Reality is Perception

[jimtaylor]

Whatever you perceive to be reality is reality… A bold statement, I know and I am still struggling with it in some ways. Of course there are things we believe we know like 2+2=4. These things we claim to know as fact that we can without a shadow of doubt say are true. Most individuals can accept a lot of this logic without much thought or deliberation. I have never been one of those individuals. I can’t remember when I first asked it but a couple of times I have asked why 2+2=4. The response I got back from my teacher was a visual demonstration of putting two objects with two objects leaves you with four objects. I got that point but she did not understand my question.

What I meant is why did we at some point decide that this combination of lines would be a number or an equation that can answer some of life’s biggest questions? When the number “2” was first conceived did they realize the implications of what they had just done? Did they realize that our discovery of the use of numbers and equations would be arguably one of humanities greatest achievements? It would allow us to create wonderful and terrible things. It is amazing to think that such an insignificant thing could have such a huge impact. Simply put, I was asking why we decided 2+2=4 when we could have easily decided 1+1=6, if one really means three objects.

The other side of this question was the natural, inquisitive side of me. What if we are wrong? What if we are wrong about what we believe to be the laws of the universe? Of course, I can’t defend this in any way so the questions are pointless but still fun to ask. This doesn’t have as much to do with the discussion though. What I was always trying to get at was the perception and not the actual mathematics. I wasn’t challenging that 2+2=4 but simply why society decided that is how we would demonstrate that known truth.

I used a bit of a more complicated example here to demonstrate that reality is perception as it can more easily be demonstrated through social norms. Let us say there is a homeless individual who is a mathematical genius. That individual could live and die without ever having had a chance to contribute that genius because of perception. It does not matter that he was a genius because the world and society perceived him as almost less than human.

For his whole life, individuals like you and I would walk by him without giving him a second thought because for whatever reason society treats homeless people like they are too stupid to get a job. He would never reach his potential because perception is reality. It doesn’t matter how intelligent he is as long as people viewed him as dirty, unreliable, drug addict, alcoholic, lazy, stupid, etc…

Essentially I am arguing there is no actual value to truth in society because perception is the only thing that matters.

This is demonstrated quite often through history and most prevalent in looking at the differences between various societies. For years European royalty and upper class inbred to keep their blood “pure”. They didn’t perceive it as wrong but we obviously do now. The same thing goes for marrying before the age of 18. For most of humanities history marrying a 13 year old girl to an older man was not taboo, in fact it was normal. So what is truth and fact, but merely a matter of perception? The world has never been and probably never will be flat but enough people believed it that it becomes more real than the idea that the world was and is round.

There is enough scientific and mathematical evidence proving that the Earth is a lot older than “Adam and Eve” but still people refuse to believe it because perception can be stronger than reality. It is quite amazing just to think how powerful our minds are and that they can literally distort reality.

 

[Billy]

You have to differentiate between subjective opinions and objective facts. Facts are facts regardless of our perception of them. While there is wiggle room for subjective thoughts. Truth is not a good term to use because it blurs the difference between the objective and subjective often enough. People don't refuse to accept the objective fact of the earths age, they ignorantly ignore it. That isn't really perception, they aren't perceiving anything. They are actually blocking information out intentionally because it makes them feel uncomfortable or they just don't know any better. This is often related to a survival instinct most people share about accepting information from authority as "true" regardless of what the reality is behind things. I do not consider that really a form of perception, its inherited data, most of the people who believe things like Adam and Eve are not intelligent enough to question anything let alone perceive of alternate "truths" Which is why they shut down new data that conflicts with what they have been led to believe. Perception is an active process of refining information into ideas, they do not do this, they reject raw information. Its almost robotic in a sense if it weren't for them being biological beings, a computer can run a program too, which is what these people are doing essentially only instead of using circuits and wires they use DNA and inherited social data. For the ones who are intelligent, and still believe such things, my guess is that they simply havent been exposed to the facts yet.

the number 1 and 2 have historical and human overtones, but the concept of 2 + 2 = 4 is beyond humans. It is a principle of nature. I agree with you though, that we are smart enough to understand that we have 2 things in our hand, and know that we don't have 1 thing, but 2 is a HUGE evolutionary leap. Thats probably the early basis for consciousnesses. I wish we could see how early hominid humans evolved and how their intellects evolved in layers until they had the right number of mental components to "put it all together" and it would be even more interesting to see just how much smarter we can get, because there is a lot we are incapable of understanding due to our evolutionary limits.

 

[CindyLou]

I'm not sure I understand. The reality would have been two even if we had decided it was six. Perception is stronger than reality but reality doesn't change. Perception changes.

You have to stop believing or thinking something when it is unlivable or conflicts with reality. How else can you make your way through the world?

 

[ImpureHedonism]

Essentially I am arguing there is no actual value to truth in society because perception is the only thing that matters.

You are conflating perception and cognition. You perceive reality, with however your senses do that - sight, sound, etc. Your thoughts about those perceptions do not alter your perceptions. What you can do from there is to establish what you perceive as concepts. One thing you can do is call a single object "one". Or "uno", or "ichi", or "sethoathe", or "two". Two would sound weird, but you'd still be referring to a single object. To avoid confusion in communication, people establish some common words, but the sound you choose for the word doesn't matter. What you think about reality may change as time goes on, but that doesn't mean your perception of reality changes.

 

[the]

I'm not sure I understand. The reality would have been two even if we had decided it was six. Perception is stronger than reality but reality doesn't change. Perception changes.

You have to stop believing or thinking something when it is unlivable or conflicts with reality. How else can you make your way through the world?

How do you know? What if you are wrong?

 

[CindyLou]

My perception has changed in circumstances where my senses didn't change and the information available to me didn't change. To perceive in this situation means to understand.

 

[jimtaylor]

You have to differentiate between subjective opinions and objective facts. Facts are facts regardless of our perception of them. While there is wiggle room for subjective thoughts. Truth is not a good term to use because it blurs the difference between the objective and subjective often enough. People don't refuse to accept the objective fact of the earths age, they ignorantly ignore it. That isn't really perception, they aren't perceiving anything. They are actually blocking information out intentionally because it makes them feel uncomfortable or they just don't know any better. This is often related to a survival instinct most people share about accepting information from authority as "true" regardless of what the reality is behind things. I do not consider that really a form of perception, its inherited data, most of the people who believe things like Adam and Eve are not intelligent enough to question anything let alone perceive of alternate "truths" Which is why they shut down new data that conflicts with what they have been led to believe. Perception is an active process of refining information into ideas, they do not do this, they reject raw information. Its almost robotic in a sense if it weren't for them being biological beings, a computer can run a program too, which is what these people are doing essentially only instead of using circuits and wires they use DNA and inherited social data. For the ones who are intelligent, and still believe such things, my guess is that they simply havent been exposed to the facts yet.

the number 1 and 2 have historical and human overtones, but the concept of 2 + 2 = 4 is beyond humans. It is a principle of nature. I agree with you though, that we are smart enough to understand that we have 2 things in our hand, and know that we don't have 1 thing, but 2 is a HUGE evolutionary leap. Thats probably the early basis for consciousnesses. I wish we could see how early hominid humans evolved and how their intellects evolved in layers until they had the right number of mental components to "put it all together" and it would be even more interesting to see just how much smarter we can get, because there is a lot we are incapable of understanding due to our evolutionary limits.

I had the same thoughts but I just keep going round and round in my mind which is why I had to post it here. Sorry if my thoughts are not 100% clear. Sometimes for me to understand something I have to argue for it and against it. When I heard someone say this I can see how it is both true and false and I think you got it right.

Now what I like most is what you bolded and I just want to focus on that for a second. Let's just say for argument's sake religion is a logical argument. From a religious persons perspective in their logical construct of the world, the Earth cannot be older than Adam and Eve because look at all the "evidence" supporting Adam and Eve. How they perceive the world, faith has greater value than physical evidence. So a religious person might say that the rational individual is rejecting raw information in the form of things that mathematics and other things cannot yet explain fully. Key word here is "yet". They use the lack of explanation as evidence. Wrong or right, it is what they perceive. For them their religion and it’s doctrines become reality and in their minds their evidence is just as strong as scientific evidence.

 

[jimtaylor]

You are conflating perception and cognition. You perceive reality, with however your senses do that - sight, sound, etc. Your thoughts about those perceptions do not alter your perceptions. What you can do from there is to establish what you perceive as concepts. One thing you can do is call a single object "one". Or "uno", or "ichi", or "sethoathe", or "two". Two would sound weird, but you'd still be referring to a single object. To avoid confusion in communication, people establish some common words, but the sound you choose for the word doesn't matter. What you think about reality may change as time goes on, but that doesn't mean your perception of reality changes.

True. Now what about in the social context? How one is perceived by others? What is reality then? Is reality what the person believes themselves to be or what the world believes them to be? I am sure individuals like Hitler didn't think they where evil but we sure talk about them like they are. So what then is reality?

 

[Gaze]

I think this statement is more about subjective reality and involves self or other fulfilling prophecy on some level. Because many people believe something strongly, they may live and behave as if that belief is true, and live their lives with the belief in that "truth". This means, anyone arguing otherwise is seen as not representing reality. If people collectively agree that a trait is ugly or unattractive, then telling them it's attractive and even beautiful will seem to question the reality they know to be true. Not realizing that their perception is not invalid but based on perception. Something which is true apart from perception cannot be changed by perception inspite of denial or refusal to accept the truth. The fact that someone believes something is untrue does not make it untrue, nor vice versa. Too many people confuse disagreement with the reasons for having a belief with the existence of something. If UFOs exist, this truth can't be made untrue because people don't believe they exist. And although you may be able to find logical reasons to invalidate the belief in UFOS does not mean they don't exist. And vice versa. It simply means you made a believable logical argument to support a belief. So, for some, subjectively, something is true, but yet it is not true. The belief in the reality of something is apart of their reality (consciousness) of the world even if the objective reality does not support or reinforce the existence of that truth in observable physical or scientific evidence.

 

[Radiantshadow]

I was talking to Shakespeare the other day and, while smelling a rose, he lamented the popularity of sinus infections.

On a serious note, what humans perceive does not have to align with what they're looking at to be taken as truth. This has been a grave and repeated mistake throughout our history; however, the rise of empiricism and science in general has the potential to alter this course. To put it simply: most people will believe anything they want, even in spite of evidence to the contrary, if it makes them feel better about their lives. It's quick, easy, and comforting, and we love being right. Unfortunately, argumentum ad populum is not a viable substitute for the truth.

Editted to keep up with the conversation:

What is reality in the social context? How one is perceived by others? What is reality then? Is reality what the person believes themselves to be or what the world believes them to be? I am sure individuals like Hitler didn't think they where evil but we sure talk about them like they are. So what then is reality?

As far as the social ocean is concerned, the 'reality' of life is indeterminate. One ship among many cannot know all the precise coordinates leading to treasure island, only their approximation as it relates to each individual ship. Subjective wisdom, some psychology, and a dash of compassion generally reign supreme.

Identity is a really tricky situation and I tend to think the answer is "both, along separate dimensions". Individual motivations and the tribal connection; the first is personal, the second interpersonal - they cannot be put on the same scale because they fall in separate spheres. How you impact yourself and how you impact your surroundings need not, and probably should not, align dot for dot. Isolation and narcissism lie on one hand and on the other sits dependency. Interestingly, though, I've noticed that each scale feeds the other. But here I am, tangenting.

 

[jimtaylor]

I was talking to Shakespeare the other day and, while smelling a rose, he lamented the popularity of sinus infections.

On a serious note, what humans perceive does not have to align with what they're looking at to be taken as truth. This has been a grave and repeated mistake throughout our history; however, the rise of empiricism and science in general has the potential to alter this course. To put it simply: most people will believe anything they want, even in spite of evidence to the contrary, if it makes them feel better about their lives. It's quick, easy, and comforting, and we love being right. Unfortunately, argumentum ad populum is not a viable substitute for the truth.

Edit:

As far as the social arena is concerned, 'reality' is undefinable. One ship among many cannot know all the coordinates leading to treasure island. Subjective wisdom, some psychology, and a dash of compassion generally reign supreme.

Excellent! How is Shakespeare doing these days? Haha

 

[Quiet]

I agree with the OP. Great topic, but hard to discuss because the nature of 'reality' is so hard to define and understand though.

When humans are born, their brain, and sensory organs are not fully developed. These organs develop as humans grow. The development is influenced by many factors such as genetics, environment, culture, social factors and experience. Bascially we all learn how to perceive. We need lots of external stimulus to be able to develop a database of information. We need words, concepts, communication- basically language- to understand the 'raw' data. There are so many variables involved in this process.

There is so much about perception and reality that we dont understand. There is so much about our brains and our senses we dont understand. Yet we naively 'think' or believe that we can trust everything we see, when we dont even understand what we are and how we operate. We dont really underatand how our bodies function. There are so many assumptions and guesses. Which is fine as long as we understand that they are just assumptions and theories- not objective truth. This is something that continously shocked me when i studied psychology and continued to awe me when i studied anatomy and physiology.

Science is about creating more dogma. Its about making hypothesis and testing them. Developing theories based on what we currently 'know' or have the ability to percieve. The scientific method is ruined when people start using science like religion.

We see things as we are, not as they are. We can not help this. The more open your mind is, the more you will be able to see.

I watched a great doco a while ago about food colouring by 'Food investigators'-
http://www.sbs.com.au/shows/foodinv.../3431/Episode-9-Food-For-Thought-Food-Colours

They did an experiment where they freshy canned some peas- one can with green food colouring, the other with no food colouring. Same peas, same process, just with one can had added colour. When they peas had finished processing, the peas with no food colouring were a brown colour and the peas with food colouring were a bright green colour. They tasted the peas, they tasted the same. But the green ones look much better and more appetising than the brown ones. When they tested the two cans of peas on other people, everyone said that the green peas tased better and more fresh. Everyone said that the brown peas were gross, tasted weird or didnt even taste like peas. One guy just thought they tasted like chickpeas. No one though they were the same peas- and in many ways they were no longer the same peas although in truth they were. The percepetion of colour and our associations with it was what created the 'reality' of what the peas tasted like.
They did another experiment with some wine connosiurs. They put red food colouring in white wine and got a whole group of wine tasters to review it. No one picked up it was actually a white one, they all just crapped on about its red wine qualities. We experience what we expect in many situations. Our eyes fool us. Our past experiences fool us.

I dont remember the names of all these experiments and i dont want to find them all right now- but these are a couple i remember from psych-
-kittens exposed only to horizontal lines developed to only see horizontal lines
-cultures that have limited words for colours will see less colours.

Our eyes fool us all the time. In some ways only a blind person know who is 'truly' attractive. Our senses are all interdependant, reliant on learning, experience, personality, language and our cognitive connections. We dont just taste food- we experience it through all our senses. We rely on all our past experience and our language to understand it. We can train our palettes and our ears. We can train our bodies and our mind. All sensory information is fed into our brain via a two way feedback loop. we are always changing and growing. Evolving

I have no fucking idea what 'reality' is. I think that if anyone thinks they have a monopoly on it then they are full of shit. We are all full of shit. But if anyone thinks they 'know' and they are 'right'- they are really full of shit and clearly wrong. There are too many variables in the world, in our enviornment, culture, language and bodies. We dont know what objective reality is. The best we can do is to try to understand our own perception. To know our selves so we can all be less full of shit

 

[just me]

quote "Essentially I am arguing there is no actual value to truth in society because perception is the only thing that matters." unquote

Totally disagree, though I find it interesting you would think this.

Your perception of the Age of Adam is based on what, your own perception of things? I am amazed how we often question reality.
The act of questioning reality is wonderful if one does one's research along with it. Is death the end of one's reality, or do you perceive it as a new beginning? A time of rest? Because we percieve something differently than others does not make perception more important than truth.

I was told to not touch an iron because it was hot. My perception of hot was much to be desired. It was when I touched the iron I learned the truth. That truth became much more important than my perception, or maybe my perception changed? I learned what reality and truth was in respect to the statement. Wisdom and knowledge: are they not more important than perception? Let me think...

 

[barbad0s]

I have no fucking idea what 'reality' is. I think that if anyone thinks they have a monopoly on it then they are full of shit. We are all full of shit. But if anyone thinks they 'know' and they are 'right'- they are really full of shit and clearly wrong.

I concur.

I think it's especially shocking that some people think everyone should listen to them because they "know" and "are right" (even if they may think they have legitimate reasons that they are). What moron would imagine that anyone in their right mind would want to listen to someone who presents themselves to others like that? Obviously someone unwise...which would only give more reason that they don't know very much at all and shouldn't be listened to. But that's a bit of a tangent from this topic at hand.

 

[CindyLou]

How do you know? What if you are wrong?

How do I know what? What if I'm wrong about what?

 

[the]

How do I know what? What if I'm wrong about what?

My questions are obviously in regards to what I quoted.

 

[muir]

If you can control peoples perceptions then you can affect their behaviour and in turn the kind of world they will create

Thought becomes manifested into hard reality. Control thought and you control reality

 

[CindyLou]

My questions are obviously in regards to what I quoted.

I know I exist and I exist in reality. There are things I can know.

In my opinion it's a little extreme to jump to the conclusion that reality is a perception and more important than the truth to society. I don't trust my perceptions because they've been wrong. It goes against my experience and is unlivable for me because they are untrustworthy. What IS can be outside of how we perceive or understand it to be but that doesn't mean I don't think we can never know, understand, or perceive the truth either. If I believed that the earth was the age of Adam and was presented with convincing evidence otherwise, (which there is plenty) how could I honestly hold on to that belief and say it was reality? I don't see how you can get along in this world otherwise.

If I'm wrong about something then I'm wrong. Nothing magical happens other than I'm wrong.

I'm just not convinced that the truth has no value and perception is reality because it conflicts with reality. Lol!

 

[jimtaylor]

quote "Essentially I am arguing there is no actual value to truth in society because perception is the only thing that matters." unquote

Totally disagree, though I find it interesting you would think this.

Your perception of the Age of Adam is based on what, your own perception of things? I am amazed how we often question reality.
The act of questioning reality is wonderful if one does one's research along with it. Is death the end of one's reality, or do you perceive it as a new beginning? A time of rest? Because we percieve something differently than others does not make perception more important than truth.

I was told to not touch an iron because it was hot. My perception of hot was much to be desired. It was when I touched the iron I learned the truth. That truth became much more important than my perception, or maybe my perception changed? I learned what reality and truth was in respect to the statement. Wisdom and knowledge: are they not more important than perception? Let me think...

Good points but the issue here is again, what is truth? For one death is the end but for another it is not. Can we prove which one is true and which one is not? I would say no we cannot so the truth is essentially whatever your perception is. You will not know the truth until you die just as you did not know the truth of the heat of an iron until you touched it. Unfortunately the dead cannot share their wisdom or knowledge. The issue i was essentially trying to bring up is that truth is ultimately subjective in a lot of ways like touching the iron. You can tell a child that an iron his hot but until they touch it, they have no grasp of that truth or reality. Still it depends on the individual of how hot it is. It is painful? Comforting? Luke warm? It could be the same temperature but for each individual it could be a completely different sensation or reaction. The only truth would be to say the exact temperature of the iron without stating it was hot or cold because that is a subjective truth.

Also I chose my words carefully. In society perception has more value than truth but that does not mean in all cases of life. Look at how the perception of Alexander the Great has changed in the history books. Was he a great hero or a ruthless bloody tyrant? It depends on who you are talking too. Jesus is a saint and savior to some and fairy tell to others. Which one is true and reality? It is a matter of perception or how one perceives their world and life. If wisdom and knowledge where always greater I think we would have noone believing in Gods or supreme beings or anything similar because what place do those things play in the reality of experience? The answer is that they do not and so it is a matter of how someone perceives the world that gives reality to those things. Does it make it less valuble? I don't know, I am not here to argue what is better or what is right or wrong.

Of course this is my one opinion and it is flawed, I can see the flaws in the argument because what is faith and belief, but what science has yet to prove to be true.

 

[Gaze]

"You will not know the truth until you die just as you did not know the truth of the heat of an iron until you touched it."

Disagree. You can know the truth of something without personal experience. It is a fallacy to say we can't know something is true unless we experience it ourselves. Yes, we are more likely to believe it is real or exists if we personally observe or experience it, but we can also be told about a reality. But it is still a choice to believe, accept, or reject what we are told. Our disbelief or unbelief doesn't make that reality untrue. Just as people discover things using unique and rare abilities and are able to explain or reveal the workings of the world in intricate ways, so can we learn about things we have no ability to learn on our own. Doesn't make these discoveries any less true. You can still choose to believe something different than the truth or reality. But it doesn't negate the existence of the reality. Just as we think and reason yet there is no explanation in our fleshly bodies to explain our ability to think or reason and feel. The physical body can only explain itself but can it justify the spirit or essence of the self? How can you tell someone the self is unique, real or exists when it's constructed the same as everyone else?