Perception and physical reality

Forums: Philosophy, Brain, Mind, Perception
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In philosophy it has always been a goal to start from the most basic assumption that can be found. This can be a statement that is understood to be self evident. Cogitas ergo sum is an attempt at such a statement. But a fact is that we can never circumvent our sensory perception using tools attained by means of it, to govern it's internal states. Every scientific measurement is merely an extension of our senses.

But modern physics may have changed that with the introduction of quantum physics. It describes the world differently, and this world is something that does not correspond to our classical idea of physical reality on which our theories of perception are based.

This offers interesting oportunities. We have a concept of the world unpercieved by us. A reality consisting of quantum information which the human brain is capable of observing. Every physical sense is a continuous stream of quantum measurements that converge into what is percieved as reality.
But there is more. The process is recorded in memory, and then this pool of memory also becomes an individual stream of information which the individual relies heavily on.

So reality is a mix of external and internal input that forms a continuous event of consciousness. There is only quantum information surrounding us, and it is copied into our memory where it is processed and conceptualized as physical reality.
But physical reality itself, the waves and particles that are observed, is not material in nature. They can perhaps be described as our most basic assumptions. Measurements that are so fundamental that they appear solid in our perception.

This would mean that physical reality is a result of perception. It is created in the act of observation, in which quantum superposition will collapse into one of the possible outcomes. The fact that a specific object will always look the same every time I examine it is a result of the act of observation being a mix of observing the external input of the object, but also simultaneously observing the internal information of previous encounters with the object. All sources of input are active in perception, and often we even rely more on our internal source than external sources.

So... According to this idea conscious reality is what makes physical reality. Physical reality cannot be the fundamental state of existence of the universe if that is true. Physical reality and consciousness cannot exist in any other way than as a simultaneous occurence. A manifestation of inherent meaning that becomes apparent by the internal interaction of the two as percieved by the individual.
And things are a bit up side down, because now fundamental reality isn't physical, but something else. It is information, which is pointless without observers.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 15,399 • Replies: 239

No top replies

What is "fundamental reality" supposed to mean? I can't make much sense of your post, to be honest, but you seem to think that there is a mind independent world causally impinging upon our senses. Sounds like physical reality to me.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Consciousness is what gives physical reality its meaning... Perception is only the recognition of reality, but perception alone also gives much false information, so we seek tools, instraments to magnify and measure perception to make objects seem to have a more objective existence, but of physical reality we must believe, and accept in my opinion, that it exists apart from our being, though the same cannot be said of moral reality which exist because we exist, by our existence, which provides them with meaning... Of course, if humanity did not live, and after we die, physical reality, though having being would have no meaning... Meaning comes from life, and as meaning is value it us who determine meaning in relation to our lives so that which support life is good, and what endangers life is bad...

1 Reply

@mickalos,

mickalos wrote:

What is "fundamental reality" supposed to mean? I can't make much sense of your post, to be honest, but you seem to think that there is a mind independent world causally impinging upon our senses. Sounds like physical reality to me.

I can't make much sense of your post

I don't think you are meant to do so. If you had been, he would have written something different.

0 Replies

The OP made perfect sense to me.

1 Reply

@mickalos,

Usually we tend to think that consciousness has evolved from an unconscious world of matter. Here I wanted to explore the possibility that the exact oposite may actually be a more acurate description.

0 Replies

@Fido,

If quantum physics is indeed the most acurate description of the universe that we know of, it seems to me that a theory of perception according to the conceptual framework that arises from our interaction with quantum physics could potentially become a more acurate description of consciousness and reality.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

In philosophy it has always been a goal to start from the most basic assumption that can be found. This can be a statement that is understood to be self evident. Cogitas ergo sum is an attempt at such a statement. But a fact is that we can never circumvent our sensory perception using tools attained by means of it, to govern it's internal states. Every scientific measurement is merely an extension of our senses.

But modern physics may have changed that with the introduction of quantum physics. It describes the world differently, and this world is something that does not correspond to our classical idea of physical reality on which our theories of perception are based.

This offers interesting oportunities. We have a concept of the world unpercieved by us. A reality consisting of quantum information which the human brain is capable of observing. Every physical sense is a continuous stream of quantum measurements that converge into what is percieved as reality.
But there is more. The process is recorded in memory, and then this pool of memory also becomes an individual stream of information which the individual relies heavily on.

So reality is a mix of external and internal input that forms a continuous event of consciousness. There is only quantum information surrounding us, and it is copied into our memory where it is processed and conceptualized as physical reality.
But physical reality itself, the waves and particles that are observed, is not material in nature. They can perhaps be described as our most basic assumptions. Measurements that are so fundamental that they appear solid in our perception.

This would mean that physical reality is a result of perception. It is created in the act of observation, in which quantum superposition will collapse into one of the possible outcomes. The fact that a specific object will always look the same every time I examine it is a result of the act of observation being a mix of observing the external input of the object, but also simultaneously observing the internal information of previous encounters with the object. All sources of input are active in perception, and often we even rely more on our internal source than external sources.

So... According to this idea conscious reality is what makes physical reality. Physical reality cannot be the fundamental state of existence of the universe if that is true. Physical reality and consciousness cannot exist in any other way than as a simultaneous occurence. A manifestation of inherent meaning that becomes apparent by the internal interaction of the two as percieved by the individual.
And things are a bit up side down, because now fundamental reality isn't physical, but something else. It is information, which is pointless without observers.

you misunderstand the Universe

the Universe is both of the micro and macro

whithout the macro, planets for instance , life has no place inwhich to take hold , grow and evolve

therefore your reasoning is un-sound

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Good synopsis! It may be the case that that "reality"is only meaningful in limited areas of social discourse (see my similar argument for "free will"). We need to bear in my Wittgenstein's warning about "language on holiday".

3 Replies

@fresco,

TYPOS CORRECTED

Re: Cyracuz (Post 4363959)
Good synopsis! It may be the case that "reality"is only meaningful in limited areas of social discourse (see my similar argument for "free will"). We need to bear in mind Wittgenstein's warning about "language on holiday".

1 Reply

@north,

Quote:

you misunderstand the Universe

Haha! Show me one human being who doesn't. Smile

Quote:

the Universe is both of the micro and macro

whithout the macro, planets for instance , life has no place inwhich to take hold , grow and evolve

therefore your reasoning is un-sound

That is if we don't consider the possibility that you may have failed to grasp the essence of what I am trying to communicate, in which case it would be your reasoning that was unsound. I'm not saying it's the case, though your objections do suggest it.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Thanks fresco.
It may indeed be as you say concerning reality.
And yet there is a fundamental underlying assumption that affects how we relate to everything. The clearest example is perhaps the behaviour of a materialist in the world compared to the behaviour of a person whose values are more spiritually oriented. One believes the world is inherently physical and that value is primarily materialistic, while the other believes that the conscious aspects of reality constitute it's foundation. They live in different worlds.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

TYPOS CORRECTED

Re: Cyracuz (Post 4363959)
Good synopsis! It may be the case that "reality"is only meaningful in limited areas of social discourse (see my similar argument for "free will"). We need to bear in mind Wittgenstein's warning about "language on holiday".

Reality is a moral form, and it has meaning without a specific being... It is true of all words as concepts pointing to physical reality and moral reality that all are meanings, specific meanings, that are perceived subjectively... What ever is the case, or the facts in the matter at hand; when we communicate we communicate meaning, and not the object or infinite we are talking about... It is true of all human experience that what we learn, and when we learn, what we learn is meaning, some times whole collections of meanings... We are unconscious of it, because of focus... We know the meaning of a flat tire, and not all flat tires, but our own; and to change that flat we must follow detailed instructions for our vehicle, all of which are specific meanings communicated with pictures and words... So, language is always relatively on a holiday, communicating generally what is conveyed specifically by numbers, and we can see that all, even the most general of meanings if they can be expressed into words can be digitized as this message to this forum is...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Well put my friend.
I wish you well in your investigations.

Very Happy

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
you misunderstand the Universe

Haha! Show me one human being who doesn't.

Quote:

Our misunderstanding is as close as we can get to understanding, and I do not want to take ignorance or misunderstanding for granted, but assail them with will; and yet before the fact, admit the futility of ones ability, and all in making actual sense of life... We are finite in an infinite reality... People following their desires and abilities destroy much to know little, and to do little good to do much harm... If we can say we understand at all it must be unconsciously, where thought and emotion is reconciled.. First we must find the whole person in ourselves, and then construct an analogy of reality from the bits and pieces of knowledge and perception...

We cannot begin to understand reality without understanding our place in it, so without admitting a faith in God, we must see all with God's eyes, in infinite time and in infinite space which to some may make us seem insignificant, but as the only being with an independent will -having all the significance there is to have....

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Good synopsis! It may be the case that that "reality"is only meaningful in limited areas of social discourse (see my similar argument for "free will"). We need to bear in my Wittgenstein's warning about "language on holiday".

On this thread language is not merely on holiday, it is in retirement.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

fresco wrote:

Good synopsis! It may be the case that that "reality"is only meaningful in limited areas of social discourse (see my similar argument for "free will"). We need to bear in my Wittgenstein's warning about "language on holiday".

On this thread language is not merely on holiday, it is in retirement.

I am in retirement, but that does not mean my brain is set in neutral or that the rest of me has gone flabby... Few understand the language by which we communicate, and those who act as though they do, and who really study the subject communicate so poorly themselves and make the subject so opaque that only one so inclined as themselves can grasp their points... And yet all people communicate, and where language fails, touch or violence can often succeed... So we must all understand enough of the subject even without an expert such as yourself on hand,, though everyone can benefit by giving the subject some thought... Consider just how little of any experience or perception is communicable...

It brings to mind Anni Defranco's line that we barely have time to react in this life, let alone rehearse... If you live your life as it should be lived, giving to all your experience and relationships due attention you do not have time to translate them for the benefit and understanding of others... I have lived a life full tilt in the quest for knowledge and experience, sometimes, often in fact, beyond what I could safely perceive because the pain was too much to bear, but I think at such times humanity can go numb... It is only now that I have slowed my experience of life and my education that I can reflect on the meaning of it, and try to communicate that meaning which unfortunately, was in large part, unique to me, having no lesson for others...

I will not say that youth is wasted on the young... As I was told once by an old man: If you knew what I know at your age, you could be a millionaire at my age... Too bad that even then money held little meaning for me... But I would tell any young person something similar: If you knew what I know, you could live a moral life even without knowing rationally why you do so, and you would understand forms which are all forms of relationship, and so master relationships which are the most essential element of life, the source of all our pain and pleasure, and so be happy in the end... And youth, entitled to make its own mistakes and to draw its own lessons will not hear, and so suffers...

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy

Do you not realize that such a statement as that reveals more about your capacity than the language you think you are commenting on?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

kennethamy

Do you not realize that such a statement as that reveals more about your capacity than the language you think you are commenting on?

That would be nice, but I could hardly hope for that.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

On this thread language is not merely on holiday, it is in retirement.

This was the statement I was referring to, in case it wasn't clear. But of course, there could be intent of meaning in it on your part that I fail to grasp, in which case I would appreciate a clarification.

1 Reply

Perception and physical reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know