Do you agree that our perception is the reality surrounding us ?
- Special EPhexLv 717 hours ago
No. That is one of the biggest flaws of human observation. Perception is an 'interpretation' of the reality surrounding us, not reality, 'as it is'. Reality extends beyond the limits of our perception, which restricted to a narrow field of all there actually is. The reality "we observe", and the reality 'there is' are very distinct things, which the mind has difficulty reconciling.
What we typically call "the reality surrounding us", can be found to be an accumulation of electrical impulse signals detected by the sensory organs, traveling the nervous system to the brain, before being filtered by 'perception'. The idea that, "perception is reality", is a fundamental failure to understand both, and comes from human hubris, in assuming things cannot be any other way than how 'we see it'.
Were perception happen to be reality, our perception would never be mistaken or misled. The human mind and intellect cannot comprehend or conceive of reality, as it is, which is why perception is a necessary function of the mental faculties. At best, we can only "approximate". Reality is all there ever is, or could possibly be.
Since the mind and it's perception tend to operate in a linear fashion, it often overlooks the nonlinear, and dismisses it from the entire picture. Humans come up with all sorts of interesting concepts and ideas, based on our observation, yet the lot of them remain unresolvable and result in paradoxical contradictions, because the most critical piece is removed.
The mind is a practical tool in the material world of form, having the capacity to recognize patterns and cycles, and ascribing symbols and language to derive meaning and understanding. Because of the limitations of perception, we are prone to mistaking the "symbols" for the things they're intended to represent, which leads to "reductionism".
This makes it difficult to distinguish linear 'content' (components, specifics, details), from nonlinear 'context' (meaning, significance, implications), and why the "simulated-reality" theory fails. It is the nonlinear and always results in and effects the linear, just as the 'emptiness' of the sky allows "clouds to pass" freely; or 'silence and stillness' as the ever-present background that make "sound and motion" detectable.
'To exist' is fundamentally a nonlinear expression, as energy and matter is made to change form, which suggests that existence is 'eternal' and 'uncaused', without "beginning and end". All physical matter and energy is fundamentally made entirely out of nonphysical properties. It is out of 'formless and intangible' thought that ideas arise as "tangible form".
- 7FlightsupLv 66 days ago
Yes. When you realize that your perception is everything and not the actual thing, then you see Reality, and you disappear.
- grey_wormsLv 76 days ago
our perception is more like a mirror reflecting reality
- runningman022003Lv 71 week ago
What reality? There is only our perception.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- PLv 71 week ago
No. Perception is incomplete and unreliable. The best it can do is give us a flavour
- 1 week ago
Sensing the world gives us a sense of reality. It may not be a full sense, instead a partial sense, but its mostly all we have. We do have sensory devices such as microscopes and telescopes that extend our perceptions of reality.
There may be more to reality than what we sense, even with all our devices, but we can not say (put to words) what that reality is without it transitioning through some perceptual apparatus.
What is "real" has been a question of philosophers since the time of Plato. Now we have experimental science that dictates what is out there and in there within realities.
If you study the history of philosophy and history of science you will discover more about what is real and what is not; where we went wrong and where we our perceptions where accurate (scientifically speaking)..
I hope that makes some SENSE.
- All hatLv 71 week ago
No - it remains our perception, only. Which, hopefully, bears at least a usable correspondence TO reality, but they are distinct. Two separate things.
- Mike WLv 71 week ago
They way you word it seems more like putting the cart before the horse.
- j153eLv 71 week ago
Neither agreeing nor disagreeing, as the question imo presents a false dichotomy.
The basic idea of perceive is PIE *kap- to grasp (capisci?).
The basic idea of reality is Latin res, thing-in-itself.
If you're grasping the thing-in-itself, completely, you've got reality.
If there are five blindfolded scientists grasping parts of a Ford F-150 truck, one might conclude it's rubbery, another smooth glass, a third a metal wall, etc.
If one grasps a 5-sense phenomenon completely (a scientist grasping all over the truck), one has to determine the limit or boundary of the object or thing-in-itself. If one is grasping what the atomic-molecular structure is, one understands that Kantian 5-sense phenomena are distinct from Noumenal or thing-in-itself.
Circling around to the other end of the data (from Noumenal to atoms-molecules to what constitutes atoms), a similar grasping of geometrizations of Energy occurs.
The spectrum of perception is from Self-evident "still, small voice" of God, to 5-sense data, to instrumental data on the quantum level. Five-sense data-gathering by humans of classical objects is additionally limited (i.e., no ultraviolet, no infrared, etc.).
Kant developed a theory of perception, and it has been confirmed by contemporary neuroscience: the limited 5-sense data stream organizes information at pre-conscious levels, and as it correlates with 5-sense graspings, the two processes feed forward as "reality." https://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-04-eyes-brain....
Returning to the example of the scientist encountering an object, Descartes' point (pun, probably from Latin punctus, point, intended) is that of Mind (and Soul as participating in, reflecting, Mind's Ideas) encountering "otherness." If the scientist is in her right Mindfulness, she is as Kant, accepting her body temple's data intake at various levels (unconscious, subconscious, these forming conscious, and consciousness as reflecting simple Ideas, whereby she forms concepts of what is real).
Descartes' Mindfulness, then, is as Kierkegaard's three concurrent spheres of human awareness: Aesthetic (existential refined), Philosophic (conceptualization refined), and Spiritual (reality refined as Realization God, I Am Mind, is in this (temporal) process).
This Cartesian Mindfulness necessarily has the one-pointedness of Mind refining itself by contemplation of the 5-sense data (Schopenhauer would later state, ironically agreeing with Hegel, Schopenhauer's despised predecessor that Kant did not proceed as far as logic permits--namely, that Noumenon is accessible by observation of self).
Moving (pun intended) beyond the Mind as temporally-processing and refining sphericity was Descartes' challenge: in God-speak, moving with Spirit into world, yet sufficiently Mindful of worldliness so as to wisely (wisdom as wise dominion) elect not to become entangled or enmeshed in the worldly maya. Thus Descartes invents a whole new field (pun intended) of maths, coordinate geometry, which permits the Mindful use of quantified ordered hierarchies into, but hopefully not merely enmeshed in, the atomic or bean-counting process.
In effect, analytic geometrizing integrates euclidean space into four (or more) space-time dimensions, e.g. Riemannian geometry of relativity theory, which geometry is a further development of Cartesian analytic geometry at the more granular levels expressed as euclidean point surfaces integratable unto space-time. Thus the scientist is able to take in real-time data from various euclidean point surfaces, and, at the level of Descartes' Mind Soul reflectingness, remain Mindful in-the-world. This application of the laws of calculus is, properly, "letting this Mind abide in you, which was also in Christ Jesus," although, as Kant noted, the great majority of scientists are not of this type, but are more focused on numbers of beans, etc.
Edmund Husserl, one of the most influential and substantive philosophers, completed his Ph.D. with the dissertation "Contributions to the Calculus of Variations," which reflect Riemann's development presented in his "On the Hypotheses which Underlie Geometry" (which in turn developed Gauss' theorem that geometric curvatures embedded in our ambient 3-d euclidean space are independent of a given 3-d euclidean space).
Husserl studied psychology and philosophy of psychology, influenced by Wilhelm Wundt and Franz Bretano, and wrote "On the Philosophy of Number," which is an early basis for his mature appropriation of Kant's transcendental consciousness as pure reasoning able to soar above the 5-sense data. Husserl sometimes moves into Plato's and Descartes' Mind-Soul level of God harmony, re interpreting real-time data, especially as Husserl's "Cartesian Meditations" point him towarda Schopenhauerian and Hegelian appropriation of Kantian Noumena, i.e., the kingdom of Mind as Spirit within, able to process real-time Riemannian data matrices per Husserl's "upgrading" of hegelian phenomenology, which upgrading, imho, simply moves one's awareness into Hegel's "so-profound" awareness that, at the closing of his earthly life, he lamented only one other person had ever understood his work...and that person didn't (imo, in the sense of being able to do independent hegelian process analysis). Husserl had the same issue with most academic (mis)interpretations of his work, and the actualizing profundity of Husserl's work is testified to by a handful of his more qualified students (e.g., Eugen Fink and Edith Stein), who stated that yes, one's perceptual level is notably elevated beyond the "psychologism" type of much thinking--i.e., that Noumenon indeed constitutes a portion of transcendental consciousness. On occasion, much as Plotinus, Husserl noted he could teach God to scientists; Rene Descartes would likely have been an apt student, as bringing to the table that Mindfulness which may appreciate e.g. Riemannian geometry, which provided the numerical geometrization for Einstein's relativity work.
A further point: Alfred North Whitehead's independent development of relativity equations, and Henri Poincare's relative intuition of relativity ("The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a stationary observer as for an observer carried along in a uniform motion of translation..."), both apply the Mindful-in-time Cartesian placement of hierarchical coordinates onto objective space, and the Riemannian real-time integration of granular euclidean coordinates into space-time observer-observed movement or being-in-space-time.
Thus much of the fruit of Descartes, Kant, Gauss, Riemann (even Hegel and Schopenhauer), and Husserl is commonly appreciated as einsteinian space-time relativity, which general concept was in the early 20th century scientific Zeitgeist as evidenced by Whitehead and Poincare. However, as the genius of the discoverers is proportionally replaced by scientistic focus on atom-measuring, the later work of Husserl, among others, including Bergson, is germane, namely, what Wittgenstein said generally of philosophy and science: either the philosopher has a husserlian awareness and appreciation for transcendental consciousness, even unto Descartes' Mind Soul awareness as extending into space-time, or the philosopher herself becomes reductionist, psychologistic, to the focus level of what Kant predicted most scientists would prefer and per competition necessarily gravitate to--what Husserl in his "The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Philosophy" termed the "Galilean error"--a move by science away from Hegel's insights given in his "The Phenomenology of Spirit."
So, when one contemplates reality and perception, there are accomplished levels of perception, demonstrated by the works of geniuses such as Plato, Plotinus, Descartes, Hegel, Gauss, Schopenhauer, Riemann, Husserl, Poincare, Einstein, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein, which offer "transcendental" or Jacob's ladder of divine ascent insight and kierkegaardian refining of the concurrent spheres of being-in-the-world, being-in-space-time but not only of it. One of the insights of Newton's and Leibniz' calculus of integration and differentiation, as extended by Riemann, Einstein, and others, is that "letting this Mind abide in you which was also in Christ Jesus" may be experienced even as moment-by-moment insights of zen-like flashes of illumination. Husserl's "Crisis" is one significant attempt to more properly handle transcendental consciousness, not simply as invention but also expressing the Source of divine intention. It is well to handle such portentous words as God, Mind, Soul, Space, Time, Causality, Reality, and the like with some measure of understanding of those genuine great investigators, who, like Jacob or Saint Paul, knew something of Mind beyond the reductive or existential stimulus-response condition, for, inasmuch as one does, one has at least some actual or genuine Cartesian or Platonic appreciation of Noumenon or Noesis. The current meme of "cultural (mis)appropriation" may illustrate this a la Saint Jude's "These are the rocks (spilades, somewhat mistranslated as 'spots'--Saint Peter's word spiloi is more properly 'spots') in your feasts of love [as in love of wise dominion, or authenticity reflecting Spirit of Truth]...." (Jude 1:12).
Thus, imho, a humble and genuine philosophizing or thinking of and regarding things--such as Quee Nelson's "The Slightest Philosophy"--is often more justified than using terms referencing the genuine types of transcendental awareness referenced above.
- tizzoseddyLv 61 week ago
No. Perception is the mind's experience of only those physical realities to which the senses react.