Existence and Perception

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes; a sense of humour.

I hope not.

 

[Willamena]

I hope not.

(It's okay; you were just playing off those who do.)

 

[logician]

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

I don't think collective reality depends upon individual perception, which afterall itself changes greatly with experiences, age, drug use, etc.:sleep:

 

[Copernicus]

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

Paradoxical statements caused by self-referential language lack truth values. Philosophers have been investigating the nature of truth and paradoxes for a long time. They are essentially linguistic parlor tricks. That's not to say that they haven't played a role in mysticism and religion. However, you still need to explain how they are relevant to the topic at hand.

Truth is based on perception.

Not always. Take a look at the analytic-synthetic distinction in Wikipedia. Basically, analytic truths are based on conventional meanings. So we know that "Boys are male" is always true under conventional meanings for "boy" and "male" no matter what your perceptions are. Statements about the world cannot be known to be true in an absolute sense, but we can infer truthful claims about reality based on perception. So, when we say that synthetic propositions are true (e.g. "Venus is a planet"), we claim to know such things because we believe them beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Paradoxical statements caused by self-referential language lack truth values. Philosophers have been investigating the nature of truth and paradoxes for a long time. They are essentially linguistic parlor tricks. That's not to say that they haven't played a role in mysticism and religion. However, you still need to explain how they are relevant to the topic at hand.

I have been trying to explain. This is a thread about truth and perception:

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?

And I am saying:

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."

While I understand that Willamena may have been using the "empirical truth" paradox for the sake of humor, I think it reveals some important stuff about our language and understanding of truth, as the old and new philosophers have always been gnawing on.

Just like we have.

Not always. Take a look at the analytic-synthetic distinction in Wikipedia. Basically, analytic truths are based on conventional meanings. So we know that "Boys are male" is always true under conventional meanings for "boy" and "male" no matter what your perceptions are. Statements about the world cannot be known to be true in an absolute sense, but we can infer truthful claims about reality based on perception. So, when we say that synthetic propositions are true (e.g. "Venus is a planet"), we claim to know such things because we believe them beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, analytical truths are still dependent on experience; language is about definition, and definition comes about through experience. Experience is internalized perception.

Let's take the "boys are male" example. It is a conventional definition that boys=male. It is learned, though repeated exposure that young humans with penises (boys) are of the male gender, and young humans without penises (girls) are of the female gender. In the same way, one may make the synthetic truth-claim that "boys are gross." This is also learned, and in much the same way. There is a qualitative difference, but it is quite amazing how that breaks down when we start breaking down the biology of human sexuality and discover that in some ways, a gender dichotomy just doesn't line up with other forms of analysis (human sexuality).

 

[Copernicus]

However, analytical truths are still dependent on experience; language is about definition, and definition comes about through experience. Experience is internalized perception.

I don't think that you understand the point. The language that you use determines the truth of an analytic proposition. The language that you use does not determine the truth of a synthetic proposition. The distinction has nothing to do with how one learns a language.

Let's take the "boys are male" example. It is a conventional definition that boys=male. It is learned, though repeated exposure that young humans with penises (boys) are of the male gender, and young humans without penises (girls) are of the female gender...

It does not matter how word meanings are learned. What matters is whether one meaning entails the other after the word meanings have been learned.

In the same way, one may make the synthetic truth-claim that "boys are gross." This is also learned, and in much the same way. There is a qualitative difference, but it is quite amazing how that breaks down when we start breaking down the biology of human sexuality and discover that in some ways, a gender dichotomy just doesn't line up with other forms of analysis (human sexuality).

The meaning of the word "boy" includes the meaning of "male". The meaning of "boy" does not include the meaning of "gross". Synthetic propositions can only be verified by observing the real word, whereas one does not need to observe anything to