Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Human Perception

  1. Likely to be true.

  2. Sounds silly

  1. Jan 29, 2007 #1
    Nowdays I'm getting confused about what happens when our perceptions are not the same as the other?

    As it has been discused before in this forum, Two objects can never be exactly the same as the other, which is completly logical. As a result the perception of two different human beings are also different from one and other.

    Doesn't this means that the way we see, hear etc. are all different?

    If so then we don't live in the reality, & perceptions are where we live...

    In that case what enables us to comunicate with 3 billion population on the earth???
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 29, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    How about that the perceptions mimic real objects?
  4. Jan 29, 2007 #3
    This seems kind of silly-- just because something's different doesn't mean it's dissimilar. The human capacity for being able to relate one thing to another is part of the foundation for intelligence, which is part of the foundation for communication. Take away our ability to compare and contrast things and find similarities and we become computers-- only able to process things that PERFECTLY match, and incapable of original thought.

  5. Jan 30, 2007 #4
    Yes thats true but everything is arbitrary, subject to perception and opinion, Can you prove that my experience of the colour red is the same as your?

    As I couldn't prove it so how should I believe that the world that I observe is the same as yours?
  6. Jan 30, 2007 #5
    can you prove that my experience of the colour red is different from your?
  7. Jan 30, 2007 #6
    No I wont be able to prove it with 100% certainity, but I do know that we can never have 2 exactly identical objects, & that there will be a degree of difference between the objects even if this difference is neglegible...
    As logical outcome my experience of colour red can't be exactly the same as yours.
  8. Jan 30, 2007 #7
    How can you be so sure, other than by induction from your own limited experience?
  9. Jan 30, 2007 #8
    When it comes to human I'm sure since you certainly don't look like me nor any other person.

    Even if we look more deeply, can you say that two different objects have exacty the same number of subatomic particles and if so there arrangements are exactly the same?
    Thats a huge probability which means no in many cases.
  10. Jan 30, 2007 #9

    What you have to see here is the arcaheology of the premises that lead you to ask this question - and in that is pretty much the answer to your fist question.

    One thing we very rarely appraoch inthe West is understanding that "self" is an ideological conceit, and a linguisitc creation. And yet, that conceit forms a massive sub-premise in our thinking - instead of seeing it as part of the information under discussion, we assume that it is a "clean" "given" - ther eit is, watching observing, so we move straight on to asking about what it watches.

    The meaning of "red" is not an individual thing - it is "hosted" on a mass conceptual structure... And once you negate the ideology of "self", then maybe "you" are, also??

    Anyway - see "beetle in the box".
  11. Jan 30, 2007 #10
    k, what about twins?
  12. Jan 30, 2007 #11
    There have been quite a lot of experiments to find out the answer in twins.
    The results show;
    Even when they were both grown in the same way, their attitudes have turned to be totally different from each and other...

    The outcome is; no matter if we are talking about twins or not, we can't be sure about their perceptions being identical.
  13. Jan 30, 2007 #12


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    If you choose as an axiom that no two things are identical then of course the red we see isn't identical. This is no discovery.
  14. Jan 30, 2007 #13
    Why are you so adamant that it needs proving?

    Really, there's no such thing as proof except in the purely theoretical realm where definitions are arbitrary, like mathematics. You can't prove gravity any more than you can prove to me that you exist or that I existed 5 seconds ago.

    But who cares? The thing is that if we make the assumption that our experiences are identical or are very similar, then we can use that information for further gain, because the assumption turns out to be very reliable.

    That's what makes the existential debate so stupid. You can argue that food doesn't exist and refuse to eat it on the grounds that it won't "really" affect anything. But you won't! Or you can refuse that I exist-- but when I come at you with a knife, you'll try your best to stop me!

    In the end, you can't deny that our experiences match *closely enough* such that we are capable of communicating and understanding each other. Hence, the assumption that we needed to make in order to reach that understanding (IE that our experiences match closely) is likely to be true.

    It's sort of like saying "how much information do you need in order to prove a point?" For instance, let's say I have a function f(x). And I tell you that:

    f(1) = 2

    Will you believe that f(x) = 2x? Or that f(x) = 1+x? Or f(x) = sin(x-1) + 2^x? Probably you won't have a clue what it is just yet. But now I tell you:

    f(2) = 4

    Now you have quite a bit more data, and can narrow the possibilities down. Sure, it might be f(x) = 2x, but it might also be something else (certainly we can find some polynomials that match). And now I tell you:

    f(3) = 6

    Is it proven yet? How about if f(4) = 8, f(5) = 10, f(6) = 12, and f(7) = 14? Is that sufficient proof that it's f(x) = 2x? Of course not. But it's looking pretty likely!

    What you've gotten to date is a lot of data that suggests that our perceptions are the same or similar. Sure, it's theoretically possible that it's not true, but where does that get you? There is no *proof* that our perceptions match, it's just extraordinarily likely.

  15. Jan 31, 2007 #14
    It sure isn't a discovery but how can we be identical, Don't you think the axiom is logical?
  16. Jan 31, 2007 #15


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    If I see that the sky is blue that you see that the sky is blue, would it matter if we *actually* saw different colours? We see the same objective colour.
  17. Feb 1, 2007 #16
    It sure does matters, We will never be able to understand this difference in colour blue of the sky, but if there really is a difference between what we see as our observations and the reality, then there will be huge paradoxes which will be able to explain many of the mysteries we don't understand... In other words it shows that we live in a kind of relativistic world which is the product of reality & preceptions, Not the reality itself... What if the influence of the preceptions are so high in the relativistic world? Then obviously the reality is far more different then our observations... NO way to get the reality????
    This means; The human science which is Relative to human observations, is not the real science of the universe... and many other weird topics will rise.

    This is getting on my nerves, since I don't have a reason to say no to the concept of relativistic world, I'll be glad if you can help me out :)
  18. Feb 1, 2007 #17
    That was a Good Point...

    The observations turn out to be very reliable because we can't understand the differences easily.

    _______________________________ ​

    Have a look at these example for instance;

    Lets imagine a supernatural eye which can observe everything as it is, and two human observing a color which is as x to the supernatural eye, the color is observed as y by the fist person and z by the second person, but both first and second person have learnt to call it as the color c, They will both call it c because;
    Imagine a newborn baby and his mother, the mother starts to teach how to speak and what to call different items, the mother doesn’t knows how the observations made by the baby look like but it is assumed to be the same, even if different the baby will learn the same words for different objects as used by the mother…

    Now IF (I'm not sure) this type of thinking is correct we live in:

    1) Personal World
    2) Relative World
    3) Reality​

    Returning back to the example the color was observed differently by each person, it appeared as y to the first and z to the second, as there observations are a combination of Personal world & reality, But they live in the relative world because even that they observed different colors relative to each and other, they both called it as the color c & didn’t even noticed the difference in colors relative to each and other, so a relative world exists, & there exists the reality because there was something which they saw...

    _______________________________ ​

    These examples were all that made me think like this, & as I'm not an expert on these type of topics, I thought I can get the help from the experts over here. :)

    I'll be glad for further coments of yours.
  19. Feb 1, 2007 #18
    To davee123;

    I do understand what you mean by saying that the conclusions are that our observations are close to each and other, The relativistic idea written in my previous post gives us an alternative answer intead of our observations being close, I'll sure talk about that after having your idea on the relativistic concept itself...
  20. Feb 1, 2007 #19


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    What reality are you talking about? Objective reality is just that, the same as the colour blue.
  21. Feb 1, 2007 #20
    There is no evidence of this. This arrises from adapting certain philosophy of science. There is no epistemological or ontological reason for this to be, it is the way we are taught to look at the world. There are other ways of seeing the world which add another perspective.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook