Worldview

[RestlessSoul]

Agreed.

I would say my belief that my senses are correct is based on reason and logic,; none of which constitutes a world view.

How does logic and reason bring you to that conclusion?

 

[Kfox]

Who says it is possible to "transcend the limits of human cognition"???

nobody

 

[Kfox]

The cognitive sciences don't support your opinion unfortunately.

Do you experience squares A and B as the same colour? Our brain doesn't work the way you wish it did.

Yes; optical illusions are a real thing, but the vast majority of things I experience I have no choice but to believe they are real; otherwise life becomes unlivable.

 

[PureX]

What is a worldview? And is this something that only applies to religious people?

It refers to a person's conception of reality. And we all have one.

 

[Kfox]

How does logic and reason bring you to that conclusion?

Each of my 5 senses are confirmed by each other, and when I sense something, everybody around me senses the same thing.

 

[Kfox]

It refers to a person's conception of reality. And we all have one.

Yeah; I think part of the problem is the name, worldview sounds like it is your view of the world (hence the name); but it is obviously much more than your view of the world from what everybody is saying.

 

[PureX]

Yeah; I think part of the problem is the name, worldview sounds like it is your view of the world (hence the name); but it is obviously much more than your view of the world from what everybody is saying.

True, it also refers to how we see our place within it. So it's not just a view 'outward', it's also from 'above'.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Each of my 5 senses are confirmed by each other, and when I sense something, everybody around me senses the same thing.

Really? Ever been to a football match? Because if you ask 100 football fans, or 1000, who've all been to the same game to tell you what they've just witnessed, you'll get 100 or 1000 different stories.

 

[Kfox]

Really? Ever been to a football match? Because if you ask 100 football fans, or 1000, who've all been to the same game to tell you what they've just witnessed, you'll get 100 or 1000 different stories.

Yeah; at a football game you’ve got a thousand different things going on at once, but nobody can notice all 1,000, maybe 200. But the 200 things you notice will not be the same 200 the guy next to you notices. So even though you may not notice everything going on around you, what you do notice is real/correct.

 

[Augustus]

Yes; optical illusions are a real thing, but the vast majority of things I experience I have no choice but to believe they are real; otherwise life becomes unlivable.

The point is why they work. They work because your brain has to balance accuracy with efficiency and thus has to fill in perceptual gaps.

In other areas of life, which are far more ambiguous and open to (mis) interpretation, we are even more reliant on filling in gaps and perceptual biases.

You can’t see inside people’s minds so you guess at their motivations and judge them. You have very limited knowledge of world events, so you rely heavily on partial information filtered through ideological and experiential lenses. You can’t experience the world and everything in it as the meaningless interaction of atoms in space and time, so you create subjective sources of meaning where none exists.

Like optical illusions, you experience them as real, even if you know they are just illusions.

The idea you don’t have a worldview as you have been unaffected by your culture, socialisation and experiences, that you have complete access to information meaning you don’t need to fill in gaps with guesswork, that you have purely rational processing abilities unaffected by personality, beliefs, values, needs and expectations and can therefore just take everything on its merits and see them as they are is just a conceit.

If you don’t think those are true of you, then you see things through a lens, and this lens distorts events to a degree that depends on the events in question.

 

[nPeace]

I’m not confused, it’s just that based on how you’ve described it, a worldview is something I don’t have. You mentioned a worldview as a biased lens? All lenses distort reality to various degrees (the clearer the lens, the less distortion), and protects what’s behind it. I don’t want a lens to protect and distort my reality, I would rather experience what is real without a protective lens.

That was not me. I didn't say that. I asked a question.
A worldview does not have to be biased. A worldview requires views, opinions, ideas, etc., to exist.
It doesn't come out of nowhere, and form views, opinions, ideas, etc., but after it develops, it can shape your views, opinions, ideas, etc

You so much want to not have a worldview, d you.

 

[nPeace]

I’m an atheist, and am more than happy to defend my position

Oh good. Then, we're on.

 

[nPeace]

I disagree. I believe various people will experience the same thing as it is, but they will disagree on how they judge it. But just because they disagree in their way of judgment does not mean they are not seeing it for what it is

I agree with you on this one.
There is a worldview that exists, which says there is no truth in an absolute sense, and no one can know truth, or claim a monopoly on it.
This is a common worldview, which dominates most of humanity, and their thinking.

 

[nPeace]

The cognitive sciences don't support your opinion unfortunately.

Do you experience squares A and B as the same colour? Our brain doesn't work the way you wish it did.

They are not.
Don't be duped. They are not the same shade of gray. The letters are the same shade as the squares.

 

[Augustus]

They are not.
Don't be duped. They are not the same shade of gray. The letters are the same shade as the squares.

They are the same

Print them or use the colour dropper tool on your computer.

Or just google it.

It’s a great illusion

 

[Kfox]

The point is why they work. They work because your brain has to balance accuracy with efficiency and thus has to fill in perceptual gaps.

In other areas of life, which are far more ambiguous and open to (mis) interpretation, we are even more reliant on filling in gaps and perceptual biases.

You can’t see inside people’s minds so you guess at their motivations and judge them. You have very limited knowledge of world events, so you rely heavily on partial information filtered through ideological and experiential lenses. You can’t experience the world and everything in it as the meaningless interaction of atoms in space and time, so you create subjective sources of meaning where none exists.

Like optical illusions, you experience them as real, even if you know they are just illusions.

The idea you don’t have a worldview as you have been unaffected by your culture, socialisation and experiences, that you have complete access to information meaning you don’t need to fill in gaps with guesswork, that you have purely rational processing abilities unaffected by personality, beliefs, values, needs and expectations and can therefore just take everything on its merits and see them as they are is just a conceit.

If you don’t think those are true of you, then you see things through a lens, and this lens distorts events to a degree that depends on the events in question.

Can we agree even though optical illusion is real, 99.9% of the time, what our 5 senses tell us is correct? Can we agree that we agree in the real world we must believe what our senses tells us otherwise life becomes unlivable? That when your senses tell you that you are about to pick up a pencil, that it isn't a dangerous snake you are about to pick up? That when you are about to eat something, it is the food as it appears and not a cyanid tablet that will kill you? That when you are walking across a bridge, the protective guard rail is actually there and you are not in danger of accidentally falling to your death? That when you are driving down the road, and it appears you are in the correct lane, going the correct direction; that you aren’t actually driving into incoming traffic? As I said before, in the real world, we must assume things are as they appear according to our 5 senses; otherwise life becomes unlivable.

 

[Kfox]

That was not me. I didn't say that. I asked a question.
A worldview does not have to be biased. A worldview requires views, opinions, ideas, etc., to exist.
It doesn't come out of nowhere, and form views, opinions, ideas, etc., but after it develops, it can shape your views, opinions, ideas, etc

You so much want to not have a worldview, d you.

If you were to replace the word “worldview” with “opinion”, and opinion with worldview; everything you said would make perfect sense to me. I think we are in agreement, we are just using different words to describe the same thing. It’s not that I don’t want to have a worldview; it’s just that to me it sounds indistinguishable from what I refer to as my opinion.

 

[Augustus]

Can we agree even though optical illusion is real, 99.9% of the time, what our 5 senses tell us is correct? Can we agree that we agree in the real world we must believe what our senses tells us otherwise life becomes unlivable? That when your senses tell you that you are about to pick up a pencil, that it isn't a dangerous snake you are about to pick up? That when you are about to eat something, it is the food as it appears and not a cyanid tablet that will kill you? That when you are walking across a bridge, the protective guard rail is actually there and you are not in danger of accidentally falling to your death? That when you are driving down the road, and it appears you are in the correct lane, going the correct direction; that you aren’t actually driving into incoming traffic? As I said before, in the real world, we must assume things are as they appear according to our 5 senses; otherwise life becomes unlivable.

Your senses are a functional evaluation of the parts of our surroundings that we have evolved to be sensitive too.

They function well enough to keep us alive most of the time, but keeping us alive requires biases, heuristics and energy saving shortcuts. They are not a "true" reflection of reality, just a limited approximation of some of it.

How "correct" they are depends on many factors, including experience and learning (and worldview). How you react to a potential threat depends on many things and is often subconscious.

But even if , for the sake of discussion, we said "our basic senses are more or less correct", this says nothing about how we view other people, political events, everyday experiences, etc.

You can’t see inside people’s minds so you guess at their motivations and judge them. You have very limited knowledge of world events, so you rely heavily on partial information filtered through ideological and experiential lenses. You can’t experience the world and everything in it as the meaningless interaction of atoms in space and time, so you create subjective sources of meaning where none exists.

You don't seriously think you have been unaffected by your culture, socialisation and experiences, that you have complete access to information meaning you don’t need to fill in gaps with guesswork, that you have purely rational processing abilities unaffected by personality, beliefs, values, needs and expectations and can therefore just take everything on its merits and see them as they are, do you?

If you don’t think those are true of you, then you see many things through a lens, and this lens distorts events to a degree that depends on the events in question.

 

[Kfox]

Your senses are a functional evaluation of the parts of our surroundings that we have evolved to be sensitive too.

They function well enough to keep us alive most of the time, but keeping us alive requires biases, heuristics and energy saving shortcuts. They are not a "true" reflection of reality, just a limited approximation of some of it.

Just so I can understand what you mean by this; can you give an example of how our my senses are not a true reflection of reality?

But even if , for the sake of discussion, we said "our basic senses are more or less correct", this says nothing about how we view other people, political events, everyday experiences, etc.

True! My judgment of other people, political events, and other experiences are usually based on my experience with those things

You can’t see inside people’s minds so you guess at their motivations and judge them.

No; I am far more likely to have a conversation with the person and form opinions based on my dealings with them

You have very limited knowledge of world events, so you rely heavily on partial information filtered through ideological and experiential lenses.

I like getting my information from different sources, especially opposing sources(like Fox news and CNN) assuming they are both exaggerating and assuming the truth must be somewhere between the two

You can’t experience the world and everything in it as the meaningless interaction of atoms in space and time, so you create subjective sources of meaning where none exists.

You don't seriously think you have been unaffected by your culture, socialisation and experiences,

I never suggested I wasn’t affected by those things, that’s how I form many of my opinions.

that you have complete access to information meaning you don’t need to fill in gaps with guesswork,

Filling gaps with guesswork? What does that mean?

that you have purely rational processing abilities unaffected by personality, beliefs, values, needs and expectations and can therefore just take everything on its merits and see them as they are, do you?

My beliefs, values, needs, and other stuff you mentioned do not effect how I see them, they effect how I judge them.

 

[Augustus]

Just so I can understand what you mean by this; can you give an example of how our my senses are not a true reflection of reality?

As a simple example, when you get off a boat you experience rocking for a while.

But we only experience part of reality, we don't sense radiation for example and have weak senses of smell and hearing compared to other animals. Other animals experience "reality" very differently.

You senses adapt to experience and training. You hear a firework, someone with PTSD hears a gunshot. Not all sounds register with our brain as information, hence we sometimes don't hear people speaking to us when we are engaged in a task.

There is the physical stimulus (light, sound, etc.) and there is processing of that stimulus in the brain. We would overload our brains by perceiving everything perfectly and it would require so much energy it would not be evolutionarily advantageous. Our senses are 'good enough', and our processing is "good enough".

As with the optical illusion, the brain is always filling in gaps in information though, generally pretty accurately, but not always.

True! My judgment of other people, political events, and other experiences are usually based on my experience with those things

Hence you are biased by your experience as you are not affected by experiences you haven't had.

Had you had different experiences, your perception would have been different.

No; I am far more likely to have a conversation with the person and form opinions based on my dealings with them

You are still guessing if they are being honest, open, accurate, etc.

You have to fill in gaps, and you are not neutral and fully rational when you do this. You are biased, as we all are.

I like getting my information from different sources, especially opposing sources(like Fox news and CNN) assuming they are both exaggerating and assuming the truth must be somewhere between the two

Then you are guaranteed to "learn" many false things that will impact your future judgements.

Exposure to multiple inaccurate sources wouldn't lead to accurate views, even if we assumed a perfectly rational human (and we are not anywhere near perfectly rational).

I never suggested I wasn’t affected by those things, that’s how I form many of my opinions.

Hence they are biased and your views are filtered through a perceptual lens

Filling gaps with guesswork? What does that mean?

Unless you have perfect information (which we rarely do), you need to make assumptions. Many of these will be wrong.

These errorrs will impact subsequent information processing

My beliefs, values, needs, and other stuff you mentioned do not effect how I see them, they effect how I judge them.

They are not 2 separate stages of cognition. Seeing and judging are often instinctual. You can't withhold judgement until you have carried out a rational and calculated analysis. You can try to correct your instinct at times, but your initial judgement still matters and impacts the process. This has been well established in the cognitive sciences.

What you have acknowledged with your answers is that you have a worldview and it impacts your judgements of people and events (i.e. how you see the world).

This means you have a worldview and it means you have you own perceptual biases (even if you choose to call them something different). Same as every other human in history.