Does perception match the true form?

Does perception match the true form? [+ favourites]

What I mean is, 'does what is displayed by your true feelings actually match what you'd expect?' (looking at what is in fact going on) The mind and body are very intricate, but do our perceptions of it display it to us much as we'd expect (say from looking at an anatomy textbook). Does it operate more like the television where the display is the screen, and the form being the electronic hardware? Are we seeing what is there, or just what the mind and body will let us see? Also, what does the idea of evolution have to do with the mind and body. What would we expect the impact to be one perception (which matches or does not match form). What else could be displayed, or even, no longer be displayed?

"There is no negative one..."

Confusing question (or questions)...Are you asking whether or not perception via the five physical "material" senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch), the data of which is processed by a physical "material" brain, is providing the mind (which may be regarded as something other than physical) with a correct picture of the external world, or is that picture flawed or disrorted somehow? If this is the question you are asking, I would say that the picture is distorted. It's my belief that the external world is very different than what we perceive and conceive it to be. I go so far as to say that three-dimensional space and linear time are not properties of the external world, but merely categories of thought and perception (as Kant asserted) and the "real world" is both transcendent and metaphysical in the purest meanings of these words. The human mind may regarded as both transcendent and metaphysical as well. Therefore, the human mind may be regarded as the "sixth sense" capable of perceiving the external world as it truly is. Just my opinion.

"Each conscious mind is alone in the universe!"

I think what I was saying was more a matter of ‘I have a brain and know from anatomy what it is like, but what I get from it are feelings, sounds, visions, etc.’ Basically that the perception is reliant on parts of the brain, but what I pick up are not felt, heard, or seen based on the forms of those parts of the brain.
It’s not necessarily about distortion, but having something produce a perception without the need to be conscious of the form of what produces that perception. Thus the perception may not always match the true form…
Also, the eye appears to see only in two-dimensions, it’s parts of the mind and the second eye that produces depth-perception. And, I think other sensations too are two-dimensional.
As for the sixth sense being capable of seeing the world as it is, it still sees it from perspectives that have been experienced, not necessarily the true form. And, by being trapped in one body, as well being reliant on the other senses there would be little way of proving that the true form is being seen. All you could say is that what I am sensing is the true world; without being able to pin it down exactly with descriptions and with a precise memory.
Does that sound right to you wizards logic?

"There is no negative one..."

somethings must be experienced at a deeper level to material. we cannot hear see smell taste or touch a persons past. we hear someone tell us about it, and our brain interprets the electrical signals produced, but it is our mind which deals with it and gives us our perception of the person. but even then our perceptions may be clouded, we make misjudgements about the person or thing, or we look at something the wrong way. to give an analogy, if you try and read a thermometer, you must have your eye at the right level, so that you read the thermometer acurately, if you see it from an angle, you get the wrong temperature.

"I tried coding in cocoa but it ran between the keys and shorted my pc"

I guess what I was saying is that what we get out of perceptions could be a little different to what you’d expect by looking at the anatomy of the brain. Just think how the brain actually controls the rest of the body, but we still feel the body where it is.
It is not about being clouded as such, but, more that we feel a little different from the actual anatomy. Body parts being made out of a different tissue, with different qualities but on the surface may be experienced equal in qualities by sight and other senses.
The mind tries to sort this kind of thing out, and with true understanding we can reach a level less clouded. However, sometimes things were never clouded, but actually one system is supporting another to display a certain perception.
At a limited level of understanding, the brain may feel like a big, round energy-centre, and control-centre. Only after the anatomy is studied does it become clearer what it is more like.
Still then, it is so amazingly complex, that, what is displayed to us by the brain (and also of the body) is more a very general view, that may not feel like it looks.
Such that perception does not appear to follow actual form. Just consider, how our imagination works to remember, express, and lead to view the body and brain themselves.
In the light of this limited view, we work more with retriggering old experiences, rather than composing new experiences from what we would know about brain (and body) and how it works.

"There is no negative one..."

Just consider Chakras and the "Ball of Energy' used in Tai Chi; just to get an idea of perceptions of form that do not exactly match the 'true' form...

"There is no negative one..."

Our brain is developed to interpret senses that detect internal and external physical stimuli properties of your surroundings. Perception is all that we got, as reality only exists in the mind.

The world "out there", external reality, is a shared universe of common experience. It is the lowest common denominator of all our experience. We take it for granted and it supplies us with a common field of action. That is all it is. Your realm of personal "mind" is another sort of universe. You experience it every second 24/7. From your inner mind comes all meaning about everything in the "outer" universe. You may be influenced by the external world of common experience, but this inner universe exists, is very real, and is ultimately of more value than anything "out there". Why? Because what happens "out there" depends totally on what you do or what occurs with your own mind. Your personal universe is the only thing able of deciding value. What you perceive from the 'outer' universe is received and detected in your 'inner' reality.

"The summit is just a halfway point"

Sure Summit!
But the idea I was trying to get across was more that things we perceive, in particular our own body and brain aren’t always perceived in common ways we use to describe them (for example, anatomy textbooks)
The perceptions are real, but the way we feel them need a slightly different system to describe them than anatomy texts. Even with the ideas like Chakras, ‘Ball of Energy’, and such, we may well be in want of more comprehensive systems to describe what it is really like from the inside of the body and brain.
I don’t have any real experience in the field, but I ask you, do you feel the systems we currently have are comprehensive enough to describe the personal universe, what you called the inner reality?

"There is no negative one..."

I partially understand what your saying, and alot of 'perceptual' understanding can be found within cognitive sciences of psychology and neurology. I think we have a huge comprehensive understanding of the 'inner reality'. We know for instance the perception of movement, the processing of information, perceptual problem solving, visual processing and its interaction with the nervous system, the perceptual selection of attention and the representation of reality.

However, there is still copious amounts of knowledge that we remain unaware of in regards to perceptual phenomenon. Now of course the study of perception and reality is examined in philosophy as well.

The eye is much more than a camera, the ear more than a microphone. The broader question of how we aprehend objects and events in our inner reality- how we perceive our surroundings is simply our sensory attributes.

I think the ultimate issue is not why we perceive one object, but rather why we perceive anything at all. For example, before we can take a walk down a hallway, we need to perceive the layout of the hallway initially- which obstacles are nearby and which far off, whether people are in the way or moving across your path. To succeed in this, a few questions about what we perceive in the external reality through our inner reality must be considered: where is it? where is it going? and what is it?

Perhaps you could explain more about what your saying, so I can confer if I'm appropriately addressing this thread.

Interesting topic by-the-way.

"The summit is just a halfway point"

Part of it is like the effect of a television. There’s all that hardware, and all we see is the screen, which is what it is designed for. Sometimes even knowing how all the hardware does not even enhance the experience.
Now you can say that for four of the five main senses, but the sense of feeling is a little different.
How do the perceptions display? Sight, hearing, smell and taste are quite easily witnessed… but feeling is one sense that enhances these other four, and can be so much worked on with intuition.
Feeling is the main sense when it comes to intuition and mindfulness. The display of feeling, and in particular feeling within the brain, tends to grow with experience and complexities. The other senses can grow too, but not quite to the same scale, perhaps...
The perceptions of all five senses don’t quite match all the human hardware much like the TV display does not exactly match the TV hardware. We just concern ourselves with the display.
Only feeling what is going on is any different, and the most difficult sensations (arguably) occur in the brain, where it relates to thought.
My question, I guess, centres on how does the mind display itself so that we can understand what is going on? How can a word be ‘seen’ (or felt, as such)? Where is the order? Is it all just associative? How do we relate to meaning? What does the display of it all ‘look’ like, ‘feel’ like, ‘sound’ like, etc.? Please let me know what you think… By the way, this is one of favourite topics, thanks for the complements on the posting!

"There is no negative one..."

The nervous system provides the information for all aspects of thought, so it seems inevitable that one would turn to that area. I think pretty much all your questions make contact among the various areas of cognition, namely, consciousness. To extend your words, we don't just gain knowledge that the TV presents us with a picture; instead, we experience the motion picture. When we form the image of something such as a red apple, our experience resembles the one we had when we were looking at an actual apple.

I think some of your questions can be addressed by the idea of perception without awareness. Without conscious supervision, we serparate figure from ground and calculate distances so that we can achieve constancy. We also search our memory for relevent information. Likewise to your TV example; much as one rides in a car without a moment's awareness of the engine's functioning, thought can proceed without any awareness of the broad and detailed mental machinery that makes thought possible. The process of this 'machinery' is therefore the- nonconcious- outside our awareness. The product of these operations- the world as it is consciously perceived is all that we are aware of.

It is apparent that perceiving does not require conscious supervision. Perceiving even doesn't necessarily yield a conscious experience. It is not only possible to have perception without awareness but also; memory and understanding without awareness and action without awareness.

"The summit is just a halfway point"