However, can something really exist outside of any organism's field of perception? — Samuele
If we somehow expanded our set of senses to sense everything, would the number of things that we could perceive still be finite? Would that set coincide with the set of everything that exists? — Samuele
Given a brain with infinite computational power, would such a being "benefit" from being able to perceive everything? — Samuele
It feels like reality is just all that we can perceive. It sometimes feels to me like it's not independent of our perception. Would anything even exist if there were no observers out there to *feel* it in some way? What does the universe really "look" like free of limitations in perception by imperfect beings like us? — Samuele
perceiving an infinite number of things would take infinitely long. — Echarmion
But aren't we perceiving multiple stimulae simultaneously already? When you hear and see something at the same time, it doesn't take longer to process those two just because it's two different senses. You can feel someone touching your hand even while you're tasting something.
Wouldn't a brain with infinitely much processing power be able to perceive infinitely many things (or stimulae coming from infinitely many "senses") simultaneously? — Samuele
If we now restrict the meaning of "perceiving" to our senses (which, by the way, are by now known to be more than the usually stated five), it becomes apparent that there are lots of things that exist and cannot be perceived.
Take electromagnetic fields. There are some animals (some species of birds) that have a sense that allows them to *feel* electromagnetic fields.
In the past, I read about an experiment in which scientists gave a subject a belt to wear that would vibrate according to electromagnetic field presence. Eventually, that man seemed to have developed a way to sense those fields even without the belt.
If we somehow expanded our set of senses to sense everything, would the number of things that we could perceive still be finite? Would that set coincide with the set of everything that exists? — Samuele
We can, and often do, even cross reference these different perceptual modes according to this perceived space; you might see a bird and hear it, and perceive that the bird you see is making that song... both percepts subjectively feel like they are "in the same place". I'm not sure how far this goes, but this subjective perceived space seems like a type of "glue" of our senses. — InPitzotl
My original question was actually more on a “lower level,” as in less abstract. I am debating whether what we perceive on a sensory level is actually a reliable representation of reality or if it’s just completely made up by our minds. — Samuele
This seems to be a definitions issue to me, and it seems a bit simplistic.We're not really seeing individual objects around us, we are sensing differences in electromagnetic radiation, and using some sort of logic to conclude boundaries between things, and we claim to "see" or "sense" distinct objects. In reality the distinct objects are created by some sort of logical process and are not actually "sensed".
There is sensation, and there is perception, and there is logic. To me, it appears you're attributing perception to logic, but it's very distinct from logic. Logic is something you could sit down and write up in natural language, which can then be scrutinized... the process by which "bird" is presented to you digested as "bird" is not this kind of thing.
The way I use the terms, and there's a reason for it, "perception" is part of "sensation"; so I have no problems saying that you "sense" the bird. — InPitzotl
Not exactly. What I'm sensing is cochlea hairs bending. An organ is mapping sounds (say, vibrations of my eardrum) to physical locations in the cochlea (via the hammer/anvil/stirrup/cochlea shape+fluid systems). That may sound like a nit pick, but I think it's perfectly fine to distinguish sensation at this level if you choose... but if you do so, you can't really say we're sensing sound, because we just plain aren't. We're sensing specific frequencies formed by sound (as produced by this sensory organ, which in my mind amounts to a bio-physical computer calculating the frequency components of sounds)... that's it.What you are sensing is some sounds.
I think you're confused on a few levels. I referred to natural language; formal logic uses formal language. So this isn't about formal logic versus informal.The only way to conclude that the sounds are coming from a bird is to employ some form of logic. Not all logic is formal logic. If it helps, instead of "logic" we could call it some form of reasoning.
That leads to the second point... perception "nominally" may lead to conclusions, but doesn't have to, and quite often does not. When I watch a movie I "see" objects moving on my screen, but I don't believe they are actually there, nor do I believe they are moving. And if I watch a magic show, I may perceive all kinds of oddities going on, but not conclude they actually are; likewise if I flip through books of optical illusions. What we're talking about isn't what's being concluded, it's what is behind a percept.if we do not separate these two, we cannot account for the fact that we make mistakes in determining "what" we are sensing.
Dark matter can't be perceived. It's existence is inferred from indirect gravitational effects. Can you accept that it exists?If something can't be perceived and there are no ways to measure it with tools, can it exist? — Samuele
Not exactly. What I'm sensing is cochlea hairs bending. An organ is mapping sounds (say, vibrations of my eardrum) to physical locations in the cochlea (via the hammer/anvil/stirrup/cochlea shape+fluid systems). That may sound like a nit pick, but I think it's perfectly fine to distinguish sensation at this level if you choose... but if you do so, you can't really say we're sensing sound, because we just plain aren't. We're sensing specific frequencies formed by sound (as produced by this sensory organ, which in my mind amounts to a bio-physical computer calculating the frequency components of sounds)... that's it. — InPitzotl
Perception is not "natural reasoning"; it's entirely distinct. — InPitzotl
What we're talking about isn't what's being concluded, it's what is behind a percept. — InPitzotl
think that's the level that you're missing... you go straight from "sensation" to "conclusion" via "reasoning"; in a sense, so do I. — InPitzotl
But the ability to define and talk about such objects I think is what you're missing, so that's my advantage. — InPitzotl
Because somehow I think that emotions, feelings, and thoughts are probably just a way for our brain to condition itself to take the more advantageous route, but can this be proven beyond doubt to be the case? — Samuele
I think you're severely confused about the very subject of the conversation.I think that if you believe that you can talk about what you're sensing, without using some sort of reasoning to make conclusions about what you're sensing, then you are absolutely mistaken.
And? Just because I describe something using reasoning doesn't mean the thing I describe uses reasoning. If I see a rock rolling down a hill towards a car, I might reason that it would hit it; but that doesn't mean the rock is employing reasoning to hit the car.How can you say this? Clearly you are referring to conclusions. You are making conclusions that the objects are on the movie screen and not actually there.
I recognize this argument as valid. But I reject the premise: "'recognition' requires some form of natural reason." So I don't recognize that it's a sound argument."Perception" requires some form of recognition, and "recognition" requires some form of natural reason. Suppose a creature sees something as an object of food, that is a case of perception. But to see it as such, something to eat, requires recognition and therefore some form of natural reason.
What's happening, instead, is exactly what I told you is happening... there's a huge juicy chunk of calculations being performed pre-rationally on those million channels of data. — InPitzotl
And? Just because I describe something using reasoning doesn't mean the thing I describe uses reasoning. If I see a rock rolling down a hill towards a car, I might reason that it would hit it; but that doesn't mean the rock is employing reasoning to hit the car. — InPitzotl
When I look at a peripheral drift illusion, I see motion. The thing that leads me to see motion is a pre-rational judgment; and that thing is multiple levels above the cones being stimulated by photons reflected from the image. Digital cameras alone don't in any meaningful sense sense "objects" or "motion"; neither does the eye. To get from those "eye pixel" analogs to this pre-rational judgment that something's moving requires tons of analysis, but that analysis is nevertheless pre-rational, not a result of "natural reasoning". — InPitzotl
I recognize this argument as valid. But I reject the premise: "'recognition' requires some form of natural reason." So I don't recognize that it's a sound argument. — InPitzotl
The calculations that take the stimulation of individual cones when I look at that peripheral drift illusion to a recognition of motion definitely do occur; but they are pre-rational. — InPitzotl
Relationship between what is perceived and what exists — Samuele
Thank you for the post, Samuele. You are a very bright young man. — Noah Te Stroete
If this were all that emotions, feelings, and thoughts were for, then how do you explain philosophy? What survival advantage does philosophy have? — Noah Te Stroete
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.