The Thomas Theorem

[Permanent Solution]

Today I found out in my sociology class that one of my favorite ideas that I thought was sort of innovative was in fact 90 or so years old (:()
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_theorem

Mine differs ever so slightly in formulation from his in that I state mine simply as "perception is reality." Or, more aptly, your individual reality is what you perceive it to be. You also cannot experience any reality that is not your own.

What is everyone else's opinion on the theorem, or my theories?

[Danger Bird]

Yeah that's a pretty common idea and I tend to subscribe to it.

[Lupus]

Yep.

[PerpetualBurn]

"perception is reality."

The thing being perceived is reality.

The perception is your perception.

[VomitStainedCretin]

George Berkeley(Idealist philosopher and Irish bishop, 1685-1753): "Esse est percipi" (To be is to be perceived). A similar idea in long circulation.

[Akira]

Yeah, your idea has kind of been around for ever. You really thought that philosophers who spend their time sitting around musing about nothing had never come up with that one?

[bradc1988]

Haven't you read 1984!?

[Danish]

Perception certainly is not reality. Reality is based in material conditions, and those conditions are ultimately what determines the way in which we perceive the world (social location).

[Iskandar]

Danish is back! Am I perceiving reality correctly?

[Danish]

Danish is back! Am I perceiving reality correctly?

meh, I'm pretty bored.

[Permanent Solution]

Yeah, your idea has kind of been around for ever. You really thought that philosophers who spend their time sitting around musing about nothing had never come up with that one?
Of course not. I just sort of figured it might not be held as someone elementary sociological theorem =|
Perception certainly is not reality. Reality is based in material conditions, and those conditions are ultimately what determines the way in which we perceive the world (social location).
So if in my perception I hear a voice talking to me, why is that not real? The fact that no one else can hear it does not make it any less real to me. The fact that it's impossible to perceive something the way someone else does makes reality a very subjective thing in and of itself.

[PerpetualBurn]

So if in my perception I hear a voice talking to me, why is that not real?

Because perception is your experience of reality. They are not the same.

[Permanent Solution]

Because perception is your experience of reality. They are not the same.

That's really just a matter of definiton.

Personal reality is more important than objective reality because you cannot define objective reality and it plays a smaller role in all interactions than personal reality does.

[PerpetualBurn]

Objective reality is what actually is.

If we didn't have at least some common perceptions of reality then all relationships would be entirely impossible.

[Permanent Solution]

Objective reality is what actually is.

If we didn't have at least some common perceptions of reality then all relationships would be entirely impossible.
But what actually is? How do you know that I see what you see, or taste what you taste, etc? You really can't. What actually is, is just what you perceive there to be. The problem with trying to define an objective reality, as a human, is that you can only ever experience a subjective reality, so you're always relying on guess work in the best cases even.

But also, how much of a common perception is just societal definitions? The common perception is of course rooted in some similarity, but a great deal more is motivated by society.

[PerpetualBurn]

How do you know that I see what you see, or taste what you taste, etc?

It doesn't matter.

[Permanent Solution]

It doesn't matter.
It really does though, because you can't create an objective reality without discerning commonalities between subjective realities. Because only that which is common across all barriers can be taken to be objective. So unless you know someone else's perception and how it relates to yours, the idea of an objective reality is completely bogus. Moreover, since the only way to communicate subjective reality to one another is via language (a very limited medium) the chances of creating the correct objective reality are even lower.

[PerpetualBurn]

It's not bogus.

And I do know we share common perceptions.

Otherwise this conversation wouldn't work.

[Smokey D]

Humans don't need to exist at all for objective realities to exist. Everything we describe is a subjective event, but we are nonetheless in the middle of a larger, objective reality (on which, based on our reactions to our subjective interpretations, we can have an objective effect).

[Permanent Solution]

It's not bogus.

And I do know we share common perceptions.

Otherwise this conversation wouldn't work.
Yes, we have language. Which is societally created. Which makes it in no way objective reality because it was created from the sum of subjective realities.
Humans don't need to exist at all for objective realities to exist. Everything we describe is a subjective event, but we are nonetheless in the middle of a larger, objective reality (on which, based on our reactions to our subjective interpretations, we can have an objective effect).
I'm not denying the existence of an objective reality so much as refuting its importance in anything. For all intents and purposes, the individual's view of reality will play a much more important role and may as well be taken as reality in the sense that assuming it to be otherwise will degrade the effectiveness of your own interactions with them.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yes, we have language. Which is societally created. Which makes it in no way objective reality because it was created from the sum of subjective realities.


No it implies that when I make a post that there actually is an objective thing that you then perceive.

It doesn't particularly matter if you and I experience the post in the same way as long as the post is external to us both.

[Smokey D]

I'm not denying the existence of an objective reality so much as refuting its importance in anything. For all intents and purposes, the individual's view of reality will play a much more important role and may as well be taken as reality in the sense that assuming it to be otherwise will degrade the effectiveness of your own interactions with them.

At a fundamental level, I can agree with this.

But I would also say here is a hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_a_hand), and that it is also pretty pointless to act like our subjective perception is anything less than objective reality unless we have good reason to think it is.

[Permanent Solution]

No it implies that when I make a post that there actually is an objective thing that you then perceive.

It doesn't particularly matter if you and I experience the post in the same way as long as the post is external to us both.
But it does. If you make this post, and I see this post on a computer, and try to touch it to interpret it, it's obvious perception will play a large role. You're making too many grandiose culture-centric assumptions.

Smokey: I agree and disagree with that that yes, arguing against common perception in some cases will be a silly gesture but the problem is that so many perceptions of reality are social-centric that on a world scale, there are many many cases where assuming a person's subjective reality is objective reality would be disasterous. In a normal say-to-day interaction the assumption that your reality is everyone else's is not a terrible assumption, but the problem I think most people face is not realizing that it is only an assumption and that everyone has a different reality, so they don't know what to do when inevitably faced with a vastly different perception of reality.

[PerpetualBurn]

But it does. If you make this post, and I see this post on a computer, and try to touch it to interpret it, it's obvious perception will play a large role. You're making too many grandiose culture-centric assumptions.

Except you just accepted that there is a post external to yourself.

And that post is the reality.

And your perception is your perception.

[Smokey D]

Smokey: I agree and disagree with that that yes, arguing against common perception in some cases will be a silly gesture but the problem is that so many perceptions of reality are social-centric that on a world scale, there are many many cases where assuming a person's subjective reality is objective reality would be disasterous. In a normal say-to-day interaction the assumption that your reality is everyone else's is not a terrible assumption, but the problem I think most people face is not realizing that it is only an assumption and that everyone has a different reality, so they don't know what to do when inevitably faced with a vastly different perception of reality.

It would, for example, be foolish of me to say that the colour blue is anything other than the colour blue. Even if we interpret blue things completely differently (such that you see them as what I would call red), the actual difference this makes is irrelevant. We both still attach the same cultural values to blue objects, and everything we see as blue is still, to ourselves, blue.

Of course, this cultural continuity between us can be missing (as it is between westerners and non-westerners), and so we can interpret even objective realities in completely different ways. But this isn't to say that the objective reality isn't there or that it doesn't matter -- in fact it matters more because it is the only point of contact we have with those people who do not share our cultural constructs.

[Permanent Solution]

Except you just accepted that there is a post external to yourself.

And that post is the reality.

And your perception is your perception.
Yes but I'm not denying the existence of an objective reality just the importance of it how many times do I need to state that?
It would, for example, be foolish of me to say that the colour blue is anything other than the colour blue. Even if we interpret blue things completely differently (such that you see them as what I would call red), the actual difference this makes is irrelevant. We both still attach the same cultural values to blue objects, and everything we see as blue is still, to ourselves, blue.

Of course, this cultural continuity between us can be missing (as it is between westerners and non-westerners), and so we can interpret even objective realities in completely different ways. But this isn't to say that the objective reality isn't there or that it doesn't matter -- in fact it matters more because it is the only point of contact we have with those people who do not share our cultural constructs.
Well, within the example of color, subjective reality is still of great importance. Suppose two people observe a color. Disregarding what the wavelength of this color is, we will assume they "see" roughly the same color. But now also suppose, for one, that represents honor, and for the other it represents deceit. It is then far less important what the objective reality is, but much more important to be aware of the cultural implications in your own reality.

Even more important would then be if I see and actually "different" color than you, if for instance I were color blind (noting that I don't know how this affects perception let us now take a scenario with colors that may not be absolutely correct). Now suppose I say all of the red text is an addition to this text I am showing you since you last read it, and all of the blue text is negligible. Now say I view those colors in reverse, and am not aware there is a difference in realities. I will entirely skip over all of what I am actually supposed to read. This has huge implications depending on the document. (sorry, I wrote technical papers all summer)

As to your other point, if you aren't aware that you perceive a subjective reality, how will you find common ground in an objective reality? The only commonalities you would find would be the commonalities in your subjective realities. And then the differences in them. But the differences would not be interpretable in an objective reality aspect without the introduction of the idea of your reality being your own perception. So yes, objective reality is important, but only after you deconstruct subjective reality.

[PerpetualBurn]

the idea of an objective reality is completely bogus.

Can't remember who said this.

[Permanent Solution]

Good thing you can quote out of context, go join the media.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well how about you actually say what you mean next time.

[Permanent Solution]

Well how about you actually say what you mean next time.
I really did though. If you were not able to determine what was commonly perceived by everyone the idea of that objective reality is a bogus one, because it's still funded on incomplete data and assumptions. It could have been phrased a little more concisely perhaps but I think the section just prior to what you quoted gave enough context to verify what I was driving at.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well basically it means you had no reason to disagree with Danish when he said that reality is the material conditions.

Which I defended.