Human perception and universal truth


Gray-philosophy's avatar
Whenever I log into these forums I’m always hoping to find a new and exciting debate to participate in or follow, but no. It’s usually just the same old bickering between believers and non-believers, about what’s true and what’s not, and how “That’s not a fact!” or “You can’t prove that!” or “You can’t disprove it either!”

I have my own views and opinions on these things, and I’d like to share them. Instead of copy-pasting replies everywhere I thought I’d put it out in a new thread instead, explaining them thoroughly.

I argue…
Perception is subjective – Not necessarily consistent with what is universally true, or real.

If scientific research and discovery accounts for anything, our perception is entirely governed by our senses, and our physical senses are limited to what we are, allow me to explain.

Our eyes can detect up to three different wavelengths of light, the nerve endings in our skin can register changes in pressure and temperature, our taste buds and nose can register certain chemical components, and our ears can detect certain frequencies of vibration. This is, as far as our common reality goes (more on that later), a fact.
What is also a fact is that different species have different senses, and are thus able to perceive different things, dogs can smell things that humans can’t smell, mantis shrimps can see colours that humans can’t see, and so on.
Additionally, senses have been known to malfunction. Hallucinations, voices that aren’t there, mistaking the smell of coffee for the colour blue and so on. Things like these are most commonly considered mental illnesses.
As far as I understand, this supports my argument of perception being subjective.

So what does that mean? It means that if our perception truly is subjective, all of our experiences and perceptions of reality are too. However, when multiple individuals experience the same things, we establish a common reality. A reality that most of us can relate to, because we all experience it similarly and coherently.

We acknowledge the existence of the physical world, because we can see and feel it with our senses. But what of things that we cannot sense? We’ve already established that there must exist colours outside of our visual spectrum that we simply can’t see (certain wavelengths of light).
For example, imagine that humans had no eyes at all, we would be absolutely oblivious to the concept of colours altogether. I therefore theorise that it’s safe to assume there are multiple other spectrums of a reality, in relation to universal truth, that we just can’t perceive. Either because we lack the organs to sense it, or the ability to comprehend it.

If that is indeed the case, we can never, ever, claim anything to be a fact in relation to universal truth, because we can’t see the whole picture.
You, we, as humans, are limited. What you think you know isn’t necessarily true. What you know you think could be entirely possible, but never proven nor disproven. Gods may be real, or may not be real. Conspiracy theories may be real, or may not be real. Either way, the most important thing is that you could be wrong, but so could I.

Your thoughts?
Comments31
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
pickles0629's avatar
I agree with your post! There is no use arguing about religion when we cannot even trust our own perception of things. Because of this, I will always be open to the idea of God, or to the idea of no God.
toomuch89's avatar
I think when it comes to big questions like this, the biggest mistake you can ever make is to be sure of anything. To never be sure, to always be uncertain, is really the only way to truly be free. Otherwise you're always on one side or another. I think about different languages sometimes. A different way of saying and describing something, but then i think of the complete and total meaningless the words have, I think that if that's true, then my words too are meaningless, then everything ever said is nothing. 

My words mean nothing. Writing means nothing except at the right place at the right time. The rules of writing are not my rules necessarily. I feel something else describing me deeper inside. 
tonifatoni's avatar
yeah  I  think i''ll get more but tentangcintaremaja.blogspot.co… its logic
qattle's avatar
If the universe is infinite, then one could never perceive universal truth. One can only perceive what is limited in time/space.

But that's not to say there isn't an objective world and that our senses can't grasp some portion of it. Subject implies object. Remove one and you necessarily remove the other.
macker33's avatar
well theres the world with us in it, and it will carry on whether you care or not.
lindentr33's avatar
You can type in key words like "reality" and "perception" at the top of the philosophy and religion index page, and bring up all of the discussions on the subject.

Not only will you find plenty of discussions that don't involve religious bickering, but you will also find that every thing you're saying has been said before! I've just about given up on religion discussion, and wont comment on this, unless I can think about something new to say. 

Not trying to be a damp squib, just talking reality (as I perceive it).
UnknownSingularity's avatar
You are making progress by aknowleging some facts on your thread. This forum is mainly for trolling and time wasting, you cannot expect a lot more :drunk:
skulkey's avatar
This forum is mainly for trolling and time wasting, you cannot expect a lot more

some of us are trying to do something about that! :shakefish:
UnknownSingularity's avatar
Long gone are the times of greek style philosophy schools :drunk:

With the internet, all we have is a cluster fuck of information that often makes no sense, but that feed this insatiable human need for trolling :iconweirdlaplz:
skulkey's avatar
it's a signal-detection problem - sifting through all that noise to find the signal.  unfortunately, not very many people are good at it...  you get noise put forth as signal, and signal labelled noise.  it gets tiresome, at times.  with the internet you can say pretty much whatever the fuck you want - so it's garbage in, garbage out.  at the same time, there's a massive opportunity present, to get at the facts as they are currently available. truly a double-edged sword.

but i really have no patience for people that deny facts...  it's one thing if you want to live in a delusional belief system.  it's quite another when you claim a stone is not a stone when it strikes you in the face...
UnknownSingularity's avatar
The issues is that even in science there is this confusion....

Is a stone, really a stone? :omg: Can it really hit you in the face? :nirvana:

I was watching a video about mathematic infinite paradoxes... and one was about making to objects hit each other by halving the distance between them... so they are 1 meter away, and then you make it 1/2 a meter... then 1/4, then 1/8... The thing is that you can make this an infinite number of times and they never... never touch :omg:

Now, in the real world... they seem to touch and crash.... but do they??? I was thinking that in an atomic level, the atoms of the rock and your face... actually never touch and crash with each other.... otherwise you would get a nuclear explosion and a mushroom cloud out of a rock striking your face :drunk:

So yeah.... what we think of as facts... could be only manifestations of something else.... like the rock hitting your face... is it really the rock? or is it the shockwave generated by the movement of the rock in space :eyes: 

The atoms of the rock, never touch your face... but the shockwave of energy travelling ahead of the atoms is what hits you... and somehow it is your own energy field that hits your atoms when it gets hit by the shockwave....

I am sure I am wrong, and that there is even more taking place here.... but my point is... are things we perceive as facts... really facts.... 

We can get lots on it... and we have no patience for that.... :stab:

By the way don't strike me with a rock to prove your point.... because a sure fact is that, whatever it is that hits you, it hurts :cries:

However, we could get lost in another debate about pain :smoking:
skulkey's avatar
Zeno's paradox.. ugh.  they're fun to think about, but it doesn't change the fact that you got hit in the face with something.  anyways, in scientific research, we often use machines to measure things objectively.  a geiger counter records a tic whenever an alpha particle strikes its sensor, for instance. there's no issue of perception involved - anyone can review the record and see the counts.

we know a certain person died because there are multiple eyewitness accounts of their death, and because we can dig up their fucking skeleton and confirm it's no longer living.  etc.  we know dinosaurs existed because of their fossils, which i can go to any science museum and view myself.  and so on...

i don't wish to travel down the path of "our perception could be faulty" because that undermines any knowledge in a way akin to Solipsism. it's a useless position to discuss things from.  i've seen religious people resort to this line of thought when arguing against scientific knowledge, and it's just fucking stupid, because it undermines their own position at the same time.  it's not conducive to anything.  it's a failure of a means to end a debate - something i call breaking Kowalski's Law...

i'm not really accusing you of such a thing, btw.  just expanding upon why i hate that sort of thing.

now pain...  is it "real"?  is it all in our heads?  i don't know, but as someone who suffers from a chronic pain condition (fibromyalgia), it sure as hell feels real, and i have been completely unsuccessful at "thinking it away"...
UnknownSingularity's avatar
I am not familiar with your disease, I would think it is possible to switch off pain receptors in the brain :bucktooth: but I am not an expert. Probably it is also dangerous because how would you stay safe if you cannot feel pain....


However I agree with you, I am also a kind of keep it simple kind of guy, I hate when people try to get you lost in a discussion. However, it happens way to often in this forums. I always tell people this is about sharing information, it is not a competition to see who has the strongest ego and will.... but hey... nobody listens :slow:
View all replies
LazyBoneArtist's avatar
I once read about a guy who walked into a supermarket and saw another person straddling a third person. This first guy thought the second guy was strangling the third, and ran away scared. But as was revealed later, the second guy was actually trying to revive the third, or at least that was what his lawyer wanted you to believe...
lindentr33's avatar
OK!!....a picture is worth a thousand words and a parable is better than an argument any day!
LazyBoneArtist's avatar
It's hard to say, I knew a person once who would overreact to any disagreement, so-much-so, that few people ran the risk of disagreeing with this person and would just nod politely.
lindentr33's avatar
:moo: Oops, misunderstanding, I was just complimenting you on your use of a story to illustrate a point.
 

Yours:

"I once read about a guy who walked into a supermarket and saw another person straddling a third person. This first guy thought the second guy was strangling the third, and ran away scared. But as was revealed later, the second guy was actually trying to revive the third."

And one I made up:

I heard about a cop who walked into a supermarket and saw an African American with a gun who was robbing the checkout girl, and so the cop shot and killed the robber. It turns out the African American was the checkout girls father who was handing his daughter her lunch sandwiches that she had left at home in her rush to get to work that morning.

(parable: "a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson").

The lesson in both cases being that perception can be subjective, depending on different individuals cultural experiences or biases.

LazyBoneArtist's avatar
Oh yes, I got it, and thanks for the compliment, but what I was saying is, nowadays being belligerent wins more arguments :)
skulkey's avatar
Whenever I log into these forums I’m always hoping to find a new and exciting debate to participate in or follow, but no. It’s usually just the same old bickering between believers and non-believers

then you haven't been bothering with my threads. :meow:

beyond that, you seem to be conflating sensation with perception - they are, scientifically speaking - two distinct processes.  aaaand you seem to be implying that the objective doesn't exist.

the only people who seek to "prove" anything, outside the realm of logic and geometry, are atheists and christians, apparently.  actual scientists don't claim "proof" of anything.  read a journal article on scientific research and see if the scientists make any claim of "proof".

no, scientific evidence, in the form of data (i.e. facts) that have been collected and analyzed, either support or do not support hypotheses, which either supports or doesn't support the theory which generated them.  all of this occurs within a margin of error, which is explicitly stated as a probability (Type I and Type II errors).  nowhere is anything "proven true or false".

if everything is actually subjective, as you seem to be implying, if not outright claiming, then all the facts that are gathered using scientific methods are of no value whatsoever, and all knowledge is undermined (as opposed to some percentage of knowledge).  i disagree strongly with this position as being utterly useless (like Solipsism).
UnknownSingularity's avatar
Unfortunately many scientist claim to be atheist, Christian or Muslim. Which really doesn't help anybody :no:
skulkey's avatar
well, any scientist worth his/her salt keeps their religious beliefs out of their work. of course scientists have biases, but their colleagues have a tendency to keep those in check...
UnknownSingularity's avatar
Einstein and Newton from the top of my head, were somewhat religious :bucktooth:

Einstein said, that he became a scientist because he wanted to figure out how God made the Universe :omg:
skulkey's avatar
wweeelll, Einstein is debatable (and indeed, much debate has ensued over his often contradictory remarks regarding "God").  overall, he wasn't religious per se, but more of an agnostic.  he certainly didn't hold OT notions of "God" in very high regard, and expressed doubts about Jesus's divinity...  he seemed to prefer Spinosa's impersonal pantheistic notions of a god.

certainly much has been made over his reaction to the Copenhagen Interpretation (which in all honesty, i don't think he understood all that well - as is evidenced by a personal letter to Schrödinger about his infamous cat thought experiment...).  but "God does not play at dice" has been taken up by christians as a sort of rallying cry that Einstein believed in the personal, abrahamic God...  in all likelihood his exclamation was more metaphor than anything.
UnknownSingularity's avatar
well you have to wonder if he prayed for enlightenment while writing his equations :meditate:

We will never know :omg:

Then you have all these cucus pushing for intelligent design in Christianity and Islam. Trying to marry the science we know with their religions. 
View all replies