Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?

[RG1]

.
Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?

Next time you board a plane, take a window seat. After you get settled in, peer out the porthole window. Now try to imagine that this porthole is your ONLY connection to reality; in other words, imagine that this porthole is your own private, personal view of reality. Now, as you look out through this porthole, do you see those baggage and food service people loading the plane?, ...are they 'real'?

Side note: 'real' is defined here as that which exists with 'certainty'; independent of one's perceivings.

Almost automatically (and maybe a bit belligerently) most of us would say "Don't be absurd, of course they're real!". ...especially since we just saw them in (so-called) "real life" while boarding the plane! Okay, okay, but now, try to imagine that you have ALWAYS existed behind this porthole, and have NEVER-EVER experienced the world outside this porthole. ...are you still as certain?

Tap on the glass, ...is there something that separates 'you', from those 'objects' out there?

Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?

[Impenitent]

maybe if you fish, but probably not...

-Imp

[henry quirk]

"Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?"

Yes.

You can test this by gettin' up offa your keister and walking around (your apartment, house, neighborhood).

Don't avoid obstacles your senses tell you are in your path.

'nuff said.

[AlexW]

Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?

Your senses simply deliver data - raw data / direct experience cannot be unreal.
It's the thoughts about this data one should be questioning.

[RG1]

Your senses simply deliver data - raw data / direct experience cannot be unreal. It's the thoughts about this data one should be questioning.

But aren't thoughts "data" too? Don't we experience ("perceive") them as well? -- can we trust them?

[QuantumT]

No, you can't trust your perceptions. They are not meant to be trusted. They are meant to be enjoyed.

Forget proof. Forget real and unreal. Just lean back and enjoy the ride! If you don't, you will miss a whole lotta fun!

[RG1]

I like your answer QuantumT.

[AlexW]

But aren't thoughts "data" too? Don't we experience ("perceive") them as well? -- can we trust them?

No, thoughts are interpretations of data (you might argue that interpretations are data too, but then you end up with "everything is data"...)
Yes, we experience/perceive thought, but not many people clearly understand what that implies... most are caught in thought world and believe they are the ego(-thought).
Can you trust thought? Depends who you believe you are... if you are the separate self - the ego - then it would be simply one thought (the idea of a you) trusting or not trusting another thought... trust then depends on your inclination, situation, preferences... but once you know that you are not a thought (e.g. not the ego) but the "one" that sees them all (including all experience) then trust is no issue. There is nothing to trust, just to experience.

[RG1]

There is nothing to trust, just to experience.

Yes, even the experience of trusting, is only still just an experience.

[Lacewing]

No, you can't trust your perceptions. They are not meant to be trusted. They are meant to be enjoyed.

Forget proof. Forget real and unreal. Just lean back and enjoy the ride! If you don't, you will miss a whole lotta fun!

YES!!! Wonderful!

Why do people think they can or need to "know" anything for certain... when it's clearly impossible... AND it's NOT necessary? WHAT exactly is THAT which NEEDS to think it "knows"???

There is nothing to trust, just to experience.

Yes, even the experience of trusting, is only still just an experience.

Beautiful! I think the human judgments of GOOD and BAD (and everything else of the human realm) are SIMPLY for the human experience... they apply to nothing beyond that... and that's a perfectly FINE thing. All is in order. If we could accept/allow that, we could be much more EFFICIENT with ALL OF IT.

[Eodnhoj7]

If we cannot trust our perception, we could only perceive this from a separate angle of awareness which we trust....in respect to the empirical senses this would be reason itself as an inherent act of observing balance and proportion.

[Dalek Prime]

Well, I trust I'm aware, as opposed to completely oblivious. And I am forced to be aware of things outside myself, or else. Is that reality in full? I doubt that, as I can never be certain, so I'll err on the side of caution. Does it matter if I'm aware of reality? Not really. I'm stuck with what I'm given, and only as long as it persists, I'll pay heed to it as I must. After that, it won't matter.

[osgart]

Has anyone proven that perception isnt actuality? The conception of reality is where one has to be as accurate as possible. Just sayin'

[Lacewing]

If one person's perception of reality is different than another person's perception of reality, WHAT is it (exactly) that is "real"?

Are people actually wired differently... affecting what they do and don't see? Might this explain why some people see and experience more or fewer possibilities/"realities" than others?

Could we even comprehend some much greater "truth" than our human world, if we could somehow see without all of our human filters and structures and stories?

[Nick_A]

RG1

Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?

Suppose a man takes a woman out on a date. She really looks great and they end up in bed together. The next morning this woman with her makeup gone appears and acts to be a different woman. He goes home and asks himself: "which was the real woman?" How accurate was his perceptions of her both before and after?