Reality, Perceived or Conceived?
  • BrianW
    999
    It's easy to determine the perception of phenomena which impact the senses. These may be objects/subjects manifest through forms, forces and activities which we are directly aware of because of their impact on our senses.
    However, it is difficult to state, without a degree of doubt, the awareness of objects/subjects which do not impact the senses directly or, more definitively, those derived through analytical reasoning.
    For example, a person may see a sequence of numbers on a computer screen and deduce the kind of pattern or technique in operation without 'seeing' the exact program. In such a way, we deduce character by observing actions and reactions, displays of emotions, state of mind, etc. It's as if we recognised the program which determines the persona.
    Also, we may observe an activity, e.g. the fall of an apple and deduce the presence of the force of gravity. Then, we observe the action of this force in its interaction with other phenomena and further deduce its mode of activity, its characteristics, etc.
    The latter process by which we arrive at the laws/principles which define the how of phenomena is conception because it is generated in the mind and represents objects/subjects dissimilar to the sensed objects/subjects even though it relates to them.


    Does this mean that a concept could be a real representation of reality just as any phenomena we observe?

    Also,
    how much of reality is perceived and how much is conceived?
    In other words,
    do empiricism and logic have equal grounds in determining reality?
    BrianW Options
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Sure, I think you can "get reality right" via deduction.

    Re the quantificational questions ("how much"/"are they equal"), it doesn't really seem plausible to me to quantify this.

    By the way, I'd phrase the first question as something like, "What is the balance of perception versus conception in our picture of reality?" I'd want to be careful not to suggest that reality in general somehow hinges on us/our activities (such as our perceiving and conceiving things).
    Terrapin Station Options
  • John Doe
    200
    Sure, I think you can "get reality right" via deduction. — Terrapin Station

    I think you concede too much. When I duck from a baseball about to hit my head I get reality right without having to go to the trouble of deduction.
    John Doe Options
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    ↪John Doe


    I didn't mean to imply people necessarily cogitating. "Deduction" was emphasized in the initial post, too.
    Terrapin Station Options
  • John Doe
    200
    ↪Terrapin Station
    Yeah, I gotcha. But OP starts out by declaring "it's easy to determine the perception of phenomena which impact the senses" - already gesturing towards a pretty theory-laden, empiricist account of perception - then transitions to "these may be objects/subjects manifest through forms, forces and activities which we are directly aware of because of their impact on our senses".

    We are already moving towards a picture of subjects, objects, and perception that will pretty naturally lead to the problem of deducing reality via concepts and mental representation. So when you transition the thread from deduction to the nature of a 'picture of reality', I'd say we need to stop and give a good think about perception and reality before worrying about concepts, theories, pictures, subjects, objects, representations, and so forth.
    John Doe Options
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    ↪John Doe


    I wouldn't want to just turn it into yet another idealism vs realism thread, though. We've got enough of those already.
    Terrapin Station Options
  • John Doe
    200
    ↪Terrapin Station
    Well if you want to talk about the relationship between perception and conception then I think you ought to consider perception on its own terms. Otherwise you're just conceptualizing perception off the bat. I agree that sticking a worry about 'reality' into concerns about the relationship between perception and concepts isn't particularly helpful or useful but that's how the thread was structured.
    John Doe Options
  • BrianW
    999
    Re the quantificational questions ("how much"/"are they equal"), it doesn't really seem plausible to me to quantify this. — Terrapin Station

    I mean in what relation do we perceive and/or conceive of reality. For example, say you observe a phenomenon but cannot deduce any of its characteristic features or the principles governing the expression of the phenomena. Then, how well do you understand the phenomena as a part of reality?
    On the other hand, suppose you deduce its characteristics and the principles which govern the expression of the phenomena, do you understand it better in terms of its place in reality?

    Another question would be whether our human experiences are such that we attempt to attach concepts to our perceptions and/or, we validate concepts by testing their empiricism acquired through perception. So, when we perceive something, do we naturally seek to conceive of its inner workings? And, when we have a concept, do we naturally seek to put it to practice? Is our understanding of reality dependent on such a relation?
    BrianW Options
  • BrianW
    999
    When I duck from a baseball about to hit my head I get reality right without having to go to the trouble of deduction. — John Doe

    Actually, such reactions are a consequence of prior deduction which conclude a situation to be unfavourable. They may be passed on to us more or less reflexively but, nonetheless, are a product of deduction.
    BrianW Options
  • BrianW
    999
    The reason I'm interested in this is because I've noticed a trend where people think science is distinctly different from philosophy on the basis of empiricism. However, I find that to be untrue because there's a lot of empiricism in philosophical considerations just as much as there's conceptualization in scientific endeavours.
    BrianW Options
  • John Doe
    200
    Actually, such reactions are a consequence of prior deduction which conclude a situation to be unfavourable. — BrianW

    Well if you extend the meaning of deduction so broadly that it captures the acquisition of coping skills in embodied know-how, then sure, of course. But the problem is this way of phrasing things tempts one into thinking that they can draw conclusions about some sort of conceptual or mental scaffolding going on (as you appear to do when you say "conclude a situation to be unfavourable", suggesting that you have in mind some thicker notion of conceptualization and self-consciousness).
    John Doe Options
  • BrianW
    999
    Well if you extend the meaning of deduction so broadly that it captures the acquisition of coping skills in embodied know-how — John Doe

    No, the coping is separate from the deduction. Someone or some people, at some point in time deduced the nature of certain projectiles and conveyed that information to others. By and by, it became kind of like common sense. But, all that means is there is a degree of reason in the reaction which also implies deduction.
    BrianW Options
  • John Doe
    200
    Someone or some people, at some point in time deduced the nature of certain projectiles and conveyed that information to others. By and by, it became kind of like common sense. But, all that means is there is a degree of reason in the reaction which also implies deduction. — BrianW

    So we need concepts and deduction to learn how to duck from a baseball flying towards our face? Then how do dogs and cats learn to do these things?
    John Doe Options
  • BrianW
    999
    So we need concepts and deduction to know how to duck from a baseball flying towards our face? Then how do dogs and cats learn to do these things? — John Doe

    Good question. Doesn't that mean they (cats and dogs) create concepts? Or that they have some rudimentary form of reason?
    BrianW Options
  • John Doe
    200
    ↪BrianW
    Yeah it's an interesting question nobody has the answer to. There's a huge mix of philosophers and scientists working together to better understand the issue. The two prevailing schools of thought are that either perception and conception exist along a continuum or concepts are unique to human beings and the acquisition of concepts totally transforms our basic perceptual experience of the world.

    Very generally, if you take the former view then you think that e.g. catching a frisbee doesn't involve the use of concepts, if you take the latter view then you think that concepts play a role in catching a frisbee.
    John Doe Options
  • BrianW
    999
    ↪John Doe


    I just think there are more complex forms of activity manifest in animals (especially domesticated ones) that clearly show a level of discernment and reflection beyond the normal instinctive processes.
    BrianW Options
  • Mww
    4.9k
    “do empiricism and logic have equal grounds in determining reality?“

    Yes. Empiricism informs us there is something to make determinations about, logic informs us about the correctness of them.
    Mww Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

Sign In Create Account

Categories