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

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

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

Post by RG1 »

Atla wrote:Those perceptions are probably true/real, which all add up, together. They create a consistent, verifiable worldview. And my worldview also explains the "source" of mental impressions.
Not so. Perceptions can never logically vouch for themselves. One perception cannot vouch for the realness of another perception. One dream cannot vouch for the realness of another dream. One hallucination cannot vouch for the realness of another hallucination.

TimeSeeker wrote:What experiment would you run to determine if reality is real?
I would just use smple logic.

'Experiencing' can be known, with absolute certainty, and therefore is real. Although the 'content' of one's experiencing cannot be trusted, the 'experiencing' itself is absolutely certain and is undeniable/undoubtable.

Any attempt to deny the reality of 'experiencing', only affirms it. If we deny 'experiencing exists', then we must also deny the experiencing of denying
Atla
Posts: 2977
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

RG1 wrote: Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:34 pmNot so. Perceptions can never logically vouch for themselves. One perception cannot vouch for the realness of another perception. One dream cannot vouch for the realness of another dream. One hallucination cannot vouch for the realness of another hallucination.
Of course they can, when they all always verifiably add up.

Rejecting this too is simply re-stating that we can't ever be absolutely certain about anything, which is obvious.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Post by TimeSeeker »

RG1 wrote: Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:34 pm
Atla wrote:Those perceptions are probably true/real, which all add up, together. They create a consistent, verifiable worldview. And my worldview also explains the "source" of mental impressions.
Not so. Perceptions can never logically vouch for themselves. One perception cannot vouch for the realness of another perception. One dream cannot vouch for the realness of another dream. One hallucination cannot vouch for the realness of another hallucination.

TimeSeeker wrote:What experiment would you run to determine if reality is real?
I would just use smple logic.

'Experiencing' can be known, with absolute certainty, and therefore is real. Although the 'content' of one's experiencing cannot be trusted, the 'experiencing' itself is absolutely certain and is undeniable/undoubtable.

Any attempt to deny the reality of 'experiencing', only affirms it. If we deny 'experiencing exists', then we must also deny the experiencing of denying
You will use “Simple logic”, huh? Show me ;)

Use “simple logic” to tell me if B is the same as В ?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"And if you are in my head - ditto"

Post by henry quirk »

Absolutely!

I like being alive, I like existing, so: if I am just a figment of your imagination, STAY ALIVE.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

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

Post by RG1 »

TimeKeeper wrote:Use “simple logic” to tell me if B is the same as В ?
Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at. What is the relevance of this to "reality"? Aren't both of these B's just perceptions themselves?
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Post by TimeSeeker »

RG1 wrote: Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:57 pm
TimeKeeper wrote:Use “simple logic” to tell me if B is the same as В ?
Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at. What is the relevance of this to "reality"? Aren't both of these B's just perceptions themselves?
They are perceptions. So are your experiences of your senses.

And so I ask again and I need you to answer explicitly: Is B the same as В?

Because if you can’t tell the difference between two simple letters then how do you know your perception of your experiences are real? They couldn’t be fake.

What is the difference between a real experience (let’s call it B) and a fake experience (let’s call it В)?
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

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

Post by RG1 »

RG1 wrote:Not so. Perceptions can never logically vouch for themselves. One perception cannot vouch for the realness of another perception. One dream cannot vouch for the realness of another dream. One hallucination cannot vouch for the realness of another hallucination.
Atla wrote:Of course they can, when they all always verifiably add up.
Atla, I think you miss the entire gist of this topic. There is nothing "verifiable" to add up. Everything is a perception. It is impossible to perceive 'beyond' your perceptions.

Again, imagine being in a dream and everything in your dream "adds up" and "verifies" that what you see in your dream is somehow 'real'. Everyone (in your dream) tells you that they are really, for sure, real, in fact, they all swear to it, and do a "pinkie promise" right there in front of you. Because it all "adds up", (and all the "pinkie promises') do you actually believe these perceptions are really real?

Again, perceptions can NEVER vouch for themselves.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Post by TimeSeeker »

You can falsify perception. That is good enough.
It is all you can do.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

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

Post by RG1 »

TimeSeeker wrote:Because if you can’t tell the difference between two simple letters then how do you know your perception of your experiences are real? They couldn’t be fake.
TimeSeeker, I think you mis-read me. I am in total agreement with your conclusion. You are preaching to the choir. Our perceptions are not trustworthy, yes, agreed!
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Post by TimeSeeker »

RG1 wrote: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:18 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:Because if you can’t tell the difference between two simple letters then how do you know your perception of your experiences are real? They couldn’t be fake.
TimeSeeker, I think you mis-read me. I am in total agreement with your conclusion. You are preaching to the choir. Our perceptions are not trustworthy, yes, agreed!
And yet these are your words:
Any attempt to deny the reality of 'experiencing', only affirms it. If we deny 'experiencing exists', then we must also deny the experiencing of denying
If our perception is not trustworthy then it is possible for your experiences to be fake e.g not real.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

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

Post by RG1 »

TimeSeeker wrote:And yet these are your words:
RG1 wrote:Any attempt to deny the reality of 'experiencing', only affirms it. If we deny 'experiencing exists', then we must also deny the experiencing of denying.
TimeSeeker wrote:If our perception is not trustworthy then it is possible for your experiences to be fake e.g not real.
TimeSeeker, please re-read what I wrote. Specifically this: "Although the 'content' of one's experiencing cannot be trusted, the 'experiencing' (of the content) itself is absolutely certain and is undeniable/undoubtable."

Perceptions are the 'contents' of one's perceivings (experiencings). One may experience (hallucinate) the seeing a 'flying pig'. It is the 'flying pig' (i.e. the perception) that is subject to doubt (may, or may-not be real), ...NOT the "experiencing" of the 'flying pig'.

The "experiencing" itself is absolutely real/certain, but the 'content' of the experience is not as certain.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Post by TimeSeeker »

RG1 wrote: Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:05 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:And yet these are your words:
RG1 wrote:Any attempt to deny the reality of 'experiencing', only affirms it. If we deny 'experiencing exists', then we must also deny the experiencing of denying.
TimeSeeker wrote:If our perception is not trustworthy then it is possible for your experiences to be fake e.g not real.
TimeSeeker, please re-read what I wrote. Specifically this: "Although the 'content' of one's experiencing cannot be trusted, the 'experiencing' itself is absolutely certain and is undeniable/undoubtable."

Perceptions are the 'contents' of one's perceivings (experiencings). One may experience (hallucinate) the seeing a 'flying pig'. It is the 'flying pig' (i.e. the perception) that is subject to doubt (may, or may-not be real), ...NOT the "experiencing" of said 'flying pig'.

The "experiencing" itself is absolutely real/certain, but the 'content' of the experience is not as certain.
You aren’t saying anything. You are just equivocating. You are drawing distinctions without a difference.

What is the difference between a “certain” and an “uncertain” experience?

What is the difference between a “real” and “unreal” experience?

What is the difference between a “deniable” and an “undeniable” experience?

What is the difference between a “doubtable” and an “undoubtable” experience?

If there is no difference between ANY of those distinctions then why do you need to qualify your experiences with the adjectives ‘certain’ or ‘real’ or ‘undeniable’ or ‘undoubtable’?
commonsense
Posts: 2589
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

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

Post by commonsense »

RG1 wrote: Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:10 pm
commonsense wrote:Since I have nothing else to trust other than my perceptions, I must rely upon my perceptions to show me reality.
Why not rely on them to show you fantasy (non-reality)? From what basis do you determine your perceptions are real as opposed to non-real?

Claiming your perceptions are more real than non-real is without any basis.

Your belief that driving in traffic is more real than hallucinating the same is without any basis.
This may be unusual, but you have convinced me, RG1, that my original position was wrong. This is not mere concession, but rather conversion.

To claim my perceptions are real is, indeed, without any rational basis. There is only non-rational basis to invoke: faith, truly blind faith.

If I prefer faith over reason, by blind belief I can depend on my perceptions. This kind of belief, the kind that comes with faith, has no rational basis.

I would also point out a flaw in my logic. I proposed that I can rely on my perceptions because there is nothing else to rely upon. However, even if there were nothing else to be relied upon, that does not mean that perceptions can be.

Furthermore, since the OP referenced trust, I find it difficult to count my perceptions as real. If I were standing before a firing squad, I would not trust that all the bullets would miss me. If there is a possibility, no matter how slight the probability, that my perceptions might betray me, I might have faith, but not trust, that my perceptions accurately represent reality.

RG1, every post you’ve submitted in this thread is true to reason. Anyone who says otherwise is blind.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Post by TimeSeeker »

commonsense wrote: Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:21 pm
RG1 wrote: Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:10 pm
commonsense wrote:Since I have nothing else to trust other than my perceptions, I must rely upon my perceptions to show me reality.
Why not rely on them to show you fantasy (non-reality)? From what basis do you determine your perceptions are real as opposed to non-real?

Claiming your perceptions are more real than non-real is without any basis.

Your belief that driving in traffic is more real than hallucinating the same is without any basis.
This may be unusual, but you have convinced me, RG1, that my original position was wrong. This is not mere concession, but rather conversion.

To claim my perceptions are real is, indeed, without any rational basis. There is only non-rational basis to invoke: faith, truly blind faith.

If I prefer faith over reason, by blind belief I can depend on my perceptions. This kind of belief, the kind that comes with faith, has no rational basis.

I would also point out a flaw in my logic. I proposed that I can rely on my perceptions because there is nothing else to rely upon. However, even if there were nothing else to be relied upon, that does not mean that perceptions can be.

Furthermore, since the OP referenced trust, I find it difficult to count my perceptions as real. If I were standing before a firing squad, I would not trust that all the bullets would miss me. If there is a possibility, no matter how slight the probability, that my perceptions might betray me, I might have faith, but not trust, that my perceptions accurately represent reality.

RG1, every post you’ve submitted in this thread is true to reason. Anyone who says otherwise is blind.
You have just told a lie!

Do you trust your perception that if you stab your self with a knife in the heart you will die?

You said you have faith but not trust, so let’s gamble!

What probability would you assign to your perception being wrong? What is the likelyhoks of you surviving a knife to the heart?

1 in 1000?
1 in 1000000000?
1 in 100000000000000?

I will give you 1000000000000000 USD dollars AFTER you let me stab you in the heart!

No. Name your price to reflect your uncertainty...

Where does the reward outweigh the risk of perceptual error?
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

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

Post by RG1 »

TimeSeeker wrote:What is the difference between a “certain” and an “uncertain” experience?
What is the difference between a “real” and “unreal” experience?
What is the difference between a “deniable” and an “undeniable” experience?
What is the difference between a “doubtable” and an “undoubtable” experience?
These are all "experiences" (perceptions).

TimeKeeper wrote:If there is no difference between ANY of those distinctions then why do you need to qualify your experiences with the adjectives ‘certain’ or ‘real’ or ‘undeniable’ or ‘undoubtable’?
It is the "experiencing"-of-the-experience/perception that is certain/real/undeniable/undoubtable.

It is the 'experiencing'-of-X that is certain/real, not necessarily the 'X' itself.
It is the 'experiencing'-of-the-flying-pig that is certain/real, not necessarily the 'flying pig' itself.

commonsense wrote:RG1, every post you’ve submitted in this thread is true to reason. Anyone who says otherwise is blind.
Commonsense, thanks for the kind words.
Post Reply