Reality vs. Perception of Reality

From: <chales1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:25:41 +1000

Hi Lee,
Beat around the 'bush', why don't you!
I love a bit of enthusiasm....

I'd like to add my $0.02 .....

'Reality', whatever that process is, must be responsible for generating our perception of it. In the same way it generates all other behaviour in the universe.
By definition: there is nothing left to claim as a causal precursor.

I qualify this immediately by saying that the perception does not have to 'be' relaity. A good illusion representative and repeatable enough to serve the perceiver will do.

What does this mean?

It means that perception is not ONE but TWO sources of evidence for creating models of the natural world.

ONE
The 'contents' of perception. Thisis what we use to construct empirical models. We then say that the universe behaves 'as if' the models were enacted by the universe, even though we are not justified in the claim. Our behaviour, in behaving as if this were the case, is very useful: it can be extremely predictive. Description ensues devoid of explanation.

TWO
The expression of perception itself, regardless of its contents. This is evidence of the workings of the underlying nature of the universe. In that model is 'explanation'.

A two-sided knowlegde model is therefore possible, both equally valid, both connected directly to perception. The simulataneous satisfation of the two models is a far more stringent and useful epistemological model. It provides _causal necessity_ and demands tthat any model for the underlying universe _must_ also produce a perception 'about' it consistent with our observations.

In Kantian jargon: the phenomenon are constructed of the noumenon. Therefore the noumenon must be in some sense knowable, _not_ fundamentally unknowable. Kant was right and wrong. He assumed they were separate critters. Fallacy. Sorry Immanuel.

I have recently written a paper on it and it's in for review/publication.
I urge you to think about this a lot.
I think it's important.

In relation to philosophy: I hold that denigration of philosophy is not a useful way of progressing. It may be bogged in linguistic quagmires and indeed the irrecincilability of all their propositions is likely to be related to an insistance on linguistic description.....BUT..... they are there to raise questions only. Not to solve.

And they are very good at it! And they do facilitate useful ways of thinking about things and then communicaing them. I am an engineer. Unless I can build THING I cannot claim to understand THING. Nevertheless the lack of exposure (separation of science and philosophy thereof I hold accounable for a major blockage behind the failure to recognise ONE and TWO above.

I think our denigration of philsophy is something to be ashamed of, not proud of. It belies an implicit arrogance which is unfounded and unhelpful. BTW I find them just as unfuriating ...too many 'isms.... but that doesn't invalidate their contribution or potential for it.

For example they provided a means to identify clearly ONE and TWO above. I've forgotten which one... but the philosophers talk of 'truth' ascription to an event thus:

The universe makes an utternance 'X is true'

TWO potential truths arise:
1) X is true. DEBATABLE
2) An utterance has happened. PROVEN.

This is precisely how I arrived at ONE and TWO above. Abandon philsophy at yopur peril, but use it's output prudently and you will be of a broader ilk.

cheers,

Colin Hales





-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin.domain.name.hidden]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:12 AM
To: EverythingList
Subject: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

We all admit that it's easy to become confused. I myself
regularly do so every day. In fact, you can't even learn
anything until you first become confused.

But there is *no* reason to become more confused than is
necessary.

The KEY DISTINCTION is between reality and perception of
reality. This must be borne in mind at all times.

There are two things. One is reality. Two is perception
of reality. They are not at all the same thing.

If you let even for a second the key distinction between the
two slip, even by the tiniest, tiniest amount, then you are
doomed. It's all over. You've bought the farm. There is
no recovery. You've had it.

Let us for the sake of God *not* define anything. That turns
out, experience teaches us, to be the worst possible response.
It is a horrible mistake. First, it gives rise to many
different interpretations, and the curse of Babel is upon
us. Second, we *ourselves* in almost all instances that I
have seen, are not able to remember and strictly observe
our own definitions. So preserve us from them.

We need to look up to and admire all the people who are *not*
philosophers, people who actually go about their business in
the world and achieve admirable ends. Let us pray use *their*
language.

For one thing, it will be a cold day in hell before they ever
change the way they use words because some half-assed philosophers
have suggested they do. Second---unlike us---they are not confused.
When George Bush, for example, worries about the perception
of the Russian ambassador, he is being very realistic. He
does not have his head up his ass. He understands the situation
perfectly:

The world is out there, and the Russian ambassador sees things
in it. The Russian ambassador is not insane, and so he knows
that what he sees and the representations in his head are not
the same thing. Yet the Russian ambassador may *perceive*, for
example, that such-and-such is a threat, where we happen to know
(since we are the possibly threatening party) that it is not.
Therefore, George Bush wisely knows that he must try to afford
the Russian ambassador an *accurate* representation of reality.

We can do no better than they: we *must* continue to *never*
confuse reality, on the one hand, with our perceptions OF it
on the other.

Lee
Received on Mon Jul 25 2005 - 22:27:48 PDT