6.4 Making Sense of Perception

[@earthbuff1]

Clear and succinct presentation of major problems of Philosophy.....Please keep these on KZbin for posterity....

[@oxforduniversity]

Added link to description, @EpicurusIVXX

[@EpicurusIVXX]

i really wish we could see the powerpoints.

[@EpicurusIVXX]

thank you so much.

[@SarahDawesFilms]

Good explanations. Thank you

[@TheFernseher09]

Anything that isn't man made, we have no idea of what it really is. The question is not does it exist, but what is the nature or true identity of it's existence. We have simply created a language, symbols that represents transcendental or metaphysical themes. We cannot define or verify an object that we have given a undefinable or symbolic meaning to. Perception is not a universal experience, it is a unique and individual understanding of not only the material world around us, but also of the intrinsic world within ourselves. The problem with all philosophies is that they are all imperfect because they are all created by imperfect beings. In all pragmatic sense, reality does not depend on our observation or perception of it, it exists in and of itself- it is man who is created and observed by the one true force of reality, nature.

[@nickowens5621]

How do we determine what a thing is? Most fundamentally, by knowing what it does. How do we know what a thing does? By knowing what a thing is. This covers man made or naturally occurring things. Generally, this is good enough to enable us to cope with the demands of reality. If you want to know what anything is in an absolutely comprehensive way, that is not for humans to know.

[@TheFernseher09]

catch 22, what does the color „red“ (or any color for that matter) do? and what is it? Is it „red“ because it does red? Not to confuse our inventions and definitions for anything other than axioms used to define the indefinable in terms of practical communication. The „query“ does not only apply to objective identification and or function.

[@nickowens5621]

The color red does not exist, at least not in the same manner as the physical object that has that quality of redness. This is because it is a radiation of energy. As you probably already know, an object that appears to be red is actually absorbing all the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum except for that part of the spectrum that we perceive as red.That is what is being reflected. Now a case can be made that the photons that make up that red light exist in a very temporary way, and a case can be made that the perception "red" exists in a mental way. Otherwise there would be nothing for us to be aware of. What light does is illuminate objects. Darkness does not exist except as a linguistic negation referring to the absence of light. Negations abound due to Non-Being.

[@TheFernseher09]

***** correct, your first 6 words answer the essence of the question posed in the last post. The rest of your post is all based on our observation and definition of processes that still do not confirm the true nature or existence of the word „red“ or any other symbolic rhetoric / semantics we may chose to use. The correct title for this video should have been: „Making sense of rhetorical symbolism"

[@nickowens5621]

TheFernseher09 "The true nature or existence of the word red" can be best approached through Semiotics aka Sign Theory: The elements that govern the understanding of signs and symbols are the signified, signifier, and object. For Saussure, the signified is the intellectual concept represented by signifier (which can be verbal or nonverbal). A signified is the sense made by the sign. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea... (Chandler, 2009). A signifier is the visible form that represents the signified. These are the visible signs that where verbalized and brought to reality as the results of cognition process formed in our brain. The object is the empirical form that is being represented by the signs. This is the material object that exists and is that recognized by our senses. (Courtesy of the Wikipedia article, Symbol theory of Semiotics) The word "red" whether it exists as speech or a written word functions as a sign. A self effacing sign at that, because it (the word red) always refers to something other than itself (namely the referent) and never: Hey! Look at me! I am the word red! All words are signs that have this self-effacing nature....This is as best as it gets. To go elsewhere is to descend into arcane drifting theoreticalities, which I do not have the patience to endure. Fini. Tin foil hat time for me... back to watching Godzilla on UT. Dat's much funner.

[@savana699]

This sounds like inventing confusion between perception and objectivity. If this is a philosophy lesson there is the risk of disintegrating fragile minds complicating the uncomplicated.

[@MalachyNixon]

TOK brought me here

[@MrRobertbyers]

It is a little man in there. Its called the soul./ All these ideas are simply rejecting the historic concept of the soul. The soul simply sees the real world by the operation of senses. That is the soul watches the memory. All senses go straight into the memory.