We see things as we are, not as they are

[granadina]

Is this philosophical quote also endorsed by modern science ?

 

If yes , could we have some corroborating scientific evidence .

( hopefully not too techinical )

 

Thanks .

[granadina]

And does it follow - ' reality does not exist when we are not observing it . ' ?

[Phi for All]

There is confirmation bias, where we prefer information that confirms our beliefs and tend not to check it for truth as much as that which doesn't fit our preconceptions.

[granadina]

There is confirmation bias, where we prefer information that confirms our beliefs and tend not to check it for truth as much as that which doesn't fit our preconceptions.

 

The link was useful . Thanks .

 

' People gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively , and interpret it in a biased way . '

 

Furthermore , how limited is the ability to process when compared to the input the brain receives .

Is it not presumptuous then to identify and subscribe to ' the vast amount of unobserved , unprocessed data

that is unknown , by saying that it exists ?

[Phi for All]

I definitely think we've evolved into identifying things by the pattern we assign to them. We can't handle the flood of data we receive without a way to categorize, so we look for patterns the way we used to look for animals to hunt, or plants to gather. Input is transferred to pattern recognition to be sorted and stored. If it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck, next please!

 

It's mostly things that don't fit a pattern that require our full attention.

[granadina]

In virtually every science , there comes a stage when the unknown appears to belittle the known .

When patterns do not seem to work any more .

 

One may never experience it , or one may well experience it to become disillusioned !

 

On the one hand you may call it as reality , the outer world , the universe ..

On the other hand the very idea of an external reality is cast into doubt .

And it's you in between .

 

You might say we have evolved sufficiently .

You might also say we have distanced ourselves more and more from our original nature .

 

Just as you said - ' We prefer information that confirms our beliefs . '

[Psycho]

I definitely think we've evolved into identifying things by the pattern we assign to them. We can't handle the flood of data we receive without a way to categorize, so we look for patterns the way we used to look for animals to hunt, or plants to gather. Input is transferred to pattern recognition to be sorted and stored. If it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck, next please!

 

It's mostly things that don't fit a pattern that require our full attention.

This is true, however interestingly these patten recognition abilities become specialised in very early childhood so you can recognise the differences in the human faces for instance, however before 9 months old they can easily tell the difference between the members of all kinds of animal species that a child older than 9 months believes are the same animal. So in very early childhood the brain has the ability to tell very small differences in all kind of objects, but loses these abilities later in life when the brain specialises for other functions.

[granadina]

however before 9 months old they can easily tell the difference between the members of all kinds of animal species that a child older than 9 months believes are the same animal. So in very early childhood the brain has the ability to tell very small differences in all kind of objects, but loses these abilities later in life when the brain specialises for other functions.

 

This sounds interesting !

But how does one ascertain these abilities ?

Kindly post the links to Experiments / Studies if any , conducted in this regard .

 

Does it somehow relate to ' Synaptic Pruning ' -

' In neuroscience, synaptic pruning, neuronal pruning or neuro-structural re-assembly refer to neurological regulatory processes, which facilitate a change in neural structure by reducing the overall number of neurons or connections, leaving more efficient synaptic configurations. It is often a metaphor used to describe the maturation of behavior and cognitive intelligence in children in terms of "weeding out" the lesser used synapses. '

[Psycho]

Link to study

[granadina]

Thanks for the link .

 

Would like to have your views of the OP .

[owl]

And does it follow - ' reality does not exist when we are not observing it . ' ?

This is classical subjective idealism, as per Berkeley and Hume.

As I posed in another thread, suppose no intelligent life ever evolved.

Only the most extreme anthropomorphic philosophy would claim that there would be no cosmos without intelligent life observing it.

 

Science's job is to investigate the world with the least possible bias... the maximum objectivity.

[granadina]

This is classical subjective idealism, as per Berkeley and Hume.

As I posed in another thread, suppose no intelligent life ever evolved.

Only the most extreme anthropomorphic philosophy would claim that there would be no cosmos without intelligent life observing it.

 

Science's job is to investigate the world with the least possible bias... the maximum objectivity.

 

Thanks for the help .

 

Can one say that ' subjective idealism ' can never be part of an education curriculum ?

How can myth be substituted for the ' real ' !

[owl]

Thanks for the help .

 

Can one say that ' subjective idealism ' can never be part of an education curriculum ?

How can myth be substituted for the ' real ' !

You're welcome. It belongs in a philosophy curriculum but not as a basis for empirical science, as in the claim that reality depends on how it is seen from different frames of reference.

[granadina]

It belongs in a philosophy curriculum but not as a basis for empirical science, as in the claim that reality depends on how it is seen from different frames of reference.

 

So in a way , if you are curious about philosophical questions , the first thing you are required to do

is pull yourself out of the mainstream society ?

[owl]

 

So in a way , if you are curious about philosophical questions , the first thing you are required to do

is pull yourself out of the mainstream society ?

To at least question authority (even the scientific mainstream) and think for yourself. Btw, this does not require being a mathematician/physicist.

[granadina]

True .

 

And this may well mean a cessation of the ' world with its problems ' !

[questionposter]

This is sort of new to me how scientific this is because I don't think I have as much of a problem seeing negative things, and I know that that statement can be thought of as bias, but at the same time I can also feel "outside" of my own thoughts and seeing them. I think the truth is you can be bias if you want, but you can also look at other possibilities if you put the effort into it. That's actually probability what it is because when you look at a negative impacts or consider possibilities you think you don't want to, what's really going on is more of a complex subconscious "security" or feeling of safety violation, but as it's been shown before, you can ignore whatever instincts you have if you want to. Have you seen that guy in 128 days? Well, he really put the effort into making sure he'd see his son again even though it hurt unimaginably.

Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter