Exploring Human Perception: How Do We Communicate?

In summary: Be a very powerful tool for understanding and communication, if we are willing to suspend our belief in the self.In summary, Two different objects can never be exactly the same, which means that the perception of two different human beings will also be different. Perception is where we live, and without that belief in the self, we would be unable to communicate with other people.

How do you find the idea of 'relativistic world'


  • Total voters
    13
  • #1
mubashirmansoor
260
0
Hello,
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 completely 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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
How about that the perceptions mimic real objects?
 
  • #3
mubashirmansoor said:
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?

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.

DaveE
 
  • #4
Yes that's 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?
 
  • #5
can you prove that my experience of the colour red is different from your?
 
  • #6
No I won't 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.
 
  • #7
mubashirmansoor said:
I do know that we can never have 2 exactly identical objects
How can you be so sure, other than by induction from your own limited experience?
 
  • #8
whatta said:
How can you be so sure, other than by induction from your own limited experience?

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.
 
  • #9
whatta said:
can you prove that my experience of the colour red is different from your?


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".
 
  • #10
k, what about twins?
 
  • #11
whatta said:
k, what about twins?

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.
 
  • #12
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.
 
  • #13
mubashirmansoor said:
Yes that's 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?

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.

DaveE
 
  • #14
verty said:
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.

It sure isn't a discovery but how can we be identical, Don't you think the axiom is logical?
 
  • #15
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.
 
  • #16
verty said:
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.

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 :)
 
  • #17
That was a Good Point...

davee123 said:
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.

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 learned 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.
 
  • #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...
 
  • #19
NO way to get the reality?

What reality are you talking about? Objective reality is just that, the same as the colour blue.
 
  • #20
In other words it shows that we live in a kind of relativistic world which is the product of reality & preceptions

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.
 
  • #21
verty said:
What reality are you talking about? Objective reality is just that, the same as the colour blue.

Since observations become a combination of Reality and Perception, which is not the pure reality.
 
  • #22
mubashirmansoor said:
Since observations become a combination of Reality and Perception, which is not the pure reality.

Here's the catch-- what's pure reality?

You're not going to ever get to anything which you can trust 100% is "pure reality" if you assume that your perceptions are giving you a modified view of reality. You just won't. But so what? Seriously, so what? The only way around the problem is to *define* reality as that which your perceptions present you with. And what's wrong with that definition?

You think seem to think that if something outside your perception changes something *inside* your perception, that you'll never be able to fully understand whatever it is? Pft! Quite possible! But on the other hand, maybe not! If something "outside" your perceptions affects something "within" your perception, then you perceive the imperceivble indirectly, which is how you perceive everything anyway!

DaveE
 
  • #23
sneez said:
There is no evidence of this. This arrises from adapting certain philosophy of science.

As an evidence to support the idea of relativistic world, let's just take the reaction of different people in a specific situation as an example.
When a person who lives in a tropical country goes to siberia he/she start wearing thick coats while the person living in siberia might be wearing a half sleeve shirt. This is what simply shows that the aspect of weather and its magnetude of hot or cold were different for each of them and this means the aspect of weather is relative to each person. When the first person says its cold its not necessarily the same for the second person.

As another support for this idea is the Relativism school from the ontological point of view.

davee123 said:
You're not going to ever get to anything which you can trust 100% is "pure reality" if you assume that your perceptions are giving you a modified view of reality. You just won't. But so what? Seriously, so what? The only way around the problem is to *define* reality as that which your perceptions present you with. And what's wrong with that definition?

Thats what I'm looking for, Why do you find as absolutely imposible to find the reality? Okey, I do agree we can't get the idea with 100% certainity but we sure can atleast get an idea...
Even if completely imposible as you pointed out, I find it interesting to analyze what happens in this case, if it is true...
 
  • #24
Ghostfaith said:
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".

This is exactly what I'm trying to say & which leads to me to the idea of relativistic workd ... according to all that I've written before.
:smile:

I'll be thankfull if you submit your votes to the poll.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
There is no certainity in the similarity between the perception of two different people. In fact i think that most people have unique way of percieving things, it is because of this that people tend to have varying interests, views, thoughts etc.. Its all dependant on what we learn as we grow. We are all able to talk about the colour red as red because our teacher taught us that the colour she was pointing to was red. What we talk about is only because we all have agreed to call something (which may differ in perception from person to person) as red. So as long as we stick to that agreement there is going to be no problem.It is Data and its undersdtanding that is important rather than the perception
 
  • #26
dialmformartian said:
There is no certainity in the similarity between the perception of two different people. In fact i think that most people have unique way of percieving things, it is because of this that people tend to have varying interests, views, thoughts etc.. Its all dependant on what we learn as we grow. We are all able to talk about the colour red as red because our teacher taught us that the colour she was pointing to was red. What we talk about is only because we all have agreed to call something (which may differ in perception from person to person) as red. So as long as we stick to that agreement there is going to be no problem.It is Data and its undersdtanding that is important rather than the perception

Excellent, Thats exactly what I'am trying to talk about over here. :!)
 
  • #27
1. We need relative view points to "compare and contrast" in this world.

2. This applies to the measuring system of "time".

3. Without the contrast of the relative state, the quantum state would go unnoticed.
 
  • #28
dialmformartian said:
There is no certainity in the similarity between the perception of two different people. In fact i think that most people have unique way of percieving things, it is because of this that people tend to have varying interests, views, thoughts etc.. Its all dependant on what we learn as we grow. We are all able to talk about the colour red as red because our teacher taught us that the colour she was pointing to was red. What we talk about is only because we all have agreed to call something (which may differ in perception from person to person) as red. So as long as we stick to that agreement there is going to be no problem.It is Data and its undersdtanding that is important rather than the perception

I must disagree with your classic example of what is red? Red is well defined in terms of the wavelength of a 'red' photon. It is safe to say that all photons between 400-450nm produce a redish color. Since we have cones in our eyes that are tuned to this wavelength, called L-cones, we all have a common perception of the color red. If tomorrow your teacher and the rest of the world decided to change the name of red to blue, it would make no diffence on your perception of the 400-450nm photons, you would just now call the color blue.

If an alien visited the Earth and you showed him an apple, a poppy flower and human blood, it might have trouble understanding the connection between these 3 items to be a shared 'color'. But speak to an alien scientist and show him the spectrum range of 400-450nm and tell him this is what we call 'red' and he will understand instantly. This makes many large assumptions about aliens of course, but my point is to emphasize the underlying physics, while diminishing the semantic, ontological and perceptoral 'tags' that we attach to very real physical properties.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Would you agree with me on this...

That the Universe is likely to have real, underlying and discrete physical properties that are independent of our sensory perceptions. I admit we could never know this for sure because all the information we receive about our Universe is the accumulation of data inputted through our senses and experienced by our perception of these senses.

BUT, we humans DO perceive such discrete physical properties in our experience of the Universe and have tested these properties many times over in experiments to confirm that these properties are indeed fixed. THEREFORE, why would one make the illogical jump to a conclusion that the Universe is anything but exactly what we perceive it to be. I mean sure we may not be seeing everything in the Universe, we have not discovered every property of every Hadron, nor have we discovered every implication of every force and maybe we have not even discovered every force present in the Universe, but can you see a reason why our perception of the Universe would be incorrect in some fundamental manner?

If every human, from birth, were unknowingly fitted with red contact lenses over their eyes that remained permanently fixed for their entire lives, would you say that these humans are not correctly perceiving the Universe because they could not see the colors blue, yellow, green? What if one day, a clever person noticed how to color-correct and cancel out this red filter, so that the other colors could now be seen, would this clever person perceive the Universe better than the others? In my opinion, no. I think it is irrelevant to the human experience to consider whether our perception of the Universe is close to, or far from the TRUE perception of the Universe's physical properties, for how can one determine what thie TRUE perception is, one cannot!
 
  • #30
Good Point...

Chaos' lil bro Order said:
Would you agree with me on this...

That the Universe is likely to have real, underlying and discrete physical properties that are independent of our sensory perceptions.

This is sure true from my point of view but calling our perceptions as not being the reality doesn't suits what I thought about at the start of this thread & I would like to know your comments on this; As in your example
of the person fitted with red lens right from the beginning of his/her life, The reality to such person IS in colour red and the colours blue, green etc. will just have no meaning to this person & they will never exist in natural form to such a person, & the other colours will be an outcome of their intelectual creativity... In other words Reality is itself relative to our perceptions, is what I think.
This is simply proved with your former example of aliens, Those aliens are again part of this universe but they couldn't realize the difference between the three identical objects with different colours, But we can, So its simply understood that we understand reality far more different than those aliens which simply starts the question, how can we be sure what lies behind this relativistic realities, Since there isn't any good probabilty showing we humans see it all the way it is, We are even in doubt if what I see is the same as yours...

When it comes to the colour red I don't agree with you because we are actually talking about the innermost perception of human about the colour red, what I am trying to say is; the way that your brain imagines the wavelenght 400-450 nm is not necessarily the same as mine. On the other hand we can't realize this difference because what we call the wavelenght 400 nm is the same even if the way we see it is different.

I'll be waiting for your further coments on this :)
 
  • #31
baywax said:
1. We need relative view points to "compare and contrast" in this world.

2. This applies to the measuring system of "time".

3. Without the contrast of the relative state, the quantum state would go unnoticed.

You are exactly pointing to the correct direction, but do you believe in this relativity to be in between you and me? in other words the way you percieve time, shapes, locations ... are the same as mine?
 
  • #32
mubashirmansoor said:
You are exactly pointing to the correct direction, but do you believe in this relativity to be in between you and me? in other words the way you percieve time, shapes, locations ... are the same as mine?

If I responded to and perceived shapes, locations and time the same way as you this would be a testament to the existence of a non-relative world. As it is, the various differences in our physiological, genetic and experiencial make up are what make our points of view so varied and thus conclusions and opinions are relative only to the way each individual experiences phenomena.

It is when a group decides upon a common definition that we begin to see objectivity take place. Any dissenting members of the group that disagree with the definition are either convinced otherwise or removed from the group. This maintains the objectivity yet, at what price? Is objectivity lost?
 
  • #33
mubashir

mubashirmansoor said:
This is sure true from my point of view but calling our perceptions as not being the reality doesn't suits what I thought about at the start of this thread & I would like to know your comments on this; As in your example
of the person fitted with red lens right from the beginning of his/her life, The reality to such person IS in colour red and the colours blue, green etc. will just have no meaning to this person & they will never exist in natural form to such a person, & the other colours will be an outcome of their intelectual creativity... In other words Reality is itself relative to our perceptions, is what I think.
This is simply proved with your former example of aliens, Those aliens are again part of this universe but they couldn't realize the difference between the three identical objects with different colours, But we can, So its simply understood that we understand reality far more different than those aliens which simply starts the question, how can we be sure what lies behind this relativistic realities, Since there isn't any good probabilty showing we humans see it all the way it is, We are even in doubt if what I see is the same as yours...

When it comes to the colour red I don't agree with you because we are actually talking about the innermost perception of human about the colour red, what I am trying to say is; the way that your brain imagines the wavelenght 400-450 nm is not necessarily the same as mine. On the other hand we can't realize this difference because what we call the wavelenght 400 nm is the same even if the way we see it is different.

I'll be waiting for your further coments on this :)


I liked your comments Mubashir, he is my opinion:

For the red light example, I would say that the underlying reality is that there are photons of the wavelength 400nm (well I made a mistake, the 400-450nm range is really violet, the red color is more 600-650nm; but still this is irrelevant to our conversation; from now on we should call red 600nm). So, there are red photons of 600nm. If we drop our perceptions, all we can say is that there are photons of 600nm. If we wanted to further nitpick away our perception's subjectivity, we could say there are photons that are 400 x 40,000 x 10 ^-13 the size of the Earth's diameter. This would be easier to explain to an alien, because we would have to tell them what nm are, but this way, we only have to explain width and they can look at the Earth as the reference.


I wholeheartedly agree with you that we can never know the true underlying reality, because after all, our only tools are our perception which is a product of the limitations of our 5 senses. Much in the same way that an amoeba, in our opinion has a limited perception of the true underlying Universe, because it cannot experience color or sound, an alien that had a 6th or even 7th sense, would see our perception of the underlying Universe as incomplete. BUT, the alien would not say our peception of the underlying Univers is FALSE, but merely INCOMPLETE, but still TRUE. My point is all perspectives have truth, if they are confirmed by a peer group that has equally capable senses.
 
  • #34
baywax said:
If I responded to and perceived shapes, locations and time the same way as you this would be a testament to the existence of a non-relative world. As it is, the various differences in our physiological, genetic and experiencial make up are what make our points of view so varied and thus conclusions and opinions are relative only to the way each individual experiences phenomena.

It is when a group decides upon a common definition that we begin to see objectivity take place. Any dissenting members of the group that disagree with the definition are either convinced otherwise or removed from the group. This maintains the objectivity yet, at what price? Is objectivity lost?

Exactly...
Really at what price... Isn't this objectivity taking us far away from the reality and the true nature of existence...?

When it comes to the people who naturally don't agree with an objective point of view, as you pointed out, Can't we just say they have a very different level perceptions which eventually results to neither being convinced nor believing in what the rest of the group says. Such people are removed from the group offcourse, but the problem is we label many of these people as crazy or mentally ill. Don't you think, when we observe and know that our perceptions are not necessarily true, why should we call those people mantally ill? doesn't this idea shows that they are just as normal as me and you? but with a different level of understanding and recognizing their sorroundings? We certainly can't judge if the level of understanding that we have is higher/lower than them...
One point which the idea of relativistic world shows is that these people can never be cured (to become like the rest of the group), & can never be understood by the rest of the group. All that the group can do would be keeping them in a controlled area such as a mental hospital, so that they wouldn't harm others due to this difference in the level of understandings.
 
  • #35
Chaos' lil bro Order said:
I liked your comments Mubashir, he is my opinion:

For the red light example, I would say that the underlying reality is that there are photons of the wavelength 400nm (well I made a mistake, the 400-450nm range is really violet, the red color is more 600-650nm; but still this is irrelevant to our conversation; from now on we should call red 600nm). So, there are red photons of 600nm. If we drop our perceptions, all we can say is that there are photons of 600nm. If we wanted to further nitpick away our perception's subjectivity, we could say there are photons that are 400 x 40,000 x 10 ^-13 the size of the Earth's diameter. This would be easier to explain to an alien, because we would have to tell them what nm are, but this way, we only have to explain width and they can look at the Earth as the reference.


I wholeheartedly agree with you that we can never know the true underlying reality, because after all, our only tools are our perception which is a product of the limitations of our 5 senses. Much in the same way that an amoeba, in our opinion has a limited perception of the true underlying Universe, because it cannot experience color or sound, an alien that had a 6th or even 7th sense, would see our perception of the underlying Universe as incomplete. BUT, the alien would not say our peception of the underlying Univers is FALSE, but merely INCOMPLETE, but still TRUE. My point is all perspectives have truth, if they are confirmed by a peer group that has equally capable senses.

Thats exactly what I was trying to say, But again when it comes to the aliens & the alien scientist; As we show them three different colours which they couldn't recognize the difference, there scientist wouldn't understand the difference when it comes to experiencing the colours, All that the alien scientist would understand is the varying wavelenght between the colours.
 
<h2>1. What is human perception?</h2><p>Human perception refers to the way in which we interpret and make sense of the world around us through our senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.</p><h2>2. How do we communicate with others?</h2><p>We communicate with others through various forms such as verbal language, body language, facial expressions, and gestures. These forms of communication allow us to convey our thoughts, feelings, and ideas to others.</p><h2>3. What factors influence human perception?</h2><p>There are several factors that can influence human perception, including our past experiences, cultural background, emotions, and physical and mental state. These factors can shape how we perceive and interpret information.</p><h2>4. How does human perception impact our daily lives?</h2><p>Human perception plays a crucial role in our daily lives as it allows us to make sense of the world and make decisions. It also affects how we interact with others and how we understand and respond to different situations.</p><h2>5. Can human perception be improved or changed?</h2><p>Yes, human perception can be improved or changed through various methods such as training, education, and exposure to new experiences. Our perception is not fixed and can be influenced and shaped over time.</p>

1. What is human perception?

Human perception refers to the way in which we interpret and make sense of the world around us through our senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.

2. How do we communicate with others?

We communicate with others through various forms such as verbal language, body language, facial expressions, and gestures. These forms of communication allow us to convey our thoughts, feelings, and ideas to others.

3. What factors influence human perception?

There are several factors that can influence human perception, including our past experiences, cultural background, emotions, and physical and mental state. These factors can shape how we perceive and interpret information.

4. How does human perception impact our daily lives?

Human perception plays a crucial role in our daily lives as it allows us to make sense of the world and make decisions. It also affects how we interact with others and how we understand and respond to different situations.

5. Can human perception be improved or changed?

Yes, human perception can be improved or changed through various methods such as training, education, and exposure to new experiences. Our perception is not fixed and can be influenced and shaped over time.

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
973
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
19
Views
2K
Back
Top