#Perception and Reality

[itsyaboyeric]

Late Night Radical-Constructivist Rambling

I believe in a few 'radical' (read: not popular) ideas regarding the self, the nature of being, reality, and consciousness. One such idea I hold in high regard is that reality is constructed by the senses, but what does that actually mean? What, in abstract, am I really getting at? Am I saying that we make up reality as we go along and that everything is fake? No, not quite.

(cont.)

To elaborate in a semi-reductive way: imagine the brain and its functions while putting a pin in the above text. In my view, the brain acts as a reality interpreter.

Think of your eyes and vision. You might say, "I can confirm with someone else that we're seeing the same thing." (i.e; a 'red' apple)

And that's true, relatively speaking. You and an outside observer can correspond and compare truths to reach a shared truth: we both perceive the apple as being red. (This concept, generally, is known as the correspondence theory of truth)

But what happens when you look at an optical illusion? Let's say that you're on your phone and see a post regarding a dress that asks what color(s) the dress is: black and blue or gold and white?

My friend might say the dress is blue and black whilst at the same time I perceive it and whole heartedly believe that it's gold and white. Some of the more clever among you might respond to this by saying we can check the hexadecimal color value(s) of the image, which is true. But consider that hexadecimal color is based upon the visible spectrum of light that we (you, I, others) are able to perceive. Is someone who is wholly colorblind wrong if they point out that the dress is actually gray and black? Because they can't perceive the same colors that you and I can?

"Yes!" I can hear the contrarians among you say. Well, alright, let's play that game.

Hypothetically, what if everyone were varying levels of colorblind, and only you and a minuscule percentage of people could see the light spectrum that non-colorblind people can see?

What if they used your logic there and said, "Actually, a majority of people see that it's gray. If we check with hexadecimal color, we can see that it's #00FFFF; objectively extremely gray!"

I hope you see the problem here and where the correspondence theory of truth falls apart.

This line of reasoning is known as The Knowledge Argument, which is often synonymous in conversation with Mary's Room. You can read more about it here (link to Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Digressing back to my earlier point about the senses and how the brain constructs reality:

By empirical comparisons of this manner on this matter, we can come to realize that what we perceive is not how reality appears, but rather how it appears relative to us. (And our senses.)

Back to optical illusions: surely you've seen a few. Take for example The Checker Shadow illusion (Wikipedia link)

The two squares are the same color. Yes, your eyes and brain are fooling you. Why is this? Well, to put it simply, your brain (the aforementioned reality interpreter) unconsciously takes the qualia (the subjective experience/phenomenon of viewing the illusion) and fills in the gaps based upon contextual information available to you. Thus, resulting in your perception of the squares being different colors.

The brain does this constantly in our day to day lives. And it isn't limited to optical illusions. Olfactory, tactile, auditory, and gustatory illusions all exist. Getting a little spooky, isn't it?

So, we've arrived at a point where we can agree at a minimum that the brain constructs reality based upon our senses. But what about the truth? Before I open that can of worms, let me posit another question to you:

When you perceive daylight and your friend in Australia perceives nightlight, which one of you is correct? And which one of you is lying?

If you believe in an objective truth, then this question will stump you. You'll tell me that I'm being fallacious in my reasoning, but that's not the case. You're encountering a problem here where you're inducting objectivity onto a problem with no objective answer.

The truth in this case, and pertaining to the question, is both dynamic and relative. Your friend isn't lying, and neither of you are incorrect. The truth relative to you is that it's daytime. The truth relative to your friend in Australia is that it's nighttime. The truth is dynamic in that it will eventually shift; you will eventually experience nighttime after experiencing daytime, and your friend will experience daytime after nighttime. Neither of you will experience them at the same time unless one of you moves elsewhere to the same time zone.

Again, neither lying or incorrect.

This is the essence of what I'm getting at. Your reality and how you experience it is just as valid as any other person's, even if you have fundamental disagreements as to the nature of reality and your contrasting perceptions.

In closing: I believe that this posits many questions about the very nature of being and consciousness, and that the world as we experience it is not as black and white as various figures claim it to be. Your experience of the world is just as valid as anyone else's and vice versa.

"There are no facts, only interpretations" —Friedrich Nietzsche.

(If you made it this far, thank you very much for reading. Any and all feedback is appreciated! 🖤🦝)

[frank-olivier]

The Unseen Threads: Weaving Together Religious Studies, UFO Research, and the Human Condition

The convergence of religious studies, UFO research, and explorations of the human condition yields a rich tapestry of themes, illuminating the complexities of belief, perception, and our quest for understanding. A notable aspect of this intersection is the organic transition from traditional academic disciplines to the study of unconventional phenomena, as exemplified by the guest’s journey from religious studies to UFO research. This convergence underscores the notion that belief systems, whether rooted in religiosity or experiences with the unknown, share common dynamics, highlighting the value of interdisciplinary approaches in understanding human experiences.

Personal narratives and synchronicities play a significant role in shaping one’s predisposition to exploring unconventional topics, as evident in the author’s account. This phenomenon speaks to the deeply personal and often serendipitous nature of research interests, emphasizing that individual experiences can serve as potent catalysts for scholarly pursuits. Moreover, the acknowledgment of these personal influences fosters a more nuanced understanding of the researcher’s perspective, encouraging a more empathetic and open-minded engagement with the subject matter.

Delving into historical and folkloric records reveals a profound, cross-cultural narrative of encounters with the unknown, challenging the modern, Western-centric view of UFO experiences. The existence of aerial phenomena reports across various traditions, including Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, medieval Chinese, and Islamic, positions these experiences within a broader, timeless human context. This historical depth not only expands our understanding of UFO phenomena but also underscores the importance of considering non-Western perspectives in the pursuit of knowledge.

The evolving legacy of UFO researchers, such as John Mack and Allen Hynek, illustrates a shift towards nuanced, multidisciplinary approaches, acknowledging the complexity of the subject. This development encourages a move beyond simplistic skepticism or credulity, embracing instead a more balanced and informed understanding. The resurgence of interest in these figures’ work serves as a testament to the field’s growing maturity, recognizing the value of diverse methodologies in illuminating the human experience.

The intersection of indigenous knowledge with modern technological endeavors, as hinted at in the “Right Stuff” connection, underscores the enduring relevance of ancient experiences with the unknown. This theme resonates with the broader conversation, suggesting that, despite the trappings of modernity, fundamental aspects of the human condition remain constant across time and culture. Ultimately, this realization invites a more humble and inclusive approach to understanding, one that acknowledges the wisdom of diverse cultural and historical contexts.

As we navigate the convergence of these disciplines, several avenues beckon further exploration, including the intricate interplay between perception, reality, and knowledge, and the question of whether Western struggles with the unknown are universally applicable. Moreover, the potential outcomes of emerging research initiatives promise to illuminate new pathways in understanding non-human intelligence, underscoring the importance of continued inquiry into the human experience. By embracing this interdisciplinary pursuit, we may uncover a more profound understanding of belief, perception, and our shared quest for knowledge, reminding us that the pursuit of understanding is, in itself, a timeless and deeply human endeavor.

Diana Pasulka: a religious study of UFOs and nonhuman intelligences (The Tonearm, January 2025)

Wednesday, February 5, 2025

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of the Eyes

The philosophy of the eyes explores the significance of vision as a primary means of perceiving and interacting with the world. It examines the relationship between sight, knowledge, beauty, and perception, and how the eye symbolizes awareness, truth, and consciousness in philosophical and cultural contexts. Vision has often been privileged in both epistemology (theory of knowledge) and aesthetics due to its ability to capture detail, distance, and spatial relationships, but the philosophy of the eyes also delves into its limitations and subjective nature.

Key Themes in the Philosophy of the Eyes:

Vision and Knowledge:

Sight is often seen as the primary sense through which humans gain knowledge about the external world. In many philosophical traditions, vision is closely linked with truth and clarity. The empirical tradition, especially in philosophy of science, relies heavily on what can be observed and measured visually.

However, philosophers such as Plato and Descartes have also questioned whether sight alone can lead to true knowledge, highlighting how the senses can deceive. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave suggests that what we see is often just shadows of the truth, while the real understanding comes from intellectual insight rather than sensory perception alone.

Eyes and the Mind:

The connection between the eye and the mind is central to many philosophical discussions, particularly in epistemology and phenomenology. The eye is not just a passive receptor but interacts with the mind to interpret and make sense of the visual stimuli it receives.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty, a key figure in phenomenology, emphasized how vision is embodied, meaning that seeing is not merely a function of the eyes but involves the whole body and consciousness. Our perception is shaped by our experiences, biases, and embodiment.

The Eye as a Symbol of Consciousness:

In various philosophical traditions, the eye symbolizes awareness and the mind’s ability to see beyond the physical world. The "third eye" in Eastern philosophy represents spiritual insight and higher consciousness. The eye of Horus in Egyptian mythology symbolizes protection and divine perception.

The eye is often used as a metaphor for the intellect, reason, or the soul. Descartes' "Cogito" (I think, therefore I am) exemplifies how self-awareness, akin to the eye seeing itself, is central to human consciousness.

Vision and Ethics:

The eye is central in discussions about ethical perception, or moral seeing. Seeing others, particularly in a Levinasian sense, involves recognizing the ethical demands they place on us. The act of looking at another can signify recognition, respect, or objectification.

The concept of "the gaze" has been discussed in existentialism and feminist theory. Jean-Paul Sartre argued that the gaze of others can objectify us, reducing our freedom. Laura Mulvey, in feminist film theory, discusses the "male gaze," where the act of looking is tied to power dynamics and objectification.

Eyes and Aesthetics:

The eyes are key in aesthetic philosophy, as vision is a primary way we engage with art, beauty, and nature. Visual beauty, both natural and created, is often one of the first experiences that lead to reflection on aesthetics.

The role of sight in aesthetic experience can raise questions about how we distinguish between superficial beauty and deeper, more significant forms of artistic or natural beauty.

Illusion and Reality:

The eyes are often associated with the concept of illusion, prompting philosophical reflections on the difference between what is seen and what is real. Philosophers from Plato to Kant have explored how vision can deceive, raising doubts about its reliability as a source of knowledge.

Optical illusions serve as practical examples of how the mind interprets visual information in ways that may not correspond to reality, challenging the assumption that “seeing is believing.”

Vision and the Sublime:

The eye’s capacity to perceive vastness and grandeur is tied to the concept of the sublime in philosophy. Experiencing vast landscapes, the night sky, or immense natural phenomena through vision often invokes feelings of awe and transcendence.

Philosophers like Kant have explored how the sublime reveals the limits of human perception, as what we see can overwhelm the senses and exceed comprehension, leading to both fascination and terror.

Vision, Time, and Memory:

Sight is also closely linked with time and memory. Our eyes capture moments that we store in memory, giving us access to the past. Philosophical inquiries into how memory works often involve visual recollections.

Henri Bergson discussed the relationship between perception, memory, and time, proposing that vision is one way we navigate the tension between the present moment and our past experiences.

Power and Surveillance:

In modern philosophy, particularly with thinkers like Michel Foucault, the eye is linked to power, especially in the context of surveillance. Foucault’s concept of the panopticon highlights how being under constant watch shapes behavior and exerts control over individuals, leading to philosophical discussions about the ethical implications of being seen.

The "eye of authority" also raises questions about who has the power to look, who is watched, and how vision is used to enforce social norms and hierarchies.

Eyes and Empathy:

Eyes are windows to emotional understanding and empathy. The ability to make eye contact and read emotions through facial expressions plays a key role in interpersonal relationships. Seeing another’s pain or joy can evoke empathy, leading to discussions in ethics about the moral obligations we have to others when we recognize their emotional states.

The philosophy of the eyes is rich and multifaceted, spanning discussions on perception, knowledge, aesthetics, ethics, and power. The eye symbolizes both the potential and the limitations of human understanding, as it is a primary means through which we engage with the world, yet it is also capable of deception and subjective interpretation. The eye's importance in human experience is reflected in its central role in philosophy, whether in understanding reality, contemplating beauty, or navigating social and ethical relationships.

[turiyatitta]

The Silent Symphony of Being

A mystic does not merely hear the song of existence—she becomes it. She embodies a melody that cannot be confined to notes or scales, a hymn without measure or tempo. This song is not sung in any earthly language, yet it resounds through every atom, reverberating in the silence before sound itself arises. As she moves through the world, the air hums in response, neurons spark like celestial…

[lifeinspiration4all]

Truth or Illusion? How Perception Shapes What We Believe

What if everything you believe to be true is nothing more than a carefully constructed illusion? What if the world you see, the convictions you hold, and the truths you defend are not reflections of reality—but merely the echoes of your perception? “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” – Albert Einstein The Fragile Nature of Truth Like a sculptor molding clay, our…

[xokp]

Wisdom Begins At Foxwoods

Many years ago there was an advertisement for Foxwoods Casino in CT that went with the tagline “the wonder of it all…” I remember very little else about the commercial other than it was sung by some crooner trying to get me to come blow my hard-earned on the slots. I never went there. But the tagline stays…. The Wonder of it All. The wonder of it all… And I wonder… Wonder. Wisdom begins with…

[vaguely-concerned]

I think it says almost everything you need to know about varric that his reaction to the blackwall reveal is like... 'oh thank GOD you're a child murderer. for a hot second there I thought you were something much much worse' '.......like what' 'boring to me personally'

[arielluva]

everlasting

[pratchettquotes]

One of the recurring philosophical questions is:

"Does a falling tree in the forest make a sound when there is no one to hear?"

Which says something about the nature of philosophers, because there is always someone in a forest. It may only be a badger, wondering what that cracking noise was, or a squirrel a bit puzzled by all the scenery going upwards, but someone. At the very least, if it was deep enough in the forest, millions of small gods would have heard it.

Things just happen, one after another. They don't care who knows. But history...ah, history is different. History has to be observed. Otherwise it's not history. It's just...well, things happening one after another.

Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

[stripedstarsblueflags]

if you expect a driver to be world champion material (ruthless, ravenously ambitious, selfish, psychologically manipulative, killer instinct, able to be cold hearted to hypothermic extremes, competitive to the point of aggression, values winning more than anything and anyone in their lives) and also be a completely likeable person that is entirely a you problem

[weirdoldmanhoho]

I don't know. If you found out that your evil doppleganger that you unwillingly became immortal twins with was planning to murder your ENTIRE COUNTRY like he already did to your old country and you're literally the only person alive who can stop him, except doing so means you need to leave your family for a bit I'm not sure we can call that guy a "deadbeat dad." I don't think we can even say he "abandoned his family."

I think people forget that Hohenheim was actively going around the entire country putting his blood into the ground to counteract Father's transmutation circle and that is literally the only reason that Father turning Amestris into a Philosopher's Stone gets reversed later on. He wasn't just like....bachelor-ing it up for 10 years.

The goal was always to stop Father, save Amestris, hopefully become mortal while doing so (as he was ridding himself gradually of souls), and return back to his family to grow old with them. But unforeseen to anyone, tragedy struck, because that's how life works.

[bitchthefuck1]

I love how the conversation between Harmony and Helena shows the tension that Helena becoming severed creates in the power dynamics, because even as a temporary PR stunt under a different name to clearly delineate them, Helly's existence is still a huge crack in the Eagan mythology. Cobell, Milchick, and Graner could be drinking the kool-aid by the bucketful, but watching a descendant of Kier allow themselves to be severed and then being placed in a position of authority over them would still have a massive subconscious impact on the way they view Helena, and by extension their perception of the Eagan's as a whole. It's a direct threat to their illusion of divinity, and you can really feel how that colors their interactions.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of the Senses

The philosophy of the senses is a branch of philosophy that investigates the nature, significance, and philosophical implications of sensory perception. It explores questions about how we perceive the world through our senses, the relationship between perception and reality, and the role of the senses in shaping our knowledge and understanding of the world. Here are some key aspects of the philosophy of the senses:

Sensory Perception: The philosophy of the senses examines how sensory organs such as sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell enable us to perceive the external world. It considers questions about the nature of sensory experiences, the accuracy and reliability of sensory perception, and the ways in which sensory inputs are processed and interpreted by the brain.

Empirical Knowledge: Sensory perception plays a central role in acquiring empirical knowledge about the world. The philosophy of the senses explores the epistemological foundations of sensory perception and investigates how sensory experiences contribute to our understanding of reality. It considers the relationship between sensory data, beliefs, and knowledge claims, as well as the potential limitations and biases of sensory perception.

Qualia and Consciousness: Qualia refer to the subjective qualities of sensory experiences, such as the redness of a rose or the sweetness of sugar. The philosophy of the senses examines the nature of qualia and their relationship to consciousness. It considers whether sensory experiences can be fully understood through physical or neurobiological explanations, or whether they involve irreducible subjective elements that defy scientific analysis.

Perception and Reality: The philosophy of the senses explores the relationship between sensory perception and the external world. It considers questions about the nature of reality, including whether our sensory experiences accurately reflect the objective properties of the world or whether they are mediated by perceptual processes and subjective interpretation.

Illusion and Error: Sensory perception is prone to illusions, errors, and misperceptions. The philosophy of the senses investigates the conditions under which sensory illusions occur and examines their implications for our understanding of perception and reality. It also considers the role of cultural, cognitive, and psychological factors in shaping perceptual experiences.

Multisensory Perception: Humans perceive the world through multiple senses simultaneously, and sensory inputs from different modalities often interact and influence each other. The philosophy of the senses explores the phenomenon of multisensory perception and considers how integration across sensory modalities contributes to our perception of the world.

Aesthetics and Sensory Experience: Sensory perception plays a crucial role in aesthetic appreciation and artistic expression. The philosophy of the senses examines the aesthetic dimensions of sensory experiences, including the role of sensory qualities such as beauty, harmony, and proportion in shaping our aesthetic judgments and preferences.

Technology and the Senses: Advances in technology have expanded the range of sensory experiences available to humans, from virtual reality and augmented reality to sensory-enhancing devices. The philosophy of the senses considers the implications of technological developments for our understanding of perception, reality, and the boundaries of human sensory experience.

In summary, the philosophy of the senses explores a wide range of questions about sensory perception, consciousness, reality, aesthetics, and the role of technology in shaping human sensory experiences and understanding.

[turiyatitta]

The Constructed Sovereign Born from Our Profound Void

The Illusion of Divinity and the Awakening of Inner Sovereignty When we summon the image of an omnipotent moral authority, an unseen deity, we’re sketching a specter birthed within the confines of our minds. This entity isn’t a divine phenomenon, but an offspring of our collective ego — an abstract amalgamation of ethics, morality, societal norms, rules, and dogmas. It thrives within the…

[thirdity]

Art is dead, not only because its critical transcendence is gone, but because reality itself, entirely impregnated by an aesthetic which is inseparable from its own structure, has been confused with its own image. Reality no longer has the time to take on the appearance of reality. It no longer even surpasses fiction: it captures every dream even before it takes on the appearance of a dream.

Jean Baudrillard, Simulations

[universetalkz]

The ego has a negativity bias-

“It tends to focus on what is missing rather than celebrating what you already have. When we do not understand this nature of the ego mind we are always hungry for more, never truly enjoying what we have already accomplished. Learn to appreciate where you are and through that you will snap out of the ego’s grip. Seeking more without focusing on what you already have will always leave you feeling like you have nothing. Always be grateful.”

~Pawan Nair | The Higher Self