PDA

View Full Version : The limits of perception.



miqeel
18th January 2014, 19:09
I have been playing around with an interesting idea about the nature of reality, and the following occured to me.

If we can say that one can only perceive, according to ones limits of perception, then it is possible to say that we create our own reality.

Animals for instance do not create their own reality, because in their perception there is no way of storing information (the thing perceived, or the life) other than genetically.
So to them life is a constant rollercoaster ride of feelings, emotions, instinct etc.
That of course, is only according to my limits of perception - i only attribute as much to another living being as my perception permits.

Human perception has a property which is its biggest advantage, and the biggest vice - ability to consciously withdraw information from the memory.

The problem arising from this property is that we believe that experience that is in our memory and similar to of what we know, we attribute qualities of our memory, to what we perceive.

This is of course wrong, and leads to all sort of trouble.

A guy in some hot country, with very little civilzation discovered that in reality, what he thinks he is, he is not, and saw the enormous oneness of all things
While on Peyote.

He told about that his few buddies, and together they ate peyote one evening. And after they felt the unity, more and more people felt what they were saying was true, but only understood it through their experience (strong faterh figure, loving mother). The oneness was signigicantly streongest between the guy and his buddies, because they shared the peyote experience.

Other people did not share this. But if felt so good to be in this oneness community, so they created the experience similar to what they felt when with the group.
Religions.

After a while, people who already had religions (probably based on similar development - both stories begin at the desert) decided, it was enough of this, and decided to kill the guy.

People wished he was not dead. The guys told them, that he was still with them - but they mostly shared the experience on peyote.

In any case, The relligion spread allowing for a stronger mode of unification of people, over the national divisions, creating progress. Progress was steady, increasing with the amount of knowledge accumulated in the memory of humans.

We had medievalism, renesaince, enlightement.
Now the cycle is repeated indefinitely of course. Which causes problems because of the problems that arise during medieval times may be accentuades strongly by the technology people use.
Thankfully, we had World Wars. Now we understand what happens during medieval times of technological society, we had renesaince in 60s with the flower power.

Then the enlightnment came, and we called it the internet.

So now we have the internet for over 20 years, and we are beginning to hover on the brink of the medieval times, due to our carelesness and debauchery, always characteristic of medievalism. We may just end up in the medievalism - Who knows?

But that matters little, because we know that after medievalism, comes renessaince and enlightment. So no hope is lost.

What can we do? Simply speed up the next enlightment.

Now, all we may perceive is only our reality in which we perceive other people, who live in their own realities.
Our realities are shared at the moments of communication (communion?)

This is not an easy concept to understand, unill you understand your limits of perception. Only then you understand what you cannot perceive!! Any information about an event not perceived is fundamentally flawed by being incomplete. The reality of course conforms to our ideas, or rather, we conform reality to our ideas

This can be demonstrated as inside out way of looking at world. We see something that to us looks like a fight. To the people fighting that may be good times (I am not talking here about war etc. Think how ufc was perceived before and how is now)

Think that in reality perceived by Mark, its windy and rainy, for all day, but in reality of Mandy it did.

Simply assume it is possible! Because, of course, there is now way for you to know, unless you think the same as Mindy!"

You cant yet think the same as Mindy. But you can know what it is like.


Get some peyote.

chocolate
19th January 2014, 14:19
I might agree with your general idea, but it is so scattered, and based on so many, how to say, comfortable assumptions, that I will point out only at one:


If we can say that one can only perceive, according to ones limits of perception, then it is possible to say that we create our own reality.
Animals for instance do not create their own reality, because in their perception there is no way of storing information (the thing perceived, or the life) other than genetically.
So to them life is a constant rollercoaster ride of feelings, emotions, instinct etc.
[...]


?!

Hazel
19th January 2014, 15:10
Not up to scratch :pout:

Milneman
19th January 2014, 22:37
Insert theme song to "Jaws" here...don't let the chicken emote fool you buddy. ;)

I have been playing around with an interesting idea about the nature of reality, and the following occured to me.
If we can say that one can only perceive, according to ones limits of perception, then it is possible to say that we create our own reality.


That's the problem with empiricism. Le sigh.


Animals for instance do not create their own reality, because in their perception there is no way of storing information (the thing perceived, or the life) other than genetically.

Can you prove that?

So to them life is a constant rollercoaster ride of feelings, emotions, instinct etc.
That of course, is only according to my limits of perception - i only attribute as much to another living being as my perception permits.


So if animals, being subject simply to a rollercoaster ride of feelings, emotions, and instincts have no real depth of perception of reality...what makes us, as animals, any different?

Ah wait a minute. You only attribute as much to another living being as my perception permits.

Question for you bro. Do you know what equality is? How do you know what equality is? What do you have to know before you know two things are equal?

Or another way to put it, if I tell you to close your eyes and picture the perfect circle, you're going to have an image that I assume (because I am not, in this regard, an empiricist ;)), everyone shares. Now close your eyes and picture goodness. Most people don't see anything, or if they do, they see bright light...vague things.

You're assuming we only know what we know based on sense experience. Well, how do you know that?

Human perception has a property which is its biggest advantage, and the biggest vice - ability to consciously withdraw information from the memory.

But is it the only form of perception? Bad choice of words. Is it the only way human beings come to knowledge? I think this is where you're having your problem. But I'm having fun, so let the angry chicken continue. Buckawk. :)

The problem arising from this property is that we believe that experience that is in our memory and similar to of what we know, we attribute qualities of our memory, to what we perceive.

This is of course wrong, and leads to all sort of trouble.


And ya know why it's wrong?

A guy in some hot country, with very little civilzation discovered that in reality, what he thinks he is, he is not, and saw the enormous oneness of all things
While on Peyote.

-----*face to desk, insert loud head impacting desk noise here*-----


He told about that his few buddies, and together they ate peyote one evening. And after they felt the unity, more and more people felt what they were saying was true, but only understood it through their experience (strong faterh figure, loving mother). The oneness was signigicantly streongest between the guy and his buddies, because they shared the peyote experience.


......anyone else seeing Cheech and Chong here?

Other people did not share this. But if felt so good to be in this oneness community, so they created the experience similar to what they felt when with the group.


:suspicious:

Religions.

:suspicious:

After a while, people who already had religions (probably based on similar development - both stories begin at the desert) decided, it was enough of this, and decided to kill the guy.

Ok that makes sense.

:suspicious:

People wished he was not dead. The guys told them, that he was still with them - but they mostly shared the experience on peyote.

I have a question for ya. :) Let's say, you have two witnesses to a crime. Let's say a robbery. One witness is cold stone sober, the other one is hot stoned. I mean, flat out needle out the arm bud on the ear stoned. Who's testimony are you going to find more credible?

I thought so.

In any case, The relligion spread allowing for a stronger mode of unification of people, over the national divisions, creating progress. Progress was steady, increasing with the amount of knowledge accumulated in the memory of humans.

Ok just when you think it was good, we're going to venture into neo-marxism now kids. Hang on.

We had medievalism, renesaince, enlightement.
Now the cycle is repeated indefinitely of course. Which causes problems because of the problems that arise during medieval times may be accentuades strongly by the technology people use.
Thankfully, we had World Wars. Now we understand what happens during medieval times of technological society, we had renesaince in 60s with the flower power.

Then the enlightnment came, and we called it the internet.

Question: if what you say, If we can say that one can only perceive, according to ones limits of perception, then it is possible to say that we create our own reality[I] is true, then this could be just a limit of your perception no?

Ohoh.

Take another toke, it'll be ok.

[I]So now we have the internet for over 20 years, and we are beginning to hover on the brink of the medieval times, due to our carelesness and debauchery, always characteristic of medievalism. We may just end up in the medievalism - Who knows?

So the internet is going to be the reason why we become serfs? Or are you saying we are serfs to the internet? Or are you saying that we are serfs to those people who use the internet to control us? Or are you saying that your sense perception creates the idea of this user/used mentality that the internet perpetuates/articulates?

But that matters little, because we know that after medievalism, comes renessaince and enlightment. So no hope is lost.

Oh. Okay. But WAIT! Just because it's been that way in the past, what proof do you have that it will continue this way in the future? Remember now! You're telling us that you're relying on your fallible sense perception that (with or without peyote) is limited and may not be able to know the truth!

What can we do? Simply speed up the next enlightment.

Uhm....Lenin tried that. But let's assume you're not going from a neo-marxist perspective. Let's say you're talking personal development. You're suggesting that what we need to do to lift 300lbs of free weights is to speed up to the next scale of weights. So instead of going from 10lbs to 20lbs, let's just go to the 300lbs because the difference is in our perception....uhm....oh...boy....


Our realities are shared at the moments of communication (communion?)


This is probably the closest you've come to breaking out of your empiricism in this entire diatribe. You are so close to understanding. Put down the peyote for a minute and pick up Plato. Seriously. Then put down Plato when you're done, and pick up St. Augustine. Seriously.

This is not an easy concept to understand, unill you understand your limits of perception. Only then you understand what you cannot perceive!! Any information about an event not perceived is fundamentally flawed by being incomplete. The reality of course conforms to our ideas, or rather, we conform reality to our ideas

Ok is this Kant now? Where exactly are we?


This can be demonstrated as inside out way of looking at world. We see something that to us looks like a fight. To the people fighting that may be good times (I am not talking here about war etc. Think how ufc was perceived before and how is now)

Or your post!We could conceive it as babble but in fact it could be making perfect sense and...nah....

Think that in reality perceived by Mark, its windy and rainy, for all day, but in reality of Mandy it did.

Simply assume it is possible! Because, of course, there is now way for you to know, unless you think the same as Mindy!"

You cant yet think the same as Mindy. But you can know what it is like.

Here is the best way I can deflate this argument instantly.

1+1=2. I suggest that Mark understands this as true in the same way that Mindy does. And there are an infinite number of these examples that I can provide that prove that innate ideas exist in our minds and our perceived and shared in the same way.

I cannot know for certain your mind exists. But I would be a fool to doubt that it does. I can know other minds exist with the same certainty as my own mind exists!

Dubito Ergo Sum. I doubt, therefore, I exist.


Get some peyote.

No.

1. Define your terms.
2. Outline your premises clearly.
3. Check your conclusions against your premises
4. Get a spell checker.
5. Do not get peyote. Peyote got you into this mess. Bad. Bad.

I know you think you've hit something significant. I really believe this! But if I was grading this?

ooof. Forget the peyote, gimme scotch.

Carmody
20th January 2014, 04:54
That's the thing about individualism in a consensus reality. It has room for all of it.

Douglass
20th January 2014, 07:33
If I may give my opinion, respectfully of course. Although I am not completely sure of all the themes and points you were trying to make, one theme that seems to come from your post is that truth is some how relative because everyone's perceptions are unique to themselves.

-There are no limits to perception, the same way there are no limits to ones ignorance.

-I think you are confusing reality with perception. As humans, the universe gives us the freedom of choice to PERCEIVE
reality any way wish, but just because you perceive something one way doesn't make it reality.

"Now, all we may perceive is only our reality in which we perceive other people, who live in their own realities.
Our realities are shared at the moments of communication (communion?)"

"This is not an easy concept to understand, unill you understand your limits of perception. Only then you understand what you cannot perceive!! Any information about an event not perceived is fundamentally flawed by being incomplete. The reality of course conforms to our ideas, or rather, we conform reality to our ideas"

-All we may perceive is our own reality? there is only one reality. The root of the word reality is REAL. What is real is not
contingent or molded by ones perceptions.

-Perception is not reality, nothing could be further from reality. Perception most simply means to see through, one perceives
through their senses, through their belief systems. The REAL task to align ones perception with REALity.

-This thinking is a big new age trap, that your truth is your truth and don't judge people and we can all live happily in our
own "realities". TRUTH IS NOT RELATIVE TO PERCEPTION, WE SHOULD HOLD OUR PERCEPTIONS RELATIVE TO TRUTH.