Conceptualization and Perception

[WW_III_ANGRY]

When we see something, we construct a conceptualization of what that thing is, which is compared and contrasted automatically to things like that thing, that we already know of. When we see a human, we conceptualize the human as perhaps, a man or a woman, depending on the traits that we are focusing on. Sometimes, depending on what we see, that may not be the first thing we can conceptualize and it remains in more of a status that isn't necessarily what we can consider to be a good conceptualization, or a good probability that the person is a man or a woman. Of course this day and age, we can't really know if anyone is a man or a woman, but that can be a different subject. When we see a face, we note the things that we have already attributed to being that of a face, is there eyes, eyebrows, nose, lips, the face, those are perceived rather easily. It is rather striking, when one of these things are missing, because that is not the norm. However, missing an eye, missing a nose, doesn't disqualify us from considering that face to be human. But what if this person is missing both their eyes, their mouth and their nose? Then what? Of course, we would probably have never seen anybody quite like this before. We may think they aren't a human, perhaps they are an alien. Perhaps, they are a mannequin with no face. Do we consider this to be the same for a person who is missing a nose and an eye? Perhaps not, accidents and birth defects do happen. But I'm not sure if a person is able to live long without a face. That type of birth defect may not be acceptable or conducive to life, if there is one. I'm not sure if there is one like that, of course this is a hypothetical. I would think some of you may be googling that right now, already have, or will be.

It seems that there may be unknown qualifications that we require to consider our perception to be the same as a concept that we already are aware of.


A tree, is a tree, based on certain qualifications that we know of as a tree. Interestingly, a pine tree is very different from a maple tree. However, there still are striking similarities. Yet of course, these words and classification of this pine tree and a maple tree does have has some legitimate ontological basis for both to be considered a tree. But how about bamboo? This is very different from other trees. It is considered a type of grass in wikipedia, but it is also very different from other types of grass as well. So there is some debate on whether bamboo is a tree or a grass. But really, it doesn't matter to much as to what it is. Neither does a pine tree being labeled a tree matter to what it is. It does only make it easier to communicate such things. Look at that tree! Well, if its a pine tree, we will know what they are referring to. But what if we never saw a pine tree? We can deduce the other person is probably referring to that tree looking thing with these large weird needles all over it, instead of leaves. That's a tree, we might think? This process of identifying things and concepts is very much tied into our language. Our language is very much a social construct and can even be considered a social contract, if you will. Language ties in to how we perceive and conceptualize things, because through language, we form concepts that are attached to these symbols that we know as words. These symbols are attributed to real word concepts, both physical and abstract things. But these concepts and real world things, don't always mesh. Sometimes they do, but often, there is a disconnect to the reality of the physical or abstract thing. Please note also, that language is a key to philosophy: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190052

Without knowing how language and words, definitions can get it wrong, we will get our philosophy wrong as well. To question the definitions of words is to philosophize. Our language, being a social construct, is also a language that has formed, and informed our minds. "Think for yourself, question authority - Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities — the political, the religious, the educational authorities — who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing — forming in our minds — their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness. (A) chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself." viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190058&start=100#p2598466

When one thinks for our self and questions the authority of words and languages, its usages, its common ways that people express meaning, we can possibly see how that meaning isn't necessarily cogent to the ontology of the identity of a concept. Just what is an abstraction, what really exists, what is physical, what isn't? What is a product of our mind and what is actually there? viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190102#p2596805
What is a product of our culture and language and what is actually there?


Language has essentially forced upon us a conceptualization through linguistical standards that can cause something to come about such as a concept that doesn't actually have any basis in reality, yet we use it as if it might. For example, a religious definition of "Free will" - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190185

I would say, people "know better" by now. By know better, I use colloquial rhetoric here. But know, and belief, are often of some sort of problematic nature in colloquial rhetoric, which I have attempted to note more thoroughly here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190004

Through questioning the ontological implications of language, we can go deeper philosophically and possibly overcome limitations from those that preceded us. Through perceptual conceptualization that is aware of the aforementioned pitfalls of language, one can perceive things in a new clearer light that may be untainted by the norms of our culture, our language, our authorities, and break free from all that may be wrong about how people think. Of course, not everything is wrong, but then again, not everything is right either. There are problems unsolved everywhere in philosophy, there are problems unsolved in science, in math, in perception, in cognition. Did Kant get everything right on synthetic and non synthetic a priori? We should not assume so much. I would argue against Kant and his description of math, as I already have elsewhere in the "think for yourself question authority thread". To ascribe to the greats and utilize them in comparing what we actually think, as if they are weighted, might very well be considered bias. If we can think from a mind that attempts to gain independence as much as possible from the environment that we are born in, then perhaps we can perceive things in a new light, and maybe even a better light. Humanity has often herded, gone with what works. Sure things work, sure contextualization and words work, but we are not a perfect species. We have not perfected philosophy. We have not perfected our ontology. We are far from understanding the complexities of the mind, our perception processes and conceptualization process. Yes we have dug deeply into these fields, but there is always room for improvement.

Now, with conceptualization and perception being linked very much so with this social construct of language - how can we overcome the norms of our culture and go beyond? Shouldn't we go beyond? If not a failed attempt, isn't it worth it to try?

Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto
I am a human being, so nothing human is strange to me
-Publius Terentius Afer (195/185–159 BC)

A worthy goal, for us all. "Alien" and "weird" are replaceable. Just as evolution branches out in all sorts of "weird ways", perhaps our minds ought to as well. Fathom the possibilities. Don't let your perceived probabilities get in the way and seal your perceived probabilities with belief. Embrace your ignorance. Just as a child has whimsical curiosity, whereas the teenager is seen as knowing it all, filled with belief's instead of the embrace of ignorance, adults too ought to revert back to that whimsical curiosity. Reality is a rabbit hole, our culture may prevent us from going down it. Fathom the possibilities, push the envelope. Watch it bend...
Come, lets dance, through the realm of the abstract, the physical, the conceptualizing that takes place with both, re-inform our minds, bring about a schema that may grant one a hopeful purpose. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187609



More to come...

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I find it to be useful to separate perception from language as much as possible. We should be able to look at things and not think in terms of English language. We should be able to think about things not in terms of English language.

Experiencing sense impressions, perception itself isn't a constructed through our English language. We don't have to look at a tree and think the word and concept tree. We can, or if not I would say, we should, be able take in this sense perception, without thinking about the concept "tree". But if we begin formulating more complex thoughts about what we are seeing, we can use language to possibly gather other thoughts, think something else about it. What is a tree, why is it a tree, how is it a tree.

However, we are not limited to thinking in partiality with our language. Visualizing things based on our knowledge of how things react in reality, visualizing cause and effect, based on our empirical knowledge is very useful. This is a process of combining conceptualization and perception together to perceive possibilities that may be unknown. It doesn't mean we know the possibility will occur, but can give us a good indication - which is very similar to much of philosophy.

If some concepts that have been brought about that are not correct, not true to reality, and are merely useful rhetorical devices, should we in turn while philosophizing and be wary of thinking in terms of these concepts that only might be valid through communication, and as such, our English language? I would put the subjective / objective dichotomy firmly as something to be wary of. But that is very much broadly known and contested in philosophical discussions. The question is, what do we take for granted, all of us, some of us, in so much that language provides a veil of illusion, even deceit, in the real, the real of the logically abstract as well?

In order to transcend beyond the herd, thinking beyond language is an important method. Perceiving beyond language is an important method. But how do we perceive the abstract beyond language, without visual sight?

More to come...

[WW_III_ANGRY]

So when we perceive we are perceiving based on our conceptualization of the object we are perceiving. Whether it is something we are perceiving actively with our visual sight, or perceiving passively through pure conceptualization within the mind, that isn't necessarily utilizing any current sensory data that we are taking in, in its perception.

With that, there are many things we can think about an object of perception, utilizing some philosophies I have already provided, I hope, would be a tool to gain thought and understanding that may be similar to this:




When one knows how we perceive, one can change how we perceive and as such bring about thought and perspective that can transcend the old, bring in the new. Philosophy is not dead.

[Amorphos]

I find it to be useful to separate perception from language as much as possible.

Language is the description of former and of contemporary perceptions, but perception is the tool ~ the thing which does the observing, and I would think these are two different classes of things. We wouldn't classify a TV by what it is showing or a radio by its station, one is an instrument the other is content. I know in us they are closely connected because the brain needs to be able to predict the world with continually updated information. However, when we see an optical illusion it seams clear that that shows us that it is mostly mechanistic ~ you can't tell your brain to see the correct image even after you have the knowledge of the e.g. colours being swapped.

The infant consciousness is pretty crap at virtually everything, so the brain is doing all the work building its world, until the intellect gets more refined/defined. Completely new things will have to be observed until you get what it is, which we do by object and meaning matching [from historical data]. I don't know how much if any, the conscious perception changes the world the brain manifests? [what we see] I assume that the perception does actually see as if the eyes are like [its] cameras, ergo I would imagine that the brain has a way to encode new information ~ as part of the process surely involves that. so seeing is to a degree knowing?

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I find it to be useful to separate perception from language as much as possible.

Language is the description of former and of contemporary perceptions, but perception is the tool ~ the thing which does the observing, and I would think these are two different classes of things. We wouldn't classify a TV by what it is showing or a radio by its station, one is an instrument the other is content. I know in us they are closely connected because the brain needs to be able to predict the world with continually updated information. However, when we see an optical illusion it seams clear that that shows us that it is mostly mechanistic ~ you can't tell your brain to see the correct image even after you have the knowledge of the e.g. colours being swapped.

The infant consciousness is pretty crap at virtually everything, so the brain is doing all the work building its world, until the intellect gets more refined/defined. Completely new things will have to be observed until you get what it is, which we do by object and meaning matching [from historical data]. I don't know how much if any, the conscious perception changes the world the brain manifests? [what we see] I assume that the perception does actually see as if the eyes are like [its] cameras, ergo I would imagine that the brain has a way to encode new information ~ as part of the process surely involves that. so seeing is to a degree knowing?

Sure, I agree that they are different classes of things, and my mistake though, by perception in what you quoted I should have been more specific in my meaning. I meant perception as "a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something".

On illusions, can't we tell our brain to see the correct image in some instances? Or at least, a different image? Take the "magic eye" photos for example.

[Amorphos]

I meant perception as "a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something".

Understood. There may be an objective level to that to perhaps ~ If we were to give a robot that kind of perception, we would have to add a device or processor to it.

On illusions, can't we tell our brain to see the correct image in some instances? Or at least, a different image? Take the "magic eye" photos for example.

Good example and yes I think that's true. The act of perceiving is perhaps something akin to its namesake in relativity [where particles observe and that changes the thing]. Hmm, it may be that with the 'magic eye' we are using the brain function designed to mitigate illusions [find shape in a mirage], and optical illusions are where that fails?

[Stephen C Pedersen]

This is a timely debate. Concepts versus percepts. I believe concepts to be a short cut to what we actually see. It's a tool to understand the world. It's a substitute to bring order to the world. For instance, we have newton's law of gravitation that is a concept absolute mathematically. However, perceptions are a different story. They tell of a messy, dapple world. We see this when we come into contact with philosophy of science. The realist/antirealist debate.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

This is a timely debate. Concepts versus percepts. I believe concepts to be a short cut to what we actually see. It's a tool to understand the world. It's a substitute to bring order to the world. For instance, we have newton's law of gravitation that is a concept absolute mathematically. However, perceptions are a different story. They tell of a messy, dapple world. We see this when we come into contact with philosophy of science. The realist/antirealist debate.

Eh, anti-realists don't make any sense, really. They assume too much. They believe too much. They lack reason, often.

On gravity, thought I'd share this. It seems to me like its the fabric of space being distorted by mass - being ripped apart from its very being, is moved out from where it would naturally be if there wasn't mass in its place and as such the force seems to be the natural result of space trying to go back towards where it came from, where it should be, if there wasn't mass in its place...

[James S Saint]

On gravity, thought I'd share this. It seems to me like its the fabric of space being distorted by mass - being ripped apart from its very being, is moved out from where it would naturally be if there wasn't mass in its place and as such the force seems to be the natural result of space trying to go back towards where it came from, where it should be, if there wasn't mass in its place...

The concept of spacetime bending is strictly descriptive, not causal. The "bending" has nothing to do with why gravitation takes place. And the Minkowski spacetime bending concept is a separate ontology from the Cartesian ontology, which one is "right" is merely a choice.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Sure, but I'm not referring to bending of spacetime

[Stephen C Pedersen]

To take a step backwards, on gravity, I'm proposing that the concept of gravity is a concept, not a percept. In other words, it's a mental substitute to make sense of the dapple word in front of our eyes which we can't possibly get right 100%. So we have concepts such as special relativity and general relativity that do their best to make sense in them, but are only real to a certain degree. They aren't the actual reality, of the vastly complex world. For example, we haven't found a way to connect special relativity with general relativity. But more interesting is that if everything is physics (probablism) top down then how are we able to to make logical certainties, and mathematical absolutes? These capacities of the minds are mental substitutes.

This is an idea posed by Nancy Cartwright who is somewhere in between a scientific realist and anti realist. She is the mid point. The psychology of it is my idea though.

[peitho]

To take a step backwards, on gravity, I'm proposing that the concept of gravity is a concept, not a percept. In other words, it's a mental substitute to make sense of the dapple word in front of our eyes which we can't possibly get right 100%. So we have concepts such as special relativity and general relativity that do their best to make sense in them, but are only real to a certain degree. They aren't the actual reality, of the vastly complex world. For example, we haven't found a way to connect special relativity with general relativity. But more interesting is that if everything is physics (probablism) top down then how are we able to to make logical certainties, and mathematical absolutes? These capacities of the minds are mental substitutes.

This is an idea posed by Nancy Cartwright who is somewhere in between a scientific realist and anti realist. She is the mid point. The psychology of it is my idea though.

According to Modern, subjectivist, politics, if it were not for the fact that gravity is present, and obvious, like appearance, and if it were not so indifferent to human Nihilistic ideals, it would also be denied, and defined as another social construct.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

To take a step backwards, on gravity, I'm proposing that the concept of gravity is a concept, not a percept. In other words, it's a mental substitute to make sense of the dapple word in front of our eyes which we can't possibly get right 100%. So we have concepts such as special relativity and general relativity that do their best to make sense in them, but are only real to a certain degree. They aren't the actual reality, of the vastly complex world. For example, we haven't found a way to connect special relativity with general relativity. But more interesting is that if everything is physics (probablism) top down then how are we able to to make logical certainties, and mathematical absolutes? These capacities of the minds are mental substitutes.

This is an idea posed by Nancy Cartwright who is somewhere in between a scientific realist and anti realist. She is the mid point. The psychology of it is my idea though.

I would say any percept is also a concept. But, is every concept also a percept? I think so... Because what we perceive, ultimately, is always in our mind anyways. Every concept is perceived by our mind, not just visual. So that's why I use "sensory data" instead of percept - when referring to this, because a percept can use sensory data, or may not..

Thoughts?

[Stephen C Pedersen]

To take a step backwards, on gravity, I'm proposing that the concept of gravity is a concept, not a percept. In other words, it's a mental substitute to make sense of the dapple word in front of our eyes which we can't possibly get right 100%. So we have concepts such as special relativity and general relativity that do their best to make sense in them, but are only real to a certain degree. They aren't the actual reality, of the vastly complex world. For example, we haven't found a way to connect special relativity with general relativity. But more interesting is that if everything is physics (probablism) top down then how are we able to to make logical certainties, and mathematical absolutes? These capacities of the minds are mental substitutes.

This is an idea posed by Nancy Cartwright who is somewhere in between a scientific realist and anti realist. She is the mid point. The psychology of it is my idea though.

I would say any percept is also a concept. But, is every concept also a percept? I think so... Because what we perceive, ultimately, is always in our mind anyways. Every concept is perceived by our mind, not just visual. So that's why I use "sensory data" instead of percept - when referring to this, because a percept can use sensory data, or may not..

Thoughts?

In what way would a percept be a concept? I can only fathom that if you are saying because things may be REpresented in our mind as a heuristic to how we see the world out there. The mind by some mint of nature allows us to bring order to the chaos out there so we can live our life. Other wise it everything would be a buzzing static confusion. Is this what you mean?

[Meno_]

Not if there was a pre-arranged model.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

To take a step backwards, on gravity, I'm proposing that the concept of gravity is a concept, not a percept. In other words, it's a mental substitute to make sense of the dapple word in front of our eyes which we can't possibly get right 100%. So we have concepts such as special relativity and general relativity that do their best to make sense in them, but are only real to a certain degree. They aren't the actual reality, of the vastly complex world. For example, we haven't found a way to connect special relativity with general relativity. But more interesting is that if everything is physics (probablism) top down then how are we able to to make logical certainties, and mathematical absolutes? These capacities of the minds are mental substitutes.

This is an idea posed by Nancy Cartwright who is somewhere in between a scientific realist and anti realist. She is the mid point. The psychology of it is my idea though.

I would say any percept is also a concept. But, is every concept also a percept? I think so... Because what we perceive, ultimately, is always in our mind anyways. Every concept is perceived by our mind, not just visual. So that's why I use "sensory data" instead of percept - when referring to this, because a percept can use sensory data, or may not..

Thoughts?

In what way would a percept be a concept? I can only fathom that if you are saying because things may be REpresented in our mind as a heuristic to how we see the world out there. The mind by some mint of nature allows us to bring order to the chaos out there so we can live our life. Other wise it everything would be a buzzing static confusion. Is this what you mean?

Ah, you responded nearly a year later... fascinating.

Percepts are always conceptualized, we do not simply perceive things, we conceive them.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

No others want to enter the fray of this topic?

[encode_decode]

Um, a percept is a type of concept. Whereas a concept can be written down or stored electronically a percept can only be stored mentally. I guess these days or the near future we will have an electronic representation of a percept.