perception

[Shroud of Akron]

i know we've been down this road before, but i really like the topic. alot of people state that perception is reallity, i know that this makes sense, but i do not necessarily agree. i remember in the zen thread, someone stated that the wavelength of light that we percieve as red is always the same wavelength whether it is percieved or not. i whole heartedly agree with this statement, but does this hold true for more complex entities or objects. i believe it does, but i cannot formulate the argument well. anyway, if anyone else would enjoy this debate, please begin(cause i need to cram this in my brother in laws face!).

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
i know we've been down this road before, but i really like the topic. alot of people state that perception is reallity, i know that this makes sense, but i do not necessarily agree. i remember in the zen thread, someone stated that the wavelength of light that we percieve as red is always the same wavelength whether it is percieved or not. i whole heartedly agree with this statement, but does this hold true for more complex entities or objects. i believe it does, but i cannot formulate the argument well. anyway, if anyone else would enjoy this debate, please begin(cause i need to cram this in my brother in laws face!).

Perception is how you interpret reality, not necessarily reality itself.

[evildave]

There is the objective reality, and the subjective.

The subjective is in your head, and the objective is outside of it.

Everything you experience, you interpret.

A certain shade of blue isn't anything at all to you, except what it means to you. Perhaps it reminds you of a dress your mother wore, or your first car, or the sky when you heard some terribly important news. A thousand things all at once, from a thousand connections made to it. This is the subjective element of reality.

The objective portion of reality is that part which doesn't always cooperate with your opinions about its meaning.

If you put a gallon of gas in your car, it's probably not going to go much further than 40 miles. Significantly less for many cars. Significantly further for motorcycles and such. No matter how hard you believe you can go twice as far, you're going to end up walking if you base all of your faith on your initial estimate of how far you can go.

This is what technical people might recognize as "negative feedback". "Negative" doesn't have that hippy "bad" meaning. It's just something useful to adjust your expectations and opinions against.

Most people moderate their own behavior based on feedback. From what they experience. From other people. From other people's experience communicated to them.

Some people are utterly disconnected from the feedback in their lives. They've decided that their opinion overrides all possible evidence to the contrary, no matter how absurd the consequences. These people are "very religious".

[c4ts]

My idea of interpretation was much more literal. For example, reality is vibrations carried throughout the air, but your interpretation of those vibrations is sound, as your mind is interpreting sensory input from your eardrums, which are moved by the air. For example, some animal like a bat might sense these kinds of vibrations in a similar way, but interpret them the way we use our sight.

Originally posted by c4ts
My idea of interpretation was much more literal. For example, reality is vibrations carried throughout the air, but your interpretation of those vibrations is sound, as your mind is interpreting sensory input from your eardrums, which are moved by the air.

Reality: You miss Franko in this forum.

My perception : You will write again another "smart" reply.

Thanks,
S&S

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by c4ts


Perception is how you interpret reality, not necessarily reality itself. i agree with this statement, what i would like to see is the argument. for example, on easter my brother in law and i were debating about being able to prove anything. he says that it can't be done, i disagree. he says that everything is perception, i say that everything is what it it, but we may percieve it differently. then he starts saying that math is flawed, and that you can't even prove that 1+1=2, because you cannot prove that 2 is the proper perception. i tell him that i can prove that 1>0, he agrees, so then i follow that 1(more than)+1=2. he still disagrees. how do you argue this type of illogical thought?

[evildave]

Well, you can't, because there isn't much "thought" going on.

He's fixated on a keen idea someone introduced him to, and he'll either eventually reject it himself, or stick to it for the rest of his life.

It is technically true that all knowledge is based on assumptions.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by evidave:
Some people are utterly disconnected from the feedback in their lives. They've decided that their opinion overrides all possible evidence to the contrary, no matter how absurd the consequences. These people are "very religious".

My sig line is getting a little cluttered, but I'm going to put this in my collection of " things to use later'...

[Dancing David]

OOOOK , a math problem and no less a word problem I think I will skip that until later.

Sensation is the direct perception through one of the senses.
Perception is the attribution placed upon perception.

In one sense you BIL is right , and in another he is wrong. First case everything that we percieve is filtered through our biological filters, which leads to certain problems.
First example: there are a lot of colors that I percieve as 'pink' that other people see as 'purple' especially when you get into the 'fuschia' area, I believe that this is because I have more recpetors for 'red' than other people and so I tend to label this mixed purples as 'pink'. However i have found that there are shades which can be agreed upon are pink or purple and some where there is disagreement. This is a disagreement based upon different perception of the same event.

In another sense your BIL is very wrong, while we can not prove that electrons are wavicles or the ultra tiny monkeys on motor scooters: we can make theories based upon the behavior of electrons. This theories can be tested and replicated. Therefore through replication we can 'prove' a theory although we may not be able to prove the underlying mechanism of the theory.

Hope that gives you some ammunition , I will have to ponder the word problem

Peace
dancing David

PS Gee S&s, I am glad to see you back , what do the initials stand for Silly and Sarcastic?(ie lay off c4rts dude)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
.....i remember in the zen thread, someone stated that the wavelength of light that we percieve as red is always the same wavelength whether it is percieved or not. .....
Could be true; The Question however is "Is it there if nothing perceives it". We feel reasonably certain is doesn't need a human to observe it "to still be there". Will animal "perception" do? Plant? Bacterium? Virus? Prion? Life? Energy? ???

At least this is The Question as I see it. ;)

[arcticpenguin]

There's an article on ScienceNow about timekeeping in the brain: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2003/424/3
(subscription only)

Designing experiments to reveal how the brain senses time is devilishly tricky, but new work with monkeys shows that neurons in a part of the brain involved with spatial processing might double as timekeepers.
...
"This opens up a new chapter in neurobiology," says Randy Gallistel, an experimental psychologist at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Although there have been a number of behavioral studies on how animals learn duration, he says, this is one of the first studies to look at which neurons process time information.

[Michael Redman]

If a bear s&!ts in the woods, does it make a sound?

1+1=2, because that's that 1, +, =, and 2 mean. No perception needed.

[Dymanic]

We do not see the world. What we see is a simulation created by our brains. This simulation is updated with actual data as it becomes available, but has no problem filling in the gaps by making stuff up as necessary.

[evildave]

Yes, but we all need to have the same model of 1, +, = and 2.

"1+1=2" might be a particularly offensive curse on "Planet X". It certainly is getting to be one here on Earth, if only because of the annoying way some people keep referring back to it in order to simplify problems down to gibberish.

Part of the problem is the work our senses have evolved to do. We might have evolved truly cosmic senses that would make us intimitely aware of every force in the universe... but those probably aren't the kinds of senses that keep a large animal alive among all the other competing biology experiments on Earth.

Being too grossed-out by the microscopic critters in water to drink it in the desert would not be an especially helpful adaptation. Hearing every swish, crackle and chitter for a mile might distract from the big, slavering thing right near us.

We have senses and brain processing that simplifies (or dumbs down) the world to a point about on a par with the ability of what's left in our little brains to process that flow of information.

The ability to see friend and foe. Identify ripe fruit and dead plants from a distance. Hear "what's comming". Feel when damage is imminant or occurring. Smell and taste what might be "bad" to eat. Even communicate.

Every new kind of sense we could have would need to have a commensurate amount of processing to handle it. Would having a brain the size of a watermelon be a help or hindrance when something is chasing you to eat you?

Originally posted by Dancing David

Peace
dancing David

PS Gee S&s, I am glad to see you back , what do the initials stand for Silly and Sarcastic?(ie lay off c4rts dude)

Reality:You are the smartest member at the forum.

My perception : You will keep on dancing.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Enjoy the company of c4ts.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
If a bear s&!ts in the woods, does it make a sound?

1+1=2, because that's that 1, +, =, and 2 mean. No perception needed.

Perhaps no perception is needed to arrive at 1+1=2, but 362 pages of proofs are. At least per Principia Mathematica (Russell, Whitehead) (http://www.idt.mdh.se/~icc/1+1=2.htm).

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by evildave
Yes, but we all need to have the same model of 1, +, = and 2.

"1+1=2" might be a particularly offensive curse on "Planet X". It certainly is getting to be one here on Earth, if only because of the annoying way some people keep referring back to it in order to simplify problems down to gibberish.i'm not talking about what we call something. if i have a box and i get another box, i now have box box. box+box=box box. what we call each unit is describing our perception, but the reality is that there are 2 boxes, the 2 merely designates one more than one. how could that reality possibly be inaccurate?

[evildave]

But box box is actually 10 boxes. If you use base 2, which is base 10, in base 2.

'2' is only a designation for a grouping of box box we have because we count, and do so in a radix higher than 1 or 2. How we codify information impacts how we perceive it.

Without a concept of "counting", which is grouping things by encoding them in groups, you have box, and perhaps "lotsa box" for however many boxes besides just "box" there are.

Perhaps a particular entity might (by their own convention) measure "box" by volume instead of unit quantity. In this case {box box box} = {box}, if the first set of boxes are smaller than the second.

Or we can take the grocery store's answer to "how many", apples are accounted by weight. In this case {apple apple} can routinely equal {apple apple apple}, if the first set of apples are heavier.

Or my favorite, if you take two panes of glass and carelessly throw them into a big box, how many do you get? If measured in WHOLE panes of glass, probably zero. If measured in unit pieces of glass, thousands. If measured by weight or volume, the original amount.

What you measure is impacted by your perception of what's important to measure. If you're supposed to be installing panes of glass, having the number of units in the box remain the same as the number of units that leave the box is important. If you are the one shipping the box, only the weight and volume of the box is important. If the glass is destined to be dumped, only its volume is important. If the glass is to be recycled, then only its purity and weight is important. To the animal you, the inherent danger of broken glass you've learned from experience is all that's important. Seeing that red stuff leak out and feeling pain is among the things you're evolved not to like.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by evildave
.......................................
Seeing that red stuff leak out and feeling pain is among the things you're evolved not to like.
Assuming it is yours................:D

[Dymanic]

Making the assumption that any large quantity of blood visible is indeed one's own is evidently a reasonable assumption often enough to make this the default assumption, and the brain responds by lowering blood pressure. For someone who skipped breakfast, this may be enough to cause fainting.

This is a good example of the way our brains work. Our senses collect information about the world, that information is used to make some assumptions that are the basis for choosing a course of action. But at best, the information is a series of rough approximations, the assumptions are mostly educated guesses, and the choices are mostly calculated risks.

All this helps make life fun and exciting.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
i agree with this statement, what i would like to see is the argument. for example, on easter my brother in law and i were debating about being able to prove anything. he says that it can't be done, i disagree. he says that everything is perception, i say that everything is what it it, but we may percieve it differently. then he starts saying that math is flawed, and that you can't even prove that 1+1=2, because you cannot prove that 2 is the proper perception. i tell him that i can prove that 1>0, he agrees, so then i follow that 1(more than)+1=2. he still disagrees. how do you argue this type of illogical thought?

It's not entirely illogical to say that the whole of reality is subjective. I believe Berkley argued for the same thing. The only problem is that unlike Berkley, your brother in law he is rejecting the basis of logic itself. If he is correct, then nothing can be proved. If nothing can be proved, then your brother in law cannot prove his point. If he cannot prove his point, and has already made the attempt, he has failed. But he cannot fail to prove what is correct in the same sense that it is true, because that would be self-contradictory. You brother in law must admit that a contradiction can exist without being perceptible (since you have demonstrated its existence without him senseing it), or admit that he is rejecting rationality itself, rendering the entire debate meaningless (the same applies if he says contradictions do not exist). If he wants to be like UCE or Ian and keep repeating himself, just leave.

Reality: c4ts came with another "smart" reply.

My perception : He is still missing Franko.

Thanks,
S&S

[c4ts]

Originally posted by S&S
Reality: c4ts came with another "smart" reply.

My perception : He is still missing Franko.

Thanks,
S&S

If you are going to post, please contribute to the discussion.

Originally posted by c4ts


If you are going to post, please contribute to the discussion.

Reality : c4ts is angry

My perception : c4ts will be more angry now.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

I am contributing, is on topic.

[evildave]

Then there's always the perception of the religiously afflicted versus the unreligious:

Unreligious Perspective: A plane full of people crashed.

Religious Perspective: God called a plane full of people home.

Unreligious Perspective: A few lucky people made it out OK.

Religious Perspective: God was watching out for them.

Unreligious Perspective: Except for that five year old kid, who'll be paralyzed and blind.

Religious Perspective: It's a test from God. (or "Who can guess God's way?")

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by c4ts


It's not entirely illogical to say that the whole of reality is subjective. I believe Berkley argued for the same thing. The only problem is that unlike Berkley, your brother in law he is rejecting the basis of logic itself. If he is correct, then nothing can be proved. If nothing can be proved, then your brother in law cannot prove his point. If he cannot prove his point, and has already made the attempt, he has failed. But he cannot fail to prove what is correct in the same sense that it is true, because that would be self-contradictory. You brother in law must admit that a contradiction can exist without being perceptible (since you have demonstrated its existence without him senseing it), or admit that he is rejecting rationality itself, rendering the entire debate meaningless (the same applies if he says contradictions do not exist). If he wants to be like UCE or Ian and keep repeating himself, just leave. this is exactly what i was looking for, thankyou!

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
this is exactly what i was looking for, thankyou!

Reality : Now everybody is happy.

My perception : this thread will go on.

Thanks,
S&S