How much of existence do you really perceive?

[too-open-minded]

Something that is going to make you think I'm more of a crazy loon than you already do - How you perceive reality is a minuscule of what is actually going on around you. Everything you know is only relative, whether it be speed, size, or anything for that matter. One revolution of the earth around the sun is a long time, however compare it to the revolution of particles like electrons around a nucleus and a blink of the eye doesn't is almost unfeasible to compare relative speeds. Nobody knows how big space is, what if were merely particles among a much larger infinitely finite structure. I'm not saying it is but open your mind. Earth is relatively small compared to everything else that exists and with that little fact, just how big are you? There is no such thing as nothing, what you perceive as empty space. Doesn't exist, even the emptiest known space between galaxies has particles and undiscovered anomalies. The human brain can't even fully comprehend the trajectory/motion of the particle wave duality. You can't position any particle directly at any point in time. The fractals of your life, what your brain has evolved to be aware of. Is a minuscule of what is actually going on around you. Hell most people can't see why other cultures have certain views as they do. Science is still finding things out like why hot water freezes faster than cold. 99% of what we can see in space, doesn't exist the same way as we see it. Simply because that light took so long to get here and light speed is the fastest thing in the known universe! My point being, open your mind.

 

Anyways... how do you feel about the concept i'm trying to encompass?

 

Also if I made any false claims, please correct me because that's probably what I'm best at.

[DevilSolution]

I always seem to hit a recursive loop when trying to comprehend the entirety of the universe while simaltaniously percieving the smallest particles with the added variable of time. They intuitively merge into the same object. Analogies have a stronger foot hold than numbers in my mind but i can do a good job of breaking down maths into logic and seeing it for its functionally logical counterpart, alot of the more complex equations are out of my comprehension so by means of explanation the same truth can be conceived. I think intellectually the brain has the capability of percieving almost anything but point of reference, pre requisite knowledge and indoctrined environmental bias strongly inhibit ones ability to see the wider truth or the 'full picture'. Essentially as a single organism we will each struggle to comprehend our own percieved realities, id argue that we do have some intrinsic ability to grasp some form of infinite knowledge whether interpreted or scientific, it will be a set of re-enforced neurological structures in the brain.

 

As a simplified answer i'd say:

 

You percieve as much of reality as your subconscious allows you. Though you can take *some* conscious steps to try and broaden that perception.

Edited November 7, 2013 by DevilSolution

[Tridimity]

Another thing I would add is, as well as the inherent biological and/or technological obstacles to directly perceiving the most enormous and the tiniest entities in our Universe, consider the paucity of time that we each as individuals have available to us that may be devoted to such observations - think of how much time we spend sleeping (though necessary) and engaging in other mundane activities when we could be observing the Universe. At any moment in time, trillions and trillions of events are happening all over, not only Earth, but the rest of the cosmos. Imagine if we were capable of perceiving and processing all of that information in real time! (Is that God's job description?)

 

Even the luckiest people on Earth are, at best, well-travelled and have sufficient monetary and time resources to be able to exert control over their own destinies and so discover new truths almost at will. But, by the Universe's standards, by the standards of what hypothetically could be observed if only the observations were not limited by biological or technological obstacles - even these people are relatively impoverished. They too only get one shot at life - at best, a few decades.

[CharonY]

Our perception is nothing more than the recreation of reality in our brain based on a limited number of inputs. Even mundane things (cups, pencil, whatever) are recreated in your brain to get a good enough approximation so that you can interact with it. Get different types of receptors, things appear different. Have lesions in your brain in the relevant areas, perception changes again.

We have working models of our environment. Nothing more, nothing less.

[StringJunky]

CharonY, on 07 Nov 2013 - 7:46 PM, said:CharonY, on 07 Nov 2013 - 7:46 PM, said:

Our perception is nothing more than the recreation of reality in our brain based on a limited number of inputs. Even mundane things (cups, pencil, whatever) are recreated in your brain to get a good enough approximation so that you can interact with it. Get different types of receptors, things appear different. Have lesions in your brain in the relevant areas, perception changes again.

We have working models of our environment. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, I bought John J Pinel's Biopsychology and it was an eye-opener as to how much we actually actively construct as opposed to passively receive, like a lens on a projection screen, which is what most people think.

Edited November 7, 2013 by StringJunky

[AbeMichelson]

I've always liked Douglas Adam's posit that the population of the Universe/sq mile is 0. You take a near infinitely large number and divide it by a smaller number and you get a value approaching zero. I think the same argument can be constructed for knowledge.

 

I always use a personal account for perception and reality. I am color-blind, meaning I have less cones and poor spectral resolution. I have used color-checkers (like grammar and spell check editors) to make sure my presentations make sense. I know that my blue is probably not the same blue as someone else. While this doesn't discredit any empirical evidence of color I arrive at, it definitely gives me poor error bars. I would say on sensory inputs we all have error bars (everyone seems to experience cold differently, e.g.), and we can only say what we know based on those error bars.

 

Take position of a solid object. The first source of error is aberrations in our lenses. This is a larger source than, say, the error due to wavelength spreading. Our do not have (or need) the kind of resolution needed to see the changes in position due to quantum effects. However, conversationally, these do not matter. When I say "the keys are on the table," you know the position of the keys relative to the table. However, if I try to tell a robot through lines of code where the keys are, I need to actually take measurements and not "eyeball" it because precision is required. All of these measurement will be relative to a common origin for the Robot and Table. I do not need the spacial precision of an AFM. I need a spacial precision on the same order that the robot operates; just as I needed the same precision that my wife needed to find the keys.

So:

1) Compared to all possible information, we know nothing.

2) The things we know, we don't know everything about.

3) For just about everything we do, 1) and 2) don't matter.

 

(Pragmatism FTW!)

[cladking]

I believe you are overthinking this.

 

We are what we percieve. We are a collection of all of our perceptions. That our perceptions are such a miniscule part of everything that is percievable isn't really relevant. That we are incapable of even percieving more than a tiny partr of that which is percievable is also irrelevant.

 

Human life is largely to increase our ability to percieve ever more.

 

This just happens to be playing right now;

 

"With one hand on the hexagram and one hand on the girl
I balance on a wishing well that all men call the world.
We are so small between the stars, so large against the sky,
and lost among the subway crowds I try to catch your eye."

 

-Leonard Cohen 1967

I've always liked Douglas Adam's posit that the population of the Universe/sq mile is 0. You take a near infinitely large number and divide it by a smaller number and you get a value approaching zero. I think the same argument can be constructed for knowledge.

 

 

 

Well said.

 

1) Compared to all possible information, we know nothing.

2) The things we know, we don't know everything about.

3) For just about everything we do, 1) and 2) don't matter.

 

(Pragmatism FTW!)

 

 

I'm a little inclined to change #2 to 2) The things we know, we don't know ANYthing about.

 

Still well said.

 

Pragmatism needs a lot more weight in philosophy if we're ever to catch up with applying known science to human life.

[cladking]

In effect since we are a collection of our perceptions we percieve everything that exists.