Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 305 (308081)
04-30-2006 8:58 PM


- v1, take 2
Newcomers can start here Message 52 for discussion as this topic has been dormant for a while


Take 2 -- the short version (see {here} for the long version ).
To begin with, I don't think it is possible in the slightest for two people to have exactly the same set of beliefs and knowledge, we are all a little different from anyone else and sometimes a lot different from some others. We are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand.
Some here have contended that there are two opposing camps, each with set presuppositions that exclude elements of the other camp, making a picture something like this:
The area of overlap is the area of agreement, and the areas outside the overlap are the areas of contention.
To my view everyone has their own belief circle, based on their particular experiences and what they have learned, and what they believe is true. The only difference is the location of their personal circle relative to other circles. Some circles can completely overlap the science circle and others can completely miss it.
The real question is how does one's personal view relate to {reality}, and how can we determine that (IF we can determine that)?
Let me open up the discussion a bit by first proposing the whole playing field of human knowledge and perceptions of reality, in very general terms, using these definitions from Dictionary.com:
sci·ence (click)

1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
.. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
.. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
phi·los·o·phy (click)
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
faith (click)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
If I were to draw a picture of this it would be something like this:
One could say that {all} science includes knowledge we that we are pretty sure we know, that {all} philosophy includes knowledge that we think we can know, and that {all} faith includes knowledge we cannot know that we know (hence we take it on faith).
There is nothing within science that is not also {included\accepted} in {some} philosophy or other, and there is nothing within philosophy that is not also {included\accepted} in {some} faith or other.
However, not all of this knowledge is true to reality.
There are many religions that are exclusive of other religions, so logically they cannot all be true as conceived (although it is possible they could all be close to the reality, just in different ways).
Philosophy based on logic is true if the precepts are true, but how do we know if the precepts are true? There are some philosophies that contradict or oppose other philosophies.
We also know that science has a tendency of finding new evidence that invalidates previous theories and shows new theories and understandings to be more valid, but because we cannot prove a theory in science we cannot know that we know.
So how can we judge the validity of perceptions of reality?
Let the discussion begin.
Enjoy.
(I'll stop here to keep it from getting tooo long again).
(Is it science? or Coffeehouse?)
{edited email notifications, no change to post}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*05*2006 07:10 PM
Edited by RAZD, : new link at the start to Message 52 for restatement (take 3)
Edited by RAZD, : sp, subtitle

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 05-02-2006 10:18 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 12 by ikabod, posted 05-03-2006 9:53 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 05-05-2006 9:33 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 44 by Bisc, posted 05-11-2006 2:14 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2006 8:21 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2007 7:08 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 305 (308569)
05-02-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
05-02-2006 10:18 AM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
Reality cuts across the circles - we know that an invalidated belief or theory is not reality, so there is no guarantee that anything we think we "know" falls into the realm of reality.
To me the measure of relative reality of a concept is {1/denial} -- in other words those concepts that need to deny specific evidence are less valid indicators of reality.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 05-02-2006 10:18 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2006 10:45 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 305 (308891)
05-03-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by New Cat's Eye
05-03-2006 10:45 AM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
Seems like a CYA statement to me
Or a statement on the limitations of science, that every theory we have today can be falsified by new evidence. Maybe just a space-time anamoly.
Whadaya mean? Will you draw another image?
Remember that sizes are not absolute indicators, and different people will have different ideas about the sizes (and placements) of the different areas, how much of what is real.
What's outside the green circle? What we can never know?
I think reality includes some things that are outside the circle of science. And not just in our abilities, but in the limit of science's abilities. Of course, I have to take this on faith, or keep it in the philosophy circle.
Definitely agree. The question is how can we measure the validity, and that's where the problems start.
hmmmm. As denial approches zero you don't have to deny anything for the concept to be real, so an infinite amount of relative reality is real? I don't think that is true all the time that a concept that requires no denial is neccessarily real.
Everyone has to deny something or they end up with some contradictions or a useless world view where nothing matters ...
I don't see it as an absolute relationship either, it's more like the light in the tunnel is getting brighter but you can't tell which direction is more so.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*03*2006 08:09 PM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2006 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2006 8:54 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 17 of 305 (308894)
05-03-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ikabod
05-03-2006 9:53 AM


States of Mind
reality is where each of us live , and that is inside our own mind .
... we have to have faith that our personal sensors ie eye skin etc are feeding us true data .. go read the latest ideas on how we form images from the info the eye send to the brain to see how much faith you need
Yes but we have an advantage -- we can discuss our perceptions with other people and see if they have the same ones, is the sky blue? If other people agree with our perceptions then there is a measure of reality involved that is outside our mind.
It's where people disagree on the perceptions that the issue realy arises -- which is more likely to be closer to reality? How can we determine that?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ikabod, posted 05-03-2006 9:53 AM ikabod has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 305 (308896)
05-03-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by lfen
05-02-2006 11:41 PM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
I'm suggesting that an interior or contemplative or phenomenological approach yields a faith that is at once subjective and irreducible and also much more resistant to being exploited by authority.
I would agree that the commonality of the experience of faith in people of different cultures and different beliefs would indicate there is something involved that is real.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by lfen, posted 05-02-2006 11:41 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by lfen, posted 05-03-2006 10:58 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 305 (308911)
05-03-2006 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
05-03-2006 8:54 PM


Is this your ideas about the sizes and positions or did you just place them conveniently?
Convenience and an attempt at rough visual equity in areas for the sake of argument.
Well, I think the reality slice should be finite. Why not make it round too? I'd make it an elipse that crosses all the circles.
I think of reality as more infinite but bounded, in part to match the universe, in part because I just like it that way. (is that faith?)
The circles could be vast amorphic amoebic shapes - this just represents them {simply} to convey the basic idea of nested reality perceptions.
For either case, I'd go with you with what we can never know as outside of that.
What about things that we can imagine that aren't impossible, we just havn't invented them yet.
Do you think the circles are static or growing? As we add knowledge, some may need to be discarded (invalidated theories, anachronistic ideas) but don't you think there would be a net growth?
Well, there's the possibility of a better method. The Scienitific Method is really damn good though...hmmmm.
Outside science, inside philosophy you would have logic -- the conclusions are 'true' as long as the precepts they are based on are 'true' and the logic construction is valid.
Outside philosophy you have a commonality of experience, and while you cannot "vote" on what is real, there can be a consensus on what may be real. Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns reach the same mental state in their {meditations\prayers} -- the interpretation of the state is different.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2006 8:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-04-2006 11:45 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 305 (308913)
05-03-2006 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by DominionSeraph
05-03-2006 8:30 PM


You can't use sensory data to validate sensory data.
So when I punch you on the nose, you can't use the sensory data of a hurt nose, the warm trickle of blood on your lip, and the flux of stabiity in your standing ability to validate the feeling in my hand that I hit something?
There are rational limits to solipsism. Commonality of experience is one.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 8:30 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:53 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 305 (308914)
05-03-2006 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by DominionSeraph
05-03-2006 9:32 PM


... but only because of what the row-of-letters, "reality," symbolizes. The symbol is linked to a concept ...
Are you saying that reality exists only when it is perceived in a mind?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:32 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 305 (309206)
05-04-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by DominionSeraph
05-03-2006 9:53 PM


The problem is that you aren't talking about reality but "your concept of reality" -- your perception of it.
Of course your perception is in your mind.
But perception of reality is not {reality}. It is filtered by (your) perceptions.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:53 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-04-2006 9:12 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 305 (309262)
05-05-2006 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by DominionSeraph
05-04-2006 9:12 PM


That's simply a communications problem.
It doesn't matter what pictures you use, they only represent your perception of reality, and have no necessary relationship to actual reality.
What is in your mind is only your preception of reality. That is all it can be.
As you can see, even though C and D don't have the term "concept" applied; that's what they are. When you reference "reality", you're referencing D -- but the problem is that D is within E.
(And I wish I could say, "F", but anything referenced is necessarily within E; and therin lies the problem.)
What I see is that you can make meaningless diagrams where you make the definition of reality to mean your perception of it. I'm glad you saw the need to correct your first diagram. What are you going to do to correct this one?
Your redefinition of reality as {perception of reality} is a strawman argument that collapses into a tautology - what is in my mind is in my mind. How compelling.
There are things you have never seen, never heard of, that do not depend on your "mind" -- nor mine, nor the mind of any other person -- to exist.
There are experiences of other people that you do not share, can they be real for them and fantasy for you?
How do you rescue your perception problem from being a rather meaningless expression of solipsism?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-04-2006 9:12 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-12-2006 4:52 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 305 (309263)
05-05-2006 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
05-04-2006 11:45 PM


Well, I think we both have a good understanding of the topic and what each others opinions are, where should the discussion go from here?
How can we use our individual perceptions of reality to determine what {likely reality} involves, reality that lies outside the bounds of evidence and logic of knowledge as we know it?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-04-2006 11:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2006 5:16 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 305 (310409)
05-08-2006 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
05-08-2006 5:16 PM


What makes scientific theory so robust a method for determining the way things work?
Other people can repeat the experiments and get the same results.
Now we move outside the realm of being able to make repeatable experiments ...
Can we pool our knowledge and look for consistent patterns -- patterns consistent with everything that we know to be as valid as possible?
Can we say that there are consistent patterns of religous experiences, for example? Yes.
Can we say that they are only pertinent to one religion? No.
This to me is where the element of denial comes in.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2006 5:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2006 10:14 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 305 (310410)
05-08-2006 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by mike the wiz
05-05-2006 9:33 AM


Re: Knowledge, Gettier problem and solving it
what's a clock? watch?
So I'd say knowledge is about simply making sure assumptions are truly justified, and CHECKED rather than jumping to conclusions and taking assumed assumptions as automatically true. I.e. if you checked your clock was working, you'd be confirming that assumption.
Looking for as many references etc. as you can find.
Knowledge can also know when it doesn't know -- when two or more possibilities exists, it allows consideration of those and more.
I get my time from satellites (as long as the batteries in my phone and gps work ... )
This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*08*2006 08:11 PM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 05-05-2006 9:33 AM mike the wiz has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 305 (320557)
06-11-2006 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by DominionSeraph
05-15-2006 5:14 AM


DominionSeraph, msg 47 writes:
Those do depend on my mind -- both to define the sets and to place concepts within them. Here's an example of the latter:
"I have seen everything."
I just emptied the set of, "Things I have never seen."
Now I'm back to normal, with it filled with placeholders.
This argument is just a mental game. Declaring that you have seen everything does not make it so. I am not interested in mental games. I am interested in exploring how far we can validate our perceptions of reality based on what we can experience and know.
Watch what happens if we don't assume it's accurate, and assume that you can somehow use sensory data in support of its accuracy:
1. My sensory data may or may not be accurate.
2. My sensory data tells me that my sensory data is accurate.
Well, if your sensory data is inaccurate (allowed by 1), what it's telling you in (2) is completely undermined. You'd need it to be accurate for what it tells you (that it's accurate) to actually mean that it's accurate.
That's the problem with only one point of view, one observation datum (what your argument in Message 47 and others depends on - a single mind in isolation of data from other minds).
We are not isolated minds, we have the ability to record and communicate experiences and sensations. While this may not be the same as direct personal experience it is not devoid of value.
What we see with a "science" approach is:
1. My sensory data may or may not be accurate.
2. My sensory data tells me that my sensory data may be accurate (ie does not invalidate it).
3. The same sensory data is experienced by all others who repeat the same {experiment\experience}.
4. Different sensory data is not experienced by all others who repeat the same {experiment\experience}.
5. The probability is that the sensory data is accurate.
Applied to your earlier example:
1. My sensory data may be accurate.
2. IF it is accurate, what I sense actually exists.
3. The same sensory data is recorded by other people who repeat the {experiment\experience}.
4. Different sensory data is not recorded by other people who repeat the {experiment\experience}.
5. Therefore the probability is high that the sensory data is accurate
6. Therefore the probability is high that what I sense actually exists
7. As the probability is high that it actually exists, and thus the probability is high that my sensory data is accurate, I can operate on the basis that {what I sense} actually exists and that my sensory data is accurate until shown otherwise.
You'd need it to be accurate for what it tells you (that it's accurate) to actually mean that it's accurate.
All I need is it to be {repeatable} by myself and by others - and not invalidated by any of my or other people experiences - to operate on the basis that it is accurate. We only need it to be reasonably accurate, or accurate enough.
We do not operate in a vacuum, nor in a population of mental clones, but in a population of {many varied, but similar, but different} accumulated experiences, each one of which colors the way we {individually\personally} perceive the {world\universe}. As such, we cannot expect 100% agreement on many {experiences\sensations} - not every {experience\sensation} is repeatable, not everyone can {experience\sense} what others have {experienced\sensed}.
What we can do here is classify {experiences\sensations} by their {repetition\frequency\occurrence} and by the level of data {coherence\dispersal}.
Thus we all agree that gravity is real, that objects dropped on toes hurt, but we don't all agree that ghosts exist.
The many levels of varied accumulated experiences actually acts as a check on the validity of any sensory experience, as the more varied the range of perceptions are, the more likely the results are accurate when they agree.
The question then becomes on {when\where\how} they disagree -- not just an absence of corroborative {experience\sensation} that one party denies because they choose not to believe it, but where {experience\sensation} is contradictory.
What's your take on that situation?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-15-2006 5:14 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-04-2007 1:52 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 305 (320559)
06-11-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
05-11-2006 10:14 AM


An interesting but hardly useful realm.
But not one devoid of means to explore. See previous message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2006 10:14 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024