Biologically, we humans are forced to perceive an existence where we only have our limited senses to define reality. Insects perceive spectrums of light we are incapable of. Dogs, cats, and other mammals perceive sounds we are incapable of. We create an idea of absolutes with only a tiny fragment of the total sum of reality. We fill in the imperceptible with our imaginations. My point is, no human can define objectivity in absolutes because we lack the capacity to perceive reality beyond our human biologic limitations. Reality can only ever be subjective, can only ever be defined in a limited setting. The most "truth" I have been able to define objectively, is that I, you, and others, will always be "wrong" in our definitions of the scope of existence, because of our perceptual limitations. Do you agree? If not, then why?
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
5 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I agree with @cava, we’ve developed sensors that detect information concerning phenomena about which we would otherwise remain unaware. But even if we can access or develop enhanced senses—whether through natural evolution, genetic engineering or artificial implants—we could never say that what we detect is all there is, even if all of what we do detect can be objectively catalogued. But the fact that our understanding is therefore limited, does not make our reality as a species ‘wrong,’ or untrue, unless you mean, ‘incomplete.’ All knowledge is provisional (quoting Popper) and we learn in a never-ending spiral continuum of reexamination, revision and change.
p-nullifidian
Level 8
Sep 20, 2018
2
I don't see it as wrong, but as you stated, incomplete. My whole argument is basically that we will likely never truly "know" the objective nature of reality. All these comments are helping me to better postulate this idea in the future. Thank you for your input. You've taught me something, and I can't ask more of someone than that.
"we lack the capacity to perceive reality beyond our human biologic limitations."
Necessarily things that are beyond our physical limitations are irrelevant to us and there for may as well to all intents and purposes NOT exist.
They cannot inter-react with us nor we with them, even if they do exist and can be proved to be so by being detected by artificial means they still have no practical impact upon us and therefore have no use.
I have heard your contention used to postulate the existence of god.
However the potential god it could hypothesize would be nothing like any god of any religion that has ever existed and would be a deity so pointless it might as well be imaginary or non existent.
LenHazell53
Level 9
Sep 20, 2018
1
I see your point. Yet, imagine how our world will be effected if we ever develop technology to expand the base perception of reality we all share. Even with the tech now, we are just translating the imperceptible to a form perceivable by us. I am disappointed that my argument can be used to put forward the idea of a deity. I am a non theist, and whole heartedly disbelieve the idea of any sort of deity. Postulating on the idea of one, that idea makes sense through with my argument. One of my biggest disagreements with theism is the fact that we anthropomorphisize the idea of one. Were I ever to think of a diety, it would be as you postulated, totally uninvolved and inhuman. Thanks for this perspective. It has me thinking.
@rabidazzle
"if we ever develop technology to expand the base perception of reality we all share."
To what possible end? What use would it be?
You postulate a machine that would allow the detection of things of things we cannot otherwise perceive or interact with, and that can neither perceive or interact with us.
The effect is pretty much useless and the artificial detection could still only translate those outsiders in terms we could perceive so would only be a shadow, a representation of what they actually were or are so even knowledge is advanced no further than saying we know know, something that can be represented as a picture or a sound exist outside of our sphere of influence.
HP Lovecraft played about with this idea in his story "from Beyond" in that fictional instance it did not end well for any concerned.
I think there is only one absolute which is contingency. Also, what appears, what we can sense (we use machines to expand and improve our ability to sense), is reality. Science takes apparent reality and it creates rules, it reduces its data to some form of logical order(the sun neither rises nor sets). The important part is that what is observed is prior to any such rule or order. Our ability to be direct with nature is limited to its appearance/apparition.
Our senses can be erroneous only in the derivative sense. The sun rises and the sun sets, there is no way our observation of this can be erroneous (or anything else we sense, even if we are delirious. What we sense can't be un-sensed), but the conclusion that the sun actually rises or sets, science explains is wrong.
We have access to tools that greatly enhance our ability to sense, but what ever is sensed as such is raw information prior to our framing it conceptually.
cava
Level 7
Sep 20, 2018
1
I enjoy this perspective immensely. I would add probability to your idea of a definable absolute. Science definitely expels our old notions of perceptual definition, through making the derivative actually explainable. Thank you for this, I learned from it.
dogs have very limited color vision. cats are burdened with their superior intellect and sometimes it drives them crazy. we fill in the imperceptible with the RESULTS of our imaginations. thus we have a great capacity to perceive whatever the hell reality is well beyond our biological limitations. since reality can only ever be subjective, your version of it is at least as subjective as anyone else's, and comes from your imagination, which has not stretched to fill in what you consider the imperceptible.
g
genessa
Level 8
Sep 20, 2018
1
I agree with your perspective. The imagination is pretty much our filler for the unanswered.
@rabidazzle lol that wasn't my perspective. i was arguing with that perspective. the original poster said we use our imaginations as filler for what we can't perceive. i said that instead, we use our imaginations to create real things, REAL things, that perceive what we cannot perceive without those aids. that's not the same thing. the former means we imagine what we don't know, and so we might accept or believe things that aren't real. the latter means no, we do NOT do that; we make tools that help us perceive what IS real even if we are not biologically equipped to perceive it alone.
g
@genessa My mistake, I misinterpreted what you had wrote. I still agree with your perspective. We use imagination to create tools to quantify that which is imperceptible. I feel though, too many humans subscribe to the imaginary without realizing we have the tools to define the imperceptible.
@rabidazzle alas, you are certainly right there. hence religion. i do not want to equate our reaching beyond our own biological perceptions with religion, where no tools are used and all tools are eschewed (some call evolution, for one example of many, a "matter of faith," which is by no means true.
g
@genessa Agreed. When it comes to evolution, it's demonstrable with fast generational life forms, like bacteria and the like. I am absolutely bamboozled that some people would rather believe in the nigh instant genesis present in most religious origin stories, over demonstrable science.
@rabidazzle fruit flies! we all watched fruit flies multiply in science class! now i want to know how to get them to stop multiplying in my kitchen. (getting a new air conditioner helped!)
g
I don't think our biological limitations are a problem because we can built machines and tools to enhance our abilities. I agree that there are no absolutes and we don't have direct access to an objective outer world but we can make theories and test our predictions about future events that follow from these theories giving us a picture of what this objective reality might look like. The theories might be wrong but they are our best guesses and if everything works as it should our understanding of what the objective world looks like gets better and better. Right now we can make predictions of astounding precision so I think we are on the right track (please don't ask about dark matter and dark energy because it ruins the optimistic picture I'm painting here).
Dietl
Level 7
Sep 20, 2018
1
I agree. Science and math has allowed us the ability to perceive beyond our limitations. We can quantify the imperceptable, like radiation, etc. I feel like we as a species, are only ever advancing this idea. Here is a question for you. Do you believe technology will reach the point of being able to perceive an absolute? This makes me think of an old quote by H.P. Lovecraft. "One day man will use technology to perceive a truth so absolute that we will gladly crawl back into our caves." That's not a direct quote, just from memory.
No we will never be able to perceive the absolute. The very meaning of perception is making a (mental) image of somthing. So it's never the real thing. What you see, hear, feel etc. is always just about how your mind represents the impressions it gets from the outer world. It's also always through something. Seeing through your eyes, hearing through your ears, detecting through a microscope. So there is always something between the real thing and our minds or the thing that perceives.
But as I said, our representations will get better and better.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Feline Fanatics
1562 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.