Is perception reality?

[seeker]

Just a thought. I finished watching "What the Bleep do we Know?" last nigth and thought of something. In the movie they explain how the indians could not see Columbus's ships at first. Because they didn't know anything like that exisited they couldn't see it. Until a Shaman finally noticed some ripples in the water and then somehow saw the ships. So to me that proves that perception is reality. To most of the Indians who could not see the ships, their reality was nothing was there. To the Shaman there was ships. Who is right or wrong?

 

I guess you could say the absolute truth is that YES there was ships in the water. But how could you be wrong if you truly couldn't see them? Further, how could God punish people who truly can't "see" God like a Christian can? If their faith is in fact correct. ...My mind is overloaded with these types of questions!

[Amethyst]

I don't think perceptions are reality. If you have two people on an island and they are the last people on earth, and one is colorblind and the other isn't, how would they know whose perception is accurate? If there's no written history to go by or anything? Only one of them can be right, but the sky can't be both blue and gray. It's either one or the other.

 

Look at it this way. Say you are brainwashed to believe that the sky is pink with green polka dots. It's not, but you believe it is. Does that make the sky really pink with green polka dots? Of course not.

 

Or say you are brainwashed to believe that a rose is really an ear of corn. Just because you believe with all your heart that it's corn, doesn't make it corn.

[seeker]

I don't think perceptions are reality.  If you have two people on an island and they are the last people on earth, and one is colorblind and the other isn't, how would they know whose perception is accurate?  If there's no written history to go by or anything?  Only one of them can be right, but the sky can't be both blue and gray.  It's either one or the other. 

 

Look at it this way.  Say you are brainwashed to believe that the sky is pink with green polka dots.  It's not, but you believe it is.  Does that make the sky really pink with green polka dots?  Of course not. 

 

Or say you are brainwashed to believe that a rose is really an ear of corn.  Just because you believe with all your heart that it's corn, doesn't make it corn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree with you. BUT. I also think "yea but if a person truly believes that a rose is really an ear of corn....then to THEM it is an ear of corn ". Maybe like an Individualistic perception is reality is more of what makes sense. I mean if TO YOU something is true, then it is your reality. I think

[Ouroboros]

We can figure out that there are absolute truths around us, but most of the time we're bound by our own interpretations of the "reality" that we see, and we filter and recognize things based on what our mind can do. Reality is there (most likely), but we only understand it based on our own sense, so we're limited to understand the "absolute truths". That's why belief and faith is and has to be completely personal and independent and not forced by others. I can only understand my own situation, and can't force anyone else to see it my way. But I can of course always argue and discuss my POV and affect others to change them somewhat, and the other way around.

 

The best way to understand our world and ourselves is by talking, discussing and be open minded. Be a bit skeptical about ourself, and not always jump to the conclusion that our personal opinion is the only valid one, because we so often make mistakes.

 

I do know that I exists of some sorts. If the world in a "hologram" or not, I can't prove to me or to anyone else, but even if it is, that "hologram" is the reality that I do live in, and I have to accept it as such, and live it as the reality that I know of.

 

And there I went on a some mumbo-jumbo rambling again...

[woodsmoke]

In the movie they explain how the indians could not see Columbus's ships at first. Because they didn't know anything like that exisited they couldn't see it. Until a Shaman finally noticed some ripples in the water and then somehow saw the ships. So to me that proves that perception is reality. To most of the Indians who could not see the ships, their reality was nothing was there. To the Shaman there was ships. Who is right or wrong?

 

If you ask me, this proves nothing beyond they got either some very talented actors, a very convincing narrator, or both. Stating something so empirically about an event which took place over 500 years ago is hardly proof of anything, save maybe the producer's ability and willingness to spin myth and stories as historical fact.

 

I haven't had the opportunity to see What the Bleep yet, but I feel it prudent to state here that everyone I know who has described it similar to the way Zach did; it's about one part science to ten parts new-agey fluff. This is coming from awfully intelligent people, many of whom have advanced degrees in one area or another of scientific study.

 

You may want to keep that in mind when thinking about the material presented therein. I certainly will if I ever sit down and watch it.

[spamandham]

So to me that proves that perception is reality.

 

Then hypnotize yourself and have the hypnotist convince you you can fly. Then jump off a tall building.

 

Not willing to do it eh?

 

It's true that we can not truly know much. You can not disprove the possibility that your entire perception of existence is systematically manipulated somehow (the Matrix or something similar). Is there any reason to believe this is the case? No. Is it possible? Yes.

 

All you can know with certainty is that you exist in some sense.

 

From a bizarre philosophical perspective, what if the laws of logic are perceived only because our perception is consistent with them. If that were the case, actually is that there actually is nothing. Our existence is a contradiction to that which is permitted since nothing is actual.

 

Am I full of shit? Most certainly.

[Ouroboros]

To link to another topic:

 

... Spamdamism: Am I full of shit? Most certainly.

[Emperor Norton II]

Perception isn't reality.

 

We couldn't percieve Pluto throughout much of history- but it sure was there when we looked.

[seeker]

Perception isn't reality.

 

We couldn't percieve Pluto throughout much of history- but it sure was there when we looked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree. BUT...for the people that died before the discovery of Pluto THEIR reality was it wasn't there. I think there is an absolute reality yes...but individually we have different perception's of things which makes our reality's different.

[Antlerman]

I guess you could say the absolute truth is that YES there was ships in the water. But how could you be wrong if you truly couldn't see them? Further, how could God punish people who truly can't "see" God like a Christian can? If their faith is in fact correct. ...My mind is overloaded with these types of questions!

I don't agree that you can look at a ship and it be invisible to you because you don't know how to interpret what it is. When humans encounter something unfamiliar they do not block it out of existence. What they do is stereotype. What does it most closely resemble? It's an instinctual part of survival in threat assessment. Would these natives have made it disappear on the horizon? I seriously doubt that. Had they never seen a canoe, for instance? Would they not have seen, a "big canoe"? The claim that objects disappear, sounds like it came out of the X-Files.

 

As far as the Christian perception being correct and us being judged because we couldn't "see" god like them: I would be at total peace that this is not anything to be concerned about. For one thing; if we were required to see God as they do, we would become completely insane, having multiplied millions of different ways of perceiving "God" swirling around in our tiny brain. Since there is nothing objective in their evaluation of God, the perceptions are as varied and many as there are people who believe it. Talk about your mind being overloaded! Shit, just kill me now!

[Saviourmachine]

The perceived reality

I don't think perceptions are reality.  If you have two people on an island and they are the last people on earth, and one is colorblind and the other isn't, how would they know whose perception is accurate?  If there's no written history to go by or anything? Only one of them can be right, but the sky can't be both blue and gray.  It's either one or the other.

You made already the mistake to describe the 'sky' as 'blue' or 'gray'. The terms 'blue' is a label mankind invented to describe their perception of this colour. The sky 'is' not blue in that sense.

At the other hand, if there exists something that deserves the label reality, we have managed to come to these terms (existence, reality) by perception and mind processing. To talk about reality in a way that is totally independent from perception is senseless. The term reality does have its meaning because it is embedded in our language system. Talking about reality as an unknowable entity is a contradictio in terminis.

Because 'right' in given example is so heavily intertwined with perception I would say that both persons where 'right', but that neither of them described reality completely (not even the electromagnetic reality).

 

The imaginairy reality

From a bizarre philosophical perspective, what if the laws of logic are perceived only because our perception is consistent with them. If that were the case, actually is that there actually is nothing. Our existence is a contradiction to that which is permitted since nothing is actual.

Hi spam, you're hypnotist story is enlightning. However, I definitely disagree with the text above. If the laws of logic fail outside our perception, this is in the realm of the unknowable. And the actuality of unknowable phenomena can be discussed. If the laws of logic fail we still don't know if actually is actually nothing or that is actually something. You can't apply in that case logic like you do: "If that were the case, actually is that there actually is nothing." Bizarre, it is.

[spamandham]

If the laws of logic fail outside our perception, this is in the realm of the unknowable.

 

A positivist I take it? I'm not saying we can never know if this were the case, just that we don't. In principle, if an actual contradiction were real, we might be able to make independent observations that confirm the existence of it without directly observing it. I'm not sure we would accept it though, since it would be ... a contradiction.

 

If the laws of logic fail we still don't know if actually is actually nothing or that is actually something.

 

A single actual contradiction could be used to demonstrate anything at all, including nonexistence of everything.

 

"If that were the case, actually is that there actually is nothing." Bizarre, it is. 

 

Well, I was drunk when I wrote it.

[Saviourmachine]

In principle, if an actual contradiction were real, we might be able to make independent observations that confirm the existence of it without directly observing it.  I'm not sure we would accept it though, since it would be ... a contradiction.

I don't differ between direct and indirect observations. If my computer observes something and I observe that he observed it, I have observed something. If these observations are in contradiction as light being wave and particle, I'll suspend my disbelieve and keep trust in my observations.

 

A single actual contradiction could be used to demonstrate anything at all, including nonexistence of everything.

I disagree. How would you give form to this demonstration? Using logic? One single actual contradiction can make the rest of the system following the rules of logic and being complete too (Gödel revised). It can be how I state it: that there is only one actual contradiction. Who knows?

 

Well, I was drunk when I wrote it. 

Grrr!

[Saviourmachine]

A positivist I take it?

Not exactly. I do think we have to observe, to perceive everything. But I'm also aware that my cognitive apparatus is formed by evolution. Not everything what is in my mind is there because of direct observations. But, I see biological evolution as a framework in which organisms learn to observe their environment (adapting to it). However, this isn't anymore perception as a positivist would define it, I guess. I disagree often on some (minor) points with mainstream philosophical doctrines.