Our Perception Determines How Reality Is
2005.06.15 1:48

More on perception/ reality.
You see our perception is so limited that we cannot see things as they are. See if we only see light as it is, we only see it as light that gives off white-yellowish colour with some heat. Only through prism, we see basic 7 colours derived from it, then we know light consist of 7 colours. When we perceive light as it is, we only realise one reality, which is light has white-yellowish colour and some heat. Then when we perceive 7 colours through prism, we know 7 different realities. Thus perception comes prior to reality. Unless we can perceive 7 different colours, it would be hard for us to notice existing 7 different realities. As long as we have no guarantee what we perceive is the same as what reality is, our perception comes always prior to reality. Usually the wider our perception is, the more our scope of realities is spreading.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Our Perception Determines How Reality Is Preferences Top 5 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 5 comments 0: 5 comments 1: 5 comments 2: 3 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You might like this post :o)(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.06.16 20:22 (#12831029) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
"Occam's Razor applies [slashdot.org]". In case you're wondering, it's a piss-take of those who argue inanely in favour of "Intelligent Design"; it's a follow up to LPetrazickis's JE [slashdot.org].
I just thought that I'd direct readers to my journal post "Reality is Singular [slashdot.org]", lest they miss the real issue :o)--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org]
Re:You might like this post :o)(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.06.17 22:04 (#12840600) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Strangely I was thinking about the similar thing as you wrote in your another insightful comment. We have convictions. In order to prove our conviction, we are poised to apply various theorems. But it's not wrong, any theorem exists for us to convince what we believe, any theorem not being used to prove for our convictions, they all are useless. Since there are no objective truth on our state of mind, only consistency according to my standard matters. I believe you have different opinions.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
"no objective truth on our state of mind"(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.06.17 22:33 (#12840790) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
And there you have it.
When we use the word "reality", we're talking about different things.
I'm not talking about our state of knowledge or belief.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re:"no objective truth on our state of mind"(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.06.17 22:56 (#12840999) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Yes. We are talking about the same thing in the term 'reality'. I'm saying since our perception is different, we tend to believe the reality we are in is different. See how different your thought and his idea -intelligent falling, faller, first of all what do these mean? But we cannot blame for someone who hold completely different view from ours, because our perception is so different, we tend to see underlying reality behind phenomenon through our perception. If they think so, let them believe whatever. If they assert so, let them do whatever they think it's right. It is their right and maybe within a realm of freedom of belief.
I know what you mean, and I stand beside you. I am not opposing your sober thought, it stands to reason, but then so what?
But I just want you to bear it in your mind that our scope of knowledge is so limited, we cannot know how the real figure of the universe is, we are not even allowed to pretend to know what is like. Let's be modest, both of us too.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:"no objective truth on our state of mind"(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.06.23 0:49 (#12881419) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
Yes. We are talking about the same thing in the term 'reality'. I'm saying since our perception is different, we tend to believe the reality we are in is different. See how different your thought and his idea -intelligent falling, faller, first of all what do these mean? My "Intelligent Falling [slashdot.org]" post is a joke, a parody. I talk of the manifold nature of truth, so that supporting teaching is needed outside science, so that we do not decide what is true or false in a moral void. This appears reasonable, as does the rest of my post, but the fact that I have picked a ridiculous theory "Intelligent Falling" shows the whole post to be ridiculous. If you feel half-convinced by the end of it, that is deliberate. It points out how one can use good "arguing technique", together with legal, social, and moral concepts to argue for something that is manifestly false. The idea is to challenge people where they might do this elsewhere in their thinking. I even misapply "Occam's Razor", so that is applies to our difficulty in conceiving a theory, rather than the structural complexity of that theory. Any "Intelligent Faller", like any "Intelligent Designer" would have to have a complexity of their own that would exceed that of the respective theories of gravity and evolution.
But we cannot blame for someone who hold completely different view from ours, because our perception is so different, we tend to see underlying reality behind phenomenon through our perception. If they think so, let them believe whatever. If they assert so, let them do whatever they think it's right. It is their right and maybe within a realm of freedom of belief. I'm not blaming anyone of anything, nor do I claim that my view is necessarily right. I do claim that reality, though unknown is singular. But this is not a claim to knowledge in itself.
Freedom of belief is widely considered a political right, but, much as with my post on Intelligent Falling, this does not make that which is believed true. Your right do believe in pink armadillos neither makes them exist, not does it make them cease to exist. I make no claims about the existance of pink armadillos or otherwise, but I do claim that the question has a resolution one way or the other. They might even exist on another planet sufficiently far away that we could never know, but as long as the question of what a pink armadillo is is well-defined, the question has a definate answer, although we may never know it.
I am not arguing about your freedom of belief, but rather a different question: the nature, and unique existance of truth. What I believe might be entirely wrong, and besides, the best way to find the truth is (in part) to give people the freedom to investigate from different perspectives.
From personal experience, for example, I am inclined to believe in a lot of psychic "wierd shit", with synchronicity as the most mundane example. I believe some of this stuff to work, but my belief does not necessarily reflect reality. I was going through a breakdown when I experienced most of this, and although the consistency of what I experienced makes it compelling to me, I might instead have been in a worse state than I thought, and accordingly underrating the power of my mind to create a false consistency.
My perception is not reality, and nor is yours, or anyone else's. Reality is singular, but we can never really know it.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org]