Hermeneutics: Applications?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Hermeneutics: Applications?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:11 am Note your claim is that your perceptions do not entail concepts.
My point is the perceptions of all things will necessitate concepts.
If you perceived a tree, there must be a pre-existing concept of tree in your brain for you to understand all the waves input into your brain represent a tree.
No way.
A person who has never seen a tree, and has no concept of a tree when apprehending such a thing for the first time can perceive that which is a tree without the need for a concept of it.
If we were to take you pov to a logical conclusion no one would EVER be able to see a new thing.

I'm not sure what thus says about your view on the world, but the outcomes do not look good.
I have researched into concepts whilst you was still suckling. :mrgreen:

There are two types of concepts, i.e. via nature and those via nature.
Where you [as a baby] are drawn to your mother's tit it is because you have some sort of pre-existing concepts via nature that, that object is necessary for your survival.

It is the same with seeing a tree as a "tree" [roughly] based on some pre-existing concepts [adapted via evolution] and with greater precision later upon acquiring more precise concepts.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Hermeneutics: Applications?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:00 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:11 am Note your claim is that your perceptions do not entail concepts.
My point is the perceptions of all things will necessitate concepts.
If you perceived a tree, there must be a pre-existing concept of tree in your brain for you to understand all the waves input into your brain represent a tree.
No way.
A person who has never seen a tree, and has no concept of a tree when apprehending such a thing for the first time can perceive that which is a tree without the need for a concept of it.
If we were to take you pov to a logical conclusion no one would EVER be able to see a new thing.

I'm not sure what thus says about your view on the world, but the outcomes do not look good.
I have researched into concepts whilst you was still suckling. :mrgreen:
It seems it has availed you very little.

There are two types of concepts, i.e. via nature and those via nature.
What a very narrow minded taxonomy. No, matter I expect that sort of rigid and unimaginitive thinking from you.
Where you [as a baby] are drawn to your mother's tit it is because you have some sort of pre-existing concepts via nature that, that object is necessary for your survival.

It is the same with seeing a tree as a "tree" [roughly] based on some pre-existing concepts [adapted via evolution] and with greater precision later upon acquiring more precise concepts.
As I explained to commonsense. The idea that we need concepts for percpetion is simply wrong.

Whilst generally we tend to have a conceptual anticipation of all perception, and this can explain many anomalies and failures of perception. I do not think Chomsky would accept your stark assertion without some reservations.

We have evolved from living things which have no conception of what they are perceiving. All creatures without language are perfectly happy perceiving things, without having concepts to lable their conceptions. Moreover, we can perceiving many aspect, details and nuances of colour, art, music, feelings for which no set of concepts are understood.
Most people are perfectly capable of understanding, say, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony without having the concepts of transposition, prestissimo, candence, crescendo, forte, glissando ad infinitem yet hear them, and perceive them perfectly.

There are many examples where perception can occur without ANY conceptions. How else could you preceive something new, such as a thing never seen, or heard?

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Hermeneutics: Applications?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:49 am
  • Perception (from the Latin perceptio, meaning gathering or receiving) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information or environment.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception#
If you don't call simple awareness of sensory data, with no names, concepts, etc. attached, "perception," what do you call it?

With respect to the picture you pasted above, for example, it's the state of not thinking of it as a duck/rabbit, a picture, or anything like that, but just having phenomenal data of non-homogeneous whatever(s) in one's visual field.

Now, it's possible that your mind works very differently than mine and you never have such phenomenal data with no thoughts attached (so there are no attendant names, concepts, semantic associations, etc.), but it's difficult for me to imagine what that would be like experientially, because it's so different than how I experience the world. I often have to make an effort to attach names, concepts, semantic associations, etc.
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Hermeneutics: Applications?

Post by commonsense »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:49 am
commonsense wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:13 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:11 am
Note your claim is that your perceptions do not entail concepts.
My point is the perceptions of all things will necessitate concepts.
If you perceived a tree, there must be a pre-existing concept of tree in your brain for you to understand all the waves input into your brain represent a tree.

Show me the common examples where you claimed no concepts are involved whenever you perceive those things?
I don’t think there are examples where perception can take place without either pre-existing concepts or the formulation of concepts.

Perception is a thinking process. A la Chomsky, thought is intertwined with language, and language consists of pointers that relate to the world, either real or imagined.
  • Perception (from the Latin perceptio, meaning gathering or receiving) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information or environment.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception#
You need to read the whole article re Perception above.
Perception is an instinctive spontaneous process.
Note the following image;

Image

If you perceive a either a duck or rabbit in the first instance, did you use any conscious thinking or deliberation at all?

The perception is instantaneous.
The moment the waves touches your retina and to the visual system, your cognitive faculties will search for whatever is pre-conceptualized in your brain and process further to culminate a perception of either a duck or rabbit depending on which concept is more domineering.

There is no language per se involved in the above perception.

The same process is executed for all other perceptions.

The language, thinking and relating to other concepts come later for communication purposes.
Thank you, VA. I understand now.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Hermeneutics: Applications?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:49 am
  • Perception (from the Latin perceptio, meaning gathering or receiving) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information or environment.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception#
If you don't call simple awareness of sensory data, with no names, concepts, etc. attached, "perception," what do you call it?

With respect to the picture you pasted above, for example, it's the state of not thinking of it as a duck/rabbit, a picture, or anything like that, but just having phenomenal data of non-homogeneous whatever(s) in one's visual field.

Now, it's possible that your mind works very differently than mine and you never have such phenomenal data with no thoughts attached (so there are no attendant names, concepts, semantic associations, etc.), but it's difficult for me to imagine what that would be like experientially, because it's so different than how I experience the world. I often have to make an effort to attach names, concepts, semantic associations, etc.
Do I really need to tag names and semantic associations to it?

When a group of people "perceive" they don't necessary have to talk with names, they can easily do what is necessary, based on internal concepts alone.
For example when hungry, a group can just catch whatever that is, then defeather the duck because by its specific concept of what it is, get rid of the intestines, put it over a fire then eat it and walk off without the need to talk at all.
This is what the first humans did and we can still do it at present if we want to.

As I had stated, language, naming, semantics is merely a language-game to facilitate efficiencies.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Hermeneutics: Applications?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:53 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:49 am
  • Perception (from the Latin perceptio, meaning gathering or receiving) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information or environment.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception#
If you don't call simple awareness of sensory data, with no names, concepts, etc. attached, "perception," what do you call it?

With respect to the picture you pasted above, for example, it's the state of not thinking of it as a duck/rabbit, a picture, or anything like that, but just having phenomenal data of non-homogeneous whatever(s) in one's visual field.

Now, it's possible that your mind works very differently than mine and you never have such phenomenal data with no thoughts attached (so there are no attendant names, concepts, semantic associations, etc.), but it's difficult for me to imagine what that would be like experientially, because it's so different than how I experience the world. I often have to make an effort to attach names, concepts, semantic associations, etc.
Do I really need to tag names and semantic associations to it?

When a group of people "perceive" they don't necessary have to talk with names, they can easily do what is necessary, based on internal concepts alone.
For example when hungry, a group can just catch whatever that is, then defeather the duck because by its specific concept of what it is, get rid of the intestines, put it over a fire then eat it and walk off without the need to talk at all.
This is what the first humans did and we can still do it at present if we want to.

As I had stated, language, naming, semantics is merely a language-game to facilitate efficiencies.
Your comment here doesn't have much to do with what you're quoting from me and it has no implication for what I said.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Hermeneutics: Applications?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:29 am Your comment here doesn't have much to do with what you're quoting from me and it has no implication for what I said.
That's really peculiar then.

Apparently your perception comes pre-categorized into "things".

And yet... (like every sophist) you are going to avoid answering the simplest of questions. How many things do you perceive in any given perception?

Because you have no definite answer to this question in any given scenario is what makes you confused about how your perception works.
Post Reply