John Henry

If there were any aspect of reality beyond what we are able to perceive or deduce, we would, by definition, not be able to perceive or deduce that it existed.

More broadly, it is concievable that there could be flaws in our perception of the world that we are not able to percieve, because of the fact that our perception is flawed.

Given that this difference may exist between the reality we experience and the reality that exists, do we take the line that if objective reality is different from subjective reality, there is nothing we can do about it, so why bother? Or that what we define as objective reality is what we experience, so anything else is irrelevant? Or is there some way to bridge this gap?

(This thread inspired by Giltwist... plus a coupla philosophers)

TheKak

You said it yourself, why bother? If there is "an aspect of reality beyond what we are able to perceive" then you would be correct in saying that we would never know that it even existed, unless we were told by a being that was in fact able to perceive it and PROVE that it existed, not merely just say that it exists. Until then, why bother?

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

Mantus

The gap has been breached and objectivity has been assimilated into the subjective.

Of course that does mean that the subjective is not real, it simply means that it may not be what we perceive it to be.

We see the world though systems. Validation of knowledge is obtained by observing the interaction between objects. Even though our perception of individual objects in the system might be flawed, the fact that the system works means that we do have some understanding of the objects involved. By observing imbalances in the system we can pinpoint flaws in our perception of the objects that are contained within. If by adjusting our perception of an object the system becomes more balanced then our perception is closer to the truth. If on the other hand the change in perception imbalances the system then we need to rethink our perception of the object at hand.

So we have three types of objects:

Contingent existing objects - are objects that fit and work within our system.

Contingent non-existing objects - are objects that might exist within our system. They are created in the mind by observing patterns within the system and deducing the their possible property and place within the system.

Impossible existing objects - are objects that do not fit into the system.

Why are the senses so important in to us? Because the subjective knowledge they present us has resulted in the best systems.



This was a spur of the moment musing, so pardon me if there are obvious flaws in it as I have not though it though.

Cheers

triad

I agree with mantus, but on another level:

The reason going "so what" is wrong is that by trying to figure out the unfigure-out-able, we are getting closer to our truth, and by pushing the bounds of what we accept to be true we keep ideas from getting stale and society stays in motion. If not for attempts to further our understanding of existance, then we would stagnate as a population and as sentient beings...

-Triad

Kyo

- Our investigations into various matters necessarily come with some degree of optimism: we assume that we will be able to conclude or at least learn something from our investigations. If we believed from the beginning that what we were investigating was, by definition (<- this is important), beyond our ability (aided by any tools), to perceive, we certainly would not bother investigating it, as we are doomed to failure before the attempt is even made.

- Taken another way, there is a certain practical sense that goes into everything we research and study: if it can affect us in some way, then we are naturally able to perceive it and therefore must be able to learn something by investigating it, even if our knowledge is not comprehensive. It is important to see that if an object or event cannot be perceived or experienced, then by definition it cannot affect us or have any bearing on our lives whatsoever - we would not, in fact, even be aware of its existence, and therefore would not know and/or think about attempting to investigate it.

- I assume that this thread is inspired at least in part by and attempts to address our attempts at creating some kind of unified scientific system which we could then use to predict the movement and behavior of particles and energy about which sufficient information is known. My point in this specific case, then, is that we should be able to eventually create a system which coincides with our perception. Whether or not that our system is 'actually' correct is, in my opinion, irrelevant, so long as the system is able to describe what we want it to describe, the way we believe it should be described.

- As a sort of wrap-up or clarification, consider two laws: y=x^2, and y=2x. Obviously, the two are not equivalent for all x. However, assume that the only number which we can perceive, and which has any bearing on our existence, is x=2. Then the two systems produce equivalent results, and are, in our minds, equivalent. The fact that they are not equivalent for numbers beyond our perception is irrelevant, since it will never occur to us, nor become apparent to us, or in any way affect us at all. In short, for all practical purposes the two systems are equal.

__________________
Sure I have a heart; it's floating in a jar in my closet, along with my tonsils, my appendix, and all of the other useless organs I ripped out.

Randerolf

To be honest, its atough question. I will leave you with two quotes that I keep in my folder for school that I think about, trying to wrap my mind around.

Both by Immanuel Kant
"Critique of Pure Reason"