login about faq

For instance, when perceiving something from a bigger distance it can appear to be something else, but does there exist a 'line' from which can we be certain about what the object actually is (in the objective reality). And also if we perceive a thing, do we perceive it completely regarding to the smaller parts that we can't see. For example a thing can appear to be completely red to us, but it may have smaller blue parts that don't have so much effect on our eye so they are possesed in the red that we see. I hope you understand my question because it is related on the part-whole relation that I already mentioned in some of my questions. Thanks in advance.

asked Nov 06 '12 at 07:50

kevindurant's gravatar image

kevindurant
5017


Let's start off with the fact that every moment of perception takes place in the full context of reality. Breaking this down a step, there is the object and the form in which you perceive it. The object is finite. Your senses are finite. The eye, for instance, can register larger objects, but does not respond to an atom, nor can it see the entire planet when we are standing on all at once. The ear can detect within a range of frequencies but not ultra low or ultra high frequencies.

Observing a pencil partially submerged in a glass of water the pencil appears to be bent. Even a photograph would show the pencil appearing to be bent. The senses simply register reality in its full context. In the case of the pencil, light makes it possible for us to see. Newton, through many experiments, demonstrated that light refracts differently as it encounters different materials. Water and different shapes of glass can alter the speed and direction of the light. This is one factor that we know of that helps us to understand why a pencil we know is straight appears bent when partially submerged in water.

Consider the metallic paint used on automobiles. The paint contains small particles of metal that you can see when you are close to the paint. As you move away from the vehicle, the color appears to be more uniform. In this case, distance plays a role along with the size and the small metal flakes cannot be discerned from greater distances. In this case, the distance will vary with different individuals within a finite range.

Some artist have used dots of different color paints to create an image, a technique called pointillism. An example of this the dots appear to form the image of a man in the 1889 painting by Seurat entitled La Parade de Cirque.

answered Nov 06 '12 at 17:48

dream_weaver's gravatar image

dream_weaver ♦
663214

edited Nov 07 '12 at 16:17

"Let's start off with the fact that every moment of perception takes in the full context." Huh?

What do you mean by that? Context, as I see it, is not an aspect of perception. So you have me confused right from the start.

(Nov 07 '12 at 11:40) John Paquette ♦ John%20Paquette's gravatar image

Sometimes the thoughts come faster than the fingers can keep up with.

(Nov 07 '12 at 12:06) dream_weaver ♦ dream_weaver's gravatar image

I've been there. :-)

(Nov 07 '12 at 13:42) John Paquette ♦ John%20Paquette's gravatar image
showing 2 of 3 show all

There is no such thing as "complete perception." Such would require local omniscience. For instance, when I look at a cup, I don't perceive in totality what elements, or subatomic particles it is made up of. I don't perceive the exact number of molecules it comprises. Instead, I simply perceive a cup.

Whenever you perceive something, your contact with it is only as rich as that contact is, and no more.

We use our perceptions, and consequent differentiations and integrations (i.e. comparisons) to form concepts for the things we perceive. These concepts are the named classes we use for identifying the things we perceive.

It's self evident that looking differently at something gives you different information about it. If you use a microscope, you can learn more about a cup than you can only with the naked eye. You can identify perhaps that the purple color of the cup is from a combination of tiny blue and red areas on the cup's surface.

Whenever you make a conclusion about an object, you make it based on the information you have. Of course, given a paucity of information, it's easy to mis-identify something.

There is no 'line' in reality itself which "tells" us how well we must perceive something in order to make a valid conclusion about it.

Conceptualization itself is the discovery of differences and similarities among things. A concept names a predominance of similarities in a group of entities relative to a backdrop of non-similar entities.

The more things you know, the better job you'll do in identifying the things you perceive -- or in recognizing when you don't perceive something well enough to properly identify it.

answered Nov 07 '12 at 13:40

John%20Paquette's gravatar image

John Paquette ♦
1002956310

So you agree that, for instance,while I'm perceiving this part of the computer or the screen while I'm writing this to you, I'm perceiving it as a whole object in itself, even though I'm not able to perceive its particles? But in that case can we really know the 'sameness' about some things or anyhting completely about them before looking at the smaller level parts of them?

(Nov 07 '12 at 16:19) kevindurant kevindurant's gravatar image

Btw John I respect your opinion and ideas very much, do you got some social network or address to ask you some questions, if you don't mind of course. And thanks for the answer of course :)

(Nov 07 '12 at 16:22) kevindurant kevindurant's gravatar image

I'm on Facebook. Is that ok?

(Nov 07 '12 at 17:05) John Paquette ♦ John%20Paquette's gravatar image

"while I'm perceiving this part of the computer or the screen while I'm writing this to you, I'm perceiving it as a whole object in itself, even though I'm not able to perceive its particles?"

Not sure why the words "in itself" are there, but yes.

"But in that case can we really know the 'sameness' about some things or anything completely about them before looking at the smaller level parts of them?"

Not sure why the word "completely" is there.

We don't need to dissect a dog before we can know that it is a dog.

(Nov 07 '12 at 17:21) John Paquette ♦ John%20Paquette's gravatar image

Perhaps this will help: For two things to be the same, it simply means their differences are insignificant. Two dogs are both dogs, even if one of them has only three legs and is shaved funny.

(Nov 07 '12 at 17:27) John Paquette ♦ John%20Paquette's gravatar image

I added you John, thx.

(Nov 08 '12 at 03:00) kevindurant kevindurant's gravatar image

Kevin, I don't see your friend request on Facebook. How will I know it is you?

(Nov 08 '12 at 13:34) John Paquette ♦ John%20Paquette's gravatar image

My first name is Nino, hope you'll recognize me.

(Nov 09 '12 at 04:59) kevindurant kevindurant's gravatar image
showing 2 of 8 show all

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Share This Page:

Tags:

×145
×14

Asked: Nov 06 '12 at 07:50

Seen: 1,650 times

Last updated: Nov 09 '12 at 04:59