Reality, Perceived or Conceived?
It's easy to determine the perception of phenomena which impact the senses. These may be objects/subjects manifest through forms, forces and activities which we are directly aware of because of their impact on our senses.
However, it is difficult to state, without a degree of doubt, the awareness of objects/subjects which do not impact the senses directly or, more definitively, those derived through analytical reasoning.
For example, a person may see a sequence of numbers on a computer screen and deduce the kind of pattern or technique in operation without 'seeing' the exact program. In such a way, we deduce character by observing actions and reactions, displays of emotions, state of mind, etc. It's as if we recognised the program which determines the persona.
Also, we may observe an activity, e.g. the fall of an apple and deduce the presence of the force of gravity. Then, we observe the action of this force in its interaction with other phenomena and further deduce its mode of activity, its characteristics, etc.
The latter process by which we arrive at the laws/principles which define the how of phenomena is conception because it is generated in the mind and represents objects/subjects dissimilar to the sensed objects/subjects even though it relates to them.
Does this mean that a concept could be a real representation of reality just as any phenomena we observe?
Also,
In other words,
However, it is difficult to state, without a degree of doubt, the awareness of objects/subjects which do not impact the senses directly or, more definitively, those derived through analytical reasoning.
For example, a person may see a sequence of numbers on a computer screen and deduce the kind of pattern or technique in operation without 'seeing' the exact program. In such a way, we deduce character by observing actions and reactions, displays of emotions, state of mind, etc. It's as if we recognised the program which determines the persona.
Also, we may observe an activity, e.g. the fall of an apple and deduce the presence of the force of gravity. Then, we observe the action of this force in its interaction with other phenomena and further deduce its mode of activity, its characteristics, etc.
The latter process by which we arrive at the laws/principles which define the how of phenomena is conception because it is generated in the mind and represents objects/subjects dissimilar to the sensed objects/subjects even though it relates to them.
Does this mean that a concept could be a real representation of reality just as any phenomena we observe?
Also,
how much of reality is perceived and how much is conceived?
In other words,
do empiricism and logic have equal grounds in determining reality?
Comments (16)
Re the quantificational questions ("how much"/"are they equal"), it doesn't really seem plausible to me to quantify this.
By the way, I'd phrase the first question as something like, "What is the balance of perception versus conception in our picture of reality?" I'd want to be careful not to suggest that reality in general somehow hinges on us/our activities (such as our perceiving and conceiving things).
I think you concede too much. When I duck from a baseball about to hit my head I get reality right without having to go to the trouble of deduction.
I didn't mean to imply people necessarily cogitating. "Deduction" was emphasized in the initial post, too.
We are already moving towards a picture of subjects, objects, and perception that will pretty naturally lead to the problem of deducing reality via concepts and mental representation. So when you transition the thread from deduction to the nature of a 'picture of reality', I'd say we need to stop and give a good think about perception and reality before worrying about concepts, theories, pictures, subjects, objects, representations, and so forth.
I wouldn't want to just turn it into yet another idealism vs realism thread, though. We've got enough of those already.
I mean in what relation do we perceive and/or conceive of reality. For example, say you observe a phenomenon but cannot deduce any of its characteristic features or the principles governing the expression of the phenomena. Then, how well do you understand the phenomena as a part of reality?
On the other hand, suppose you deduce its characteristics and the principles which govern the expression of the phenomena, do you understand it better in terms of its place in reality?
Another question would be whether our human experiences are such that we attempt to attach concepts to our perceptions and/or, we validate concepts by testing their empiricism acquired through perception. So, when we perceive something, do we naturally seek to conceive of its inner workings? And, when we have a concept, do we naturally seek to put it to practice? Is our understanding of reality dependent on such a relation?
Actually, such reactions are a consequence of prior deduction which conclude a situation to be unfavourable. They may be passed on to us more or less reflexively but, nonetheless, are a product of deduction.
Well if you extend the meaning of deduction so broadly that it captures the acquisition of coping skills in embodied know-how, then sure, of course. But the problem is this way of phrasing things tempts one into thinking that they can draw conclusions about some sort of conceptual or mental scaffolding going on (as you appear to do when you say "conclude a situation to be unfavourable", suggesting that you have in mind some thicker notion of conceptualization and self-consciousness).
No, the coping is separate from the deduction. Someone or some people, at some point in time deduced the nature of certain projectiles and conveyed that information to others. By and by, it became kind of like common sense. But, all that means is there is a degree of reason in the reaction which also implies deduction.
So we need concepts and deduction to learn how to duck from a baseball flying towards our face? Then how do dogs and cats learn to do these things?
Good question. Doesn't that mean they (cats and dogs) create concepts? Or that they have some rudimentary form of reason?
Very generally, if you take the former view then you think that e.g. catching a frisbee doesn't involve the use of concepts, if you take the latter view then you think that concepts play a role in catching a frisbee.
I just think there are more complex forms of activity manifest in animals (especially domesticated ones) that clearly show a level of discernment and reflection beyond the normal instinctive processes.
Yes. Empiricism informs us there is something to make determinations about, logic informs us about the correctness of them.