Today we discussed how what we see is different than what the mind perceives it to be. Look for a moment at an object near you. Describe its physical properties. For example, take a piece of paper. When you look at a piece of paper, do you see "paper"? Or do you see some kind of a white rectangular shape? Explain the difference between seeing an object with your eyes and judging what the object is with your mind, or, more simply, the difference between the object you see and what the object is (was that simpler?).
Don't forget to include your name and to use legible grammar!
4 comments:
Seeing an object is entirely different than perceiving it. Though the object changes forms, like from solid wax to liquid wax, we still perceive it to be wax. Thus recognizing an object as wax is a separate process from sensing whatever physical qualities it may or may not possess. In seeing an object, we look at not only its physical qualities, but its form; and we perceive this form BASED on, but not limited to, the physical qualities we see. Although physical characteristics play a part in defining an object, much of what an object is classified as stems from the human thought process-what we judge our given information to be. Seeing an object is simply gathering information-it tells us nothing about whether or not something is wax. Rather, the human mind uses this information and makes a judgement about what it could be; forms of objects are represented by their physical qualities, which we must process to truly perceive. Senses may be fooled, thus changing what we judge something to be; given the wrong information fed to us by our senses, we may judge wax to be a stone. In short, it matters not whether wax is solid or liquid; only that there is enough information and clues so that our minds can further process and make a judgement about what the object may be. (For all the chemistry people out there-would it matter if we put the wax into a gaseous state? what about an aqueous solution? Maybe we should try completing the combustion reaction.....)
This is a major downer but right now I am with my rat... he does not have much longer to live. Right now he cannot even lift his head or move more then a little jolt. I know that Mr. WIlle would say you are merely seeing whiteness and redness but things like this really make me think that I am not just seeing the colors and shapes but I am seeing the rat. I am am thinking that he is my pet and that is what I am processing. I think that when you describe things in that way like rectangular and red and other things like that you really deprive them of their real meaning. So while I agree in the sense of this while studying Decartes I do not think this is at all a way to think about things in real life. So what if nothing really exists, you are here in the moment right now and you should look beyond the simplest way of describing what you see.
Liam
Raza-
It is a bit late but i have a question, how does one recognize wax. I usually do so by it having the same color regardless of form, and if it is wax or more than one color, the texture is the same.My perspective is that we base our individual perspective's on sense. We compare and contrast concepts or idea's that we know to ones we do not. For example what if the conditions on earth were so that one could perceive wax melting and nothing else. Due to the lack of familiarity with a concept(in this case melting) would the uncommon concept hold more significance. I think it would because it would be perceived differently. I agree with Chris, in that seeing is different from recognizing because to recognize you compare many or senses other than sight to confirm the recognition.
It is a bit late but i have a question, how does one recognize wax. I usually do so by it having the same color regardless of form, and if it is wax or more than one color, the texture is the same.My perspective is that we base our individual perspective's on sense. We compare and contrast concepts or idea's that we know to ones we do not. For example what if the conditions on earth were so that one could perceive wax melting and nothing else. Due to the lack of familiarity with a concept(in this case melting) would the uncommon concept hold more significance. I think it would because it would be perceived differently. I agree with Chris, in that seeing is different from recognizing because to recognize you compare many or senses other than sight to confirm the recognition.
Post a Comment