Existence and Perception

[Kilgore Trout]

I know. LOL . . . I mean, it is certainly most practical to assume "objective facts" based on majority rule. But, again, what if we are suffering from the same delusion?

Then, for all practical purposes, there really is no delusion at all.

 

[Willamena]

Reality can be and is known both objectively and subjectively by each of us, and by all of us. "Objectively" and "subjectively" describe perspectives by which we've composed the information, both "data" and "delusion", that we have about the world. But note, it's information that we have; we each have; we all have. I like to express it in terms of pictures --we can paint it one way, and compose a picture from the objective bird's eye view with no bias or subject obvious in the picture, or we can paint it another way, and compose it to represent our own view, with ourselves as observer inherent in the picture. These are pictures painted in our words, thoughts and worldviews, but pictures none the less.

But we do the painting, and they are our pictures. We are not absent from an objective perspective --we own it. It's ours to lend to others; but to "give it away" freely to the universe to own is to rob it of its power.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Then, for all practical purposes, there really is no delusion at all.

I can see that. If we are talking explicitly about practicality.

But don't we want to know the TRUTH. Isn't there some symptom, if you will, of being human, of having certain capacities and curiousities, that pushes us to demand TRUTH, even if it is impractical?

To a certain degree, isn't that why you are an atheist, because you refuse to submit to delusion, even if submitting to the delusion were more practical?

 

[Eliot Wild]

Reality can be and is known both objectively and subjectively by each of us, and by all of us. "Objectively" and "subjectively" describe perspectives by which we've composed the information, both "data" and "delusion", that we have about the world. But note, it's information that we have; we each have; we all have. I like to express it in terms of pictures --we can paint it one way, and compose a picture from the objective bird's eye view with no bias or subject obvious in the picture, or we can paint it another way, and compose it to represent our own view, with ourselves as observer inherent in the picture. These are pictures painted in our words, thoughts and worldviews, but pictures none the less.

But we do the painting, and they are our pictures. We are not absent from an objective perspective --we own it. It's ours to lend to others; but to "give it away" freely to the universe to own is to rob it of its power.

But how do we validate our perspective of the object, outside of confirming it with someone else based on their subjective perspective?

Actually, I don't usually go so far into these sorts of subjects. I am more inclined to the school of thought that if we are skeptical about absolutely everything, we sometimes lead ourselves away from truth. In other words, if I start out assuming that I don't exist or that there is no objective reality, then it just serves to distract me from more important inquiries.

However, I can certainly see how these types of questions make for interesting exercises.

 

[Copernicus]

We are taught very early that grass is green, snow is white, the sun is yellow, etc... but what if what I see as "red" you see as "blue" and another sees as "purple?" We are all taught the "name" of the "color" that we each see, but that doesn't mean our perception of the the actual color is the same in every person.

Given that we are all built by roughly the same DNA "blueprint" and that our eyes and brains are roughly the same kinds of "machines", it is reasonable to assume that everyone perceives qualia in roughly the same way. It should not bother anyone that we cannot know this in an absolute sense, since very little that we know can be known in an absolute sense. All we can know in that sense are personal experiences. BTW, you were seldom deliberately "taught" to name colors. You learned most of your vocabulary instinctively just by observing how others used language. We are programmed to acquire linguistic knowledge without overt teaching.

Could it be that "God" is the same way? We can't "compare" my perception of black to your perception of black, just like we can't compare perceptions of God. Does that mean that any perception is wrong, that all are right, or is it possible that just because we perceive something doesn't mean it actually exists?

But we can reasonably assume that we all perceive colors in the same way. We certainly associate them with other sensations. (E.g. "blue" is associated with coolness, "red" with heat). We share a common understanding of the word "God" about as well as any other word we use. There will always be disagreements around the edges, because we all have different experiences to associate with the words we use.

Perception is different from thought, right...as in perception is an awareness and thought is an idea? Does thought create reality? I mean no disrespect to God in this comparison, but because I'm thinking about a polkadotted unicorn doesn't manifest its existence. Or just because it isn't physically manifested, does it still exist because it is an idea?

Don't confuse imagination with reality. Your life can become very painful if you fall into that mental trap. The word "thought" can be defined in various ways. Perception is one component of it, but there is also memory, imagination, actuation (i.e. willfull acts), and so forth. The totality of perceptual experience is sometimes referred to as a "sensorium".

I guess what I'm trying to understand is if person A views God one way and person B views God completely different, does that make either belief in God more correct - or does it not matter? Does God become whatever the perception of Him/it is, therefore being many Gods to many people but still one God ultimately? If you choose not to believe in God, does that make His/its existence non-existent to the non-believer, not just in the persons mind, but overall in that persons reality, while still existing to believers?

It is possible to agree on a definition of what a "god" is and the kind of god that the proper name "God" refers to. If there is disagreement on meaning, then people are talking at cross purposes. God can fail to exist, i.e. be a "mythical being", in the same way that unicorns and leprechauns can fail to exist. Whether or not such beings exist is an empirical question.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I can see that. If we are talking explicitly about practicality.

But don't we want to know the TRUTH. Isn't there some symptom, if you will, of being human, of having certain capacities and curiousities, that pushes us to demand TRUTH, even if it is impractical?

To a certain degree, isn't that why you are an atheist, because you refuse to submit to delusion, even if submitting to the delusion were more practical?

I certainly strive to find and understand truth. However, the truth-value of things that are not empirically testable is forever out-of-reach.

 

[Willamena]

I certainly strive to find and understand truth. However, the truth-value of things that are not empirically testable is forever out-of-reach.

I feel compelled to point out that the truth-value of "the truth-value of things that are not empirically testable is forever out-of-reach" is not empirically testable.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I feel compelled to point out that the truth-value of "the truth-value of things that are not empirically testable is forever out-of-reach" is not empirically testable.

or in other words, as the discordians say

"It is my firm belief
That it is dangerous to hold firm beliefs"

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I feel compelled to point out that the truth-value of "the truth-value of things that are not empirically testable is forever out-of-reach" is not empirically testable.

I think this says more about what compels you than anything about my statement.

 

[Willamena]

But how do we validate our perspective of the object, outside of confirming it with someone else based on their subjective perspective?

The question implies the "given away" objective perspective, by which to measure another perspective. I was painting a different picture.

 

[Copernicus]

I feel compelled to point out that the truth-value of "the truth-value of things that are not empirically testable is forever out-of-reach" is not empirically testable.

The problem is not with the evident truth of the original statement so much as your confusion between object language and metalanguage. Philosopher's have been aware of the linguistic paradox caused by such sentences since at least the 4th century BC, which is the earliest record of the Liar Paradox. It is time to bring yourself up to date.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

We are taught very early that grass is green, snow is white, the sun is yellow, etc... but what if what I see as "red" you see as "blue" and another sees as "purple?" We are all taught the "name" of the "color" that we each see, but that doesn't mean our perception of the the actual color is the same in every person.

Could it be that "God" is the same way? We can't "compare" my perception of black to your perception of black, just like we can't compare perceptions of God. Does that mean that any perception is wrong, that all are right, or is it possible that just because we perceive something doesn't mean it actually exists?

Perception is different from thought, right...as in perception is an awareness and thought is an idea? Does thought create reality? I mean no disrespect to God in this comparison, but because I'm thinking about a polkadotted unicorn doesn't manifest its existence. Or just because it isn't physically manifested, does it still exist because it is an idea?

I guess what I'm trying to understand is if person A views God one way and person B views God completely different, does that make either belief in God more correct - or does it not matter? Does God become whatever the perception of Him/it is, therefore being many Gods to many people but still one God ultimately? If you choose not to believe in God, does that make His/its existence non-existent to the non-believer, not just in the persons mind, but overall in that persons reality, while still existing to believers?

I've gone way more philosophical than I am ready for or can understand right now but wanted to open this up for discussion/debate to hear your take. I don't expect any or all questions answered, but whatever thoughts you'd like to offer - I'll be reading.

~ sunsplash
A spiritual seeker on a quest with questions

Seeing as "god" can be whatever people want it to be (there are millions of different theories), there really isn't any "correct" perception of it; deities are really abstract concepts. Just having an opinion/belief on what that deity is doesn't make it real though.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The problem is not with the evident truth of the original statement so much as your confusion between object language and metalanguage. Philosopher's have been aware of the linguistic paradox caused by such sentences since at least the 4th century BC, which is the earliest record of the Liar Paradox. It is time to bring yourself up to date.

But since we're discussing truth, which is a matter of language at its heart, I think the statement is completely relevant.

'Sides, ain't language an object?

 

[Copernicus]

But since we're discussing truth, which is a matter of language at its heart, I think the statement is completely relevant.

Relevant to what? There are things we know to be true by virtue of the meanings of words. Empirical truths can never be known in an absolute sense, because we can never know for certain whether our perceptions correspond to reality. We know this because we sometimes discover (empirically) that they do not.

'Sides, ain't language an object?

Different sense of "object". The language that you use to define an object language is called its metalanguage. Mixing up statements in the two causes paradoxes.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Reality can be and is known both objectively and subjectively by each of us, and by all of us. "Objectively" and "subjectively" describe perspectives by which we've composed the information, both "data" and "delusion", that we have about the world. But note, it's information that we have; we each have; we all have. I like to express it in terms of pictures --we can paint it one way, and compose a picture from the objective bird's eye view with no bias or subject obvious in the picture, or we can paint it another way, and compose it to represent our own view, with ourselves as observer inherent in the picture. These are pictures painted in our words, thoughts and worldviews, but pictures none the less.

But we do the painting, and they are our pictures. We are not absent from an objective perspective --we own it. It's ours to lend to others; but to "give it away" freely to the universe to own is to rob it of its power.

In re-reading your post, I still don't have a clear understanding of how you validate objective experience.

Forgive me also, it is well after happy hour, so some of what follows might be incoherent. But how can one experience anything with "no bias"? How can we extract ourselves from the subjective point of view in observing this picture and attain a point of view that is objective?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Relevant to what? There are things we know to be true by virtue of the meanings of words. Empirical truths can never be known in an absolute sense, because we can never know for certain whether our perceptions correspond to reality. We know this because we sometimes discover (empirically) that they do not.

Truth is a word that describes a certain kind of perception about the value of something, making it language-based (since language is the primary means of communicating our experiences). If we find that there is a contradiction inherent within it, we may find value in that contradiction: "This statement is false."

Even though this is an old philosophical problem, it is certainly relevant to a discussion about Existence and Perception.

Different sense of "object". The language that you use to define an object language is called its metalanguage. Mixing up statements in the two causes paradoxes.

Sure, I was trying to be funny. (I think.) But I'm not entirely convinced that:

I feel compelled to point out that the truth-value of "the truth-value of things that are not empirically testable is forever out-of-reach" is not empirically testable.

is a problem of mixing metalanguage with object language when it is working solely within something that is language based: Truth.

For example, if I am reading this right, another way to put it is: Empirical truth can never be shown to be empirically true. Where empirical truth is a particular kind of value perception based on a pattern, if that cannot be shown to be empirically true, we have an interesting epistemological problem on our hands, don't we?

I could be missing something, though.

 

[Copernicus]

Truth is a word that describes a certain kind of perception about the value of something, making it language-based (since language is the primary means of communicating our experiences). If we find that there is a contradiction inherent within it, we may find value in that contradiction: "This statement is false."

Self-referential statements of this sort are meaningless because they lead to paradoxes. I'm not sure what value you see in the contradiction.

Even though this is an old philosophical problem, it is certainly relevant to a discussion about Existence and Perception.

In what way can a self-contradictory claim be relevant to the discussion?

 

[Willamena]

In re-reading your post, I still don't have a clear understanding of how you validate objective experience.

Regardless that an objective picture has been (or even has to be) validated, I was speaking about its nature as objective, in regard to post #19, the reply to post #18. To suggest that there is some measure of truth "owned" by the universe, against which we can validate, is to "give away" the objective perspective to the universe to own, hence rob it of some of its usefulness.

Not that we don't do that, anyway. As soon as something is "proven" to us to "be true," it gets cast across the subject/object divide and left to reside on the other side (while we wash our hands of any responsibility for its creation, but that's another story). The image of pictures I painted earlier puts the reality of that divide into perspective --that is, having a perspective on it, rather than indulging it as delusion.

Regardless that data is interpreted correctly or incorrectly, data, like everything, has a nature as objective and subjective. The words simply describe perspectives by which the data is organized. My point earlier was simply that misuse of those two terms causes more problems than whether or not the data is an "actual delusion".

Forgive me also, it is well after happy hour, so some of what follows might be incoherent. But how can one experience anything with "no bias"? How can we extract ourselves from the subjective point of view in observing this picture and attain a point of view that is objective?

One experiences; there is no bias until one interprets what one experiences. Objective refers to the picture painted that is truthful, which is to say that truth is the brush whose stokes have painted the objective picture; a picture we own in our interpretation of data.

In the instant of "experience" one interprets objectively, subjectively, left, right, turning a thing over and over in their figurative hands, looking at it from all angles and settling on some by which to de-scribe it. Objective (the bird's eye or universal view of the truth, hence reality, of it) and subjective (from our own minds and hearts) are two, I dare say the two main perspectives, by which we've interpreted.

 

[Willamena]

I could be missing something, though.

Yes; a sense of humour.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Self-referential statements of this sort are meaningless because they lead to paradoxes. I'm not sure what value you see in the contradiction.

I don't think that paradoxes are meaningless. They force us to look deeper into things. In this case, the idea of "truth" itself.

In what way can a self-contradictory claim be relevant to the discussion?

Truth is based on perception.