowledge of the difference between what is or isn't an illusion changes the reality of our experience. If someone knows that they are remembering a bear attack, the reality of this memory and reflection on past events doesn't have the same affect of the actual event.
Are you trying to say the circles were spinning?

Your confusing your belief about the event with how it was perceived. You can know that optical illusions cause you to see something that isn't there, but that doesn't stop you from seeing it. How your are perceiving this is sight. You became aware of something, that was not happening separate from your mind. This separation is perception and reality. Your mind is still an aspect of reality, and so is your perception. That doesn't make them the same.

There is no motion or change in dimensions in optical illusions, your brain is not perfect, makes a mistake and perceives these changes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2013, 07:31 AM
RE: The false gap between reality and perception.
Hey, I.

Modern philosophy does nothing. If a philosopher or a school of thought think something, then cite them. Otherwise you're just telling us to trust you because "philosophy" said something.

I've never heard the suggestion that the mind oscillates between perception and the real. I've only ever heard (and this is what makes sense to me) that we ONLY have our perception.

To answer the question, the gap is not false. There is a gap between what we understand and what is real.

Hey, Vosur.

You're right. The illusion shows how simple it is to dupe the human mind. It is not capable of a 1:1 understanding of the real. It is only capable of building a model of functional understanding.

Hey, Girly.

Is that bit per second stuff accurate? because that's fascinating. What's the source if it's true?

For the record,

"Woo woo" is the most idiotic term ever. It's so dismissive and insulting. It is the ultimate in, "I don't have an actual argument so I'm just gonna call you a poopie faced dumb head."

Also for the record,

The idea that humans deal in perception and not the real discusses our relationship to the real; mediated rather than 1:1. It does NOT mean nothing is real and that anything you invent goes. People who say that understand nothing of the theory and should ask questions rather than demonstrate their ignorance.

Lastly for the record,

There is no getting rid of this gap. Everything is mediated and we can only understand that mediation through another form of mediation. So to say something like, "we'll look at things scientifically and that will minimise/eliminate that gap," seems intuitively correct, but it ignores the important part. Looking at things through the scientific lens is itself a form of mediation.

Again, nobody is saying that there is NO relationship between perception and reality. Of course there is. The only controversy is what is the NATURE of that relationship. One argument is that the human brain is perfectly capable of understanding the world on a 1:1 basis, which, if you look at biology and information theory, makes no physical sense whatsoever. The other argument is that the relationship is mediated. Not useless. Not fanciful. Not strictly invented out of thin air. Just mediated.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: