About perception
lolfighter
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">A reply for Crispy</div>Crispy posted a comment on my "user page." I wrote him a PM reply, but couldn't send it to him as his inbox is full. Thus, a thread. Crispy originally made <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=103801&view=findpost&p=1671777" target="_blank">this post</a> to which I made <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=103801&view=findpost&p=1671779" target="_blank">this reply</a> to which he replied this on my "user page":
<!--QuoteBegin-Crispy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you really missed the point of what I was saying. Once you accept that your own perception as a basis for truthseeking is not identical to anyone else's, even having the potential to be completely voided via the subjective medium of your conscious/subconscious mind, you may come to doubt that what I see and what you see are one and the same.
It's only our interpretation<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should send messages like these as a PM, that makes it more likely that people will notice them.
I don't think I missed the point of what you were saying, I just chose to be cheeky and point out a flaw in your example. But on a more serious note, why should I accept that my own perception is not identical to anyone else's? Evidence suggests otherwise. I point at that colour, and we both agree it's blue. I point at that colour, and we both agree it's red. We mix them, and we both agree that the resultant colour is purple. We stick our hands in a fire and we both agree that it's hot and painful. Nothing suggests that our perceptions are not identical. Sure, we could presume that the colour that we both call blue is actually green to you, only you've been taught to call it blue. But of what consequence is that? No practical one, it appears. The colour that you call blue mixed with the colour you call red results in the colour you call purple, and even if those colours are different for me the results are the same, so we can't verify this nor does it mean anything.
MEASURABLE differences in perception, like red/green colourblindness, are of much greater concern to me. There's no question that a person who can't distinguish between red and green perceives visual stimuli different from the way I do, and we even have medical explanations for why this is. Why presume differences in perception where nothing suggests they are present when actual, verifiable differences in perception exist?
<!--QuoteBegin-Crispy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you really missed the point of what I was saying. Once you accept that your own perception as a basis for truthseeking is not identical to anyone else's, even having the potential to be completely voided via the subjective medium of your conscious/subconscious mind, you may come to doubt that what I see and what you see are one and the same.
It's only our interpretation<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should send messages like these as a PM, that makes it more likely that people will notice them.
I don't think I missed the point of what you were saying, I just chose to be cheeky and point out a flaw in your example. But on a more serious note, why should I accept that my own perception is not identical to anyone else's? Evidence suggests otherwise. I point at that colour, and we both agree it's blue. I point at that colour, and we both agree it's red. We mix them, and we both agree that the resultant colour is purple. We stick our hands in a fire and we both agree that it's hot and painful. Nothing suggests that our perceptions are not identical. Sure, we could presume that the colour that we both call blue is actually green to you, only you've been taught to call it blue. But of what consequence is that? No practical one, it appears. The colour that you call blue mixed with the colour you call red results in the colour you call purple, and even if those colours are different for me the results are the same, so we can't verify this nor does it mean anything.
MEASURABLE differences in perception, like red/green colourblindness, are of much greater concern to me. There's no question that a person who can't distinguish between red and green perceives visual stimuli different from the way I do, and we even have medical explanations for why this is. Why presume differences in perception where nothing suggests they are present when actual, verifiable differences in perception exist?
Comments
Lets just say that this is a native speaker vs non native speaker misunderstanding!
<i>edit: I'm dumb.</i>
But... really... who cares...
Durr. Musta been tired/not reading when I posted that.
But yeah, not sure the point of this thread, and I agree with Xyth. I think everyone has considered this at one time.
Wouldn't it be nice if UWE sent you an email to tell you this, or somewhere there was some alert to indicate this were the case?
/wonders how many PMs he's been unable to receive and for how long... [EDIT] Cleared out half my inbox.
---
Colour perception was the original proof of 'reality' put forward by Swiftspear to validate Quaunaut's EA 'FACTs'. Even if you believe the 'black' argument to show it to be flawed, the general concept that our inner beast can subvert what we experience to any extreme was basically what I was trying to communicate.
The 'black' flaw can actually be completely ruled out if you take the fundamentalist stance that nothing exists outside of your mind, since your mind is required to process all external information. Therefore everything that exists is interpreted through your mind. This obviously can be shown to extend to how we/you understand or explain how colours and sight work. It could be that you're/we're not ready to understand the real truth behind it (anyone remember the bit in Physics where they told you that everything you learnt for the past 4 years was a total lie that was simplified to make it easier to comprehend?).
Anyway the whole Post-Modern debate gets very tiring when you take it to extremes, because it puts forward no answers, it only exists to disprove the concept of an 'answer'. This is more useful when talking about more subjective-heavy experiences like art, film, music and literature, but even then it can tend to grate a bit. I'm kinda sorry to have brought it up at all.
Hopefully I can make it batter by recommending a film called <i>Memento</i> which explores the notions of subjectivity and 'training'. I'm sure plenty have seen it, but anyone who was interested in this topic would do well to watch it.
... and I'll let the poor horse rest in peace now.
... and I'll let the poor horse rest in peace now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No you're not! I am the brain in the laboratory and you are a result of the stimuli!
At any rate: Does it matter?
Its all about perception. For example: Take some delicious marzipan or fudge and then form it into a poo-like shape. Offer it to strangers/friends/family members. Alot of people wont touch it, because it looks like poo. And those who touch and eat it are the ones, that realize that there is a difference between reality and perception <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Edit: Back to the brain in the lab: Even if you find prove that you are inside the matrix, it could still mean that as part of its program the matrix decided to let you find that prove and you just managed to penetrate the first layer of your artificial reality. You can never know how many layers and fail-saves there are.
although i think i understand the gist of what you are saying your argument being:
*<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->why should I accept that my own perception is not identical to anyone else's?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Premise (1)
*<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I point at that colour, and we both agree it's blue. I point at that colour, and we both agree it's red. We mix them, and we both agree that the resultant colour is purple.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The actual labels of the colors whatever they are hold absolutely no consequence to visual perception. Why do i say this? Because there is know way of knowing that we aren't all being fooled by a great deceiver. A scientist in neurophysiology can apply different electrodes to your body and have you stare at a blank white wall. After manipulating his control panel you will find that the wall is now "blue" "green" "yellow" or whatever else the scientist wants it to be. <i>Ceteris Paribus</i> if we are being fooled by a great deciever, those spools of paint on your palette could actually simply be grey blobs. If you mix grey with grey what do you get? grey. You are both only tricked into believing that it actually possesses a color.
Premise (2)
*<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We stick our hands in a fire and we both agree that it's hot and painful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may be true but how do you know that the next time you stick your hand in the fire it wont be painful? The fire and its properties are surely subject to change aren't they? Yes of course they are just as all else in this world. Based on a starkly finite number of tests (one) you and your friend both conclude and generalize that for every fire you stick your hand in you will be burned but until you complete an <b>Infinite</b> number of tests you will never find out that maybe your hand won't get burned.
*<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->MEASURABLE differences in perception<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't even know if it is possible to measure differences in perception.
Also an interesting thing about the definition of the word "knowledge"
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Knowledge is a justified true belief - Plato<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scepticism spawns out of that statement because a global sceptic would say that we don't have enough justification for anything
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and I'll let the poor horse rest in peace now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately this horse is VERY VERY much alive. I wish it were dead so i could have some answers.
Of course even with the <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/hive5.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::hive::" border="0" alt="hive5.gif" />s in the vat theory we have to postulate why a brain is even in the vat in the first place. And if the people feeding you external stimuli are being fed external stimuli themselves because they to are <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/hive5.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::hive::" border="0" alt="hive5.gif" />s in vats. A hall of mirrors if you will.
Ultimately it seems as if there is almost no way of knowing the answer to many of the things philosophers argue about. I mean, people are still stuck on Zeno's Paradox's.
My 2cents.
Good discussion topics, Intelligent off-topic hooray.
*Edit, I'll source the ideas for some of my points later but I have to dig through some notes to find them.
At any rate: Does it matter?
Its all about perception. For example: Take some delicious marzipan or fudge and then form it into a poo-like shape. Offer it to strangers/friends/family members. Alot of people wont touch it, because it looks like poo. And those who touch and eat it are the ones, that realize that there is a difference between reality and perception <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or they're the hungry ones, or the people who can't control their appetite, or the ones with bad eyesight who can't tell that it looks like poop. Similarly the ones who won't touch it might not like fudge of marzipan or may have been offered something suspect by you earlier or may not be hungry or whatever.
The point I'm making is that you can make something much more complex than it needs to be just by bringing in extraneous information that is theoretically relevant but in reality superfluous. You (Faskalia) haven't done this but I think it's safe to say that a number of other people have.
Gettier came up with a couple of examples which proved this was crap.
Frankly, who cares about any of this? If you do, why?
Frankly, who cares about any of this? If you do, why?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt that he actually proved (wholly and truly) it was false but you just can't call things crap and not explain.
If anything it is interesting literature and it provides many different ism's for secularists to cling to. Not to mention philosophy was the foundation for much of higher education in the world today,
Okay, he proved that justification, truth and belief don't necessarily provide knowledge and you need something else along with it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If anything it is interesting literature and it provides many different ism's for secularists to cling to. Not to mention philosophy was the foundation for much of higher education in the world today<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This kind of stuff is completely pointless though.
This kind of stuff is completely pointless though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting literature, higher education, and ism's are pointless?
Being sceptical is pointless.
I give up you just label something unnecessary and don't provide any reasoning to support it. While I'm left to ask questions about what you mean.
Here is what I've summed up about what you think:
College is pointless >you've somehow linked these two to scepticism
Literature is pointless
Beliefs (isms such is hinduism buddhism judaism christianism sceptecism agnosticism and atheism) are pointless
I don't see any further reason to discuss this topic further with someone who thinks this way.
James Randi might have a few choice words for you over that...
Literature is pointless
Beliefs (isms such is hinduism buddhism judaism christianism sceptecism agnosticism and atheism) are pointless<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said any of this, at all. All I said was scepticism is pointless. My reasoning behind that is the following:
You realise the world is a lie.
Can't escape.
You act the same.
OR
You realise the world isn't a lie.
No need to escape.
You act the same.
Simply put the world I perceive seems, to me, to be real. Why should I pretend it to be anything different? How does this improve anything? Even if I decide that the whole world <b>is</b> a lie, how does it help in the slightest?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If anything it is interesting literature and it provides many different ism's for secularists to cling to. Not to mention philosophy was the foundation for much of higher education in the world today.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This kind of stuff is completely pointless though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=103903&view=findpost&p=1672137" target="_blank">Actually you did say those things were pointless by directly quoting them and thus stating so.</a> You didn't say scepticism was pointless in until a post after. I'm done.
42
IN FACT, our innate curiosity means that most of us will in fact independently verify that fire is hot each time we come across an instance of it, as this can typically be done with low risk and no damage. And every time, fire turns out to be hot. This so consistently verifies as true that any of us, were we suddenly confronted with something that appears to be fire but is not hot, would be very confused and suspect that this is in fact not fire at all, but something else that looks like it.
If this world is an illusion, it's a damn good one with seemingly flawless internal consistency. But hey, <a href="http://xkcd.com/10/" target="_blank">you never know.</a>
You realise the world is a lie.
Can't escape.
You act the same.
OR
You realise the world isn't a lie.
No need to escape.
You act the same.
Simply put the world I perceive seems, to me, to be real. Why should I pretend it to be anything different? How does this improve anything? Even if I decide that the whole world <b>is</b> a lie, how does it help in the slightest?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->*le cough* go go false dilemma! First off, you are not open to the option of actually taking the consequences of skepticism (at least not in the two options above). Second, skepticism need not question the existence of the entire world at once.
Lolfighter, even if it's consistent and 'steady' now, how do we know it won't suddenly and spontaniously change <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />?
* DHP sneaks out Hume and the problem of induction.
And don't capitalise my name, you know better. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
And don't capitalise my name, you know better. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><u><i><b>LOL</b></i></u>fighter, *innocent whistle* on what do you base this likelihood? On the huge amount of cases we know of where we have experienced that fire is hot? First off, a skeptic might question if these cases actually happened, is your memory working? Can you argue that it is without relying on memory to tell you so? Second, a skeptic might argue that these cases does not count much against the infinite number of cases that is yet to come where we don't know. Edit: he might also argue that you cannot rely on other people's experiences, as what you're trying to prove is precisely the external world, of which other people are a part of.
Also, go read Hume, you might agree with him. On one hand he says that we cannot know anything with certainty, on the other hand he says that we assume these things (mainly causality) out of habit.
While the finite amount of cases where fire has been hot and painful don't count much against the infinite amount of cases that are to come, they DO count a whole lot against the single case of "is fire going to be hot and painful tomorrow?" And at least the "hot" part will be easy to verify.
So let's say that, based on the X previous cases where fire has been hot and painful, we assume that fire will be hot and painful tomorrow (thursday). Tomorrow, we verify that fire is indeed hot, and since it appears to be very hot indeed we deduce that it would be painful to stick our hand in it, though we prudently decide not to test that. So we now have X+1 cases of fire being hot and painful, which we can weigh against the single case of fire being hot and painful on friday. On friday we repeat the exercise, and once again conclude that fire is hot and painful. X+2 now. And we can just keep going like this for as long as we like until one day we suddenly run into fire that is not hot and painful, and we then start looking for explanations (Are the nerves in my hand deadened? Is this a cunning optical illusion? Am I dreaming? etc.). Considering the X cases of fire being hot and painful, as well as our understanding of fire being an exothermic process, it is likely that it is going to continue being hot and painful for any timeframe we care to choose.