Perception of Reality or Reality of Perception

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

A Troubled Man
Guru
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am

Perception of Reality or Reality of Perception

Post #1

Post by A Troubled Man »

We are constantly bombarded with believers telling us their versions of reality in which gods, demons, angels, etc. are constantly swirling around our heads in endless battles of good vs. evil, of invisible gods who intervene in our affairs and all other types of supernatural events taking place right under our noses.

Since there is only one reality and no one has ever shown it to be anything other than what we all experience it to be every day, which never shows those gods, angels or other supernatural events existing and occurring, are believers perceiving that as reality, are they just misunderstanding the terms reality and perception or are they merely wishing reality was the way they want it to be?


Reality - That which exists objectively and in fact.

Perception - to become aware of (something) through the senses, to recognize or observe.

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Perception of Reality or Reality of Perception

Post #21

Post by JP Cusick »

Rufus21 wrote: You didn't answer any of my questions. Other than using your opinions, how do you confirm that your perceptions regarding ghosts/spirits are real while other people's perceptions are not?
Well my opinions count.

You might discount opinions and that is your loss - not mine.

My opinions are a part of my perspective, and that makes my reality much stronger.

I really do not see you giving your own perspective, because you are just making denials, and your denials are not even given as your opinion.

If I am ever with another person and they do not see the ghost or spirit then I will point out to them that there it is - then I am able to judge their perception or lack of vision.

Otherwise here online then we can only discuss what we know or believe without any physical or real life application.

Have you investigated the ghost in your own area? and as some one else might suggest - try taking some one with you that knows about the ghost or spirits.

You can not have a valid perspective if you never experienced it, and so you just deny what you have never experienced.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Perception of Reality or Reality of Perception

Post #22

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 18 by JP Cusick]
You made the assertion that there is only one (1) reality.

Clearly anything can be challenged but under your stance of only one then my challenge is rejected before it is ever started.
Again, incorrect (you seem to have a habit of being that). Earlier I changed my own stance on that to the one reality that both you and I commonly experience.

What I said earlier-
How about that there is only the one reality that both you and I commonly experience? Any claims from yourself or others about a separate reality I regard as unfounded, precisely because there is no evidence for such.
This means that my own stance IS CHALLENGEABLE. I allowed for the possibility of another reality as long as evidence is provided to support it.
I accept that your reality is different from mine, and so by this mine is open and challengeable.
Wrong, again. The reality I experience is the one of nature. At this moment in time, I regard as unfounded claims of a supernatural reality (this can be challenged, as long as evidence is provided, although to be honest, supernatural by definition cannot be verified using evidence, so I dunno how you're going to do that).
You and I are currently experiencing a shared reality - we both exist on Planet Earth, you in one nation (the US, I presume) and me in another, both using computers to communicate.
You talk about an additional reality.
The distinction was just if you are open or closed to a challenge and so claiming that there is only one (1) is a closed reality.
I am open, and never on this site have I indicated otherwise. So I would appreciate it very much if you would stop what basically looks to me like you strawmanning me.
You are thereby devaluing perception, which I do not.
How so, when evidence is gathered through perception/observation?
If a person perceives reality in a certain way (only one way their way) then their perception controls reality and reality is thereby distorted.
Am I understanding you correctly? Am I correct when I translate the above as this 'Back when the majority of people believed the Earth to be flat, reality was, that the Earth actually was truly flat. Later on, when the belief changed, so did reality, and the Earth transformed from flat, to oblate spheroid'?
What happens when people believe two mutually exclusive things? There is a small minority of people who still believe in a flat Earth. Is the Earth both flat and spheroid at the same time?
The only one (1) reality which I might accept would be the unknown reality.
I honestly have no idea what this means. How can you accept a reality that you describe as unknown?
The only known reality is what each of us perceive.
You mean the common reality, I hope? The one where both of us are on a spheroid Planet Earth?
I do not have that limitation on my perspective, as I can see and imagine farther.
I do not regard them as being strengths in favour of a given hypothesis. Have you done any work on the hypothesis, and submitted for review to physicists and mathematicians?
The multiverse does not need to be proven to be viewed as true and as real.
Technically correct...there are people who believe all sorts of things, and not all of those are proven. However, is this seriously what you want to promote? "Hey just believe whatever you want, don't worry about proving it!"?
Columbus believed the earth to be round, but after he discovered the land then he no longer believed as then he knew it was round.
Are you arguing that the Earth became or remained flat, physically, in truth, or merely that Columbus's belief of the matter changed?
A person must first believe before they can know.
Do you believe me to be black? Do you know this?
Yes of course I believed what you said.

If you were being untrue then it would be doing damage to your self, and I would not want to openly question your integrity.
So basically, the null hypothesis, the very concept of it, you reject?
It is a matter of respect for other people to give them the courtesy of my belief in what they say.

Our words are very powerful, and in words we all have the power to bless or to curse, to help or to harm, and so the words require respect from me.

When a person lies then they do great harm to their self.
So you will let a person's claim go unchallenged in the social sphere, until or unless it is proven false some other way?
I for one am not like you. If a person is saying something I think is only so much bovine faeces, then I will say so and explain why I think so.
What you're describing of yourself is not so much an epistemology, but rather your actions in the social sphere. Not challenging people's claims, by claiming that not doing so is you being polite, is you NOT acting to try to discover the truth (whatever that is).
In some cases emotions have more weight, because perception can be driven by emotions.
Give me an example where emotions helped determine the veracity of a case or claim, over using logic and examining evidence.
Yes of course.
In which case, you and I are operating on completely different modes of thought, and from what I guess, can never meet. You believe everything you hear, I do not.
For a person who keeps telling lies then by believing them then their lies become exposed and backfires onto them. It is much more fun to play along with a liar then to call them out on the lies.
Please note that 'playing along' (at least in my mind) is NOT the same as believing them.
You seem to be equivocating meanings here. Please, do not commit that fallacy.
I do not agree.
Then I can only say that you are 100% wrong and leave it at that. Someone who starts out by believing X to be true (and not with the meaning of 'playing along') is not one who has a motive to test the claim.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Rufus21
Scholar
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:30 pm

Re: Perception of Reality or Reality of Perception

Post #23

Post by Rufus21 »

JP Cusick wrote: My opinions are a part of my perspective, and that makes my reality much stronger.
How does relying on unverified opinions make reality stronger? I would think it would have the opposite effect.
JP Cusick wrote: I really do not see you giving your own perspective, because you are just making denials, and your denials are not even given as your opinion.
I have not made any denials at all. You said that you have investigated and verified your beliefs and are able to refute other's beliefs. I am asking you how you go about doing that. You have still not answered.
JP Cusick wrote: You can not have a valid perspective if you never experienced it, and so you just deny what you have never experienced.
If I see someone have an experience, then see that experience debunked, is my experience not a better indication of reality? Is it wise for me to make the same mistakes they did just so that I can experience it? Are facts a sufficient reason for denial?

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Perception of Reality or Reality of Perception

Post #24

Post by JP Cusick »

rikuoamero wrote: Again, incorrect (you seem to have a habit of being that). Earlier I changed my own stance on that to the one reality that both you and I commonly experience.

What I said earlier-
How about that there is only the one reality that both you and I commonly experience? Any claims from yourself or others about a separate reality I regard as unfounded, precisely because there is no evidence for such.
This means that my own stance IS CHALLENGEABLE. I allowed for the possibility of another reality as long as evidence is provided to support it.
I confess my mistake as I did read it inaccurately and especially I did not see the question mark.

I do admit when I am shown to be wrong.

Unfortunately the error does not settle things between us in this regard.

In answer = no, I do not accept that there is one reality between us, commonly experienced or not, and THEN you say any claims about a separate reality you regard as unfounded - because there is no evidence (said you) and that is a closed door.

You saying that can be challenged is just semantics / just empty words, as if you are the giver of permission which you are not.

I tell you that there is a different and a better reality from the one you declare - and if you reject that information then it is just your own loss - not mine.

It is a matter of perception, and therefore there is no evidence to penetrate your closed up defenses.
rikuoamero wrote: Wrong, again. The reality I experience is the one of nature. At this moment in time, I regard as unfounded claims of a supernatural reality (this can be challenged, as long as evidence is provided, although to be honest, supernatural by definition cannot be verified using evidence, so I dunno how you're going to do that).
Nature is just another word for God, because there is no such thing as nature except in the exact same context as a God.

I do not preach any supernatural or unnatural as I find God to be nature indeed and nature personified.

The Big Bang is a natural creation of the heavens and the earth, which is God as nature.
rikuoamero wrote: You and I are currently experiencing a shared reality - we both exist on Planet Earth, you in one nation (the US, I presume) and me in another, both using computers to communicate.
You talk about an additional reality.
I am from and live in the USA in 20636 and I am happy to talk to some one outside of the USA.

Unfortunately (or fortunate in my view) is that we really do have different realities for so many reasons and different location is a different reality, just as is perspective too.

You are using reality as if it is an absolute, and in that case you are using the word reality as another synonym for God.

In that case I would agree that God is reality, and reality is God, and they are absolute, but they still remain as unknown certainties.

The unknown God / the absolute truth = reality.
rikuoamero wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:You are thereby devaluing perception, which I do not.
How so, when evidence is gathered through perception/observation?
Because - when perception changes then the reality changes to the perception.

When perception is wrong then reality is wrong.

Perception is not a piece of evidence - perception is the conclusion.

To distrust thy perception is to distrust thy self - and I do not have that flaw in me.
rikuoamero wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:If a person perceives reality in a certain way (only one way their way) then their perception controls reality and reality is thereby distorted.
Am I understanding you correctly? Am I correct when I translate the above as this 'Back when the majority of people believed the Earth to be flat, reality was, that the Earth actually was truly flat. Later on, when the belief changed, so did reality, and the Earth transformed from flat, to oblate spheroid'?
What happens when people believe two mutually exclusive things? There is a small minority of people who still believe in a flat Earth. Is the Earth both flat and spheroid at the same time?
Each person is an individual entity, so the earth can be flat to the non believer and be a sphere to the one who knows.

I see no justice or truth to disqualify a person just because they are wrong in some regard(s).

There is no perception nor perception of reality without having a person to do the perceiving, and so perception affects reality.

If you do not believe in God - and I know that God is real - then you miss out.
rikuoamero wrote: I honestly have no idea what this means. How can you accept a reality that you describe as unknown?
The unknown and unknowable reality seems so simplistic to me.

If you think that you know reality - then I will view you as egotistical and pompous.
rikuoamero wrote: ... is this seriously what you want to promote? "Hey just believe whatever you want, don't worry about proving it!"?
Proof comes later, and some times the proof never comes.

Columbus believed the earth to be round, but after he discovered the land then he no longer believed as then he knew it was round.

In order for the ancient Greeks to accept the earth as a sphere or as round - they had to do that on belief alone and some evidence but without the proof.

Today the person who just believes in a Creator-God but does not know it for certain, is still thereby way ahead of the person waiting for the proof of God.
rikuoamero wrote: Are you arguing that the Earth became or remained flat, physically, in truth, or merely that Columbus's belief of the matter changed?
Belief changed to certainty yes, but also his perception of reality changed too.

It really did not matter to the person(s) whether the earth was round or flat or a sphere - except it did matter to their perception of reality.

An interesting thing that I learned (which is debatable and controversial) is that Columbus did not really find the earth to be a sphere, Columbus found and believed the earth to be round = as in flat and round. PICTURE.
rikuoamero wrote: Do you believe me to be black? Do you know this?
Yes of course I believed what you said.

If you were being untrue then it would be doing damage to your self, and I would not want to openly question your integrity.
rikuoamero wrote: So basically, the null hypothesis, the very concept of it, you reject?
DEFINITION = The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise.

ANSWER = I say we need to judge everything on its own merit and so that concept would not hold up for me.

If we were just referring to each person's perception then I would accept that concept.
rikuoamero wrote: So you will let a person's claim go unchallenged in the social sphere, until or unless it is proven false some other way?
I for one am not like you. If a person is saying something I think is only so much bovine faeces, then I will say so and explain why I think so.
As long as it does not affront anyone's character or reputation then yes I would let it go unchallenged.

But otherwise if it were an interesting or a challenging claim then I might dig into it for more info and not to debunk the person.

If I challenged all of the bovine manure in the social sphere then I would become a bigger outcast than I already am.
rikuoamero wrote: Give me an example where emotions helped determine the veracity of a case or claim, over using logic and examining evidence.
Girls.
rikuoamero wrote: In which case, you and I are operating on completely different modes of thought, and from what I guess, can never meet. You believe everything you hear, I do not.
Obviously belief has a different meaning to you as to me.

People believe in Santa Claus and I accept their belief as true, but I myself do not believe in Santa.

Belief is not an absolute, as belief in itself is based on doubt.

I use to believe in God - but now I know about God - so my old belief is now over ruled.
rikuoamero wrote: Please note that 'playing along' (at least in my mind) is NOT the same as believing them.
You seem to be equivocating meanings here. Please, do not commit that fallacy.
I see what is in my mind as private, so having doubts does not nullify the belief.

To doubt the person or the claim does not nullify the belief in them. IMO.
rikuoamero wrote: Then I can only say that you are 100% wrong and leave it at that. Someone who starts out by believing X to be true (and not with the meaning of 'playing along') is not one who has a motive to test the claim.
I do not need to test anything unless I had doubt, and most things are not worth the effort to test or to investigate.

The subject of God is super important, the earth geography is interesting, and history is important, but sports and athletics are wasting time.

The ghosts and spirits and Demons were a thing to be tested and verified, and now I know.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Perception of Reality or Reality of Perception

Post #25

Post by JP Cusick »

Rufus21 wrote: How does relying on unverified opinions make reality stronger? I would think it would have the opposite effect.
It just does.

Not everything has an explanation.

Why is courage better than cowardice - because it is.

To believe (belief) is a virtue and it has self inherent power which gives great advantage. Why = it just does.

The failure to believe is a sickness which grows, so do not believe this or that and it slowly turns into a disbelief in everything until there is nothing left but paranoia, as a fear of the unknown.

And belief is not an absolute, as we can still have doubts, just as some one tells me about UFOs and so I believe the person but I would still like to see the UFO for myself.

To believe does not mean to know.
Rufus21 wrote: I have not made any denials at all.
I apologize for accusing you of that.

My mistake.
Rufus21 wrote: You said that you have investigated and verified your beliefs and are able to refute other's beliefs. I am asking you how you go about doing that. You have still not answered.
I verify my own beliefs.

To refute the beliefs of other people is a much different equation.

It would depend on the belief.
Rufus21 wrote: If I see someone have an experience, then see that experience debunked, is my experience not a better indication of reality? Is it wise for me to make the same mistakes they did just so that I can experience it? Are facts a sufficient reason for denial?
If you see it - not experience it - and see it debunked - not experienced it - then you are only reporting what you saw and not what you experienced.

As like watching football on TV and so we experience the viewing but not the doing.

As such - no - you can not tell the football players on TV what is right or wrong - as facts or as denials - and call it as experience.

If a person tells you that the property is haunted by ghosts - then you can not just deny it based on experience when you did not experience it.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Re: Perception of Reality or Reality of Perception

Post #26

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to post 25 by JP Cusick]
JP Cusick wrote: Not everything has an explanation.
No actually everything has an explanation. It's just that not everyone has an explanation for everything. Because we are all ignorant to some degree. Detailed observation has indicated that everything occurs for a very precise set of reasons. But we may not have entirely figured out the exact details of what the reasons are yet. What we actually observe is that every effect is inevitably the result of an earlier cause. Cause and effect stretch back as far as it is currently possible to observe. Understanding the cause explains the effect. And that is the goal of science in a nutshell.
JP Cusick wrote: Why is courage better than cowardice - because it is.
Unrestrained courage can make you very quickly dead. And dead is not better. There is a time and a place for both courage and cowardice. The trick is to choose carefully.
JP Cusick wrote: To believe (belief) is a virtue and it has self inherent power which gives great advantage. Why = it just does.
Believers have contrived to make faith into a virtue. But faith is nothing more than determined gullibility. And there is nothing admirable about being gullible, anymore than there is something admirable about being ignorant.
JP Cusick wrote: The failure to believe is a sickness which grows, so do not believe this or that and it slowly turns into a disbelief in everything until there is nothing left but paranoia, as a fear of the unknown.
Belief in make believe is either valid, or it is a type of mental illness. Things which are valid are physically true. And yet make believe is predicated on things which inevitably CANNOT be shown to be physically valid. Because make believe is predicated on faith. And faith is nothing but the gullible hope that one's make believe is true.
JP Cusick wrote: And belief is not an absolute, as we can still have doubts, just as some one tells me about UFOs and so I believe the person but I would still like to see the UFO for myself.
I have personally seen a UFO. I could not identify it, even through binoculars. But that does not mean that I "believe" that I saw an extraterrestrial spacecraft. What I saw did not correspond to any type of aircraft I am familiar with. I have no doubt that there is an explanation. I just don't know what it is.
JP Cusick wrote: To believe does not mean to know.
To not know means not reaching conclusions until the answer becomes undeniably apparent. In science this is known as the empirical method. And it stands in stark contrast to the religious method, which is to make things up and then dogmatically declare them to be true.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

Rufus21
Scholar
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:30 pm

Re: Perception of Reality or Reality of Perception

Post #27

Post by Rufus21 »

JP Cusick wrote: I verify my own beliefs.
I'll ask for a third time - how do you verify your beliefs? How do you separate the true from the false? What is the criteria? What is the method?

JP Cusick wrote: As like watching football on TV and so we experience the viewing but not the doing.

As such - no - you can not tell the football players on TV what is right or wrong - as facts or as denials - and call it as experience.
But if that football player thinks he just scored a touchdown while I, watching from a different angle, see that he definitely didn't, who is believing reality? Who is the better judge of what is right and wrong?

Why can't someone learn from a mistake without having to experience it? Isn't that what parenting is all about? Should we tell our children to look both ways before crossing the street, or do they need to experience it for themselves?

JP Cusick wrote: If a person tells you that the property is haunted by ghosts - then you can not just deny it based on experience when you did not experience it.
But I can deny it based on the fact that there has never been a verified ghost sighting, there is no evidence that ghosts even exist, and that every investigation into such claims has shown them to be a hoax. How many times must a person be fooled before they wise up?

JP Cusick wrote: The failure to believe is a sickness which grows, so do not believe this or that and it slowly turns into a disbelief in everything until there is nothing left but paranoia, as a fear of the unknown.
That is completely false. The failure to believe encourages the desire to learn. This slowly turns into an understanding of the world around us to the point that we can live in harmony with the world instead of being paranoid of gods/spirits/demons, etc. It also prevents us from being scammed by false prophets, psychic mediums, phony spiritual guides, faith healers, evangelists, etc.

To exist in a world where you believe everything and anything that you are told is the farthest from reality a person can be. To believe impossible things without requiring any explanation is pure fantasy. To believe that gullibility is a virtue is simply foolish.

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Perception of Reality or Reality of Perception

Post #28

Post by JP Cusick »

Rufus21 wrote: I'll ask for a third time - how do you verify your beliefs? How do you separate the true from the false? What is the criteria? What is the method?
I use my brain and my conscience, and I judge things based on my knowledge of truth and of falsehoods, and I do a lot of research, as I have read every great book from all corners of humanity, and now the internet makes some research far easier then in my younger years.

It is not so hard as one might expect it is to judge true from false, and yet each situation or dilemma has its own challenge.

Otherwise I have no idea how to answer your question.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Re: Perception of Reality or Reality of Perception

Post #29

Post by Zzyzx »

.
JP Cusick wrote: It is not so hard as one might expect it is to judge true from false,
Overconfidence in one's 'truth detection ability' is unwise.

When that 'ability' is actually put to test by psychologists the track record is NOT good.
Three decades of scientific studies support the conclusion that people have a difficult time telling whether or not someone is lying. It has been found that people can tell the difference between truths and lies only 55 percent of the time—just a little better than making random guesses.
http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teac ... ng-honest/
Highly trained and experienced police officers and Secret Service officers who deal with the subject daily or regularly can detect lies 70% of the time.

I knew personally a Canadian Mounty who taught new agents to detect deception. He said that very few people can actually become highly proficient.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Rufus21
Scholar
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:30 pm

Re: Perception of Reality or Reality of Perception

Post #30

Post by Rufus21 »

JP Cusick wrote: I use my brain and my conscience, and I judge things based on my knowledge of truth and of falsehoods, and I do a lot of research, as I have read every great book from all corners of humanity, and now the internet makes some research far easier then in my younger years.

Otherwise I have no idea how to answer your question.
Okay, so you use your brain and do vague research. That still doesn't answer my question. Perhaps the fact that you still can't describe your judgement process is evidence that it isn't as real as you think. Maybe you believe that your opinions are verified when they really aren't.

Like when my uncle invented a "verified" system for blackjack. After he won several times we asked him how it worked (the method). He mumbled some business about cards being clumped and how certain tables had a "bad flow". It didn't make any sense so we asked him how to tell if the cards were clumped and how he decided when to raise his bets (the criteria). He mumbled some nonsense about trends and averages. It still didn't make any sense, but he was absolutely convinced that it worked. In his mind his system had been proven. Three years later he has never dug his way out of the hole.

Since you can't describe how you make these judgements, maybe you can give us an example. Can you share a time when you were able to verify a spirit or a time when you were able to disprove someone's claim of seeing one?

Post Reply