Perception as Subjective

[JudgeBob]

[Moderator: split from Art topic]

Do you mean that anything that is perceived by a human mind is therefore subjective?

All perception is subjective, even of objective reality. That is the very nature of perception. To perceive thing external to your mind is to experience your own subjective awareness of it.

Why can't perception combined with reason be objective?

I believe it can, with the faith that I can trust my perception to reasonably represent external reality. This to me is a reasonable faith. However, this has nothing to do with art. Art is about reaction to perception, not the accuracy or objectivity of perception. Each mind directly experiences only it's own reactions to perception, which by definition means such reactions are subjective.

[Oleksandr]

Do you mean that anything that is perceived by a human mind is therefore subjective?

All perception is subjective, even of objective reality. That is the very nature of perception. To perceive thing external to your mind is to experience your own subjective awareness of it.

Why?

I think this is the core issue here. I don't understand how that is subjective.

For example, eye sight. Light rays hitting your eyes, which then gets processed by your brain. So you see an object based on real physical interaction. Where is any subjective element here?

Furthermore, if anything we see or hear or sense is subjective, how can we ever get to grasp something objective? It sounds like this idea leads to completely giving up on the world and on existence.

[JudgeBob]

Do you mean that anything that is perceived by a human mind is therefore subjective?

All perception is subjective, even of objective reality. That is the very nature of perception. To perceive thing external to your mind is to experience your own subjective awareness of it.

Why?

I think this is the core issue here. I don't understand how that is subjective.

For example, eye sight. Light rays hitting your eyes, which then gets processed by your brain. So you see an object based on real physical interaction. Where is any subjective element here?

The subjectivity is in the very nature of brain receiving and processing input. For such a process to be objective, each brain would have to experience exactly the same perceptions and reactions given identical input, which is demonstrably not the case. Optical illusions are examples of the subjective nature of visual input.

Even if it were possible for the same light to hit eyes providing input to different brains and ignoring the fact that different eyeballs see differently (myopia/astigmatism/color blindness,etc.) there are many examples of brains seeing similar input in different ways, as well as differing perceptions, even without getting into the issue of memory. It's not only possible for the subjective nature of perception to misrepresent objective reality, it's also possible for perception to be totally noninvolved in objective reality. Delusions and hallucinations are terms associated with this.

I still say this conversational direction moves away from the subject of art though. Even if perception was purely objective, and everything you see/hear/touch/taste produces the same perceptual awareness to what every other consciousness experiences given the exact same input, your reaction, your affinity/taste/distaste for its aesthetics/beauty/ugliness/elegance is unique to you and is subjective.

[Oleksandr]

The subjectivity is in the very nature of brain receiving and processing input. For such a process to be objective, each brain would have to experience exactly the same perceptions and reactions given identical input, which is demonstrably not the case.

So if color-blind people can't see color, I therefore must distrust the colors that I see with my eyes? Or since some people have poorer eye-sight than mine and require glasses, I therefore must distrust the sharpness and clarity of my vision? Or since some people are blind, therefore I must doubt if I can see at all?

Reality is real, including all light rays that our senses perceive. Our senses are real and made out of physical stuff, which process that input exactly how they are made to process it. If some of us have different senses due to various reasons, it does not change the fact that perception is still an interplay between two real physical objects: physical reality and our physical sense organs.

I don't see where that peculiar standard for objective senses comes from.

(By the way, by perception I mean eye sight, hearing, touch; feelings and our reaction to art is not perception - that occurs on conceptual level where errors can occur; on perceptual level no error occurs.)

Optical illusions are examples of the subjective nature of visual input.

That's a common fallacy nowadays. (It didn't use to be part of the argument for subjectivity of senses before Kant and company.)

Optical illusions are real. For example, light rays do get bent and refracted by various media.

Would our senses have to somehow cheat and interpret light rays as coming from different directions than they actually came from? That would be physically impossible given how our eyes process information.

Furthermore, all who have eye sight see those optical illusions, so nothing is made, just a real interaction between real light rays and real physical senses.

[Redslay]

It's often mistakenly said that "Perception is reality." Don't equate perception with reality. They have very little to do with one another. A remains A whether we percieve it correctly to be so or not.

believe it can, with the faith that I can trust my perception to reasonably represent external reality. This to me is a reasonable faith.

The phrase "reasonable faith" is a dictionary perfect example of an oxymoron right along with "Wise fool" and "legally murdered".

Faith can only be unreasonable. Replace faith in the trustworthiness of your perception with the confidence in your intelligence and reasoning.

I thought that the fact that objective reality exists whether or not we choose to acknowledge it was a cornerstone of objectivism.

The subjective perception argument seems to of the “nothing is real” school of progressive non-thought.

[JudgeBob]

It's often mistakenly said that "Perception is reality." Don't equate perception with reality. They have very little to do with one another. A remains A whether we percieve it correctly to be so or not.

believe it can, with the faith that I can trust my perception to reasonably represent external reality. This to me is a reasonable faith.

The phrase "reasonable faith" is a dictionary perfect example of an oxymoron right along with "Wise fool" and "legally murdered".

Faith can only be unreasonable. Replace faith in the trustworthiness of your perception with the confidence in your intelligence and reasoning.

I thought that the fact that objective reality exists whether or not we choose to acknowledge it was a cornerstone of objectivism.

The subjective perception argument seems to of the “nothing is real” school of progressive non-thought.

The definition of faith is belief without proof. Using reason to evaluate perceptual evidence to conclude that objective reality exists requires faith in perception and reason as valid tools. That is the reasonable faith that I mentioned, and the only faith I have. Each of us cannot prove that reality exists in our absence or the absence of our perception, because any proof we can conjure can only exist within the context of our perception and intelligence. So we must make an it an assumption, a given, that the evidence we do perceive and the reason we apply is real and believe it without external proof that we can never have. This to me is reasonable faith. I cannot prove that reality exists, only that my perceptions are consistent with it's existence and that my reasoning is valid. Basically, it's about the slimmest leap of faith I can imagine, since any other conclusion would be downright silly and pointless.

It is precisely because I have confidence in intelligence and reasoning that I accept that reality exists as I perceive and reason that it does. When evaluating reality I have to begin with an assumption somewhere, and starting with it's existence is reasonable.

[JudgeBob]

The subjectivity is in the very nature of brain receiving and processing input. For such a process to be objective, each brain would have to experience exactly the same perceptions and reactions given identical input, which is demonstrably not the case.

So if color-blind people can't see color, I therefore must distrust the colors that I see with my eyes? Or since some people have poorer eye-sight than mine and require glasses, I therefore must distrust the sharpness and clarity of my vision? Or since some people are blind, therefore I must doubt if I can see at all?

No, you must only recognize that your perceptions are subjective by definition. Only you see what you see. The fact that somebody else may or may not see what you do does not change what you see, it only serves as example that all perception is a subjective view of reality. You can apply reason and intelligence to understand the differences, how perception works, account for subjective differences to reduce the irrelevancies for a given purpose, but you can not eliminate the fact that perception is subjective by definition. Your eyes and brain are YOURS, and only you experience what goes on in your own mind, which is the very definition of subjective. It does not detract from the fact that you can use your subjective perception to observe and analyze objective reality as long as you recognize and account for the limitations of subjectivity.

Reality is real, including all light rays that our senses perceive. Our senses are real and made out of physical stuff, which process that input exactly how they are made to process it. If some of us have different senses due to various reasons, it does not change the fact that perception is still an interplay between two real physical objects: physical reality and our physical sense organs.

And yet those organs can fool you. You can see things that do not exist in reality, or fail to see things that do exist, through unwitting failures of your subjective perception. Such failures can exist due to physical defects or operation of the brain or attention deficits. Entertainers exist that make use of perceptual tricks to demonstrate or capitalize on observational errors. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that other people's subjective perception is similar to yours given they generally have the same equipment, but that does not change the fact that you cannot experience their consciousness or perception any more than they can experience yours, which is what makes it subjective. Even if everybody else sees exactly what you see, that does not make it objective perception, only a large collection of reasonably accurate subjective perceptions.

I don't see where that peculiar standard for objective senses comes from.

(By the way, by perception I mean eye sight, hearing, touch; feelings and our reaction to art is not perception - that occurs on conceptual level where errors can occur; on perceptual level no error occurs.)

No error? so every photon that hits your eye is registered by the brain and perceived by the consciousness? No flash of light or image can exist in your mind without appearing on your retina? Visual and auditory hallucinations and perceptual delusions do not exist in humans? I think there is considerable evidence that these phenomena exist in objective reality. Our bodies and brains are only machines and fallible ones at that. It is only by understanding this and using our subjective existence to apply reason to understand objective reality that we can work around such limitations.

Optical illusions are examples of the subjective nature of visual input.

That's a common fallacy nowadays. (It didn't use to be part of the argument for subjectivity of senses before Kant and company.)

Optical illusions are real. For example, light rays do get bent and refracted by various media.

Would our senses have to somehow cheat and interpret light rays as coming from different directions than they actually came from? That would be physically impossible given how our eyes process information.

Furthermore, all who have eye sight see those optical illusions, so nothing is made, just a real interaction between real light rays and real physical senses.

Not all people see all optical illusions in the same way. There are some illusions that present differently to different people. There are some illusions that appear to represent differences that do not exist, or to hide differences that do. Many illusions do not occur in the eyes, but in the brain and it's method for perceiving visual input from the eyes. Our brains have as much or more to do with our vision perception than our eyes, and many optical illusions take place in the brain, not the eyes. Knowledge has increased to the point that such illusions are understood, and understanding the mechanics of our subjective perception greatly increases it's usefulness as a tool to observe objective reality.

[redhotrebel]

Without trying to sound condescending I would love to take a quick moment to A) Clarify how the brain works and B) explain how you are both right and somehow missing the mark.

A) When the human brain is presented with conflicting information about an object from different senses, it finds a remarkably efficient way to sort out the discrepancies. The brain is efficient in that it doesn't waste energy maintaining information that it will not likely need in real life.

So if you are in the universe by yourself, or you're alone on a desert island then everything you see is subjective, everything is biased by your perception. You can remove that bias by verifying data points with other people. And then you can come to objective conclusions. The more data points you have, the more objective your data will be.

Examples: For those of you who've seen "A Beautiful Mind" John Forbes Nash, Jr. had to confer with other people to verify that any "new" people he met were real because his brain could not decipher subjective from objective reality on it's own. Mass hysteria and "groups" seeing things that cannot possibly exist is a form of individual subjective data that is used in place of objective reality.

B) Now with that said our "memories" (especially the farther away from an event we get) is made up and rationalized or made further irrational by how we individually perceive that reality. The term "mountain out of a mole hill" comes to mind. When talking about aesthetics (not to stray too close back to the art topic), a group of people can stand around my nissan and objectively agree that that is a car that they are all looking at. All points can be verified, however, statistically speaking very few in that crowd will find it completely aesthetically pleasing based in part by there subjective interpretation and values.

How the brain decides to "deal" with given information is still subjective based on the individuals experiences. I can objectively and rationally know that there are no monsters under my bed, but I still run and jump in when I turn off the lights. Why? Because the subjective (albeit irrational) fear that a hand is going to grab my ankle.

I really don't want to minimize the complexities of the brain, there is a lot more information that may obfuscate or overwhelm. The basic argument is that while subjective information can be objectified, the human brain with its intense imagination and personal biases can slightly differ in exactly how we see an object.

If you're interested there are some very excellent articles about how the brain perceives and interprets data and will basically "split the difference" if it is confronted with a discrepancy. Also how peripheral vision is mostly made up by your brain. You don't actually see what you think you're seeing, rather your brain has rationalized (once again based on your subjective perceptions) to either see a goat grazing in a field or a UFO landing, however, only one of those can be objectively verified (double take so to speak). I'm sure we've all had "visual disturbances" especially when we are exhausted and our brains aren't able to process the data correctly (i.e. shadows moving etc...) or when you see "something" out of the corner of your eye and your brain is unable to properly assess the situation.

We all make intuitive leaps and unless we have objective standards to verify those leaps we could jump in the wrong direction. So even if you are conferring with say someone who is color blind on the color of my car, you can equate the variabilities and an objective conclusion can still be met.