forum for week of 2 October

Argle: Philosophers and scientists are always saying that we get evidence for our beliefs from perception. But how do we tell when perception is reliable? For that matter, how do we know that it is reliable at all? The answers always rely on evidence from perception. But that's circular. It doesn't convince me at all.
Bargle: Well, you've got to start somewhere. Can't ask for magic. And perception has all the features we want in a starting point. So if we are to get anywhere - sort out the mess about what to believe and what to doubt - that's the obvious place to start.

Whose side are you on?

In Chapter Two: Perception, of Dr Morton's book A Guide Through the Theory of Knowledge, Section 3 Empiricism, has the inclusion: To the question “What qualities could our beliefs have?” it answers “We could, potentially, have only beliefs that are based on perceptual evidence.” Empiricism is thus both a very down to earth and a very idealistic philosophy. It is down to earth because it aims to base all our beliefs on what we can see, hear, and touch. And it is idealistic because it thinks that human beings are capable of reforming their beliefs so that they are all based on perception.

I would like to relate three excerpts on Dr. Richard Feynman.

1. The late, great physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "It's quite wonderful that we can 'see,' or figure it out so easily. Someone who's standing at my left can see somebody who's standing at my right - that is, the light can be going this way across, or that way across, or this way up, or that way down; it's a complete network. Some quantity is shaking about, in a combination of motions so elaborate and complicated the net result is to produce an influence which makes me see you, completely undisturbed by the fact that at the same time there are influences that represent the guy on my left side seeing the guy on my right side. The light's there anyway....it bounces off this, and it bounces off that - all this is going on, and yet we can sort it out with this instrument, our eye." Source: Google entry = physicist richard feynman on perception - number 8 posting titled Introduction to Perception.

2. In the book titled Quantum Man, 2011, by Lawrence M. Krauss, page 313 includes the entry attributed to Dr. Feynman that "...we seem to be hard wired to find that what happens to each of us naturally appears to take on a special significance and meaning, even if it is an accident."

3. On page 318 Krauss includes the observation of Dr. Feynman that "We have to guard against this [theory misperception], and the only way to do so is by adhering to the straight jacket of empirical reality."

On the basis of Dr. Feynman's contribution to the advancement of quantum physics, I think an emphasis of philosophy based on experiment is accurate.

I would argue that one of the best reasons to believe that our perceptions are reliable sources of evidence is in our everyday lives. We go through most days without hurting ourselves, or doing anything particularly dangerous or outrageous all because of our perceptions. We generally have a belief about when it is safe to cross the street, when to reach for a door handle and hundreds of thousands of other actions we do every single day, all because we can perceive the world around us, form a belief about how best to act, and react accordingly to it. We find an incredible degree of success in this. On the whole, our perceptions are fairly reliable. Of course, there are occasions where our senses fail us and we fail to perceive something obvious (this is discussed in length throughout "The Invisible Gorilla", Chabris & Simons) or our perceptions deceive us through hallucinations, but generally, we perceive everything we need to in order to get through our lives successfully. I would argue that due to the amount of success we seem to find in our beliefs based on perception, that they are a reliable source of evidence.

Argle may not be convinced, but chances are, unless he lives an extremely atypical life, he will accept perceptual evidence while he toils about his everyday work. The fact of the matter is, there really is no possible way to hold beliefs which allow you to interact with the world, even if it is to the most minimal degree to continue living, without accepting first that perception will give reliable results. Interactions between Basic beliefs produce actions, ie. I believe that I am hungry AND I believe that there is an apple in front of me, therefore i eat the apple, thus soothing my hunger. In this most basic case, both assumptions came from perceptual evidence ( you FELT your hunger, and you SAW the apple), and the awareness that the ensuing action had been completed also came from perception. One who wished to live under the assumption that perception was not reliable, however, would be bound to give no grounds to either of the above basic beliefs, and therefore no grounds to pursue the ensuing action. So, they'd be really hungry. I don't feel any anxiety further stating that no action, including actions where you accept or argue some kind of epistemic belief, could ever be founded on any belief that stems solely from non-perceptual reasoning. You can very well attempt to distance yourself from pure perception by claiming sanctuary in mathmatics or logic, but if you are challenged to prove that math or logic is solid, you will inevitably be forced to prove the most basic elements inherent in your math or logic through perception (that you can see that 2 + 2 is the case through the perceptual world, or that K therefore B is so because of observation of that being the case in pratise) So, I side with Bargle.

Much has been said so far about scientific method and reasoning, but very little representation has been made from the loyal opposition, namely the arts, and their role in both the formation and the understanding of beliefs.In that regard, I would like to to try

   To continue, I would like to try throwing a few terms into the discussion here that I haven't seen presented so far.The terms are: empathy,seduction,desire,aesthetics,taste(and distaste, or alternatively attraction and repulsion) and last but not least play (as in playfulness, or role playing)
   Art, as method reverses the scientific approach. In order to discover truth, it plays for effects rather than seeking causes or underlying reasons as in scientific inquiry. The artist develops an arsenal of lures designed to seduce. Those which work are retained, those which don't are discarded. In this way susceptibilities are revealed which tell us what people either believe or may be led to believe.More importantly, through the play-acting of art unconscious beliefs and prejudices may be revealed which quite likely, if left unrevealed, would in all likelihood influence or distort conscious reasoning. Decisions made on such unrelieved reasoning, even though based on opinions which may otherwise be considered quite rational, and therefore correct may indeed be quite false.
   Regarding taste: To hold a belief, it helps if one has a taste for it. Rather than accept a taste or appetite at face value, an effective artist may question, persuade, and, through art, lead an unsuspecting audience through the magic of imaginative re-framing, paradoxically, to the acceptance of previously quite unpalatable truths.
    Empathy: This term is a work in progress for me, admittedly a mystery. All I have to offer is a note I made from our class discussion. I wrote: we collectively operate on the experienced truth, or in other words we operate on faith, the faith that this commitment will carry us through from moment to moment.It seems to me that keeping faith builds empathy, while breaking faith weakens empathy.
    Is this properly philosophy? If not, should it be?

I had a problem inputting in the box above (don't format!). This is the same material as in the box above. To continue, I would like to try throwing a few terms into the discussion here that I haven't seen presented so far. The terms are: empathy, seduction, desire, aesthetics, taste (and distaste, or alternatively attraction and repulsion) and last but not least play (as in playfulness, or role playing). Art, as method reverses the scientific approach. In order to discover truth, it plays for effects rather than seeking causes or underlying reasons as in scientific inquiry. The artist develops an arsenal of lures designed to seduce. Those which work are retained, those which don't are discarded. In this way susceptibilities are revealed which tell us what people either believe or may be led to believe. More importantly, through the play-acting of art, unconscious beliefs and prejudices may be revealed which quite likely, if left unrevealed, would in all likelihood influence or distort conscious reasoning. Decisions made on such unrelieved reasoning, even though based on opinions which may otherwise be considered quite rational, and therefore correct may indeed be quite false. Regarding taste: To hold a belief, it helps if one has a taste for it. Rather than accept a taste or appetite at face value, an effective artist may question, persuade, and, through art, lead an unsuspecting audience through the magic of imaginative re-framing, paradoxically, to the acceptance of previously quite unpalatable truths. Empathy: This term is a work in progress for me, admittedly a mystery. All I have to offer is a note I made from our class discussion. I wrote: we collectively operate on the experienced truth, or in other words we operate on faith, the faith that this commitment will carry us through from moment to moment. It seems to me that keeping faith builds empathy, while breaking faith weakens empathy. Is this properly philosophy? If not, should it be?

Well, looking at the human brain, I have to admit that it is fallible. It was designed to cope with situations that no longer apply to our modern lives. There is also the propensity to "see something that isn't there" when we read something incorrectly or think we've seen something that never was. Our brains trick us on a regular basis. I would think that the greater number of people who can agree on what they perceive would lend that perception more credibility. Of course there is a possibility that there could be a mass delusion, such as a group of people under the influence of an inhalant, but the probability of that being the case would seem to be slim, unless one is at a rave. as well, I think to keep a modicum of sanity in our daily lives, we need to accept what we perceive as being so, in that it helps us cope with the rigors of modern life.

While reading about the Sense-Datum Theory, I found that the theory reminds of Compatibilism, a philosophical view on free will. I find them to be similar in certain ways. Sense-Datum Theory, especially the idealist stance, does seem to be compatible with other philosophical views on perception. It seems to be arguing for something other then a solution to the problem of perception. In a way, its not on the same page as everyone else. Based on the assigned readings, Sense-Datum Theory doesn't really provide an answer to the problem of perception. I feel as if it only introduces some new vocabulary and proposes a view that does try to not step on any other view's toes. Though Sense-Datum Theory provides an attractive and enticing argument, it feels incomplete and in a way irrelevant to providing an answer to the problem of perception.

The problem with perception has essentially been created due to the fact that humans often have errors in their perceptions. Our perception of sense data may not always lead us to true beliefs, which poses a big problem both epistemically and in our everyday lives. If there are perceptual illusions and hallucinations, then what justified reasons do we have for trusting our empirical evidence? We know we are often wrong about the things we perceive (a stick looks bent when its half-emerged in water, white walls will look coloured if there are coloured lights, etc), however I believe in combining the data we receive from all our senses, we can create an approximate enough depiction of the world. If the stick looks bent in the water, we can still use our sense of touch to verify. We also have a pretty good idea of when our sense perceptions may not be as accurate. When I don't wear my glasses or contacts, i don't trust any of my visual perceptions, because everything looks like a blur and i know what i am seeing is most likely inaccurate. For humans to have survived as long as they have, and for our lives to function as well as they do, our sense perceptions must function at least to some extent. If we use all of our senses to create a broader depiction of the world, we are more likely to be right about it. Empirical evidence is proven to work based on our everyday lives, at least well enough for us to live comfortably. It is a good place to start when trying to form true beliefs about our world.

René Magritte a surrealist artist in the 1920s painted a piece entitled "The Treachery of Images" -

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"

A paradox, where the painting is a clear depiction of a pipe - with the text underneath translating 'this is not a pipe'. René believed it was not a pipe - but a representation of a pipe. If his text was to say 'this is a pipe', he would have been lying.

To relate this example to the argument of Argle and Bargle, I can clearly see Argle's point. Do we always come to a conclusion when there is perceptive proof of it - be it touch, smell, visual or auditory responses? How sure are we to use our perception as a tool to decipher and formulate our beliefs.

I think it is easier to succumb and accept our perception than to try and dispute it. Many great discoveries and theories are all formulated from not agreeing with our general perception of things.

The conspiracy theory if "Did man really land on the moon?" is a fine example if we should trust on our perception. We read and watch videos of man landing on the moon - and not physically experience it ourselves - is that sufficient empirical evidence for us to believe or disbelief it?

Perception is also highly susceptible to the influence of others - human's opinion and their perception. Our ability to make decisions and formulate beliefs are unconsciously influenced by various factors such as personal moral beliefs ( things that we were repetitively told that was "true" ) and/or considering another opinion ( the majority ). How then can we trust on our perception when it is already been conditioned?

Although Bargle did say perception is a starting point. "sort out the mess about what to believe and what to doubt" - is a vital information to comprehend the use and purpose of perception. It does not always point to our beliefs, but it is a foundation in which we create our beliefs from.

I think the fundamental difference in the two statements is that for Argle our beliefs must be 100% true and provable, whereas Bargle takes into account practicality. Bargle's reply is kind of dissappointing (he seems to be just shrugging his shoulders and saying 'what can you do about it?'" but at the same time I think its the best reply possible because there isn't much you can do about it without becoming an intellectual vegetable, only able to hold beliefs like "i am a thinking being."

Although it is easy to question everything and believe nothing as argyle does, bargle takes into account the impracticality of that outlook. "we have to start somewhere" simply but perfectly states how if we doubt everything including our sensory perception, we are left with nothing in which to believe, making the study of this, and everything else, a moot point. If we can't believe anything why pursue knowledge at all? It is all well and good to make the statement, as it is based on a reasonable idea, but if everyone decides to agree with argyle we agree to know nothing; a contention that would leave human life in a state of denial and would be catastrophic to the function of everyday life. We have to start somewhere, and contend that what we can see, taste, hear, smell and feel, must indeed be as we perceive it, simply to avoid the redundancy of our own existence.

The first argument is very similar to Descartes’ bold “I think, therefore I am” statement, which states that beyond the knowledge of our own existence, we cannot prove that anything else we perceive in any other sense exists. This first approach of complete deniability is almost the simpler route to take, but in a sense we must trust our perceptions as sources of evidence for the existence of an external world and rely upon them in order to allow ourselves to accept externality. Although the second stance is fairly passive, they realize that they need to invest a certain amount of confidence in the fact that much more often than not, our perceptions do not deceive us, and can be relied upon as a strong source of evidence about our external world.

Following up with a lot of the responses above pointing out how sometimes the way brain works would fail us from obtaining the right 'reality'. Often times when we perceived things, that certain moment of perception doesn't usually last long, then our beliefs formed by that perception will depend on our memory of that moment. And getting precise memory all the time is not a common task then we're always not so certain about what is actually that we see, hear or touch. Uncertainty doesn't normally give true beliefs, rather misleading beliefs. With illusions and memory failure, why should pure perception be good evidence for getting beliefs when we ourselves have to question what we perceive? Not suggesting that we should not believe what we experience, but aside from everyday life situation, I think pure perception would not give good reasoning and beliefs without being rationalized.

How can we not rely on our perceptions? Everything we learn we interpret through perception. I think we have to understand that our senses can give us false information at times because that is just a part of how our human brains operate. The awareness of our shortcomings provide us with reasons to empirically research and test things to come to conclusions. The more we know about the mistakes our brains make, the better we can do tests to avoid misinterpretation. The video linking to youtube showing the McGurk effect was astounding! I was sure the first time watching it that I must be hearing two separate voice-overs, and then they showed a split screen of the different ways the mouths were moving. At first, I KNEW that there must be two different voice overs, as my brain told me I was hearing "bah" or "vah", but obviously my senses were lying to me. We can't avoid perceptual illusions, but we have no choice but to use our human brains, be aware of said illusions, and work within our limits to attain knowledge. Otherwise, it would be extremely pessimistic to think we have no chance of knowing anything simply because of how our brains and perception works (or doesn't work).

I can understand the views of both authors, but I think the more appropriate and reasonable position is that held by Bargle, who also offers a bit more to the conversation than simply trying to write off personal perception as a source of knowledge. Below is my rant concerning my views of the topic:

Certainly our primary method of discerning beliefs from reality is our own personal experience. We are naturally and inescapably social creatures who rely heavily on not only our sense data and the intuition which works at a feverish pace to try and make sense of it. To illustrate this with an example, when we 'feel' or 'sense' that someone is angry with us, we often arrive at this idea before we go home and sit and meditate on it. Rarely would we only realize someone's displeasure with us long after the fact by the means of careful analyzing. Our view of reality is also extremely subjective--when you're hungry you can often have a pessimistic view of the world, and then rather quickly after a hearty meal we can find ourselves completely turned around and feeling once again in a good state of mind. Thus, we can slowly see that the mind is fined tuned to a certain type of consciousness--that which will ensure our survival and replication. Most of our senses help ensure this--we feel excited and anxious when we see a fight, or are jolted awake when we hear something we think may pose a danger.

Now, when we are aware of this, we can obviously see where there would be issues in trying to use this human, biological mind to try and ascertain certain facts and truth about the world. But to say that is it flawed is not to say that we must throw it out and write it off as a means of garnering information. Indeed, unless we create artificial intelligence that is more capable than ourselves, we will only have the means of human perception to view the world. Certainly a blind, deaf man with no sense of feeling, taste or smell will be less helpful in collecting evidence for beliefs than will an average person.

Certainly human perception is fallible and unreliable to a certain degree, but if we can measure and be aware of our biases, and make a conscious, constant effort to account for them, we can use it, like Bargle said, as a helpful starting point.

I believe Bargle’s empirical approach to perception better achieves the goals of epistemology, since Argle’s radically sceptic stance can never achieve knowledge. Argle does pose a valid point by suggesting that all our perceptions could be false, and humanity may be subject to a massive illusion. Although his stance attempts to refute the existence of knowledge, it may support epistemic values in the sense that it attempts to achieve truth. I believe Bargle’s stance is also valid in the context of epistemology, and far more comforting in the the context of morality. Three main aspects of humanity, which can justify Bargle's stance are evolution, intuition and co-operation. The presence of these phenomena suggests that human knowledge is a viable source of knowledge, since humanity would not have developed without their impacts, and our perceptual beliefs from generation to generation must be true. Therefore, we have strong reason to believe that Bargle's stance can justify human knowledge, and even though the possibility of a mass illusion does exist, I believe this stance is too speculative and counter-productive.

There will never be a way to refute as skeptic like Argle. His argumentation is certainly a reasonable one, but one that puts humanity or human knowledge in utter despair. A way to confront such a skeptic would only be through a compromise. We can accept that all of our knowledge even our perceptual experiences and beliefs are a mere illusion, to such a degree that our reality is artificially created by a mad scientist or a demon. No matter what the cause of our reality is, we do have to accept it. We have to accept that our perceptional evidences are not to be trusted. But within this, our reality, the rules of the skeptic do not have to apply. We simply neglect any skeptical hypothesis and we will find out, as humanity did since millions of years, that knowledge certainly can be attained, and the most reliable way to do so is through perception. Within our reality, a reality we share with other human beings through experiences of shared perceptual evidences and interactions that lead to such, we are fairly comfortable in trusting our sense data and our perception although we are aware that it can misguide our beliefs sometimes. Through shared experiences we are able to avoid or limit such false beliefs by accepting a common ground for attaining knowledge, and this common ground is perception. Reality is what the majority of human beings perceive it to be. And therefore we are justified in trusting our perception (with the usual reserve).

Argle, like me, is a sceptic and his argument about using perception for evidence as being absurd if the motive of science is to arrive at a truth about how our world functions. If we ourselves aren’t able to master our own senses, that play many perceptual tricks on us, how can we then begin to use perception as a means of understanding the world around us? Bargle however makes a valid point in the sense of practicality. If we are to incessantly try to only use evidence that we know come from a source that is 100% reliable, mankind wouldn’t have the confidence to venture and create the many technological and social advances that we so take for granted. If Bargle’s argument is only for a starting point for evidence for a certain belief then I believe perception is our best bet. However once we have built our foundational beliefs on that particular subject, I argue with Argle that we shouldn’t continue to build on it with perceptual evidence. The empiricists’ view of obtaining beliefs is just negligent when dealing with advanced fields (especially in the sciences). Scientist can for the glory of their name base their theories on perceptual evidence, but what would benefit humanity more is if they used less intuitive methods to arrive at their grandiose theories, which in most cases would lead us closer to the truth