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

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

commonsense
Posts: 3513
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

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

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:39 pm How do you reconcile this statement ^^^^^
RG1 wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:35 pm I don't know. They [perceptions and experiences] could be the same, they could be different. Since I don't necessarily trust my perceptions, they could be the same, or they could be different.
With this statement ^^^^^
RG1 wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:35 pm I still don't understand the point you are trying to make by comparing these perceptions. I've already said that I agree with you that perceptions are non-trustworthy.
The first statement seems to say (with apologies to RG1) that perceptions and experiences could be one and the same or not one and the same.
To me, the second statement says that perceptions (and/or experiences, according to first statement) are not to be trusted.
In any case, neither statement seems to contradict the other. As such, they are reconciled by not being contradictory.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:39 pm How do you KNOW (for certain!) whether you are experiencing OR perceiving?
There’s no way to know.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:39 pm If you CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE then they could be THE SAME. Or they could be DIFFERENT. How would you DETERMINE which is which?
Right, they could be the same or different. There’s no way to determine which is which.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:39 pm Mathematically, empirically, and metaphysically this is EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM as: Is B the same as В?
Perhaps.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:39 pm Is experiencing the same as perceiving?
Could be. Or not.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:39 pm Is B the same as В?
I don’t know, but it would be fair (yet trivial) to say it is or is not. That covers all the possibilities, anyway.

Perhaps RG1 sees it differently, but I would say the following are all ways that I might encounter a tree:

I see a tree (it is nearby).
I hear a tree (its leaves make sounds when blowing in the wind).
I feel a tree (I touch it).
I smell a tree (it has the fragrance of maple syrup).
I taste a tree (I licked the bark, on a dare).
I perceive a tree (via any number of the senses above).
I experience a tree (via any number of the above).
I could also experience a tree falling or being cut down or burning or floating…
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

commonsense wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:15 pm The first statement seems to say (with apologies to RG1) that perceptions and experiences could be one and the same or not one and the same.
Truism.
commonsense wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:15 pm To me, the second statement says that perceptions (and/or experiences, according to first statement) are not to be trusted.
In any case, neither statement seems to contradict the other. As such, they are reconciled by not being contradictory.
Contradiction is not what requires reconciliation. Ambiguity does.
commonsense wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:15 pm There’s no way to know.
Unless you can draw a distinction...
commonsense wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:15 pm Could be. Or not.
Truism.
commonsense wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:15 pm
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:39 pm Is B the same as В?
I don’t know, but it would be fair (yet trivial) to say it is or is not. That covers all the possibilities, anyway.
So say it

There is only one possibility. It is either 'yes' or 'no'
commonsense
Posts: 3513
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

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

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:37 pm I think this answers the OP? The answer is 'no, but you can trust empiricism'.
AGREED
commonsense
Posts: 3513
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

### Re: "You waste your time while you are rambling to a bot."

henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:03 pm That how you see yourself?

The singularity is nigh!
RG1
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

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

TimeSeeker wrote:I think this answers the OP? The answer is 'no, but you can trust empiricism'.
If perceptions are not trustworthy, then neither are the 'experiences' that one 'perceives'.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

RG1 wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:47 pm If perceptions are not trustworthy, then neither are the 'experiences' that one 'perceives'.
Well. Whatever this state is (illusion, a lie, fake, The Matrix or whatever) - it continues. I like it. Lets call it 'being alive'. I want to continue "being alive". We also have a reasonably good idea what "being dead" LOOKS LIKE. I want to avoid "becoming dead" for as long as possible.

Doing my best - given the limitations imposed on me.
Atla
Posts: 3346
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

We can never be absolutely sure whether all of this isn't just another dream/simulation/brain-in-a-vat/whatever. But why does something we can't do anything about, and doesn't influence our lives in any significant way, upset some people so much? Just trust that it's probably all real and go on, what else can you do.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Atla wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:45 pm We can never be absolutely sure whether all of this isn't just another dream/simulation/brain-in-a-vat/whatever. But why does something we can't do anything about, and doesn't influence our lives in any significant way, upset some people so much? Just trust that it's probably all real and go on, what else can you do.
If we are indeed in "Matrix" kind of simulation it is possible to infer the hardware architecture on which we are running and conquer higher layers. Metaphorically it is a bit like "if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-channel_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine_escape

The Information Security industry has spent the better part of the last 30 years bypassing control mechanisms. Even CPUs are vulnerable to attack:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_( ... erability)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltdown_ ... erability)

So if we are brains in vats Neo is not so much science fiction as a statistical certainty.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6608
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

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

To answer the above, we need to define and agree on the above terms before we can proceed to discuss the issue meaningfully.

What is 'real' is always conditioned upon an agreed Framework and System [F&S] that produces truths within such defined F & S.
How reliable are such truths will depend on how well it can pass the tests of critical thinking of philosophy-proper.
For example what is real within a certain legal F&S need not be real within a Scientific, economic, social, and other F&S.
What is 'real' within a theistic F&S cannot be real within a scientific F&S and vice versa.

Which is more real and truthful will be determined by the critical thinking of philosophy-proper.
For example one of the ultimate test of philosophy-proper is no truths can be contradictory, e.g. a thing cannot be both round and square at the same time and in the same perspective/sense. There are other ultimate tests, e.g. empirical repetitive testability, falsifiability, etc.
The F&S of theism is shaky as it cannot be subjected to repetitive testing, it is not falsifiable, it is based on faith [not proofs nor reason] and has loads of weakness from the perspective of philosophy-proper.

Perception: as with most words there is a range of meanings to the term 'perception'.
Re Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
Whatever is decided upon should be subjected to the F&S agreed upon and critical thinking.

Trust: ditto as 'perception' above.
For example what is perception within the common sense, legal, scientific, theistic, spiritual F&S will be different.
What is 'perception' is thus conditioned and must be qualified to the specific F&S, there is no absolute meaning to 'perception' that can stand on its own independent of any F&S which is ultimately invented by humans.

For example, within the scientific F&S 'perception' is not trusted until such perceptions are researched and worked through the Scientific Method.
Science is well aware perceptions which are illusory exist and they can be explained by the scientific basis of illusions.

Within the theistic F&S, believers will blind believe perceptions related to God and miracles are real and true. However when subjected to critical thinking of philosophy-proper these supposedly theistic perception-based truths are merely illusions.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:54 am Can we trust our perceptions to tell us what's real?

To answer the above, we need to define and agree on the above terms before we can proceed to discuss the issue meaningfully.

What is 'real' is always conditioned upon an agreed Framework and System [F&S] that produces truths within such defined F & S.
How reliable are such truths will depend on how well it can pass the tests of critical thinking of philosophy-proper.
For example what is real within a certain legal F&S need not be real within a Scientific, economic, social, and other F&S.
What is 'real' within a theistic F&S cannot be real within a scientific F&S and vice versa.

Which is more real and truthful will be determined by the critical thinking of philosophy-proper.
For example one of the ultimate test of philosophy-proper is no truths can be contradictory, e.g. a thing cannot be both round and square at the same time and in the same perspective/sense. There are other ultimate tests, e.g. empirical repetitive testability, falsifiability, etc.
The F&S of theism is shaky as it cannot be subjected to repetitive testing, it is not falsifiable, it is based on faith [not proofs nor reason] and has loads of weakness from the perspective of philosophy-proper.

Perception: as with most words there is a range of meanings to the term 'perception'.
Re Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
Whatever is decided upon should be subjected to the F&S agreed upon and critical thinking.

Trust: ditto as 'perception' above.
For example what is perception within the common sense, legal, scientific, theistic, spiritual F&S will be different.
What is 'perception' is thus conditioned and must be qualified to the specific F&S, there is no absolute meaning to 'perception' that can stand on its own independent of any F&S which is ultimately invented by humans.

For example, within the scientific F&S 'perception' is not trusted until such perceptions are researched and worked through the Scientific Method.
Science is well aware perceptions which are illusory exist and they can be explained by the scientific basis of illusions.

Within the theistic F&S, believers will blind believe perceptions related to God and miracles are real and true. However when subjected to critical thinking of philosophy-proper these supposedly theistic perception-based truths are merely illusions.
What is “philosophy-proper” can only be determined in some pre-agreed framework

What framework do we use to decide what “critical thinking” means?

If thing can be both round and square from “the same perspective” - in what framework do we decide on the “correct” perspective from which to look at things? Because the same thing can be round and square from two different viewing angles. You just need to move

And whether a Theist 'blindly believes' that a bolt of lightning is the work of Thor, and whether a Philosoper thinks the Thor-assertion is only an illusion. A phenomenologist/consequentialist believes they are both idiots.

Because neither the word/label 'Thor' nor the word/label 'illusion' actually tells us ANYTHING about the lightning bolt itself! So what both the Theist and the Philosoper are busy doing is just categorizing things e.g putting things into boxes. And instead of arguing on HOW MANY boxes to put things in, they argue over the LABELS ON the boxes.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6608
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:39 am What is “philosophy-proper” can only be determined in some pre-agreed framework
The default with philosophy-proper is we do not jump to any absolute nor dogmatic-bigoted conclusion at any time.

I quoted Russell before re this which I believe is applicable to Philosophy-proper;
Bertrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;

Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;

because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
In addition we use all available critical thinking tools to ask unending questions and verify answers without jumping to cling 'bigotedly' on any propositions arrived at.

What framework do we use to decide what “critical thinking” means?
Basically this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking which should entail various tools such as system theory, lateral thinking, hermeneutical thinking, etc.
The above need to be reinforced with the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics down to its praxis.
No think can be both round and square from “the same perspective” - in what framework do we decide on the “correct” perspective from which to look at things?
Because the same thing can be round and square from two different viewing angles. You just need to move
Yes, a thing can be round or square from two different perspectives [whatever they are] but never the from the SAME perspective and at the same time.
In the case of a square or round thing, we rely on the Framework and System of Geometry either on the empirical or rational [reason] perspective.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:58 am The default with philosophy-proper is we do not jump to any absolute nor dogmatic-bigoted conclusion at any time.
And now you need to explain the dogmatic/non-dogmatic AND the bigoted/non-bigoted distinction

Keep digging.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:58 am Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
Agreed. So I have only TWO question that I will use from now onwards, and in this exact order:
1. Why?
2. How?
I don't like that definition. It provides no framework to decide on the meaning of 'objective', 'facts' and 'judgments. I also don't like this tautology:
It presupposed assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command to their use
It provides no objective standards for excellence/rigour.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:58 am Yes, a thing can be round or square from two different perspectives [whatever they are] but never the from the SAME perspective and at the same time.
But a thing can be a wave AND a particle at the same time
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:58 am In the case of a square or round thing, we rely on the Framework and System of Geometry either on the empirical or rational [reason] perspective.
How do we rely on such a framework/system when we are talking about concepts/metaphysics/phenomenology? e.g things that don't exist in spacetime and can't be examined empirically from a pre-agreed reference frame?

What framework do we use to agree on WHOSE framework to use?

Simply - is there ANYTHING we can agree on outside of any frameworks?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6608
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:58 am The default with philosophy-proper is we do not jump to any absolute nor dogmatic-bigoted conclusion at any time.
And now you need to explain the dogmatic/non-dogmatic AND the bigoted/non-bigoted distinction

Keep digging.
It would appear I have given you a starter to do some digging yourself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:58 am Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
Agreed. So I have only one question that I will use from now onwards: Why?
As above, you have to keep digging.
Note this method on how to keep digging yourself;
• 5-Whys is an iterative interrogative technique used to explore the cause-and-effect relationships underlying a particular problem.[1] The primary goal of the technique is to determine the root cause of a defect or problem by repeating the question "Why?" Each answer forms the basis of the next question. The "5" in the name derives from an anecdotal observation on the number of iterations needed to resolve the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys
I don't like that definition. It provides no framework to decide on the meaning of 'objective', 'facts' and 'judgments.
Critical thinking will also include the Scientific Method which results in 'objective' conclusions.
The 5-Whys method will assist one to get the grounding to establish a reasonable degree objectivity [not absolute].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:58 am Yes, a thing can be round or square from two different perspectives [whatever they are] but never the from the SAME perspective and at the same time.
In the case of a square or round thing, we rely on the Framework and System of Geometry either on the empirical or rational [reason] perspective.
How do rely on such a framework/system when we are talking about concepts? e.g things that don't exist in spacetime and can't be examined empirically from a pre-agreed reference frame?
Note Wittgenstein's

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

The critical point is to start with empirical evidence and speculate on what is empirically possible using reason leveraged within defined Framework and System, thus empirical-rational.

The fact and logic is one cannot establish any framework and system that is non-human, and non-empirical without a human-base.
Thus whatever things assumed to be non-empirical has to be ultimately be reviewed from an human-based empirical Framework and System.

Thus Wittgenstein's

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Example, say, You believe God exists.
Now what Framework and System can you bring about to justify that claim?
• 1. Common sense? - that is very unreliable!
2. Science? no way!
3. Critical Thinking? - no way!
4. Personal Conviction? - a very unrealiable subjective view!
5. Faith ? nah.. not based on proofs nor reason.
6. argumentum Ad populum? a fallacy!
You tell me, what Framework and System can you bring to justify God exists.
If any, prove it is independent of the human conditions?

Reliably, I have argued the idea of God is illusory and I can bring in the Framework and System of Psychology, neurosciences, psychiatry, philosophy proper which are all empirical and human-based to justify why the idea of God is psychological and grounded to the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:33 am It would appear I have given you a starter to do some digging yourself.
No. You haven't. All of your "starters" suffer from the same problem. They fail to answer the "WHY" and "HOW" questions. TWO particular questions in particular:

WHY should I?
HOW do I DECIDE?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:33 am As above, you have to keep digging.
I've done my digging. I got to the bottom
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:33 am
• 5-Whys is an iterative interrogative technique used to explore the cause-and-effect relationships underlying a particular problem.[1] The primary goal of the technique is to determine the root cause of a defect or problem by repeating the question "Why?" Each answer forms the basis of the next question. The "5" in the name derives from an anecdotal observation on the number of iterations needed to resolve the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys
WHY would I care about the cause-and-effect relationships?
HOW DO I DECIDE what is and isn't "a problem"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:58 am The 5-Whys method will assist one to get the grounding to establish a reasonable degree objectivity [not absolute].
No it won't. See above.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:58 am The critical point is to start with empirical evidence and speculate on what is empirically possible using reason leveraged within defined Framework and System, thus empirical-rational.
HOW DO I DECIDE WHICH framework/system to reason within?
HOW DO I DECIDE what is and isn't valid evidence?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:58 am The fact and logic is one cannot establish any framework and system that is non-human, and non-empirical without a human-base.
That is ironic. Logic is a man-made system. In fact there are many different logics e.g many different logical frameworks/systems.

So HOW DID YOU DECIDE which logic to USE? Especially since you used the phrase "The fact and logic" which suggests that you think there is only one logical framework/system...

HOW DID YOU DECIDE? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

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

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:33 am Example, say, You believe God exists.
Now what Framework and System can you bring about to justify that claim?
WHY do I need to justify my claims?

Further more, "God exists" is not likely a phrase I would utter. The sequence of events would probably go something like this:

Veritas Aequitas: Do you believe in God?
TimeSeeker: Yes

THE END

Whether I am actually answering the question you are asking is YOUR ERROR not mine In science - when you ask stupid questions you DO get stupid answers!

Q.E.D: What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything? 42!
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:33 am You tell me, what Framework and System can you bring to justify God exists.
Well, before you can talk about "God" first you need to define it in some MEANINGFUL way that BOTH OF US can agree to! And so first we need a theory of meaning. And so I will not waste any time and raise the bar to the highest possible setting.

In an epistemic framework anything that is untestable/unfalsifiable (N.B unfalsifiable by WHOM?) is "out of scope". So anything that is unfalsifiable fits the bill for being called a 'God'.

Here is a short list of things that are unfalsifiable:

* ANY logical axiom (1 = 1)
* ANY INVENTED authority (law of excluded middle, law of non-contradiction)

Some people believe in the Gods of Aristotle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_logic

I do not. I believe in the God of Information.