We lost some class time today. It simply vanished, was sucked into the abyss. That abyss was the isolated pit of futile theorizing. This pit sucks you in through brain-in-a-vat scenarios and personally created realities and once you're in, it's hard to get out. It's isolated because it seems to have no practical application, so no connection to our lives. It's the pinnacle of perverse examples and counterexamples that seem to exist only in philosophical discussion and not in daily life. Basically, it's a maelstrom out of which nothing constructive may emerge. Pretentious diction and crappy metaphors aside, it's a waste of time.
When we cross the line from language, thought, and perception into "how do we know that we know that we know that we know that we know", no good can come of it. So, getting back to where we should have been - if our perception is always wrong, and our perception is the closest we can come to reality, then we can never know reality. I use the term reality with the assumption that we are not brains in vats but rather that we are brains in environments that are, more or less, what we think they [environments] are.
Yet despite that fact that we don't experience reality directly, (it's masked by our flawed perceptions and corrupted by interpretations from prior knowledge), we seem to do pretty well moving about the world. For instance, I don't know that what I see as red is the real color of an object. Given some "objective reality", I don't even know if the object has color in any way that we understand the concept - but it doesn't matter. It's not important that my perception is "accurate", but rather that it's constant. I'll do a pretty good job identifying colors on a test as long what I perceive as red doesn't change to green; as long as how I experience depth and distance stays the same as it's been for my life so far, I think I can do pretty well not getting hit by a car and picking objects up off of tables. Therefore, the concept of objective accuracy of perception is irrelevant. There is such a vast amount that we can't be very sure about, let alone know, that we can't go by comparing what we perceive to what is supposed to really be there.
So given that objective accuracy is irrelevant we've got to find something about perceptual accuracy that is relevant. Ladies and gentlemen, behold relative accuracy. My perception in relation to an objective reality doesn't matter as long as my perception is constant relative to itself. Rather than be sucked into the abyss of objective perception, brain-in-a-vat, and electrical manifestation, let's stick to something that matters- relative perceptual accuracy.
Edit: So I realized something- my statements about relative perceptual accuracy are only right for internal things like color perception. It DOES matter if my relative perception doesn't line up with objective reality in some (many) external cases- even if I always perceive depth and distance a certain way, my mode of perception could be inaccurate in such a way that I perceive a car as far away with constant and accurate relative perception, but such that the car is, in an objective sense, about to hit me. Point is, even though my sight met my qualifications for relative perceptual accuracy, it wasn't right objectively, and the car hit me [How's that for practical application]. Therefore, revised with this in mind: Given that my perception's inaccuracies with respect to my objective environment are either slight or internal [I could be wrong with my perception of distance by a small portion of the distance, and my perception of color might not be the objective color], my perception is good enough.
-OR-
Split perception up into internal and external [internal is something like color and external is something like position and velocity]. Concerning internal perceptions, relative accuracy is the only thing that matters. Concerning external perceptions, relative accuracy is good enough with the assumption that the inaccuracies of senses are slight enough to not make a difference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is one of the most powerful and important posts I have read. Thank you not only for tremendous advancement to the conversation you have offered, but also for putting forth a perfect example editing your own ideas when confronted with contrary notions. That you provided your own contrary notions simply shows how well you are able to think on multiple sides of an issue and in multiple directions.
First, I largely agree with your statements about esoteric philosophical discussions. I would caution that we not get too caught up in the pragmatic, however, for much good has come from the purely theoretical in all fields. Often such work must be undertaken even when there is no immediately discernible practical application. That said, this class about applied epistemology, emphasis here on application. I agree with Charles Sanders Pierce that, "We should not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."
You state that objective reality is irrelevant. Apart from your later example about perception and getting hit by a car, let me push on that for a moment. Is objective reality truly irrelevant? If so, then it is of no consequence whether you think the ball is red I think it is green when it is actually blue. Nor does it matter if you and I and all our community agree that it is green when it is actually blue. Yet there seems to be something in most people that compels them to seek the truth about matters. We want to be right, even if it means abandoning previously held ideas. Certainly not everyone subscribes to this, but many do. In a recent practice for my Latin students, I put up the sentence, "Miramur ut discamus cur sol oriatur," which translates, "We wonder so we may learn why the sun rises." It is was a grammatical exercise, but we spent a few moments talking about the fact that wonder is at the heart of education, and what are we wondering about if not what actually is?
You write, "Ladies and gentlemen, behold relative accuracy. My perception in relation to an objective reality doesn't matter as long as my perception is constant relative to itself." First, as a TOK teacher, let me say that this is what you want to do. You introduce a new concept of your own invention. You proceed to explain it and use it. Excellent!
Now to your idea itself. I like the idea of constancy as a way to shore up sensory perception. As long as my senses always tell me that the light is green, the lemon is bitter, the air is cold, then I will always respond in an appropriate way (e.g. I will accelerate my car, make a grimace, or put on a coat).
Yet, you rightly see that this becomes problematic when interacting with the certain things, like speeding cars, and I would extend this to interacting with other perceiving agents as well. You begin to make a distinction between internal and external. I would offer the distinction between the private and the communal. The case could be made that in my private thoughts if my perception has led me to believe that it is cold, it does not matter what the temperature actually is, or what other think it is. If I put on a jacket, even when others are in shorts, I may elicit some laughs, but the case could be made this largely does not matter. If, on the other hand, I mistake my wife for a hat (as was the title of a book by Oliver Sachs), then my misperception matters greatly. Since most of us are not hermits, and getting back to your point that this discussion must be tied to practical use, I need to consider seriously the issues of perception since they greatly affect my ability to interact in my community.
Toward the end you comment that your perception is good enough and "inaccuracies of senses are slight enough to not make a difference." I think this is largely true, and I am not likely to mistake my wife for hat unless I have some rare brain malfunction. Yet I must be aware of the potential for more significant inaccuracies to be made through my senses, and I must be alert for ways to correct perceptions, or prove that they are correct when they come under attack.
Fabulous post! Thank you again.
Post a Comment