Perception and Existence

[Pindar]

For we know, through carbon dating and other geological methods, that the Earth predates the inception of Homo Sapiens (who appeared in 100,000 years before the Common Era. That would imply that Earth has an existence/presence that predates human perception. If Earth's existence is independent of human perception, then what is the relation between the information that we get from our senses, and logical systems about what exists exterior of us, and what actually is exterior to our senses...And I know there's literally systems of thought dedicated to this, but in this age of technology and brilliant (no sarcasm applied) people like you all, we can somewhat gleam a greater light on this IMO.

 

[Psyduck]

“Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or "how"] they are, and of things that are not, that [or "how"] they are not.” (Protagoras)

 

[fridgebuzz]

I once read if we believe a lie it might as well be the truth for the impact it has. It's all about finding safe harbor in a comfortable delusion.

 

[SoCalGirl]

I need to think about this when i'm rolling.

 

[sssssssssss]

maybe the universe doesnt revolve us and our perceptions

 

[Percodeth]

sometimes when i was a kid sometimes when i am high

 

[A Blind Guy]

I may be reading this incorrectly.

You are asking what is the relation between what we perceive and what we cannot perceive?

nothing, I'd say. We have no way of linking the two together.

 

[thesoundofmotion]

I think he is asking about the validity about the things we perceive and if they hold any truth or relation to a certain "reality" about the Earth or Universe.

I would say that they hold true for us in some cases, but beyond human perception none of our concepts matter. They are all just creations of our mind.

 

[ProducedRaw]

He's talking about the map not being the territory. The information we get from our senses is not the same as the objects which we think we are sensing. I say "think we are sensing" because our minds' do not distinguish between real information coming from nerves and "imagined" information, hence dreams and trips feeling very real at times, or deleriants completely fooling our reality verification software. The best answer I can come up with based on what I know is that the "real world" is unknowable to us in terms of direct experience. The only thing that any of us have ever (unless reincarnation is real) experienced is the reality constructed in an ape's mind. Thus, the relationship is that the map of objective reality that our species has built up is a labour of deduction based on the aspects of our individual realities that appear to be universally shared, that is to say, there is no relationship between objective and subjective reality, since all reality is subjective by definition.

On the flip side...

Everything we experience is an emergent property of a physical system. We only hold one "real" point of contact, which seems to be exceedingly difficult to actually define (I suppose, in the same way that the borders of an electron are difficult to define, since it is an electrical field), from which we can sense the effects of other objects. Thus, our direct experience is in fact the very fabric of reality - it's the energy of subatomic particles dancing in unison, it's the field of energy that we call the human body. Again, there is no distinction between subjective and objective since everything is objective by definition.

Oh, and:

maybe the universe doesnt revolve [around] us and our perceptions

But the Earth sure does revolve around it's own axis, just as we revolve around our perceptions. "The universe" is a concept contained in said perceptions, thus, from the point of view of a human, the universe is a small part of perception as opposed to a container for it, and, by extension, "the universe" revolves around perception [EDIT: "the universe" IS perception].

 

[fridgebuzz]

there is no distinction between subjective and objective since everything is objective by definition.

Raw, well said.

 

[Psyduck]

^ or based on a subjective view on reality, i.e. a contingent interest in physics; physics' contingent theories about nature (which are constructed by other contingent subjective observers).

hence:

there is no distinction between subjective and objective since everything is objective by [subjective] definition.

p.s. ProducedRaw, I didn't read your whole post through.

 

[Portillo]

maybe the universe doesnt revolve us and our perceptions

Thats impossible.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ Semantics, gentlemen. I'd offer this: Our world most certainly revolves around us and our self-aware beholding of it. But who knows what the universe ultimately is, how far it extends, and who or what is in charge of it.

 

[fridgebuzz]

So okay, if we agree that everything is objective, then who are we? What am I to make of this physical self if it is not actually differentiated, and is the self I perceive an accurate reflection of its true nature? Is our impression of what we are no more than a best guess?

 

[sssssssssss]

ur a creator answer the question urself.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

Perception is simply a processing model for Existence based on accumulated experience.
Every perception is subjective and individual, though there may be similarities or commonalities.
Perception of Existence in an unbiased manner is difficult, due to the association of thought and experience, however it is not impossible.
This is most usually achieved through observation of Reality without applicable thought.

 

[IamMe90]

Perception is simply a processing model for Existence based on accumulated experience.
Every perception is subjective and individual, though there may be similarities or commonalities.
Perception of Existence in an unbiased manner is difficult, due to the association of thought and experience, however it is not impossible.
This is most usually achieved through observation of Reality without applicable thought.

I'm not sure I understand this - if you accept the Kantian divide between the phenomenal and noumenal (if you don't, I'd love to hear why - I'm not totally educated on this subject), all perceived information is "biased" in a way - biased by integrative tools such as time, space, causality - these things can't really be completely eliminated when consciously perceiving anything. Can you really get rid of your spatial, time, and causal modalities of perception and if you could, would you be able to ever communicate it in a meaningful way given that this is the way we perceive and communicate about our experience of reality?

If you perception can be totally divided from time, space, and causality and further communicated, then perhaps we can perceive things in an unbiased way - but if we can't, then isn't there an inherent disconnect between reality as we perceive and reality beyond perception? This is standard Kantian fare but it is rather powerful stuff, I think.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

Well, firstly, the idea that perceived information is biased is almost fallacious, as it's premise is implicit in the concept. Perception is intrinsically individual; of course it is biased.
Perception is, however, subject to commonalities based on the local point in Existence (the singular point involving every defining characteristic of every reality). Each of these local areas are still individual and unique.

This is why observation is key; the focus of the exercise is to receive stimuli without processing.
Self-evidence is self-evident (haha haha), but Legitimacy not only necessitates self-evidence, but infinite iteration as well.)

 

[IamMe90]

Well, firstly, the idea that perceived information is biased is almost fallacious, as it's premise is implicit in the concept. Perception is intrinsically individual; of course it is biased.

How is something "almost" fallacious and how does this actually contend what I said? The whole point is that it is implicit in the concept, commonalities in perception still say nothing about what is outside perception if everyone is locked into the same mode of perceiving things - which we are. The point is that it is not fallacious to say that perceived information is biased information, although I think a better term than "biased" would be "altered" - the point is that the form of perception is individual representation, IE whatever is being perceived by me is being "represented" to me - and if you have no access to what is being represented beyond representation...

This is why observation is key; the focus of the exercise is to receive stimuli without processing.
Self-evidence is self-evident (haha haha), but Legitimacy not only necessitates self-evidence, but infinite iteration as well.)

But I would claim that you are not really receiving stimuli if you aren't processing it at all - at the very least, you should have no way of communicating or integrating such stimuli into normal perceptual experience because this is how we communicate.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

The "almost" was something of a joke, since the blatant patency of the idea is self-aggrandizing to the point of elevating it to a philosophical concept.

Nonetheless, representation of information is shaped by perception; Observation of stimuli is solely the reception of stimuli.
Reception of stimuli is not conceptual at all; it is a physiological function.

The inexperience of Existence and the experience of the Totality of Existence are singular without distinction.