Without the perceiver, dose the perceived exist?

just a couple of points to add to this discussion.

If one is aware of a subjective reality then one must be aware from an objective perspective. And subjectively aware of this objectiveness.

So we are aware of both the subjective and the objective.

We try to achieve an objective state which could be considered our true state. We try to achieve what we are, in that we are objectively seeing through subjective eyes so to speak.

Some theology suggests that to behold reality is to see it as objective thus one sees the truth. To do this we must drop our subjectivity and become objective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most of them are yours.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not most, many.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Consider the inability to distinquish between input and imagination.

 

Without the perceiver, there is no one to do any perceiving, but had there been someone there to perceive it, he would have perceived only those aspects that he is prone to perceiving, proving the old adage that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

 

/If one is aware of a subjective reality then one must be aware from an objective perspective.

One cannot be aware from an objective perspective.

/And subjectively aware of this objectiveness.

One can only presume logically that this objectiveness is objective. It is still ultimately subjective.

/So we are aware of both the subjective and the objective.

We may be aware of it, but as the limitation of knowledge is the subjective - the objective is merely presumption. We can project ourselves into the objective, but it's still a subjective interpretation of it.

/We try to achieve an objective state which could be considered our true state.

You mean that which is ontological? I think ontology and epistemology are in essence the same thing.

/We try to achieve what we are, in that we are objectively seeing through subjective eyes so to speak.

You might argue that as a matter of faith I suppose, but it's not valid otherwise. You cannot be subjective and "see objectively".w

/Some theology suggests that to behold reality is to see it as objective thus one sees the truth.

Truth is a resultant of perspective. It is possible that objective truths exist, but again they can only be known subjectively. Thus they are tainted and ultimately subjective. (as they can only be validated via perspective)

/To do this we must drop our subjectivity and become objective.

You can try and try and try all you'd like. I'm almost sure it's impossible.

 

to take my explanation a little further.

If one sees the colour red then one also knows it' isn't any other colour.

If one sees a tree one also knows that it isn't a dog.

If one sees the subjective one must also see the objective.

Our minds apply a form of deductive reasoning I guess.

When you see a coin on one side your know it has another side.

One can not know what is right when not knowing what is wrong.

Perceptive paradox or perceptive duality may be a name for what I am suggesting.

One can not feel something is missing unless he intuitively knows what it is that is missing.

Like,

How can one know if he has forgotten something if he doesn't know what he's forgotten. A man who is truely suffering amnesia is not aware that he is.

Just a simple way of explaining my previous post. I am no scholar, and it is just an observation.

 

/If one sees the colour red then one also knows it' isn't any other colour.

What about people who are color blind? They see red but they're not sure if it's green.

/If one sees a tree one also knows that it isn't a dog.

But what about dog trees? I mean, all those dog shaped trees out there are kind of dog-like right? Hehe. You're right but the point is that if we are going to question our input there is no end to it. You have to make an assumptoin in order to put a stake in the ground, in order to build upon it. You can't build a foundation without something to build it on you know.

/If one sees the subjective one must also see the objective.

Surely one may see it, but the nature of sight is subjective.. hehe. It's a sticky little spider web.

/Our minds apply a form of deductive reasoning I guess.

It's simply the nature of perspective I'm pretty sure, but yeah they do something like that. I call it "abstraction", that is "to convert inputs into experience".

/When you see a coin on one side your know it has another side.

Practically yes, because you accept it because it's logical.

/One can not know what is right when not knowing what is wrong.

You could split hairs and say that by choosing one the other falls into place, but then you could split it SO much further I'd think. I dunno. What if it's wrong to kill someone but only in this one circumstance it's okay. But you set up your criteria subjectively and the decision is a close call. Would there not be technically infinite variations of the same scenario that could lead to infinite shades of gray when considering the right and wrong of the scenario?

/Perceptive paradox or perceptive duality may be a name for what I am suggesting.

I'm not to hep to names of philosophical connundrums. I make up my own most of the time..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Pardon.

/How can one know if he has forgotten something if he doesn't know what he's forgotten.

Say you leave a marker with a thumb print on it indicating to you to remember something. You see the marker, you verify the thumbprint but you can't for the life of you remember what you were supposed to remember until you read the note inside.

/A man who is truely suffering amnesia is not aware that he is.

That's probably true, but not necessarily. For instance if he sees evidence that there is more to the story he may strongly suspect he's forgotten something while still not knowing what it is.

/Just a simple way of explaining my previous post. I am no scholar, and it is just an observation.

Not a problem, just like to debate. Nitpicking and arguing against the intuitive is what it's all about! hehe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

humour is also subjective and objectively i may want to object but subjectively I find it raaaather ammuuuuuzzzzing, (*objectively speaking of course)

 

Welcome to sciforums brother.

See signature.

 

I think there can be only one perciever, everything else is percieved. The idea that we are percieving objects is an illusion.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

Re: Re: Without the perceiver, dose the perceived exist?

you mean we are having a illusionary conversation?

 

The perceived cannot exist without the perceiver and is actually the perceiver only in Zen and in some other forms of Mahayana Buddhism, under the influence of Yogacara or Sautrantika-Yogacara. And, of course, in the philosophy of the right rev. bishop of Cloyne.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

______________
http://www.orientalgate.org

 

Re: Re: Without the perceiver, dose the perceived exist?

What is the difference between the illusion of perception and actual perception?

 

Yeah but what do YOU think?

 

Re: Re: Re: Without the perceiver, dose the perceived exist?

yinyinwang,

A conversation is not an object.


wes,

The difference is that actual perception does not change.

Love

Jan Ardena

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Without the perceiver, dose the perceived exist?

Are you speaking of the physical act of perception as in "input to the brain" or of the mental process of perceiving? Maybe I should just ask: "what do you mean by perception?".

It seems to me that to any particular perception (a POV), it is impossible to perceive if their perception is "real" or "illusion". Consider "the matrix".

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without the perceiver, dose the perceived exist?

I would say perception as in "input to the brain" for sure, but i'm not quite sure what you mean by "mental perception" in a way that is any different.

This is exactly what i mean by illusion. For you to percieve it as "impossible" means that you "know for sure" it is not "possible." How can you possibly know this?
What you probabaly mean is; according to my awareness and experience i cannot find a way to decifer if their perception is real or false.

For what reason?


Love

Jan Ardena.

 

wes,

Another point. If it is impossible, then that perception is "actual" as it will never change.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without the perceiver, dose the perceived exist?

/I would say perception as in "input to the brain" for sure, but i'm not quite sure what you mean by "mental perception" in a way that is any different.

Well, there is your skin and then there is the center of the brain that translates what the skin tells it into sensation. Conscious effort can change the latter, but the former is what it is. (at any give time I mean)

/This is exactly what i mean by illusion. For you to percieve it as "impossible" means that you "know for sure" it is not "possible."

No it doesn't. I have made the assume that reason (logic) is applicable. Through this process, the nature of perspective is revealed to me. Of course I don't know anything for sure. I can tell you what is accurate within my frame of reference (which starts with faith in reason).

/How can you possibly know this?

As I stated above.

/What you probabaly mean is; according to my awareness and experience i cannot find a way to decifer if their perception is real or false.

Of course. Further, from my ability to reason I derive that to all reasonable probability any perspective is subject to this limitation on knowledge.

/For what reason?

Because the humans caught in that matrix in that movie perfectly illustrate my point.

/Another point. If it is impossible, then that perception is "actual" as it will never change.

Technically I would say that subjectively there is no difference between "actual" and "illusory" perception. I suppose one day it will be tested, as I'd imagine a "matrix" type experience to be inevitable... not that we're imprisoned in it, but rather that technology eventually yields an experience just as convincing.

I suppose I mean that technically there is no means to differentiate between "actual" and "illusory" perception (as long as that illusory perception is wholly convincing)....

which brings me to the question.

While you may highly suspect that there is some unchanging perspective... why?

If you agree that it is impossible, then isn't the "actual" perception your own???