leyline

Hi

I am new to this forum. I hope I haven’t acted outside etiquette in the way you guys do things re posting, but a good way to learn is by our mistakes I guess.

I have read bits and pieces on philosophy and had various debates and the like, but I get the impression that there is one very particular subject in philosophy that gets scant attention as compared to similar debates, yet it seems obvious to me to be a profound and fundamental one. Namely - the perception of space.

Compare for example with the perception and nature of time. This gets a lot of attention and there are many interesting philosophical takes on it, including it doesn't exist except as an illusion. Even when the concept of space-time is considered it seems to me that the discussion is always slanted towards time.

I posit the following reason for this: - That the perception of space is quite simply inconceivable within the rational framework of perception. Or in other words it demonstrates as such a blatant incompleteness in the possibility of scientific rationalism to understand. I.e. it is an intellectual embarrassment.

The reasoning that reveals this is quite simple. According to scientific rationalism the seat of perception is the head. According to this worldview, there is much of reality on the outside of the head, and that some of it gets to the inside, from which perception of the outside somehow occurs. It follows from this that for example, the perception of a tree is not a tree, because the tree is on the outside and the perception of it is on the inside.

This is all well and good except in one particular case. The perception of space. Firstly there is the rather strange deduction that what we perceive as space is actually on the inside! Secondly and in my opinion far more contradictory, it was the very axiom that space was on the outside that started off the whole logical scheme of separating a thing from the perception of it in the first place, and placing the latter inside the head. If space is now logically on the inside we have a direct contradiction to the starting point of the whole paradigm, since what we think of as space is now subjective.

With the perception of time this does not necessarily occur. Time can be conceived of as being something that applies to every point in space. Thus the perception of it is internally available without contradiction. One can say that time as measured from processes within the head approximates well enough to time outside it.

Perceptions like colour create interesting philosophical debate. How subjective is it? Philosophy has some very nice debates that start off by asking this question. But the perception of space being inside the head? It’s a non-starter as far as modern rationalism is concerned, because modern rationalists realise that it puts forward a position that completely undermines the whole rational context of understanding perception.

I would also point out the light centric bias of scientific rationalism. A sense of space still remains even when we close our eyes. Hearing, touch and memory all play their part. I realise that Kant and others have schemes whereby they would say that we in fact don’t actually perceive underlying reality at all, and this applies to space too. (Though they go on to say that what we consider as time and space are also considered fundamental to all understanding, even though they are not underlying reality in themselves.)

But this raises an obvious rational question. If humans only perceive that which is inside the head, then does it not rationally follow that science itself is necessarily the study of the inside of the head? Our environment, our scientific apparatus, our language are all inside the head. Therefore rationally, even rational inference itself must be seriously considered to be likewise imprisoned, in a worldview where even the outside is considered internal. (Because even the concept of the outside, is internally derived from internal perception.)

The perception of space is quite simply inconceivable within the rationalism of science. (and quite possibly therefore aspects of all perception) That is not a criticism of course. In our postmodern world, many grand narratives are now recognised as extremely useful and formative, despite being necessarily incomplete and containing self contradictions. But when scientists and rationalists tell us that all perception occurs within space-time we should not forget that under their own terms the very concept of space as external to perception, is in actual fact a contradiction. E.g. :-

“You don’t see the tree, and maybe you don’t even see the actual space between you and the tree, but the space you see is at least space, so you can make reliable deductions from it, such as …… you exist in space and so does the tree. This is even true of dream trees. Dream trees exist in space because dreams exist in space."

Incidentally I am not suggesting that we don’t exist in space. I believe that we do. It’s just that its existence as far as I’m concerned points to the necessary incompleteness of science and rationalism. In other words I don’t need rationalism to believe in space, and it’s a good job that I don’t! It’s the other way around. The scientific paradigm relies upon the non-scientific belief in the existence of space. That’s ok by me ……… as long as you don’t try to kid me that it follows from science that the non-scientific necessarily doesn’t exist.

Philosoft

leyline,

You needn't worry about etiquette. This certainly looks like a powerful argument, and it certainly belongs in Philosophy.

Feel free to indtroduce yourself in the Secular Lounge.

Cheers,
Philo - Philosophy mod

sodium

To leyline,

It seems to me that your problem is caused by inconsistent and inexact language.

That is a strange deduction. I think the scientific rationalist position would be that the space is still on the outside, but the perception of space is on the inside. You recognized this distinction for everything else. Of course, you may disagree with this position, but don't assume your position is that of scientific rationalism.

The perception is inside the head. I don't see how this contradicts scientific rationalism.

I would like to point out the light centric bias that you almost certainly displayed in using a computer monitor to compose your message!

Humans perceive things outside their heads. Human perceptions exist inside our heads. More specifically, in our brains.

Speak for yourself.

Oh, and welcome to the board

John Page

Hi ley!

Perception takes place in the mind/brain, but it does not follow that what we perceive is inside the head. (If what we perceive is inside the head, idealism results and there is no outside the head).

Cheers, John

leyline

sodium

we all hopefully speak both for ourselves and others to some extent else language wouldn't work..

"I think the scientific rationalist position would be that the space is still on the outside, but the perception of space is on the inside. You recognized this distinction for everything else. "

yes...... i was speaking for the rationalist in all of us at that point.

The reason that i recognised that distinction for everything else is precisely because it is the concept of space that enables it. Thus a perception of a tree is not a tree. (else it would hurt presumably ).

John Page

"Perception takes place in the mind/brain, but it does not follow that what we perceive is inside the head. (If what we perceive is inside the head, idealism results and there is no outside the head). "

i agree. If one does not try to get too accurate and precise about the language. ( which generally speaking is good for meaningful conversation. Else again language wouldn't work). But I claim that within the strict context of the materialistic scientific paradigm it in fact does not make sense to say that perception is in the brain and the thing percieved is on the outside, without necessarily saying that they are different. Once this distinction is made there is one distinction that applies between all perceptions and that which they are related to. Namely that perception is on the inside and space is on the outside. This is fine and causes no contradiction, except in one case. Space.

"The perception of space is on the inside and the space percieved is on the outside" does not make materialistic sense because the concepts of inside and outside are themselves spatial. It doesn't make the distinction between the perception of space and the space percieved.

hi

Theli

Perception/interpretation of something in reality can be compared with taking a picture. Although the picture is similar to what you photographed in many ways it is still just an interpretation.
It would be impossible to objectively describe reality as any description would be an interpretation in itself.

leyline

theli

"It would be impossible to objectively describe reality as any description would be an interpretation in itself."

yes i agree. but would you agree that the attempted objective description of perception blatantly and self evidently becomes an interpretation when it comes to the perception of space.

As i mentioned earlier, the idea that perception occurs within the head is wacky, but it isn't inconsistent. What is inconsistent however is to claim that the perception of space is even concievably objective by rational arguement. The point being that if you ask a scientist does it necessarily follow that something percieved necessarily exists independently in itself, they would answer no. Such as hullucinations. An hallucination is a perception that occurs in the head (like all perceptions) but does not correspond to something outside the head. This is in principle true for all perceptions. Now i am not talking about instances of independent existence, i am talking about in kind.

eg it does not follow that if one percieved trees on various occasions, that trees exist. It may mean that independent of perception, which according to the scientist means outside the head, trees of any kind do not exist. (Perhaps ghosts are a better example.) BUT even though a scientist will claim that a particular instance of percieved space does not exist independently of perception (ie outside the head) as in the case of a dream, nevertheless according to science space does necessarily exist. The reason for this is because 'independent of perception' has no meaning to a scientist without the assumption that space exists.

This is the point at which the whole edifice of science is based upon an interpretation of a sense. It is an axiomatic assumption, not a rational deduction.

John Page

I don't follow. You seem to be concluding dualism whereas materialism could say brain material is perceiving material existence (both inside and outside the brainbox!) - the inside/outside paradigm is not necessary.

I think this is a different issue than how we perceive space.

Cheers, John

leyline

John Page

well if you see perception as something that isn't exclusively inside the head, then all well and good. But i would claim that it is rather obvious that such a perspective of perception is outside the scientific paradigm. Because science claims that perception is a material mechanism that is exclusively inside the head. (that is why according to science dreams are possible. They occur exclusively as an internal perception uninfluenced by the outside. Unlike most perceptions. )

It is science that sets up the inside outside paradigm with regard to perception and for you to suggest that science does not support this paradigm i would suggest is counter intuitive to what science is. We all have long cultural experience of scientists telling us this when people claim to percieve phenomena that it rejects out of hand as non existent. The scientific explanation is commonly that it was an hallucination or a missinterpretation. Both occuring inside the head and thus explaining the mistaken existence outside it.

I fully respect different paradigms where perception is not confined to the head, but that is not the paradigm i am discussing here. ie the scientific one.

John Page

Please read my post carefully, I'm not claiming that perception is outside the head!

The view that I subscribe to is one where perception is a process that operates on sense data and this process appears to be a function of the nervous system (both in humans and other animals).

Under this model, we know of things outside the sense boundary through physical or material effects upon the senses. Please note that the "body" is not the sense boundary - we can sense our limbs, pain within our bodies etc.

Perhaps the complication you're encountering is that we have no direct sense of our thinking process, we are not directly aware of all those cells that constitute our nervous system and what they are doing in relation to each other. It seems that we are aware that we have thoughts and we're trying to figure out what they are.

Cheers, John